Clinton Offers Flood Help To Thailand

[tlansford]

if it would not be for the Americans (and other Western countries) in the second WW, you would be either speaking Japanese now or German.....mmmm...short memory and barking up the wrong tree.....

America did and still do a great job... brainwashing their people and here is a really good example if it.

US didn't win the WW2, they helped, I won't deny that. They waited years before pitching in and if they waited some more, war would have been over without their assistance, it would just took a little longer. So here, I'll say it: thx for the assistance, don't take a credit for winning the war however.

- snip -

bitte schön

I do not believe I have ever read a more obtuse post. "bitte schön" - Thank you to for your wisdom what ever that may be.

Just a little bit of pointed humor for Shurup who seems to be saying that the Allies would have won WWII even if the Americans had stayed on the sidelines the whole time. I think that would have been a very very long shot.

It was certainly not meant to offend anyone...

[tlansford]

-cut-

Oh, and as for the horse's mouth, I've posted about that already -- just because the Ambassador says it was that way, doesn't mean that it was -- doesn't matter how many video clips you link (Id be quite surprised if you would claim that US government officials would never tell anything but the truth and we should just accept what they say at face value regardless of any means and motive to lie).

-cut-

It is fine to not believe the ambassador regarding her trustworthiness as a source.

But why would she lie about the events which she said took place? On one hand, to be caught in a lie would destroy her credibility and career as well. On the other hand, everything that she recounted in the different interviews involves other organizations and people and can be verified, so a lie would be easily uncovered. IMO, she doesn't have "the means" to lie.

Naturally her statements were very diplomatic and kind towards the Thai government, but as for the events and activities which took place regarding the Thai request for assistance and the USA reaction - I believe her simply because lying would be career suicide.

One only needs to read your slippery slope of BS to understand you have an objective that is less than honorable. Fess up. Who are you working for.

Nice trolling job.

Maybe you would like to provide some actual comments regarding the points you disagree with ?

[Nisa]

Ok too you know nothings. If the carrier had been anchored or moored within 3 miles of the coast no drinking water would have been made. Since distillers on ships operate under a vaccuum the water isn't hot enough to kill bacteria that can cause problems. Also when at sea you are allowed 25 gals. of water a day per person that includes everything. I have spent days on water hours because of water shortage. The boilers and in the case of a nuclear carrier the reactor will get water first. When on water hours no showers, work in a 140 degree boiler room and no shower that sucks

As stated earlier they use salt water for flushing commodes and you do salt water wash downs but at a min. When you have waves breaking over the bow you have a saltwater wash down

Water treatment on a ship is different than on land very different technologies and in a city they use a lot more chlorine than on a ship.

I served 10 years in the navy 40 years ago the technology may have changed but a distiller is still a distiller I believe the rules are still the same they could dose the water up but we always recieved water barges when we couldn't distill drinking water inport are where not tied up to a pier to recieve freshwater.

While it's not ideal, ships can make potable water from seawater while in port. A ship's distiller does just that, it makes distilled water. Distillation kills most bacteria. On top of that, super chlorination would be done to any drinking water made while still in port. The dual process is going to produce safe drinking water.

All the necessary information is contained in here:

Again, it's not the ideal water way to make it potable water, but it is do-able.

I was part of a crew that did it in port and in turn provided that to a foreign country that was hosting us and was in need of water.

btw, the reference also details the daily water requirement you mentioned. It has been updated to 50 gallons per man per day... but there is a caveat that under adverse situations, it can be lowered to 2 gallons per man per day. It's all situational.

Fair winds to you.

.

I believe many things can be done but am wondering if it "not being ideal" is a great understatement. Don't get me wrong, I believe you are adding valuable info in terms of what can be done but I am just a bit bothered now because I thought I now understood why the USS Carl Vinson was stationed 5-miles off the coast of Haiti producing water when being that far out was making problems with getting the water to the people who were in dire need of fresh water. See: http://blogs.wsj.com...ge-is-delivery/

I'm assuming there might be limitations/impossibilities to docking a Nuclear Carrier in Haiti but they certainly could have got closer than 5-miles (8 Kilometers). Anyway, just curious if you know why they wouldn't have been closer to shore given these people were truly in dire need of fresh water and being close to shore ... people were actually dying of thirst there.

Not being fully versed in that particular operation, it would be only speculation on my part. Having read up a bit on the earthquake, it's devastation seemed massive to the point there was a lot of civil disorder. If the carrier can't be assured it is safe to remain, I could see them anchoring further offshore, and 5 km out to prevent most small boats from approaching it.

In the situation I was involved in, the turmoil wasn't nearly so great and we were able to tie up in port and make water.

As said, however, every situation is different and without knowing all the details, it's difficult to know why decisions were made.

.

Again, appreciate your sharing. I never served in the Navy (or any branch) but in doing some searches on the whole water/carrier thing I remembered reading that there is actually two ways they convert salt water to fresh water on various Navy ships. One is the steam method (used on the nukes) and the other is Reverse Osmosis. Do you know what method your ship used? No expert on Reverse Osmosis but I know it is used in water filters in homes and doesn't require warmer water.

[Nisa]

"Everyone" isn't wrong about this -- in fact I've seen no one use the term as you have

now you have .... http://thestar.com.m...3157&sec=nation and http://articles.cnn....ble?_s=PM:WORLD

And as for "Humanitarian Military Aid" -- I wasn't aware that that was in the lexicon of "England and elsewhere

Now you can be more informed http://en.wikipedia....Civil_Community and http://www.google.co...iw=1366&bih=651

Oh, and as for the horse's mouth, I've posted about that already -- just because the Ambassador says it was that way, doesn't mean that it was

If you don't believe the most factual based information we have taken directly from an official involved whose words can all be verified then this is your issue. The aid requested and given is all documented and can be verified but for some reason you want to believe she would do an interview she didn't have to do and lie during this interview and jeopardize her career for no gain when simply not doing the interviewing would have been safe if there was something to hide. But please go ahead an believe that the US formerly offered a US Nuclear Navy Carrier to help with flooding beyond all the aid this and the other ships brought which were requested/accepted which included supplies, boats, water pumps and helicopters.

It is just plain idiotic to believe there was any kind of real offer for the carrier to stay docked in Thailand before any discussion of what was needed and available took place but don't let both logic and the Ambassador's words stop you from believing what makes your boat float.

By the way, assistance to provide aid is done formerly and through proper channels. It is not just somebody picking up a phone and calling both the Thai Military and Thai Government and asking if they want to borrow the use a 5-billion dollar Nuclear Carrier. It makes no sense what so-ever the reports of The Government saying No and the Thai Military saying yes because any offer of aid would have been made through one proper channel and it would NOT have been the Thai Military as they certainly were not in charge of relief efforts.

Edited November 12, 2011 by Nisa

[Buchholz]

While it's not ideal, ships can make potable water from seawater while in port. A ship's distiller does just that, it makes distilled water. Distillation kills most bacteria. On top of that, super chlorination would be done to any drinking water made while still in port. The dual process is going to produce safe drinking water.

All the necessary information is contained in here:

Again, it's not the ideal water way to make it potable water, but it is do-able.

I was part of a crew that did it in port and in turn provided that to a foreign country that was hosting us and was in need of water.

btw, the reference also details the daily water requirement you mentioned. It has been updated to 50 gallons per man per day... but there is a caveat that under adverse situations, it can be lowered to 2 gallons per man per day. It's all situational.

Fair winds to you.

.

I believe many things can be done but am wondering if it "not being ideal" is a great understatement. Don't get me wrong, I believe you are adding valuable info in terms of what can be done but I am just a bit bothered now because I thought I now understood why the USS Carl Vinson was stationed 5-miles off the coast of Haiti producing water when being that far out was making problems with getting the water to the people who were in dire need of fresh water. See: http://blogs.wsj.com...ge-is-delivery/

I'm assuming there might be limitations/impossibilities to docking a Nuclear Carrier in Haiti but they certainly could have got closer than 5-miles (8 Kilometers). Anyway, just curious if you know why they wouldn't have been closer to shore given these people were truly in dire need of fresh water and being close to shore ... people were actually dying of thirst there.

Not being fully versed in that particular operation, it would be only speculation on my part. Having read up a bit on the earthquake, it's devastation seemed massive to the point there was a lot of civil disorder. If the carrier can't be assured it is safe to remain, I could see them anchoring further offshore, and 5 km out to prevent most small boats from approaching it.

In the situation I was involved in, the turmoil wasn't nearly so great and we were able to tie up in port and make water.

As said, however, every situation is different and without knowing all the details, it's difficult to know why decisions were made.

Again, appreciate your sharing. I never served in the Navy (or any branch) but in doing some searches on the whole water/carrier thing I remembered reading that there is actually two ways they convert salt water to fresh water on various Navy ships. One is the steam method (used on the nukes) and the other is Reverse Osmosis. Do you know what method your ship used? No expert on Reverse Osmosis but I know it is used in water filters in homes and doesn't require warmer water.

Our ship used evaporators (distilling potable water from sea water).

[Nisa]

Our ship used evaporators (distilling potable water from sea water).

You know, the more I think about the reason for needing to be offshore being because of water temp ... it doesn't make sense unless it is relative to air temp. The difference between being a few miles out is not that great in compared to the water temps in in different parts of the world's and oceans. I mean if you need to off the coast to produce water in any tropical region because of temps then it would seem these carriers couldn't produce water in large parts of the northern or southern hemispheres. I wonder if it simply has more to do with the water near coastal areas being the most polluted and why you mentioned needing to chlorinate it. And after floods, hurricanes and even earthquakes, God knows what is ending up in the ocean in more concentrated levels near land.

Edited November 12, 2011 by Nisa

[BuckarooBanzai]

-cut-

Oh, and as for the horse's mouth, I've posted about that already -- just because the Ambassador says it was that way, doesn't mean that it was -- doesn't matter how many video clips you link (Id be quite surprised if you would claim that US government officials would never tell anything but the truth and we should just accept what they say at face value regardless of any means and motive to lie).

-cut-

It is fine to not believe the ambassador regarding her trustworthiness as a source.

But why would she lie about the events which she said took place? On one hand, to be caught in a lie would destroy her credibility and career as well. On the other hand, everything that she recounted in the different interviews involves other organizations and people and can be verified, so a lie would be easily uncovered. IMO, she doesn't have "the means" to lie.

Naturally her statements were very diplomatic and kind towards the Thai government, but as for the events and activities which took place regarding the Thai request for assistance and the USA reaction - I believe her simply because lying would be career suicide.

One only needs to read your slippery slope of BS to understand you have an objective that is less than honorable. Fess up. Who are you working for.

Nice trolling job.

Maybe you would like to provide some actual comments regarding the points you disagree with ?

I assure you my post was not a troll but an honest reaction to such vehement support for political speek. It is clear the Prime Minister of Thailand requested help and the US responded. I have no idea how many millions of dollars the relocation of a carrier group costs but the US responded quickly.

There is little doubt that the assests of the carrier group could have helped but some within the Thai management did not want this help for reasons of their own.

Because of wikileaks the US is kissing some rear and it clearly shows in the diplomatic circles. It may or may not be admirable but turning the other cheek is not an admission of fact.

To most of us it is clear what happened and apparently you do not have a clue. Sorry if this seems confrontational but you are trying to substantiate fact on political speak and are attempting to rewrite history. Rewriting history is a bad thing.

[Nisa]

It is fine to not believe the ambassador regarding her trustworthiness as a source.

But why would she lie about the events which she said took place? On one hand, to be caught in a lie would destroy her credibility and career as well. On the other hand, everything that she recounted in the different interviews involves other organizations and people and can be verified, so a lie would be easily uncovered. IMO, she doesn't have "the means" to lie.

Naturally her statements were very diplomatic and kind towards the Thai government, but as for the events and activities which took place regarding the Thai request for assistance and the USA reaction - I believe her simply because lying would be career suicide.

One only needs to read your slippery slope of BS to understand you have an objective that is less than honorable. Fess up. Who are you working for.

Nice trolling job.

Maybe you would like to provide some actual comments regarding the points you disagree with ?

I assure you my post was not a troll but an honest reaction to such vehement support for political speek. It is clear the Prime Minister of Thailand requested help and the US responded. I have no idea how many millions of dollars the relocation of a carrier group costs but the US responded quickly.

There is little doubt that the assests of the carrier group could have helped but some within the Thai management did not want this help for reasons of their own.

Because of wikileaks the US is kissing some rear and it clearly shows in the diplomatic circles. It may or may not be admirable but turning the other cheek is not an admission of fact.

To most of us it is clear what happened and apparently you do not have a clue. Sorry if this seems confrontational but you are trying to substantiate fact on political speak and are attempting to rewrite history. Rewriting history is a bad thing.

Are you suggesting the Prime Minister asked for an aircraft carrier? Then after the aircraft carrier arrived she said forget, I changed my mind? Are you saying the Ambassador is lying and that the US Navy didn't supply boats, pumps and other supplies that almost certainly came off the carrier?

Please share what makes you clear about what happened? What proof do you have such as actual quotes from those involved? It would seem all the "facts" we now have would indicate there was simply and absolutely no reason to keep the carrier in port. It provided what supplies were needed at the time and left. Why is this hard to believe?

As shown throughout this thread, the limited water that the carrier could supply would deal with lots of logistics in terms of getting it to land and distributed. It would require the use of numerous Thai resources and/or having the US Military operating within and interacting with Thai citizens of Bangkok when none of them are near dying of thirst and much much more water is available from numerous sources and much more easily managed and distributed by the crisis team. This crisis is not at all comparable to Haiti.

There was no need to use their search and rescue teams.

There was no need for the carrier to be used to fly in supplies because there is a working Airport on land and easily accessible by road.

So, what aspect of using the carrier do you think was offered and refused or should have been used?

Edited November 13, 2011 by Nisa

[tlansford]

-snip-

One only needs to read your slippery slope of BS to understand you have an objective that is less than honorable. Fess up. Who are you working for.

Nice trolling job.

Maybe you would like to provide some actual comments regarding the points you disagree with ?

I assure you my post was not a troll but an honest reaction to such vehement support for political speek. It is clear the Prime Minister of Thailand requested help and the US responded. I have no idea how many millions of dollars the relocation of a carrier group costs but the US responded quickly.

There is little doubt that the assests of the carrier group could have helped but some within the Thai management did not want this help for reasons of their own.

Because of wikileaks the US is kissing some rear and it clearly shows in the diplomatic circles. It may or may not be admirable but turning the other cheek is not an admission of fact.

To most of us it is clear what happened and apparently you do not have a clue. Sorry if this seems confrontational but you are trying to substantiate fact on political speak and are attempting to rewrite history. Rewriting history is a bad thing.

my apologies, it struck me as a troll at first glance.

So, we agree, at least, that Thailand requested support and the US responded.

Regarding your point, "but some within the Thai management did not want this help for reasons of their own", that may well be, but do you have any information to support such a claim? I don't...

As for US/wikileaks, that also could apply, but IMO is overkill for this situation - the US and Thailand are good allies in the region. The request and the reaction don't need to have any additional motives behind them. Feel free to disagree, but I feel the same thing would have happened with or without wikileaks.

Substantiate fact on political speak? I have to confess, you seem to be stretching things a bit. Take the interviews, look past all the nice words, and diplomatic politesse, and out pop the "actions", the things that happened. The ambassador was clear as a bell about the request, response, and several other actions which took place. Those are the facts that come from the interview and can be verified by anyone with an interest. These are the points where I choose to believe the ambassador.

When she talks about the teams of military, civilian, Thai, and US experts analyzing the situation and determining the needs and implementing the assistance, we - both you and I - have no information regarding how those people operated nor if there were / were not political factors involved. But again, I do believe the ambassador when she says these groups came together, determined the needs, and that was the assistance which was delivered.

With the need for an aircraft carrier, the decision to not use it doesn't surprise me at all. Sure it has a lot of resources, but there are no resources on the carrier which, in this situation, could not have been provided from other sources, more easily, and without blocking a nuclear carrier in Thailand. Unlike the flooding in March where the Thai Navy sent their carrier to the islands in the Gulf, this crisis is on the mainland - no specific advantage to providing assistance from a carrier. One of the loudest brain-farts on this forum in the last month was the idea of providing desalinated fresh water from the carrier. For fresh water, just go to the closest non-contaminated ground water sources next to Bangkok and truck it in.

And finally, this part :

To most of us it is clear what happened and apparently you do not have a clue. Sorry if this seems confrontational but you are trying to substantiate fact on political speak and are attempting to rewrite history. Rewriting history is a bad thing.

If you have actual information to support that which is so clear to you, please add it. And "rewriting history?" ... If I say that I find the series of events as laid out by my ambassador to Thailand to be credible, you might want to explain how that is rewriting history, no?

[BuckarooBanzai]

I assure you my post was not a troll but an honest reaction to such vehement support for political speek. It is clear the Prime Minister of Thailand requested help and the US responded. I have no idea how many millions of dollars the relocation of a carrier group costs but the US responded quickly.

There is little doubt that the assests of the carrier group could have helped but some within the Thai management did not want this help for reasons of their own.

Because of wikileaks the US is kissing some rear and it clearly shows in the diplomatic circles. It may or may not be admirable but turning the other cheek is not an admission of fact.

To most of us it is clear what happened and apparently you do not have a clue. Sorry if this seems confrontational but you are trying to substantiate fact on political speak and are attempting to rewrite history. Rewriting history is a bad thing.

my apologies, it struck me as a troll at first glance.

So, we agree, at least, that Thailand requested support and the US responded.

Regarding your point, "but some within the Thai management did not want this help for reasons of their own", that may well be, but do you have any information to support such a claim? I don't...

As for US/wikileaks, that also could apply, but IMO is overkill for this situation - the US and Thailand are good allies in the region. The request and the reaction don't need to have any additional motives behind them. Feel free to disagree, but I feel the same thing would have happened with or without wikileaks.

Substantiate fact on political speak? I have to confess, you seem to be stretching things a bit. Take the interviews, look past all the nice words, and diplomatic politesse, and out pop the "actions", the things that happened. The ambassador was clear as a bell about the request, response, and several other actions which took place. Those are the facts that come from the interview and can be verified by anyone with an interest. These are the points where I choose to believe the ambassador.

When she talks about the teams of military, civilian, Thai, and US experts analyzing the situation and determining the needs and implementing the assistance, we - both you and I - have no information regarding how those people operated nor if there were / were not political factors involved. But again, I do believe the ambassador when she says these groups came together, determined the needs, and that was the assistance which was delivered.

With the need for an aircraft carrier, the decision to not use it doesn't surprise me at all. Sure it has a lot of resources, but there are no resources on the carrier which, in this situation, could not have been provided from other sources, more easily, and without blocking a nuclear carrier in Thailand. Unlike the flooding in March where the Thai Navy sent their carrier to the islands in the Gulf, this crisis is on the mainland - no specific advantage to providing assistance from a carrier. One of the loudest brain-farts on this forum in the last month was the idea of providing desalinated fresh water from the carrier. For fresh water, just go to the closest non-contaminated ground water sources next to Bangkok and truck it in.

And finally, this part :

To most of us it is clear what happened and apparently you do not have a clue. Sorry if this seems confrontational but you are trying to substantiate fact on political speak and are attempting to rewrite history. Rewriting history is a bad thing.

If you have actual information to support that which is so clear to you, please add it. And "rewriting history?" ... If I say that I find the series of events as laid out by my ambassador to Thailand to be credible, you might want to explain how that is rewriting history, no?

Just to make a long story short, the US Embassy has been continuously congratulating the Thai government on the great job they are doing in responding to the flood disaster. Do you believe this is true? Is the political speak from the Embassy reliable? From what I have observed I do not but you are entitled to your own opinion. Do you really believe politicians do not bend the truth to the breaking point. The initial response from the military was clear and later efforts to bend this to meet a different political reality was also quite clear. And as to the great job the Thai Government is doing in response to the flood the truth is revealed everyday.

[tlansford]

I assure you my post was not a troll but an honest reaction to such vehement support for political speek. It is clear the Prime Minister of Thailand requested help and the US responded. I have no idea how many millions of dollars the relocation of a carrier group costs but the US responded quickly.

There is little doubt that the assests of the carrier group could have helped but some within the Thai management did not want this help for reasons of their own.

Because of wikileaks the US is kissing some rear and it clearly shows in the diplomatic circles. It may or may not be admirable but turning the other cheek is not an admission of fact.

To most of us it is clear what happened and apparently you do not have a clue. Sorry if this seems confrontational but you are trying to substantiate fact on political speak and are attempting to rewrite history. Rewriting history is a bad thing.

my apologies, it struck me as a troll at first glance.

So, we agree, at least, that Thailand requested support and the US responded.

Regarding your point, "but some within the Thai management did not want this help for reasons of their own", that may well be, but do you have any information to support such a claim? I don't...

As for US/wikileaks, that also could apply, but IMO is overkill for this situation - the US and Thailand are good allies in the region. The request and the reaction don't need to have any additional motives behind them. Feel free to disagree, but I feel the same thing would have happened with or without wikileaks.

Substantiate fact on political speak? I have to confess, you seem to be stretching things a bit. Take the interviews, look past all the nice words, and diplomatic politesse, and out pop the "actions", the things that happened. The ambassador was clear as a bell about the request, response, and several other actions which took place. Those are the facts that come from the interview and can be verified by anyone with an interest. These are the points where I choose to believe the ambassador.

When she talks about the teams of military, civilian, Thai, and US experts analyzing the situation and determining the needs and implementing the assistance, we - both you and I - have no information regarding how those people operated nor if there were / were not political factors involved. But again, I do believe the ambassador when she says these groups came together, determined the needs, and that was the assistance which was delivered.

With the need for an aircraft carrier, the decision to not use it doesn't surprise me at all. Sure it has a lot of resources, but there are no resources on the carrier which, in this situation, could not have been provided from other sources, more easily, and without blocking a nuclear carrier in Thailand. Unlike the flooding in March where the Thai Navy sent their carrier to the islands in the Gulf, this crisis is on the mainland - no specific advantage to providing assistance from a carrier. One of the loudest brain-farts on this forum in the last month was the idea of providing desalinated fresh water from the carrier. For fresh water, just go to the closest non-contaminated ground water sources next to Bangkok and truck it in.

And finally, this part :

To most of us it is clear what happened and apparently you do not have a clue. Sorry if this seems confrontational but you are trying to substantiate fact on political speak and are attempting to rewrite history. Rewriting history is a bad thing.

If you have actual information to support that which is so clear to you, please add it. And "rewriting history?" ... If I say that I find the series of events as laid out by my ambassador to Thailand to be credible, you might want to explain how that is rewriting history, no?

Just to make a long story short, the US Embassy has been continuously congratulating the Thai government on the great job they are doing in responding to the flood disaster. Do you believe this is true? Is the political speak from the Embassy reliable? From what I have observed I do not but you are entitled to your own opinion. Do you really believe politicians do not bend the truth to the breaking point. The initial response from the military was clear and later efforts to bend this to meet a different political reality was also quite clear. And as to the great job the Thai Government is doing in response to the flood the truth is revealed everyday.

I completely agree with you regarding the praises that have been lavished on the govt. And whether I feel that the govt is doing a great job or not has nothing to do with statements from the American Embassy.

What I do watch are the actions. What happens. Coming back now to the point, once you strip away the nice words, the ambassador lays out the series of steps undertaken, by whom, reaching which decisions, and then implementing them. It seems clear that the actions she outlined did take place. IMO this includes the decision to send off the carrier rather than to use it for the relief operation.

[BuckarooBanzai]

I assure you my post was not a troll but an honest reaction to such vehement support for political speek. It is clear the Prime Minister of Thailand requested help and the US responded. I have no idea how many millions of dollars the relocation of a carrier group costs but the US responded quickly.

There is little doubt that the assests of the carrier group could have helped but some within the Thai management did not want this help for reasons of their own.

Because of wikileaks the US is kissing some rear and it clearly shows in the diplomatic circles. It may or may not be admirable but turning the other cheek is not an admission of fact.

To most of us it is clear what happened and apparently you do not have a clue. Sorry if this seems confrontational but you are trying to substantiate fact on political speak and are attempting to rewrite history. Rewriting history is a bad thing.

my apologies, it struck me as a troll at first glance.

So, we agree, at least, that Thailand requested support and the US responded.

Regarding your point, "but some within the Thai management did not want this help for reasons of their own", that may well be, but do you have any information to support such a claim? I don't...

As for US/wikileaks, that also could apply, but IMO is overkill for this situation - the US and Thailand are good allies in the region. The request and the reaction don't need to have any additional motives behind them. Feel free to disagree, but I feel the same thing would have happened with or without wikileaks.

Substantiate fact on political speak? I have to confess, you seem to be stretching things a bit. Take the interviews, look past all the nice words, and diplomatic politesse, and out pop the "actions", the things that happened. The ambassador was clear as a bell about the request, response, and several other actions which took place. Those are the facts that come from the interview and can be verified by anyone with an interest. These are the points where I choose to believe the ambassador.

When she talks about the teams of military, civilian, Thai, and US experts analyzing the situation and determining the needs and implementing the assistance, we - both you and I - have no information regarding how those people operated nor if there were / were not political factors involved. But again, I do believe the ambassador when she says these groups came together, determined the needs, and that was the assistance which was delivered.

With the need for an aircraft carrier, the decision to not use it doesn't surprise me at all. Sure it has a lot of resources, but there are no resources on the carrier which, in this situation, could not have been provided from other sources, more easily, and without blocking a nuclear carrier in Thailand. Unlike the flooding in March where the Thai Navy sent their carrier to the islands in the Gulf, this crisis is on the mainland - no specific advantage to providing assistance from a carrier. One of the loudest brain-farts on this forum in the last month was the idea of providing desalinated fresh water from the carrier. For fresh water, just go to the closest non-contaminated ground water sources next to Bangkok and truck it in.

And finally, this part :

If you have actual information to support that which is so clear to you, please add it. And "rewriting history?" ... If I say that I find the series of events as laid out by my ambassador to Thailand to be credible, you might want to explain how that is rewriting history, no?

Just to make a long story short, the US Embassy has been continuously congratulating the Thai government on the great job they are doing in responding to the flood disaster. Do you believe this is true? Is the political speak from the Embassy reliable? From what I have observed I do not but you are entitled to your own opinion. Do you really believe politicians do not bend the truth to the breaking point. The initial response from the military was clear and later efforts to bend this to meet a different political reality was also quite clear. And as to the great job the Thai Government is doing in response to the flood the truth is revealed everyday.

I completely agree with you regarding the praises that have been lavished on the govt. And whether I feel that the govt is doing a great job or not has nothing to do with statements from the American Embassy.

What I do watch are the actions. What happens. Coming back now to the point, once you strip away the nice words, the ambassador lays out the series of steps undertaken, by whom, reaching which decisions, and then implementing them. It seems clear that the actions she outlined did take place. IMO this includes the decision to send off the carrier rather than to use it for the relief operation.

To respond to hindsight gives one x-ray vision.

[ianguygil]

This is off the same link you provided:

The American people are actually no less generous than those of other developed countries. By comparing aid as a percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) you measure the amount of aid that is given by individuals. On this scale, Americans look angelic . .

Aid is a combination of both government and citizenry but is generally listed only according to the governmental contributions..

And the summary sentence in the paragraph from which you quote says

American citizens give more, but the government does so much less that the country as a whole looks miserly. It would not be right to blame the citizens for this, but the lack of a socially-minded government.[

Edited November 15, 2011 by ianguygil

[BuckarooBanzai]

This is off the same link you provided:

The American people are actually no less generous than those of other developed countries. By comparing aid as a percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) you measure the amount of aid that is given by individuals. On this scale, Americans look angelic . .

Aid is a combination of both government and citizenry but is generally listed only according to the governmental contributions..

And the summary sentence in the paragraph from which you quote says

American citizens give more, but the government does so much less that the country as a whole looks miserly. It would not be right to blame the citizens for this, but the lack of a socially-minded government.[

You are right, the US is not a Socialist Government. Much of the aid is provided by the military for humanitarian aid - mind you I did not say the military providing military aid. If you wish to digress to the difference between the military providing humanitarian aid vs. the military providing military aid do so on your own time as that has already been discussed elsewhere. The Americans are some of the most generous people around so what is your point.

[Payboy]

Clinton Offers Flood Help To Thailand

She's sending Bubba here to plug all the holes?