But Frank, the point I was trying to make, is that IF we had the resolve, we could put the whole might of the worlds military behind an effort to be in there as quickly as possible, to create a crude infrastructure so we could start delivering aid by the conventional means.
It's well reported on the news, that the place is totally devastated, aid has started arriving, but cannot be distibuted, because there is no infrastructure, no roads, no vehicles, no fuel, no personnel. whats the point in having aid, if it just sits in a hanger at the airport 100 miles away from where it is needed?
And we have been dropping aid by air, for this very reason, so I don't know what your point about anarchy is about?
No doubt if those nasty pinko communists invaded the west coast, you wouldn't spend a week debating the best way to approach the problem, and I doubt the US would form a new military focus group to compete with the regular army, while people were dying.
Im sure 5 million people on the verge of death wouldn't complain that the plan was a bit militaristic. Hell, a novel idea. Execute a rapid militaristic plan with the intent to save lives? We could have largely done this by now, if we had wanted to. But we havn't. We have however spent a week largely debating this, setting up alternative alliance problems, having a 'who can give the most aid $'s' pissing match.
People are dying Frank, or don't you care (unless they're a 5 day old embryo?)
edit: look, even the world acknowledges it needs to speed up the effort?http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/4136781.stm
what are they doing?, holding a meeting between the 2 major groups. Congrats, 5000 more people just died waiting for someone to 'lead'