Originally Posted by kouichisan (Post 856453)

If you were a doctor and saw a guy dying on the street, would you just leave him there because he has medical insurance, so he should wait 10 more mins for an Ambulance do it for him and possibly die? or would you go out of your own way immediately to help him anyway?. Even if it isn't costing you anything financially?.

It doesn't matter if they have 'capability' it is about who can get their first and save lives. The more people there are with the aid effort, the more people that are available to save lives. The Japanese government is there doing the job, yes, but it is a massive area they have to cover. We're not footing the bill, we are helping them do their job. They are doing humanitarian work and working alongside them.

Let's say we buy an iPod, we just spent £250 on a device that eventually we will throw away. But if we donate say even £2 to a charity, that goes toward HUMANITARIAN work, saving lives. Which of the two was the waste of money?

Originally Posted by ajisai666 (Post 856464)

I personally don't care if I have money or not. To me it's just paper that I use to pay bills so if I have any leftover after the fact then I will gladly give it away. It's not always about being payed. Sometimes people like to help other people no matter the cost. Money isn't everything. Peoples lives are more important to me than money and I'm sure there are people out there that feel the same. I'm not greedy and this is such a tragedy that why wouldn't you want to help out your fellow man?

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire (Post 856465)

I would and I do.

I'm just saying giving money to the world's third largest economy (or any developed country) because they had an Earthquake is like giving money to Charlie Sheen because his house burnt down.

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire (Post 856465)

I would and I do.

I'm just saying giving money to the world's third largest economy (or any developed country) because they had an Earthquake is like giving money to Charlie Sheen because his house burnt down.

Originally Posted by MMM (Post 856479)

Who said anything about giving money to the Japanese government?

The money goes to the charity and relief organizations to put people, food, water, and medical supplies on the ground where it is needed.

The International Red Cross is the most reliable route to take if you want to donate.

Originally Posted by kouichisan (Post 856485)

These are not celebrities, they are ordinary people, it doesn't matter if it is developed or not. Even if people do not provide monetary donations, people can volunteer and still help out in other ways... that's the whole point of a charity. People have emotional attachments to this country for whatever reason, which makes them more willing to let go of their money to see it go toward a good purpose. Rather than blowing it on a night out or something.

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire (Post 856488)

I would say that if you can volunteer then do so.

But I would refrain from giving monetary support to citizens of a country whose government has more than enough.

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire (Post 856487)

Sure, give to the red cross.

But even if you do, I would say not to earmark it for Japan specifically. Give it to a country that ACTUALLY needs it. Haiti is still recovering from it's Earthquake. Earmark it for Haiti. NOT Japan.

If I were the Red Cross I would be invoicing the government of Japan and New Zealand.

Originally Posted by kouichisan (Post 856489)

Yes, If I could volunteer and go around the world and help people that would be amazing, but unfortunately thats not the case, and many people are in the same position. So we can support the organisations in different ways, by enabling other people who can go out and with the skills to do so.