U.S. Humanitarian Aid is "stingy"

The devastation wrought by the tsunami in Southeast Asia is horrible. At last count, the death toll is over 22,500, and expected to rise significantly, possibly even double. The United States has, so far, pledged $15 million towards the relief effort, and this is only the first step, according to Secretary of State Powell. Apparently, the United Nations thinks that is not enough. U.N. Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egeland (Norwegian-born) said the following: "It is beyond me why are we so stingy, really. Christmastime should remind many Western countries at least, [of] how rich we have become." He went on to say that there would be more available if taxes were raised.

I want to be sure that I understand this properly. The United States, and other Western nations, should raise taxes so that there would be more to give the UN in terms of humanitarian aid. Aren't these the same people who have been running the Oil-For-Food program in Iraq for the past decade? How much of that money has gone into the pockets of Kofi Annan's son, Jacques Chirac, Germany, et al? Billions? Why not just have them make a donation to the relief effort? Maybe the UN just wants more money so that they can have an even better sex party than the UN seems to have anywhere else it goes.

The US is a very generous nation. I'm certain that many charitable organizations will step up and make contributions, both in terms of dollars and labor. We always have. Germany has pledged $1 million so far. The United States pledged 15 times that amount, but we're stingy.

These comments sound to me like another cash grab attempt by the UN at the expense of a natural disaster. What a disgusting organization.