[SOC] Australia Responds

[Kevin Rock]

I wish there was a way to get aid to the areas effected around the world 
more simply.  Sending money to agencies and allowing them to use it to 
create aid packages is the method we normally use.  Is there a way to 
create an infrastructure which would allow the aid to be moved to those 
locations with a minimum of waste?  Often we give money to the agencies 
and only a small percentage of it goes to the disaster victims while a 
larger share goes to administering the agency.  Which agencies are the 
most efficient at transporting aid to disaster areas and then distributing 
it once it arrives?  Are NGOs more effective or are governmental 
agencies?  Whichever group can give the most aid with the least waste in 
administration should be given the most donations.
    Kevin.  KD5ONS



On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 21:06:16 -0000, Chris Redding 
<chris.redding at g4pdj.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

> Agreed.
>
> Obviously the 'old world' is going to throw money at this, because
> historically it's 'our' neck of the woods.  But no amount of aid is 
> going to
> do any good if it can't  get to where it's needed.
>
> Enter the logistical superpower...good ole Uncle Sam (or bad old Uncle
> Sam...depending on your prejudices).
>
> Politics apart...many lives will be saved, and it's churlish to make 
> cheap
> points.
>
> If I was in their situation, I wouldn't care if the aid arrived in a 
> lorry
> driven by Satan himself.
>
> Chris G4PDJ


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.9 - Release Date: 1/6/2005