 |
|
|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
Old Pro |
The disaster in Burma presents the world with perhaps its most serious humanitarian crisis since the 2004 Asian tsunami. By most reliable estimates, close to 100,000 people are dead. Delays in delivering relief to the victims, the inaccessibility of the stricken areas and the poor state of Burma's infrastructure and health systems mean that number is sure to rise. With as many as 1 million people still at risk, it is conceivable that the death toll will, within days, approach that of the entire number of civilians killed in the genocide in Darfur.
So what is the world doing about it? Not much. The military regime that runs Burma initially signaled it would accept outside relief, but has imposed so many conditions on those who would actually deliver it that barely a trickle has made it through. Aid workers have been held at airports. U.N. food shipments have been seized. U.S. naval ships packed with food and medicine idle in the Gulf of Thailand, waiting for an all-clear that may never come. Burma's rulers have relented slightly, agreeing Friday to let in supplies and perhaps even some foreign relief workers. The government says it will allow a US C-130 transport plane to land inside Burma Monday. But it's hard to imagine a regime this insular and paranoid accepting robust aid from the U.S. military, let alone agreeing to the presence of U.S. Marines on Burmese soil — as Thailand and Indonesia did after the tsunami. The trouble is that the Burmese haven't shown the ability or willingness to deploy the kind of assets needed to deal with a calamity of this scale — and the longer Burma resists offers of help, the more likely it is that the disaster will devolve beyond anyone's control. "We're in 2008, not 1908," says Jan Egeland, the former U.N. emergency relief coordinator. "A lot is at stake here. If we let them get away with murder we may set a very dangerous precedent." That's why it's time to consider a more serious option: invading Burma. Some observers, including former USAID director Andrew Natsios, have called on the U.S. to unilaterally begin air drops to the Burmese people regardless of what the junta says. The Bush Administration has so far rejected the idea — "I can't imagine us going in without the permission of the Myanmar government," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday — but it's not without precedent: as Natsios pointed out to the Wall Street Journal, the U.S. has facilitated the delivery of humanitarian aid without the host government's consent in places like Bosnia and Sudan. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1739053,00.html?cnn=yes There are plenty of aid organizations and ways to contribute but the above barriers may prevent this aid from getting to the people. https://secure2.convio.net/ftc/site/Donation?ACTION=SHO...07=g3o9g5dfh2.app20a |
||
|
|
Old Pro |
Burma exports rice as cyclone victims starve
Burma is still exporting rice even as it tries to curb the influx of international donations of food bound for the starving survivors of the cyclone that killed up to 116,000 people. Sacks of rice destined for Bangladesh were being loaded on to a ship at the Thilawa container port at the mouth of the Yangon River at the end of last week, even though Burma's 'rice bowl' region was devastated by the deadly storm a week ago. The Burmese regime, which has a monopoly on the country's rice exports, said it planned to meet all its contractual commitments. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/11/cyclonenargis.burma2 |
|||
|
Educated |
Don't tell me... you are 100% against Operation Iraqi Freedom, and are now urging a U.S. invasion of Burma?
|
|||
|
Educated |
There is no country named Burma. Just ask the people that live there.
|
|||
|
|
Member |
Think its Venezuela:
President Bush has lost the war in Iraq and is looking for other countries he considers easy marks to invade and conquer. The countries must have huge oil reserves to justify the cost of this imperialistic quest. Iran and Venezuela match the required criteria of huge oil reserves and appear to be easier targets than Iraq whose porous borders provide perfect sanctuaries for the guerilla forces to launch attacks. President Chavez has made marvelous strides to the integration of latin America. The fact that President Chavez has made economic alliances with most countries in latin america and has committed more financial aid than the Marshall plan funded by America at the end of World War II to rebuild Europe. If President Chavez's economic aid has half the impact of the Marshall plan latin America will become truely integrated and an economic giant on par with the USA and Europe. However Europe made the NATO military alliance their shield against war during the Marshall plan era. If Venezuela and other countries in latin America are wise they should consider such a shield to protect them from military adventures from USA or Europe or China. |
|||
|
|
Educated |
Not only are you from Wisconsin, but it is evident that the last time you researched current events was at some point in 2003.
|
|||
|
Old Pro |
Seems a bit inconsistent to me too. |
|||
|
|
Regular |
Hey Holmy..
I see your back but I have to concede to Mr. Bell here. It is hard to take your position with any gravity when you cannot even get your own roof fixed. I mean, you bag on imperialistic quests after telling us that only Wissy roofers match your criteria for good company service and pay as much for them to come out as it does to fund the war for a day.  Did you ever check with new man on the roof job? He loves you enough to do a great job and, cuss you out if you need it too. Can't beat that for service.  |
|||
|
|
Educated |
I learned from the best.
|
|||
|
Old Pro |
Not inconsistency, but arrogance. War is perfectly fine, so long as it meets his definition of what is and is not an acceptable reason. Remember, those of this particular niche of far leftist ideology are smarter than the rest of us. They know what's best for the rest of us, and for our own good can't leave it to us to make our own decisions. Just keep that in mind, and it all starts to make sense in a perverse, tragi-comic sort of way. Of course, were we to overthrow the current junta to help save the people in Myanmar and the new government later adopted virulently anti-US policies and/or sponsored terrorism, we'd never hear the end of it from that tiny speck in the far corner of the ideological spectrum in regards to our having brought it upon ourselves, how we deserve what's happening to us, etc. It's really rather a predictable cycle. |
|||
|
|
Regular |
Well stated my man, that is exactly what happens in a state of amnesiac shock when it all comes back to bite. Who's idea was this anyway!? No good, meddling, Gov administration!!!  |
|||
|
|
Educated |
megla-maniacs
|
|||
|
|
Old Pro |
I think dropping aid without their governments permission might be the thing to do at the very least. At any rate, I think doing more in Myanmar than in Iraq is appropriate given that it is undergoing a humanitarian crisis and Iraq was not. The US may have been justified on that basis back in the late 1980s where the US failed to pass even sanctions because it would have negatively effected $ our trade (aka reverse engagement). But there were not 1 million people at immediate risk of death in 2003 Iraq and any suggestion otherwise is delusional. |
|||
|
|
Old Pro |
We often make mistakes in foreign policy. Even our government is manned by humans, after all, All too fallible humans. But we do tend to overlook how many of those foreign policy errors are driven by public pressure at the time. "Do something!" the people screamed, and so we did. And the people were satisfied. And these same people are the first in line to throw eggs and rotten tomatoes and scream "I knew this would happen!" when that decision comes back to bite us in the ass. (Can we say ass? Is it filtered?) |
|||
|
|
Old Pro |
I am happy to say that I was in the 25% of Americans that believed Sadam had nothing to do with 9-11 before the war in Iraq. But your right, the people wanted something done in response to 9-11, I was one of them. I simply suggested that we bomb the correct target because, to use slogans, being "smart on terrorism" is the only true way to be "strong on terrorism." |
|||
|
| Previous Topic | Next Topic | powered by eve community | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
|||
| Site | Hey Martha... | ||
| Servlet | eve1da054 | ||
| Version | 1.2.22 build 9062 | ||
| Module | Forums 4.0.3 | ||
| Stylesheet | "Joplin, MO" | ||
| Wordlet Set | "Default Wordlet Set" | ||
|
| View $GS_USERNAME's Public Profile |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Buddies |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Ignore List |
| View Recent Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
| Notify me of New Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
