Are the numbers correct in Burma?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Was the German Workers' Party socialist?

---

Are the Japanese Liberal Democrats liberals? Heck, for the longest part of the post-war period they weren't even democrats.

If the Myanmarese don't let aid in, then bring it in anyway. Park an aircraft carrier nearby, establish control over the airspace, then just dump food and medicine where people are congregated.

Tell the military regime if they take one potshot at a relief plane, the next planes will dump rifles and ammo to the peasants and a MK84 right on the general's hacienda.

There is a time to act tough and use force and this is it.

Canada has a few CC-177s (C-17s), this is a perfect opportunity for us to use them. We should fill 'em up with medical supplies and get 'em over there.

Quote:

---

There is an interesting theory that says most or all socialist governments until now have been essentially nationalist, using (internationalist) socialism only as a guise for their true (imperialist) ambitions. Indeed, if you look at the fate of militant socialist governments, particularly the authoritarian ones, many have transformed into outright nationalism: Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, North Korea and Burma fall within this category.

---

A lot of my mates said this back in the 70s and most of them were Marxists/Trots. My reposte (as someone normal who saw things as they really were) was 'why do you bother then?'

You know what, they couldn't answer, they hadn't a clue.

Intellectual masturbation in my view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

If the Myanmarese don't let aid in, then bring it in anyway. Park an aircraft carrier nearby, establish control over the airspace, then just dump food and medicine where people are congregated.

Tell the military regime if they take one potshot at a relief plane, the next planes will dump rifles and ammo to the peasants and a MK84 right on the general's hacienda.

There is a time to act tough and use force and this is it.

Canada has a few CC-177s (C-17s), this is a perfect opportunity for us to use them. We should fill 'em up with medical supplies and get 'em over there.

---

I doubt the Chinese would let that happen sitting down. A conflict involving Nato allies so close to them will probably make them a little uptight. Not to mention a revolt resulting in another pro western country near them will not make them very happy.

There are times to act with force, but this is not one of them. A tsunami is hardly a reason to involve ourselves in a burmese civil war, or to create one for that matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Do nothing: people will suffer.
Give money: prople will still suffer.
Invade: people will suffer.

---

Someone will suffer no matter what you do, but to what degree? Do nothing and recovery will take a very long time. Give money, and maybe some will filter down to relieve the suffering. Even the cruelest of dictatorships have a need to help in the wake such a massive natural disaster. Invade and involve yourself in a decades long low intensity war in the jungles and mountains of burma.

Really there's little to be done, donating to disaster relief is always innefficient and most wont get to the people who are suffering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

If the Myanmarese don't let aid in, then bring it in anyway. Park an aircraft carrier nearby, establish control over the airspace, then just dump food and medicine where people are congregated.

Tell the military regime if they take one potshot at a relief plane, the next planes will dump rifles and ammo to the peasants and a MK84 right on the general's hacienda.

There is a time to act tough and use force and this is it.

Canada has a few CC-177s (C-17s), this is a perfect opportunity for us to use them. We should fill 'em up with medical supplies and get 'em over there.

---

Or you could just use NATO airbases in Thailand, and Diego Garcia. :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

I doubt the Chinese would let that happen sitting down. A conflict involving Nato allies so close to them will probably make them a little uptight. Not to mention a revolt resulting in another pro western country near them will not make them very happy.

There are times to act with force, but this is not one of them. A tsunami is hardly a reason to involve ourselves in a burmese civil war, or to create one for that matter.

---

I'm sure the Chinese could be dealt with somehow. As for interfering with or creating a civil war and this not being the time; if a 100,000+ people are possibly dead and another 100,000+ ready to die, and if this isn't the time to use force and interfere, when is the time?

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...0.html?cnn=yes

By Romesh Ratnesar

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.

A coercive humanitarian intervention would be complicated and costly. During the 2004 tsunami, some 24 U.S. ships and 16,000 troops were deployed in countries across the region; the mission cost the U.S. $5 million a day. Ultimately, the U.S. pledged nearly $900 million to tsunami relief. (By contrast, it has offered just $3.25 million to Burma.) But the risks would be greater this time: the Burmese government's xenophobia and insecurity make them prone to view U.S. troops — or worse, foreign relief workers — as hostile forces. (Remember Black Hawk Down?) Even if the U.S. and its allies made clear that their actions were strictly for humanitarian purposes, it's unlikely the junta would believe them. "You have to think it through — do you want to secure an area of the country by military force? What kinds of potential security risks would that create?" says Egelend. "I can't imagine any humanitarian organization wanting to shoot their way in with food."

So what other options exist? Retired General William Nash of the Council on Foreign Relations says the U.S. should first pressure China to use its influence over the junta to get them to open up and then supply support to the Thai and Indonesian militaries to carry out relief missions. "We can pay for it — we can provide repair parts to the Indonesians so they can get their Air Force up. We can lend the them two C-130s and let them paint the Indonesian flag on them," Nash says. "We have to get the stuff to people who can deliver it and who the Burmese government will accept, even if takes an extra day or two and even if it's not as efficient as the good old U.S. military." Egeland advocates that the U.N. Security Council take punitive steps short of war, such as freezing the regime's assets and issuing warrants for the arrest of individual junta members if they were to leave the country. Similar measures succeeded in getting the government of Ivory Coast to let in foreign relief teams in 2002, Egelend says.

And if that fails? "It's important for the rulers to know the world has other options," Egeland says. "If there were, say, the threat of a cholera epidemic that could claim hundreds of thousands of lives and the government was incapable of preventing it, then maybe yes — you would intervene unilaterally." But by then, it could be too late. The cold truth is that states rarely undertake military action unless their national interests are at stake; and the world has yet to reach a consensus about when, and under what circumstances, coercive interventions in the name of averting humanitarian disasters are permissible. As the response to the 2004 tsunami proved, the world's capacity for mercy is limitless. But we still haven't figured out when to give war a chance.

I thought this would contribute to the thread.

The article was overall decent. I dislike the comparison to Black Hawk Down for a number of reasons, and the threat of military action seems so arbitrary. I think it's more a time where China can play G.I. Jong and try to reclaim the lost publicity from Tibet and Sudan. Whether it'll work or not is a different story.

Then again, I think that they should declare it a genocide, invade, annihilate the junta, and set up a government (preferably pro-western), close the door into China, and screw their plans to dominate the Indian Ocean.

THe Burmese government is being quite rational about the whole thing.


U.S. Diplomat:

Offer = single payment of $obledey-gook

Demand = military access

Burmese Leader:

Answer = No, we do not think you would leave.




Besides, with records/missing expected to be shoddy anyway, sweeping a few thousand political murders under the rug should be easy -- they died in the cyclone, so sad -- but they've got to get the paperwork in line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

I'm sure the Chinese could be dealt with somehow. As for interfering with or creating a civil war and this not being the time; if a 100,000+ people are possibly dead and another 100,000+ ready to die, and if this isn't the time to use force and interfere, when is the time?

---

When there's oil involved probably.
Though I'm not sure that putting another country into endless civil war is the humane thing to do right now, even if that delivers them from a junta.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

I'm sure the Chinese could be dealt with somehow. As for interfering with or creating a civil war and this not being the time; if a 100,000+ people are possibly dead and another 100,000+ ready to die, and if this isn't the time to use force and interfere, when is the time?

---

The time for force was before a massive natural disaster killed 200,000 and destroyed infrastructure and crops. Now is a time to heal, to help, to ease suffering not to heap more suffering onto them.

Now is a time for diplomacy, to sit down and ask what international charities can be allowed to do. Besides give money directly to the junta.

If Nato invades, what then? After thousands more are killed battles, more still killed from basic infrastructure being destroyed. Thousands more slowly dieing from starvation because food supply's have been disrupted by a war and a natural disaster, what then? What do you now do with that large chunk of land. What do you do then to ease the suffering? Food supplies will take awhile to reestablish in the jingles of burma. Repairing roads, electricity, sewage and many other things will take months.

How will a war ease the pains of the people who are already suffering from the wake of such a massive disaster?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

How will a war ease the pains of the people who are already suffering from the wake of such a massive disaster?

---

Oh goodness, I'm not saying make war for the sake of it, I'm saying that the situation is grave enough that the government must let the victims of the disaster receive aid. It is not the prerogative of any government to force its citizens to die rather than accept aid that could prevent their deaths. Their government must be required to accept aid and allow that aid to get to those who need it.

The UN, or whoever for that matter, may quote our dear uncle of Exeter, as he said to the French King, "If requiring fail, we will compel."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

Oh goodness, I'm not saying make war for the sake of it, I'm saying that the situation is grave enough that the government must let the victims of the disaster receive aid. It is not the prerogative of any government to force its citizens to die rather than accept aid that could prevent their deaths. Their government must be required to accept aid and allow that aid to get to those who need it.

The UN, or whoever for that matter, may quote our dear uncle of Exeter, as he said to the French King, "If requiring fail, we will compel."

---

Sorry my friend, that was tried in 1993, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_...shu_%281993%29

I heard of a possible drops of supplies within the country without permission from the bastards that run the place. I've also heard the numbers are going to puch towards a million dead!!! God have mercy on these people.:no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Sorry my friend, that was tried in 1993, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_...shu_%281993%29

---

Then try again.

A bugger up in Somalia fifteen-years ago is not a reason to let disaster victims die in perpetuity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

Then try again.

A bugger up in Somalia fifteen-years ago is not a reason to let disaster victims die in perpetuity.

---

I'm not argueing against it, I'm just sure that the giving governments (US mainly) will be less likely to make that type of attempt again. Any attempt to give aid, such a dropping it without permission might mean the Burmese declaring war.
I'm on your side on this one Beirut, but I have a feeling that there will be very limited support due to prior instances and political risks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

Then try again.

A bugger up in Somalia fifteen-years ago is not a reason to let disaster victims die in perpetuity.

---

No, Don't Try it Again.


We Help These People, then they bite us in our :daisy: later. Do You Wish to see the pictures of the Somilias dragging US Soliders though the streets? I seen them, have you?


I mean, I don't really see countries helping the US half the time. Plus, We give these people free stuff, yet when we have a major diaster here, heh, we give them



LOANS


You Do Not Give These uncivlized countries free stuff, and your own people (we got starving kids here in the US to you know) loans and make them pay.


But Eh, no sense aruging against it, even though that's the logical option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by {BHC}AntiWarmanCake88

No, Don't Try it Again.

We Help These People, then they bite us in our :daisy: later. Do You Wish to see the pictures of the Somilias dragging US Soliders though the streets? I seen them, have you?

---

That's far too convenient an excuse to stay in our shell and look only inwards. It takes guts to help people and a lot of people have the guts to do it. Thank God for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by {BHC}AntiWarmanCake88

I mean, I don't really see countries helping the US half the time.

---

I don't see it as reasonable that the value of a person's life be measured on a scale of how much he has helped the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by {BHC}AntiWarmanCake88

You Do Not Give These uncivlized countries free stuff...

---

Would you care to enlighten us with your standards of civilization that need be met in order for children to be fed?

Every day in countries all over the world Children die. In many the odds of them surviving post aid is greater than that in Burma. For bang per buck Burma is a poor choice.

It is fair not to see it reasonable to base the lives of others as only valuable in terms of one's own country, but it is as valid as the opposite position.

Merely saving the lives of children doesn't make or break a civilisation. And to emote the issue with "please think of the poor children" appears to be no more than padding to an argument.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Merely saving the lives of children doesn't make or break a civilisation.

---

Perhaps, but the act of helping may define one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

And to emote the issue with "please think of the poor children" appears to be no more than padding to an argument.

---

Unless of course "thinking of the poor children" is the issue.

Loans to control Myanmar?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

Unless of course "thinking of the poor children" is the issue.

---

Why is it the lives of children are worth more than adults?

I agree that an empire is largely remembered by its actions for good or bad. Jumping at obvious plights doesn't make me think more of one though.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

That's far too convenient an excuse to stay in our shell and look only inwards. It takes guts to help people and a lot of people have the guts to do it. Thank God for them.



I don't see it as reasonable that the value of a person's life be measured on a scale of how much he has helped the US.



Would you care to enlighten us with your standards of civilization that need be met in order for children to be fed?

---

No, Would you care to enlighten of how we can feed our children here in the US and help out people here, and not give them loans while we gives these Anti-American Countries Money.

Answer that first, then I'll answer your question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Why is it the lives of children are worth more than adults?

---

Never said they were. Though many of us do live by the tenet of women & children first. Granted, it's a bias. I don't think an unseemly or unhealthy one, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I agree that an empire is largely remembered by its actions for good or bad. Jumping at obvious plights doesn't make me think more of one though.

---

Not jumping, nor even skipping along, does make me think less, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

Never said they were. Though many of us do live by the tenet of women & children first. Granted, it's a bias. I don't think an unseemly or unhealthy one, though.

---

But rather foolish nevertheless. Children will die far more easily from likely threats, be they hypothermia, shock, trauma or whatever. Women are less able to protect them than men are, due to less physical strength.

The siege of Leningrad was a good example of this: parents starved themselves to feed their children. When the parents died the children quickly followed with no one to look after them.

For best survival rates, it should be men, then women, then children then lastly the elderly.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

But rather foolish nevertheless. Children will die far more easily from likely threats, be they hypothermia, shock, trauma or whatever. Women are less able to protect them than men are, due to less physical strength.

The siege of Leningrad was a good example of this: parents starved themselves to feed their children. When the parents died the children quickly followed with no one to look after them.

For best survival rates, it should be men, then women, then children then lastly the elderly.

~:smoking:

---

Maybe so, but there is a level of Darwinism in there that I could never ascribe to in real life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by {BHC}AntiWarmanCake88

Answer that first, then I'll answer your question.

---

Umm... ok.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by {BHC}AntiWarmanCake88

No, Would you care to enlighten of how we can feed our children here in the US and help out people here, and not give them loans while we gives these Anti-American Countries Money.

---

Irrespective of our desire to help our fellow man here at home, we have the ability to help our fellow man here at home. It is clearly a matter of expediency and choice. As we are awash in cashews & milk here in North America, and, as I believe, we are fundamentally good people, then we have an obligation to others as well as ourselves to help. (The Hebrew word for charity translates as duty. I like that.)

To take the other side, people with little often give much because they understand the depravity of destitution and are willing to sacrifice to help their fellow man. It is that example that defines the very best of us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Why is it the lives of children are worth more than adults?

.

~:smoking:

---

When you have one one day, you'll understand.

To Beirut...
Again, I was not argueing against your idea, in fact, I'm all for it, the only problem is that it is not up to you or I. The US, Canada, Britain, and other nations that usually have the testicular fortitude that many UN parasite nations don't have will NOT violate this nation's soverinty in the manor in which you describe. You see, when you go to countries that are being run by murderous dictators and overthrow them or try to change their oppressive regimes, it creates a lot of bad press and many in the world will call you a cowboy, occupier, crusader, or whatever. Strangly enough I believe I've heard you say the same thing for a few years now when something similar to what you are suggesting happened. There is no way in hell the US or any other of the Western countries will EVER get involved in stopping genocides or attempting to assist those within failed states. Now, we will just have to sit back and watch millions die because of global politics and buerocracies.:no:

Quote:

---

You see, when you go to countries that are being run by murderous dictators and overthrow them or try to change their oppressive regimes, it creates a lot of bad press and many in the world will call you a cowboy, occupier, crusader, or whatever.

---

Actually Dave I think many in the world only call them that when it is done by hypocrits who do so over a pile of obvious lies and to top it all off make a complete balls of it , but hey don't let little things like that put you out of victim mode eh .
BTW didn't your country get widely criticised for its poor performance at disaster response and didn't it refuse aid and assistance from some countries .:idea2: global politics and beaurocracy eh :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Actually Dave I think many in the world only call them that when it is done by hypocrits who do so over a pile of obvious lies and to top it all off make a complete balls of it , but hey don't let little things like that put you out of victim mode eh .
BTW didn't your country get widely criticised for its poor performance at disaster response and didn't it refuse aid and assistance from some countries .:idea2: global politics and beaurocracy eh :yes:

---

When your country does 1/100 the amount of aid and assistance my country does, then your criticism will have any meaning to me.:yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

When your little _________ country does 1/100 the amount of aid and assistance my country does, then your criticism will have any meaning to me.:yes:

---

Let the meaningfullness roll. :sunny:


National giving as a percent of GDP (2005)
According to the Charities Aid Foundation [1],

1. United States - 1.67%
2. United Kingdom - .73%
3. Canada - .72%
4. Australia - .69%
5. South Africa - .64%
6. Ireland - .47%
7. Netherlands - .45%
8. Singapore - .29%
9. New Zealand - .29%
10. Turkey - .23%
11. Germany - .22%
12. France - .14%

[edit] Private donations


Public donations (2006)
According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development[3],

1. United States - $22.739 billion
2. United Kingdom - $12.607 billion
3. Japan - $11.608 billion
4. France - $10.448 billion
5. Germany - $10.351 billion
6. Netherlands - $5.452 billion
7. Sweden - $3.962 billion
8. Spain - $3.801 billion
9. Canada - $3.731 billion
10. Italy - $3.672 billion
11. Norway - $2.946 billion
12. Denmark - $2.234 billion
13. Australia - $2.128 billion
14. Belgium - $1.968 billion
15. Switzerland - $1.647 billion
16. Austria - $1.513 billion
17. Ireland - $997 million
18. Finland - $826 million
19. Portugal - $391 million
20. Greece - $384 million
21. Luxembourg - $291 million
22. New Zealand - $257 million