Are the Japanese Liberal Democrats liberals? Heck, for the longest part of the post-war period they weren't even democrats.Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Are the Japanese Liberal Democrats liberals? Heck, for the longest part of the post-war period they weren't even democrats.Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Last edited by Adrian II; 05-10-2008 at 22:26.
The bloody trouble is we are only alive when we’re half dead trying to get a paragraph right. - Paul Scott
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.
Unto each good man a good dog
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?'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.
You know what, they couldn't answer, they hadn't a clue.
Intellectual masturbation in my view.
There are times I wish they’d just ban everything- baccy and beer, burgers and bangers, and all the rest- once and for all. Instead, they creep forward one apparently tiny step at a time. It’s like being executed with a bacon slicer.
“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy.”
To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise.
"The purpose of a university education for Left / Liberals is to attain all the politically correct attitudes towards minorties, and the financial means to live as far away from them as possible."
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.Originally Posted by Beirut
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.
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.Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Really there's little to be done, donating to disaster relief is always innefficient and most wont get to the people who are suffering.
Wine is a bit different, as I am sure even kids will like it.
"Hilary Clinton is the devil"BigTex
~Texas proverb
Or you could just use NATO airbases in Thailand, and Diego Garcia.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?Originally Posted by BigTex
Unto each good man a good dog
http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...0.html?cnn=yes
By Romesh Ratnesar
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
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.
"Nietzsche is dead" - God
"I agree, although I support China I support anyone discovering things for Science and humanity." - lenin96
Re: Pursuit of happiness
Have you just been dumped?
I ask because it's usually something like that which causes outbursts like this, needless to say I dissagree completely.
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.
"The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken
When there's oil involved probably.Originally Posted by Beirut
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.
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.Originally Posted by Beirut
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?
Last edited by BigTex; 05-11-2008 at 21:32.
Wine is a bit different, as I am sure even kids will like it.
"Hilary Clinton is the devil"BigTex
~Texas proverb
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.Originally Posted by BigTex
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."
Unto each good man a good dog
Sorry my friend, that was tried in 1993, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_...shu_%281993%29Originally Posted by Beirut
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.![]()
Last edited by Devastatin Dave; 05-12-2008 at 05:07.
RIP Tosa
Then try again.Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
A bugger up in Somalia fifteen-years ago is not a reason to let disaster victims die in perpetuity.
Unto each good man a good dog
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.Originally Posted by Beirut
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.
RIP Tosa
No, Don't Try it Again.Originally Posted by Beirut
We Help These People, then they bite us in ourlater. 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.
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.Originally Posted by {BHC}AntiWarmanCake88
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.Originally Posted by {BHC}AntiWarmanCake88
Would you care to enlighten us with your standards of civilization that need be met in order for children to be fed?Originally Posted by {BHC}AntiWarmanCake88
Unto each good man a good dog
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.
![]()
An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
"If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill
Perhaps, but the act of helping may define one.Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Unless of course "thinking of the poor children" is the issue.Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Unto each good man a good dog
Loans to control Myanmar?
Names, secret names
But never in my favour
But when all is said and done
It's you I love
Why is it the lives of children are worth more than adults?Originally Posted by Beirut
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.
![]()
An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
"If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill
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.Originally Posted by Beirut
Answer that first, then I'll answer your question.
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.Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Not jumping, nor even skipping along, does make me think less, though.Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Unto each good man a good dog
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.Originally Posted by Beirut
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.
![]()
An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
"If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill
Maybe so, but there is a level of Darwinism in there that I could never ascribe to in real life.Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Unto each good man a good dog
Umm... ok.Originally Posted by {BHC}AntiWarmanCake88
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.)Originally Posted by {BHC}AntiWarmanCake88
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.
Unto each good man a good dog
When you have one one day, you'll understand.Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
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.![]()
RIP Tosa
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 .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.
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 .global politics and beaurocracy eh
![]()
When your country does 1/100 the amount of aid and assistance my country does, then your criticism will have any meaning to me.Originally Posted by Tribesman
![]()
Last edited by TosaInu; 05-13-2008 at 20:47.
RIP Tosa
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
Let the meaningfullness roll.![]()
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
Last edited by Beirut; 05-14-2008 at 02:19.
Unto each good man a good dog
Bookmarks