View Full Version : Myanmar...What is your problem?
anthonyvop
8th May 2008, 19:13
Tens of thousands dead! 100's of thousands in need of immediate assistance!
Oh but better not let the U.S. come and help! They will ruin your little paradise.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080508/ap_on_re_as/myanmar_cyclone
Can we have a myanmar thread without the need for people to blow their own trumpets?
anthonyvop
8th May 2008, 19:37
Can we have a myanmar thread without the need for people to blow their own trumpets?
What?
Can't think of any anti-U.S. hatred to use to defend the actions of the Mayanmar Gov.?
BDunnell
8th May 2008, 19:47
What?
Can't think of any anti-U.S. hatred to use to defend the actions of the Mayanmar Gov.?
I didn't see anything anti-US in the statement to which you respond. I think you're reading a bit much into it.
Anyway, this isn't just about the US wanting to assist. Other countries and organisations are being prevented from helping as much as they would like, too.
Other countries and organisations are being prevented from helping as much as they would like, too.
The United Nations are co-ordinating the relief efforts :)
It was in the news that only a few Thai planes has been allowed sofar to get some help to there, it seems that the government there dont have much respect for human life.
airshifter
8th May 2008, 21:15
The United Nations are co-ordinating the relief efforts :)
Exactly why there are loaded aircraft with relief supplies that can't be allowed access to the areas. It's a case of the UN blowing their horn while causing delay. With a number of countries and organizations having now stated they are denied access, I don't think it's unusual that people from that country would know about the situation as it applies to their government first.
anthonyvop
9th May 2008, 03:13
The United Nations are co-ordinating the relief efforts :)
And we all know how well the UN runs their programs!!! Might as well just airdrop cyanide capsules so they can end their misery.
Hate all you want but you cannot dispute the fact that when it comes to emergency relief nobody can do it as efficiently and as quickly as the US. Not to mention that the US is typically the most generous...even to our enemies.
leopard
9th May 2008, 03:44
We might need to think the next Sec Gen to be from Myanmar again :)
Relating to the most generous country, we might need to point out which country was the enemy have got the help?
Myanmar should stop being introvert toward countries offering help on emergency status for human life, they might need to do so once they start interfering internal affair, entering territory illegally, etc. Just learn from neighbor who had experienced the worst tsunami three years backwards. :)
And we all know how well the UN runs their programs!!! Might as well just airdrop cyanide capsules so they can end their misery.
Hate all you want but you cannot dispute the fact that when it comes to emergency relief nobody can do it as efficiently and as quickly as the US. Not to mention that the US is typically the most generous...even to our enemies.
Lol, your suggesting that the US could do a better job?? The USA can't even sort out emergencies in its own country.
Still, at least droppind cyanide capsules would give them more choice than dropping bombs.
The delay is not the UN, the delay is in Burma.
anthonyvop
9th May 2008, 16:13
Oh Boy!
It just gets better and better.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90I5P2G0&show_article=1
"YANGON, Myanmar (AP) - Myanmar's junta seized U.N. aid shipments headed for hungry and homeless survivors of last week's devastating cyclone, prompting the world body to suspend further help on Friday."
anthonyvop
9th May 2008, 16:14
The delay is not the UN, the delay is in Burma.
Which is why I asked Myanmar, "What is your problem"?
anthonyvop
9th May 2008, 17:40
Well...It is a start
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_myanmar
" US official: 1 shipment to be allowed to Myanmar
By FOSTER KLUG, Associated Press Writer 18 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - A Pentagon spokesman says the military junta that governs Myanmar has agreed to allow a single U.S. cargo aircraft to bring in relief supplies for victims of a cyclone."
Azumanga Davo
9th May 2008, 17:57
And we all know how well the UN runs their programs!!! Might as well just airdrop cyanide capsules so they can end their misery.
Hate all you want but you cannot dispute the fact that when it comes to emergency relief nobody can do it as efficiently and as quickly as the US. Not to mention that the US is typically the most generous...even to our enemies.
Blowing your own trumpet has all but made you sounding like a rather unwelcome farting noise.
Name one time when the US (and US alone, no helpers ;) ) had single handedly saved an entire nation from it's immediately dire situation. Remember, on it's own, no aid agencies, no UN etc.
airshifter
9th May 2008, 18:33
Blowing your own trumpet has all but made you sounding like a rather unwelcome farting noise.
Name one time when the US (and US alone, no helpers ;) ) had single handedly saved an entire nation from it's immediately dire situation. Remember, on it's own, no aid agencies, no UN etc.
Grenada. Would you like another example of an America "blowing their horn" by stating facts?
Anthonyvop hasn't stated that the US is the only one trying to help, and it's obviously his opinion that the US is good at emergency relief. But his thread questioned the actions of Myanmar, which is obviously acting in a strange way considering that relief and help is available from countries willing to assist them.
The UN exists for such things, but if they are not effective then people will suffer. There is even talk that if required force will be used to render aid to those in need.
veeten
9th May 2008, 20:22
The problem is that we've seen similar actions as Myanmar before when it comes to natural disasters. The first inclination is not to look weak in the eyes of the world, moreso by military juntas or dictators.
The worst part of all is that they're more interested in things like this...
from Reuters
Patriotic referendum
The junta urged citizens on Friday to do their patriotic duty and vote for an army-drafted constitution in a televised message that made no mention of the millions living in cyclone-affected areas where the balloting had been postponed.
Its opponents have suggested the reason for the delays in letting aid workers come in could be that the generals did not want an influx of foreigners before Saturday’s referendum.
The vote in the devastated south would be held in two weeks. The last time Myanmar had an election, in 1990, the generals lost in a landslide to Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy.
In the storm-ravaged former capital of Yangon, a city of 5 million, people were stunned that the referendum was going ahead.
“It shows how unreasonable and crazy they can be. They just want to celebrate victory even though the people are suffering,” one shop owner told Reuters.
The problem is that we've seen similar actions as Myanmar before when it comes to natural disasters. The first inclination is not to look weak in the eyes of the world, moreso by military juntas or dictators.
Yes the first reaction has been the same in all recent nature disasters.
Firstgear
9th May 2008, 21:21
This is getting really stupid.
From msnbc.msn.com
"Western aid experts in Bangkok will have to wait at least four more days to get into Myanmar to help cyclone victims because the Myanmar embassy in the Thai capital took a local holiday on Friday."
Placid
9th May 2008, 22:50
Exactly why there are loaded aircraft with relief supplies that can't be allowed access to the areas. It's a case of the UN blowing their horn while causing delay. With a number of countries and organizations having now stated they are denied access, I don't think it's unusual that people from that country would know about the situation as it applies to their government first.
Kind of the N. Korean term - "songun".
Wait until McCain comes to power so they can give the real winner it's power.
Shwe needs to be removed.
That question should apply to Mugabe in Zimbawe, Il at N Korea, and the Ahmedinejad in Iran.
BDunnell
9th May 2008, 23:15
Given the less than excellent track record of regime change of late, I cannot understand how anyone can consider it an option.
This is not to say that the situation in Myanmar doesn't demand some tough action, of course. But trying to install a new regime brings with it a whole new set of problems, because, as we know, the people you seek to 'liberate' are not necessarily overflowing with gratitude.
Azumanga Davo
10th May 2008, 10:26
Grenada. Would you like another example of an America "blowing their horn" by stating facts?
Anthonyvop hasn't stated that the US is the only one trying to help, and it's obviously his opinion that the US is good at emergency relief. But his thread questioned the actions of Myanmar, which is obviously acting in a strange way considering that relief and help is available from countries willing to assist them.
The UN exists for such things, but if they are not effective then people will suffer. There is even talk that if required force will be used to render aid to those in need.
I have no issues on the subject that the leaders of the military junta couldn't organise a p***-up in Andy Capp's local pub, but painting the rest of the world as the inept version of Thunderbirds is a bit aloof of all facts. ;) UN isn't much good for organising I admit, but we all do our bit too.
And we all know how well the UN runs their programs!!! Might as well just airdrop cyanide capsules so they can end their misery.
Hate all you want but you cannot dispute the fact that when it comes to emergency relief nobody can do it as efficiently and as quickly as the US. Not to mention that the US is typically the most generous...even to our enemies.
The US asked for (and received) international help for their own tragedies. Quit living in fantasy land.
Blowing your own trumpet has all but made you sounding like a rather unwelcome farting noise.
you know the saying: "empty vessels make most noise!".
BDunnell
10th May 2008, 12:53
And we all know how well the UN runs their programs!!! Might as well just airdrop cyanide capsules so they can end their misery.
I would be very interested to read your considered assessment of the excellent performance of the US authorities after Hurricane Katrina, for example. Hardly faultless except in a parallel universe where the facts are a stranger, was it?
Azumanga Davo
10th May 2008, 15:06
I would be very interested to read your considered assessment of the excellent performance of the US authorities after Hurricane Katrina, for example. Hardly faultless except in a parallel universe where the facts are a stranger, was it?
It's not international enough for discussion. :p : Although being on his doorstep, I thought it would have been obvious to all that it's not quite the crime-free rebuilt paradise we all expect. ;)
Placid
10th May 2008, 21:29
The US asked for (and received) international help for their own tragedies. Quit living in fantasy land.
Wait until they hear these 2 words: "Reality check!!"
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1739053,00.html?cnn=yes
BDunnell
10th May 2008, 21:54
The bravest, most courageous thing to do in these circumstances is surely not to invade, nor even to threaten it, but to force the aid through as has occurred in previous war zones. It's not safe and it's not easy, but it's deeply necessary.
By the way, I will be very interested to see how certain countries react if there is some sort of effort to get the aid through no matter what. It will be another test of China's efforts towards international acceptability, and Russia's current place in the international community, for instance. Do they criticise 'unlawful', 'aggressive' actions on the part of the US, UN or whoever, or do they realise that the humanitarian disaster is just too great to sit back and do nothing? In the case of the Chinese, the latter stance would be just a trifle hypocritical.
anthonyvop
10th May 2008, 22:14
I would be very interested to read your considered assessment of the excellent performance of the US authorities after Hurricane Katrina, for example. Hardly faultless except in a parallel universe where the facts are a stranger, was it?
Stop it right there.
I arrived in New Orleans 2 days after Katrina hit. The fed's response was incredible. The problem was the local Gov. (Mayor Nagin) and their criminal(In my view) actions leading up to, during and post storm.
Revisit the press's stories of Katrina. You will find that most were 100% fabrication.
The best part is all of those who bash the US will be the first one in line to accept aid from the US when the Sh*t hits the fan where you live.
BDunnell
10th May 2008, 22:54
Stop it right there.
No, I won't immediately do what you say. I said that the response to Katrina was hardly faultless, and I believe I am justified in that opinion.
Revisit the press's stories of Katrina. You will find that most were 100% fabrication.
I don't doubt that there were many incorrect stories about what happened, but there were clearly serious failings, hence the (non-independent) inquiry into the response.
The best part is all of those who bash the US will be the first one in line to accept aid from the US when the Sh*t hits the fan where you live.
Yet again, you demonstrate a quite spectacular lack of understanding of the way in which those outside of the right wing of the Republican party view the USA and its global efforts. Yes, it has been a force for good in many ways, but you can't expect that level of gratitude to follow US actions around for ever.
The best part is all of those who bash the US will be the first one in line to accept aid from the US when the Sh*t hits the fan where you live.
and vice versa, those countries who rushed to aid of the USA after Katrina were denied entry for all sorts of reasons.
I dont want to read the likes of say that no one helps America when it gets into trouble, because you're just talking out of your ......
bowler
11th May 2008, 00:00
I am surprised at you guys.
What makes you think that a country that was making loopy decisions will suddenly make good ones when it has been seriously ripped apart. Logic would suggest that the quality of the decision will get worse, not better.
BDunnell
11th May 2008, 00:07
I am surprised at you guys.
What makes you think that a country that was making loopy decisions will suddenly make good ones when it has been seriously ripped apart. Logic would suggest that the quality of the decision will get worse, not better.
I don't think anyone is suggesting anything other, but even so the level of insensitivity being displayed towards the situation gripping the nation is surprising to a reasonable mind.
airshifter
11th May 2008, 05:21
The bravest, most courageous thing to do in these circumstances is surely not to invade, nor even to threaten it, but to force the aid through as has occurred in previous war zones. It's not safe and it's not easy, but it's deeply necessary.
By the way, I will be very interested to see how certain countries react if there is some sort of effort to get the aid through no matter what. It will be another test of China's efforts towards international acceptability, and Russia's current place in the international community, for instance. Do they criticise 'unlawful', 'aggressive' actions on the part of the US, UN or whoever, or do they realise that the humanitarian disaster is just too great to sit back and do nothing? In the case of the Chinese, the latter stance would be just a trifle hypocritical.
This is the problem, though I agree with your thoughts. At what point do you decide that force is justified in helping people? According to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080508/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_myanmar;_ylt=AqXlP9LfO47ndn5ANtzuzldh24cA that article, France is already looking into it as an option. I personally don't think it's an unjust option to consider, though it appears the US is less willing to go with their initial plan.
In part from that article:
"Among other countries considering air drops are Italy and France, whose foreign minister has suggested the possibility of forcing assistance into Myanmar, officials said.
Pentagon officials have said they are wary of such a scenario because it could be considered an invasion. But French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said this week that air drops could be allowed under the U.N.'s "responsibility to protect" mandate, which applies to civilians.
Officials said there were several problems with unauthorized air drops, especially if there are no experts on the ground to monitor the distribution of aid. Desperate people could riot over the assistance and there is the possibility that security forces might confiscate it and keep it out of the hands of the needy, they said."
The US had problems with authorized drops and deliveries in Somalia, and I'm sure that has influence on their hesitation. But short of putting troops on the ground, it's clear that immediate assistance will not arrive to those in need.
If it was your decision, at what point do you risk what may appear to be a move for control to assist people?
Pentagon officials have said they are wary of such a scenario because it could be considered an invasion.
You can tell your smart guys in pentagon that long as you dont drop bombs or soldiers, only medical supplies, food etc. it would not be consider as an invation.
Also dropping from air propably would be the only way to get the help to those who need it, the roads there is very bad and there is rains on the way.
BDunnell
11th May 2008, 09:58
If it was your decision, at what point do you risk what may appear to be a move for control to assist people?
That would depend on so many factors, including many that you mentioned above. I really couldn't say. It seemed to take an awfully long time to do it in Bosnia, but these operations are so fraught with difficulties that caution has to be the watchword, balanced against the need to do something within a reasonable timescale.
Tens of thousands dead! 100's of thousands in need of immediate assistance!
Oh but better not let the U.S. come and help! They will ruin your little paradise.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080508/ap_on_re_as/myanmar_cyclone
It's not just Myanmar. Finland offered assistance after Hurricane Katrina but the US refused.
http://reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/0/c11d3bfefe023f7349257074000d5c11?OpenDocument&Click=
Finland offered help for Katrina's victims
Finland has offered assistance to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina. The Finnish Embassy in Washington conveyed to the US authorities the offer of the Ministry of the Interior to send a 30-member team of the Finnish Rescue Force to the disaster area. In addition, the Finnish Red Cross has dispatched three logistics experts to the United States.
Numerous countries around the world have offered to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina and the flood disaster caused by it.
And they also refused French aid initially:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina
The U.S. federal government refused French assistance initially, but on the 2 September, Rice said that the U.S. authorities would assess the situation and contact French authorities accordingly. On the 4 September, French assistance was formally requested. The French Ministry of Foreign Affairs offered its disaster relief stocks located in the Martinique, including 600 tents, around 1000 beds, 60 electrogenic groups, three pumps, three water purification stations, 1000 folding jerrycans, and other supplies.
Placid
29th May 2008, 04:30
Another year, another extension. The time is now for an invasion.
Another year, another extension. The time is now for an invasion.
I don't know if that would be wise. Although the Americans haven't been very efficient in in Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq, they might fight fiercely defending their own country, even if it's new to them.
I don't know if that would be wise. Although the Americans haven't been very efficient in in Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq, they might fight fiercely defending their own country, even if it's new to them.
Lol, nice.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.