Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

If anyone invades, then the situation for the Burmese people will just get worse. More people will die - 'collateral damage', it'll be called again - and the area will be classed as too volatile for aid agencies. Then there's the long-term consequences of such an extreme course of action.

As frustrating as it is, they're just gonna have to wait for approved entry.

yeah, i dont think that turning a disaster area into a war zone would help.

I would give the nod to invasion, removing the dictartoship, feeding the hungry and so on...but is just going cause more turnoil.

Disaster hits...people die. Invasion happens....people die. No matter what happens people are still going to die.

Things are never easy.

Invade? Oh great, the war on terror isn't even over, and now there's another type of long term war that'll happen? wasn't the cold war enough?

I say let the government kill their people and the "others" should do their best to get information to the people that their own government is f*cking them over from getting goods.

Let the people overthrow the government or die trying.


Edit-If the people are too stupid to think for themselves to save themselves, I say good riddance because "we don't need multiply".

Originally posted by dadudemon
Let the people overthrow the government or die trying.


Edit-If the people are too stupid to think for themselves to save themselves, I say good riddance because "we don't need multiply".

I know it's not as though they lack food, water, medical supplies and weapons.

it doesn't help that the only country that has the capability and the influence to help...namely China...is going through a rather large disaster of its own...50,000 dead and 5 million homeless from the earthquake

besides...even if military intervention was an option...who's capable of doing it at the moment?....certainly not the US or the UK...their forces are stretched far too thinly around the world as it is

it is definitely crises like this that show what an irrelevant and spineless talking shop the UN really is

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I know it's not as though they lack food, water, medical supplies and weapons.

That was somewhat my point.(Not the direct interpretation of what you said above, but the sarcastic point you were trying to make.) They most certainly do not have the resources to wage war against their own government.

However, I would rather die than live in a country that suppressed me and knowingly cause the death of my kinsmen. Maybe its because I hate suppression or maybe its because I am a cynic.

If they are too stupid to do for themselves when nothing else can be done, f*ck 'em. Good riddance.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That was somewhat my point.(Not the direct interpretation of what you said above, but the sarcastic point you were trying to make.) They most certainly do not have the resources to wage war against their own government.

However, I would rather die than live in a country that suppressed me and knowingly cause the death of my kinsmen. Maybe its because I hate suppression or maybe its because I am a cynic.

If they are too stupid to do for themselves when nothing else can be done, f*ck 'em. Good riddance.

There are much better times to rise up . . .

people living in abject poverty are the least likely to revolt, as any change (re: instability) causes them to suffer and potentially lose their means of survival. The poorest of the poor often don't have the option to revolt, as they use all of their effort to simply survive.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There are much better times to rise up . . .

Though it isn't nearly as bad...but were the Colonial Americans fully equipped to wage war with the British when we won our revolution? Besides, if the people started an uprising, am I very sure the Myanmar government would be much more susceptible to listening to outsiders and accepting support if they are dealing with protests from their starving people. If the people aren't willing to fend for themselves because they are afraid of death rather than saving their own damned lives, do they really deserve their life?

Are the people protesting in mass?

Edit-How else are the people going to get what they need? How many do you think the government would kill before the UN would threaten action against the government? How many will die with little to no aid? I would chose the former as the option because that would open up the doors for future "savings".

I don't think you understand the magnitude of the disaster.

Originally posted by inimalist
people living in abject poverty are the least likely to revolt, as any change (re: instability) causes them to suffer and potentially lose their means of survival. The poorest of the poor often don't have the option to revolt, as they use all of their effort to simply survive.

At the moment, how bleak is their "survival"? Humans are animals too. When faced with losing their live and their families' lives, humans get be just as vicious as any wolverine.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I don't think you understand the magnitude of the disaster.

Quite the opposite. I am referring to an entire nation protesting their suppressive government in anyway possible. Leave the country, die trying. Whatever.

If the people die in troves because of the lack of aid, do they deserver to die?

I am being harsh, I know. It pisses me off when shit like this happens.

We can't take out their government because that is a bullshit idea. (F*ck you, I don't feel like getting into reasons.) I have no idea how severe the conditions are in that country. Do they really need large amounts of aid to make it through the week or are we all victims of propaganda from western media? Are shit loads of people going to die of starvation or disease because aid can't get to them? If so, where's the evidence? Isn't there outsiders getting into the country? What are the conditions?

Originally posted by dadudemon
At the moment, how bleak is their "survival"? Humans are animals too. When faced with losing their live and their families' lives, humans get be just as vicious as any wolverine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness

oh, and why not

http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/abombs.html

anyways, not that I feel any of those really address the situation...

The oppression of the government isn't just police standing on the corner or people imposing taxes, like in your colonial example, it is both economic and developmental. These people don't have jobs or homes, they are barely making the money to feed their children. They are, in a very tragic way, dependant on the terrible social conditions for their survival, as any change is likely to lead to an instability which causes whatever pattern they have developed for survival to be disrupted, which could cause the death of their loved ones.

This is ignoring the fact that the people are not well armed and are against a modern military enemy.

Not to sound glib, but as a property owner in a free country, it is probably really easy for you to say you would die for your freedom. Hell, I'd say it too and I fall into the same privilaged boat (admittedly, I don't own land). We have something worth fighting for. Our lives would be made unquestionaly worse in a situation where the government was oppressive (re: more oppressive). In Myanmar, people don't have such luxeries. They don't have the autonomy in their daily lives to be better served by a free lifestyle. They require, for their sustinance, no change in the system as it is, regardless of how oppressive it is.

Look to both the french and russian revolutions. See where the major support for them came. Look at something like the Boston Teaparty, it wasn't those in abject poverty dumping tea into the water.

Originally posted by inimalist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness

oh, and why not

http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/abombs.html

anyways, not that I feel any of those really address the situation...

The oppression of the government isn't just police standing on the corner or people imposing taxes, like in your colonial example, it is both economic and developmental. These people don't have jobs or homes, they are barely making the money to feed their children. They are, in a very tragic way, dependant on the terrible social conditions for their survival, as any change is likely to lead to an instability which causes whatever pattern they have developed for survival to be disrupted, which could cause the death of their loved ones.

This is ignoring the fact that the people are not well armed and are against a modern military enemy.

Not to sound glib, but as a property owner in a free country, it is probably really easy for you to say you would die for your freedom. Hell, I'd say it too and I fall into the same privilaged boat (admittedly, I don't own land). We have something worth fighting for. Our lives would be made unquestionaly worse in a situation where the government was oppressive (re: more oppressive). In Myanmar, people don't have such luxeries. They don't have the autonomy in their daily lives to be better served by a free lifestyle. They require, for their sustinance, no change in the system as it is, regardless of how oppressive it is.

Look to both the french and russian revolutions. See where the major support for them came. Look at something like the Boston Teaparty, it wasn't those in abject poverty dumping tea into the water.

They do for themselves or they "earn" death.


100 years ago, we may not have this type of discussion.

Can you think of a better way to get this done?

Can we act on proxy of the poorest of poor people who lack the motivation to die for their families? Are they even aware that people are trying to send them goods? If they are not because they are so isolated, my point is all but moot. If that is the case, there really is not a "good" solution to this problem other than forcibly getting the people the goods needed.

I do not disagree on any level that they have been conditioned to accept their environments and may not posses the ability to "think outside the box". I don't know everything concerning the situation and i don't even know if its a possibility for them to consider alternatives.

As I pointed out, it may not be as bad as the media is making it out to be. The western media may be painting the Myanmar government much worse than they are and the situation is not as bleak as they make it out to be. This could be a ploy to open up to country and "The West" is taking advantage of this situation as much as possible. This may be part of the perspective that the Myanmar government has that is causing them to be so hesitant.



I'm all for people dying that won't do for themselves. That's just me. It's horrible, I know. Forgive my grumpiness towards the situation.

Team America: World Police could do it.

I was thinking about something I said earlier when I was working out.



Are they really that isolated that the people cannot get "arms" like the poorest of countries in the world contrasted to countries like Malawi or Ethiopia?

Their GDP per capita is down there among the poorest, I believe. If the situation is really bad, shouldn't the people move North?

Also, it looks like they were hardest hit where the most food is grown. Can anyone confirm that because I couldn't with a quick google search.

Here is a video of the aftermath...warning, it can be kind of graphic.

8PemtGzevT4

I would be pissed as hell if I were these people ONLY IF I knew that my government was preventing aid. After watching that video, I am pissed even more about this shit. Earlier, I blamed the people (sort of) for not going after their government more. Surely the people have heard via WOM that their government is preventing aid.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Are they really that isolated that the people cannot get "arms" like the poorest of countries in the world contrasted to countries like Malawi or Ethiopia?

Pretend you're running an oppressive military state for a moment. What's the first thing you don't want random people having any access to?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Pretend you're running an oppressive military state for a moment. What's the first thing you don't want random people having any access to?

Even though it looks like you understood what I was trying to ask, that didn't come out right...

I meant to ask...

"Are they really that isolated that the people cannot get 'arms'? Contrast that to countries like Malawi or Ethiopia."

In which case, your question answers my question quite well. Is it REALLY that hard to smuggle things into that country? I don't know if that question can be answered very well but I am sure things can be/are smuggled.

I blame George Bush.

He does not like Burma people.

Originally posted by KidRock
I blame George Bush.

He does not like Burma people.

That reminds me...what do we call their pythons now? "Myanmar Python" doesn't have as nice of a ring to it..hmm

I do not understand what NATO has to do with Burma... as far as I know it's a defence organization. Unless some guys get killed there by the Junta, they can't do anything... if that does happen, they can invoke article 5 (an attack on 1 is an attack on all).
So what am I missing that NATO is mentioned?

If the goal of the UN/NATO were to subvert the governments of soverign nations, I'd say yes it has failed.

as it stands

130,000 dead or missing
2 million without food, water, shelter or medicine

20 days after the event the current daily amount of aid reaching the country is 30% of what the aid agencies would like and of the 2.4 million people affected about a 3/4 of them have recieved no aid whatsoever

to put it into context the boxing day tsunami killed a total of 350,000 people...the burma cyclone, if aid is kept at this rate, is expected to kill nearly a million....the same amount of people killed in the Rwanda genocide....which burma is now being referred to in a UN article citing "passive genocide" by the military junta

to put it into further context....hurricane katrina...2500 dead or missing

Originally posted by jaden101

to put it into further context....hurricane katrina...2500 dead or missing

thanks for that. we amerikans dont think to good

here we go again...

face facts...most people on the board are from the US....the most recent disaster that sticks in people's mind will be Hurricane Katrina

both were the same natural phenomena that caused it...

thus a comparison can allow people to see how destructive the were in relation to each other

mind you...a big difference between the 2 is that the people of new orleans were given warning (if not the help to get out the way if they needed it) where as the people of Burma were most likely told nothing by their regime...not to mention that, for the most part, people in Katrina's path lived in decent housing that could withstand the power of the winds....where as in Burma they lived in what are effectively shanty towns

Originally posted by dadudemon
They do for themselves or they "earn" death.


100 years ago, we may not have this type of discussion.

Can you think of a better way to get this done?

Can we act on proxy of the poorest of poor people who lack the motivation to die for their families? Are they even aware that people are trying to send them goods? If they are not because they are so isolated, my point is all but moot. If that is the case, there really is not a "good" solution to this problem other than forcibly getting the people the goods needed.

I do not disagree on any level that they have been conditioned to accept their environments and may not posses the ability to "think outside the box". I don't know everything concerning the situation and i don't even know if its a possibility for them to consider alternatives.

As I pointed out, it may not be as bad as the media is making it out to be. The western media may be painting the Myanmar government much worse than they are and the situation is not as bleak as they make it out to be. This could be a ploy to open up to country and "The West" is taking advantage of this situation as much as possible. This may be part of the perspective that the Myanmar government has that is causing them to be so hesitant.



I'm all for people dying that won't do for themselves. That's just me. It's horrible, I know. Forgive my grumpiness towards the situation.

I think you categorically fail to understand the life of the very poor. They are "doing for themselves" by barely surviving. Things like personal freedom and democracy and revolution are far too abstract to deal with when you are going to lose your farmland (which is not adequate to pay your bills and feed your family anyways) and the local taxman is going to torture your son.

Like, its not that I don't get what you are saying, but these aren't people who have anything to die for in the way you are saying. Disposing of the government would not really help the life of the rural burmese farmer. Possibly in this specific scenario of the cyclone, but not, imho, in the general day to day life. For instance, what kind of government normally comes to power in the vaccum created after a revolution? Is it one that liberates people or oppresses people?

Originally posted by jaden101
here we go again...

face facts...most people on the board are from the US....the most recent disaster that sticks in people's mind will be Hurricane Katrina

here we go again indeed. it was obviously a shot at american apathy. and while you are partially correct, a substantial portion of kmc's demographic are NOT from the u.s. and yet this topic recieves little attention. maybe its the fault of white western 'only we matter' mentallity and not just us stupid americans who need our math done for us.

ZZZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMM

never thought of it that way. you've swayed me.

Originally posted by inimalist
I think you categorically fail to understand the life of the very poor. They are "doing for themselves" by barely surviving.

And I think you have relagated the poor to the intellectual capacity and psychological state of beaten dogs. They are not robots that are not able to go outside what they are "programmed to do". Doing for themselves is a must at this point. After a certain point, people would rather die. My earlier point was...if they don't even want to die, they deserver it. It is my cynical "evolution takes it course" perspective.

You've got psychology on your side in this matter. The only thing I've got is revolutions of times past. (In retrospect, the ARW is not the best of revolutions as comparison... )

Also, we still don't have great information on how severe their supply problem is. All I am hearing and seeing is problems getting aid to people who need it and the bureaucracy behind that.


Originally posted by inimalist
Things like personal freedom and democracy and revolution are far too abstract to deal with when you are going to lose your farmland (which is not adequate to pay your bills and feed your family anyways) and the local taxman is going to torture your son.

So revolutions/revolts have never happened under such circumstances? (That is both a rhetorical and a serious question...maybe I don't know history as well as I think...or maybe I am spot on with my idea that the poor will eventually take so much under the worst circumstances and try their damnedest for change or die trying.)

In light of that, things are not the same as they used to be hundreds of years ago where a people overthrows a suppressive governing body that they have been forced to pay taxes/tributes to and work for unfairly. The Myanmar government has an equipped military. Its not like the people can overthrow their government by just thinking about it. However, they shouldn't bend over and take in the ass as their children die from starvation around them. Almost all humans would rather die trying to get food for their children and extended family than slowly watching them die...regardless of depressed/learned behaviors due to environment.

Originally posted by inimalist
Like, its not that I don't get what you are saying, but these aren't people who have anything to die for in the way you are saying.

I've already conceded the point IF they are so suppressed and isolated that they do not even KNOW that their is absurd amounts of bureaucracy on their behalves for aid they will have no reason to migrate northeast AWAY from the disaster area towards government and the higher class areas of living.

Originally posted by inimalist
Disposing of the government would not really help the life of the rural burmese farmer.

I don't think I ever said disposing of the government is a good choice. Certainly, a protest and complaints would get the point across. I pointed something like this earlier:

How many of their own protesting and dying people would they have to hear/kill before their point got across that they need supplies? If the people are trying as much, then I have 0 complaints about what they are doing.

Again, if they have no clue the talks going on about them on their behalf, then my entire point is moot. They'd have no reason to protest. They wouldn't know any better.

Originally posted by inimalist
Possibly in this specific scenario of the cyclone, but not, imho, in the general day to day life. For instance, what kind of government normally comes to power in the vaccum created after a revolution? Is it one that liberates people or oppresses people?

So, what do you think is the best course of action other than the people begging/protesting their government for and about the aid being offered?



On another pertinent note, I can understand the Myanmar government denying the "strings attached" aid being offered by the US military. Have you heard about that? The audacity of our "in your business" government in a time like this.

Originally posted by Schecter
never thought of it that way. you've swayed me.

ok i'll be fair and explain it...it had nothing to do with American apathy...the fact is there are clearly some people posting in this thread who don't know the scale of the disaster....everyone is familiar with both the Tsunami and perhaps even more so, Hurricane Katrina...thus the comparison allows them to know the scale of the problem

personally i couldn't give a shit if they do or dont care about the situation...that's a personal choice...but they might at least make that choice from a point of knowlege rather than ignorance...and i'm trying to help them with that

to dadudemon

your point about the people leaving the country is highly flawed...for a start the people affected are those along the coast...they cant leave by sea because almost the entire fishing fleet (pretty much the only boats the people have) were destroyed in the cyclone...they cant leave by land because to a safe country because it's too far

even if they could leave by land where would they go?...China is dealing with its own disaster in which the body count is now 55,000+ and 5 million homeless because of the earthquake...

they cant go to thailand because they're still rebuilding from the Tsunami

as for a revolution...they are virtually impossible now simply because the army which controls the country have weapons where 1 man can kill hundreds of people...and we're talking about a country where, in 2007, a third of the population lived below the poverty line applicable to that country

not to mention that the last thing people have on their minds after something as destructive as this is to over throw their government...it's finding their family and piecing together their lives that has priority

it's also highly likely that in many parts the people simply dont know that aid is being withheld because the government controls the information to a similar extent to what it does in North Korea

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Everyones heard of whats going on in Burma

What do you think should happen?


Apparently, after watching the latest Rambo movie, the Burmese people believe America is going to come save them. I guess Stallone should stop encouraging them to watch Rambo. Or, maybe we should just keep making Rambo movie's until all of the people there are inspired to rise up.

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
Apparently, after watching the latest Rambo movie, the Burmese people believe America is going to come save them. I guess Stallone should stop encouraging them to watch Rambo. Or, maybe we should just keep making Rambo movie's until all of the people there are inspired to rise up.


duhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuh

over a hundred thousand people dead is funny.

oh keep posting please. never enough epic fail at kmc

Originally posted by Schecter
duhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuh

over a hundred thousand people dead is funny.

oh keep posting please. never enough epic fail at kmc

ahh, i see that bug is still up your ass.



you should really address that problem my friend.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And I think you have relagated the poor to the intellectual capacity and psychological state of beaten dogs. They are not robots that are not able to go outside what they are "programmed to do". Doing for themselves is a must at this point. After a certain point, people would rather die. My earlier point was...if they don't even want to die, they deserver it. It is my cynical "evolution takes it course" perspective.

You've got psychology on your side in this matter. The only thing I've got is revolutions of times past. (In retrospect, the ARW is not the best of revolutions as comparison... )

Also, we still don't have great information on how severe their supply problem is. All I am hearing and seeing is problems getting aid to people who need it and the bureaucracy behind that.




So revolutions/revolts have never happened under such circumstances? (That is both a rhetorical and a serious question...maybe I don't know history as well as I think...or maybe I am spot on with my idea that the poor will eventually take so much under the worst circumstances and try their damnedest for change or die trying.)

In light of that, things are not the same as they used to be hundreds of years ago where a people overthrows a suppressive governing body that they have been forced to pay taxes/tributes to and work for unfairly. The Myanmar government has an equipped military. Its not like the people can overthrow their government by just thinking about it. However, they shouldn't bend over and take in the ass as their children die from starvation around them. Almost all humans would rather die trying to get food for their children and extended family than slowly watching them die...regardless of depressed/learned behaviors due to environment.



I've already conceded the point IF they are so suppressed and isolated that they do not even KNOW that their is absurd amounts of bureaucracy on their behalves for aid they will have no reason to migrate northeast AWAY from the disaster area towards government and the higher class areas of living.



I don't think I ever said disposing of the government is a good choice. Certainly, a protest and complaints would get the point across. I pointed something like this earlier:

How many of their own protesting and dying people would they have to hear/kill before their point got across that they need supplies? If the people are trying as much, then I have 0 complaints about what they are doing.

Again, if they have no clue the talks going on about them on their behalf, then my entire point is moot. They'd have no reason to protest. They wouldn't know any better.



So, what do you think is the best course of action other than the people begging/protesting their government for and about the aid being offered?



On another pertinent note, I can understand the Myanmar government denying the "strings attached" aid being offered by the US military. Have you heard about that? The audacity of our "in your business" government in a time like this.

I had no idea you were such an idealist.

Even your ideas of migrating after overthrowing the government post-coup is crazy because who the hell would take them? Even Katrina victims are half-heartedly accepted in the cities that had them come in. That particular part of Asia is not exactly robust in resources.

So, the UN does have an affect. Just goes to show yet again how retarded the Bush manifesto is.

If only the international community had shown a little more backbone in the face of US pressure to invade Iraq, then maybe it wouldn't be the mess it still is.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
So, the UN does have an affect. Just goes to show yet again how retarded the Bush manifesto is.

If only the international community had shown a little more backbone in the face of US pressure to invade Iraq, then maybe it wouldn't be the mess it still is.

why do you hate freedom?

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
So, the UN does have an affect. Just goes to show yet again how retarded the Bush manifesto is.

If only the international community had shown a little more backbone in the face of US pressure to invade Iraq, then maybe it wouldn't be the mess it still is.

so 20 days of negotiation and it took ban ki-moon to go begging on his hands and knees to let aid in to the country is an effective institution?

and this was to a piss-ant little military junta...thus against the US????

if anything it proves the opposite because the diplomats in the UN hall didn't actually achieve anything

I just knew it would be you who'd reply to my post...

Ban Ki-moon got the job done, just as Kofi would have if he hadn't been bullied and ignored.

Of course the situations were different, but diplomacy worked this time.

Originally posted by jaden101
so 20 days of negotiation and it took ban ki-moon to go begging on his hands and knees to let aid in to the country is an effective institution?


Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
diplomacy worked this time.

source?

Read/watch/listen to the news.

actually, I'm asking you to back up your claims, something I shouldn't have to do for you

why not just post a link to one of the obviously countless sources you have digested?

No need. Just do what I told you to do in that last post.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
I just knew it would be you who'd reply to my post...

Ban Ki-moon got the job done, just as Kofi would have if he hadn't been bullied and ignored.

Of course the situations were different, but diplomacy worked this time.

it shouldn't take him to do the job though should it...if it does then it makes the whole idea of having diplomats representing each country at the UN building in New York totally irrelevant....why bother having that talking shop in the 1st place




20 days after the cyclone Ban Ki-moon finally went to Burma after all other diplomatic avenues failed....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/burmamyanmar/2013318/Burma-to-allow-foreign-aid-workers-after-UN-Secretary-General-Ban-Ki-moon's-junta-talks.html

Originally posted by jaden101
to dadudemon

your point about the people leaving the country is highly flawed...for a start the people affected are those along the coast...they cant leave by sea because almost the entire fishing fleet (pretty much the only boats the people have) were destroyed in the cyclone...they cant leave by land because to a safe country because it's too far

I appreciate you respectfully addressing my post...it would seem that doing that is all but lost in today's version of KMC.

Anywho...

I never said leave the country by sea or land. I said:

Originally posted by dadudemon
...migrate northeast AWAY from the disaster area towards government and the higher class areas of living.



Originally posted by jaden101
even if they could leave by land where would they go?...China is dealing with its own disaster in which the body count is now 55,000+ and 5 million homeless because of the earthquake...

they cant go to thailand because they're still rebuilding from the Tsunami.

These two points/examples don't follow as I never gave the option of leaving the country by land or sea...however, it does bring up a good point that Myanmar's neighbors have their own problems.

Originally posted by jaden101
as for a revolution...they are virtually impossible now simply because the army which controls the country have weapons where 1 man can kill hundreds of people...and we're talking about a country where, in 2007, a third of the population lived below the poverty line applicable to that country

I made a similar point:

Originally posted by dadudemon
In light of that, things are not the same as they used to be hundreds of years ago where a people overthrows a suppressive governing body that they have been forced to pay taxes/tributes to and work for unfairly. The Myanmar government has an equipped military. Its not like the people can overthrow their government by just thinking about it.




Originally posted by jaden101
not to mention that the last thing people have on their minds after something as destructive as this is to over throw their government...it's finding their family and piecing together their lives that has priority

I never said overthrowing their government was a viable option. I mentioned revolution (and alluded to that probably failing) and protesting or petitioning their government. That latter two are definitely much better choices and I concede that a revolt is NOT an option.

Originally posted by jaden101
it's also highly likely that in many parts the people simply dont know that aid is being withheld because the government controls the information to a similar extent to what it does in North Korea

I have considered this point and mentioned it twice in my posts in this thread. Information doesn't travel nearly as fast in third world populations as it does in information age populations.

In conclusion, it appears that we are not too far off in our perspectives. There is a main difference: I don't like people that won't do for themselves and will rather keel over and die rather than fight for their families.


Edit- It appears that any of these point being discussed are moot. It appears that the government is allowing aid into the country significantly more freely. Does anyone have a source on that?

Originally posted by chithappens
Even your ideas of migrating after overthrowing the government post-coup...

I never said that...

Originally posted by dadudemon
Does anyone have a source on that?

Originally posted by jaden101
20 days after the cyclone Ban Ki-moon finally went to Burma after all other diplomatic avenues failed....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/burmamyanmar/2013318/Burma-to-allow-foreign-aid-workers-after-UN-Secretary-General-Ban-Ki-moon's-junta-talks.html

Not to be overly cynical, but I wonder what the Junta is getting in return for allowing aid in?

Could this be another North Korea scenario? Where the world props up a despot to try and help the people they are oppressing?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I never said that...

Actually you did. You even used the word migrate in quoted in your response to Daudemon.

Originally posted by jaden101
it shouldn't take him to do the job though should it...if it does then it makes the whole idea of having diplomats representing each country at the UN building in New York totally irrelevant....why bother having that talking shop in the 1st place

The diplomats are the foundation where the census is built, but the secretary general is the shop where the decisions are sold.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Actually you did. You even used the word migrate in quoted in your response to Daudemon.

No I didn't.

I NEVER talkd about migrating AFTER overthrowing the government.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No I didn't.

I NEVER talkd about migrating AFTER overthrowing the government.

You want them to migrate toward the people they're supposed to overthrow?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I appreciate you respectfully addressing my post...it would seem that doing that is all but lost in today's version of KMC.

Anywho...

I never said leave the country by sea or land. I said:







These two points/examples don't follow as I never gave the option of leaving the country by land or sea...however, it does bring up a good point that Myanmar's neighbors have their own problems.



I made a similar point:








I never said overthrowing their government was a viable option. I mentioned revolution (and alluded to that probably failing) and protesting or petitioning their government. That latter two are definitely much better choices and I concede that a revolt is NOT an option.



I have considered this point and mentioned it twice in my posts in this thread. Information doesn't travel nearly as fast in third world populations as it does in information age populations.

In conclusion, it appears that we are not too far off in our perspectives. There is a main difference: I don't like people that won't do for themselves and will rather keel over and die rather than fight for their families.


Edit- It appears that any of these point being discussed are moot. It appears that the government is allowing aid into the country significantly more freely. Does anyone have a source on that?

you're welcome...i dont think much of the so called discussion is particularly good either...but that's probably another discussion altogether

from your 1st point though

you said



the rest of it yeah i pretty much agree with but at times such as disaster...initially a person's thoughts only turn to keeping themselves and their family alive....that's why the need for aid is paramount





this will generally show you how effective the UN is in disaster zones

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5402756.stm

http://www.ewire.com/display.cfm/Wire_ID/2448

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You want them to migrate toward the people they're supposed to overthrow?

Multiple points were made. The particular point that you are referring to is simply moving towards the captial cities, away from the disaster areas. No mention of overthrowing the government. It was almost an aside point..not even the main point.

But the point was made. I don't think even of them are viable. They show good intention but hardly anything you said seemed realistic.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That was somewhat my point.(Not the direct interpretation of what you said above, but the sarcastic point you were trying to make.) They most certainly do not have the resources to wage war against their own government.

However, I would rather die than live in a country that suppressed me and knowingly cause the death of my kinsmen. Maybe its because I hate suppression or maybe its because I am a cynic.

If they are too stupid to do for themselves when nothing else can be done, f*ck 'em. Good riddance. This has to be one of the most ignorant comments I've seen in a while. And considering this is KMC, well done.

its really the mantra of human garbage. ddm=fail+aids

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
I don't think any foreign government in the world would commit any resources to an action like that. Also, I think this is real-life, not a video game.

And here I was doing quests, raising my XP.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
This has to be one of the most ignorant comments I've seen in a while. And considering this is KMC, well done.

Why thank you.


Do you want to make love now?

edit-my bad with the whole "evolution" thing.

Originally posted by Schecter
its really the mantra of human garbage. ddm=fail+aids

Do elephants have aids?

Originally posted by jaden101
this will generally show you how effective the UN is in disaster zones

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5402756.stm

http://www.ewire.com/display.cfm/Wire_ID/2448

That's interesting and I take your point, but I also think the situation discussed in the first link is something that must happen to nearly all aid agencies. Due to the circumstances of a disaster, complete control over the affects of the aid is unmanageable.

Aiding Burma has no benefit for the US ofcourse they're not going in, it's not sitting on Oil like Iraq..

did i make a booboo?

and please don't say NATO Dont say UN it's America okay, everything is America which is why they are very hated nation..dont get me wrong I DO NOT HATE AMERICA - but in their bid to become a Global Constabulary they are making the worst possible decisions for global stability.

America uses its vast power for invading Iraq for their oil..when it could probably end world hunger in under 5 years..but that would cost more money than it would make.

it's a choice between respect and fear - America chooses to be feared.

2 quotes come to mind when i think of America (as much as i do not hate them)

"Price comes before the fall" Ancient Hebrews

and

"Iron Fists rust" Juken

Originally posted by Juk3n
Aiding Burma has no benefit for the US ofcourse they're not going in, it's not sitting on Oil like Iraq..

did i make a booboo?

and please don't say NATO Dont say UN it's America okay, everything is America which is why they are very hated nation..dont get me wrong I DO NOT HATE AMERICA - but in their bid to become a Global Constabulary they are making the worst possible decisions for global stability.

America uses its vast power for invading Iraq for their oil..when it could probably end world hunger in under 5 years..but that would cost more money than it would make.

it's a choice between respect and fear - America chooses to be feared.

2 quotes come to mind when i think of America (as much as i do not hate them)

"Price comes before the fall" Ancient Hebrews

and

"Iron Fists rust" Juken

Was any of the relevant?

ok, so you dont hate america but america is the satan of the world, its all our fault, and we're doomed...but you dont hate america....death to america...god bless america. great

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Was any of the relevant?

of course it was. its all america's fault.

did you see our wicked cool cyclone making machine yet?

Originally posted by Juk3n
Aiding Burma has no benefit for the US ofcourse they're not going in, it's not sitting on Oil like Iraq..

did i make a booboo?

and please don't say NATO Dont say UN it's America okay, everything is America which is why they are very hated nation..dont get me wrong I DO NOT HATE AMERICA - but in their bid to become a Global Constabulary they are making the worst possible decisions for global stability.

America uses its vast power for invading Iraq for their oil..when it could probably end world hunger in under 5 years..but that would cost more money than it would make.

it's a choice between respect and fear - America chooses to be feared.

2 quotes come to mind when i think of America (as much as i do not hate them)

"Price comes before the fall" Ancient Hebrews

and

"Iron Fists rust" Juken

it's actually pride comes before a fall

you fail

Originally posted by Schecter

over a hundred thousand people dead is funny.



Rape is funny?

Originally posted by HmmK?
Rape is funny?

yes.

Originally posted by Juk3n
Aiding Burma has no benefit for the US ofcourse they're not going in, it's not sitting on Oil like Iraq..

did i make a booboo?

and please don't say NATO Dont say UN it's America okay, everything is America which is why they are very hated nation..dont get me wrong I DO NOT HATE AMERICA - but in their bid to become a Global Constabulary they are making the worst possible decisions for global stability.

America uses its vast power for invading Iraq for their oil..when it could probably end world hunger in under 5 years..but that would cost more money than it would make.

it's a choice between respect and fear - America chooses to be feared.

2 quotes come to mind when i think of America (as much as i do not hate them)

"Price comes before the fall" Ancient Hebrews

and

"Iron Fists rust" Juken

"Everything is America", what does that mean?

If America invaded Iraq to steal it's oil, why has the price of a gallon of fuel doubled since the war began?

How could America end world hunger in "about 5 years", why is it America's responsibility to end world hunger?

A rusty iron fist can be beneficial, not only can you crush the poor and innocent with that rusty fist, but you can give them tetanus while you're doing it. Seems like a win-win.

lol rusty iron fist rape

Originally posted by HmmK?
Rape is funny?

hmmm...

hmm That's a good point.

Originally posted by Schecter
lol rusty iron fist rape



*hangs from Schecter's hairy nuts.* WEEEEE!

Originally posted by Schecter
lol rusty iron fist rape

http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc300/jkdboxer28/iron_fist.gif

You can't even imagine.

Originally posted by Robtard


If America invaded Iraq to steal it's oil, why has the price of a gallon of fuel doubled since the war began?


Without going into some things you would obviously be skeptical about, how would you explain gases prices continuing to rise although the government would tell you we have Iraq under control?

Originally posted by Robtard
If America invaded Iraq to steal it's oil, why has the price of a gallon of fuel doubled since the war began?

Greater control over a precious, yet depleting resource.

Originally posted by chithappens
Without going into some things you would obviously be skeptical about, how would you explain gases prices continuing to rise although the government would tell you we have Iraq under control?

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Greater control over a precious, yet depleting resource.

(Edit: And please don't use the "I won't go into things you're skeptical of", as you don't know what I am and am not.)

Iraq isn't under control and even if it was, America still wouldn't control the oil, we're little more than paid thugs.

I'm not entirely convinced oil is running out or even running low. Who tells us what the "oil crisis" level is at? Big Oil does, and it's in their best interest to have the monopoly on a rare resource than a common one.

Similar in how De Beers controls the price of diamonds. Diamonds aren't rare in the slightest, the Earth makes them constantly, though control the flow in which they're taken out, you control the price at which they're sold.