Burma (Myanmar) another UN/ NATO failure?

Everyones heard of whats going on in Burma(Myanmar) after the cyclone hit. Everyone starving, dieing & generally having a bad time of things.

Yet theres loads of ships full of aid and aid workers sitting in the ocean doing nothing. Because some daft military Junta won´t let them in.

Why don´t the UN/ NATO just give the military Junta the finger and go in with military suppport? Bloody pathetic politicians can only talk and scratch thier heads. Action is a foriegn word.

What do you think should happen?

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.

If you airdrop a battalion of special forces onto the government premises and take over it, there won´t be and collateral damage.

The people are gonna die of disease anyway if nothing happens soon.

Very frustrating situation

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Everyones heard of whats going on in Burma(Myanmar) after the cyclone hit. Everyone starving, dieing & generally having a bad time of things.

Yet theres loads of ships full of aid and aid workers sitting in the ocean doing nothing. Because some daft military Junta won´t let them in.

Why don´t the UN/ NATO just give the military Junta the finger and go in with military suppport? Bloody pathetic politicians can only talk and scratch thier heads. Action is a foriegn word.

What do you think should happen?

Simply invading a soveriegn nation isn't a good response. They don't know how the Junta would react to that and there are enough strained political relations around the world that I doubt politicans want to take risks.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
If you airdrop a battalion of special forces onto the government premises and take over it, there won´t be and collateral damage.

The people are gonna die of disease anyway if nothing happens soon.

Very frustrating situation

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.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
If you airdrop a battalion of special forces onto the government premises and take over it, there won´t be and collateral damage.

That doesn't quite work in reality, not to mention even if the UN did have DeltaForce Super soldiers types to use there would be virtually no margin for error. If an invasion sparks violence (not too unliked in a military Junta) more people will die and aid will be delayed further.

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 [their] 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 [their] 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.