Burma (Myanmar) another UN/ NATO failure?

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.

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.

Of course.

They'll all be talking on a high tech ear pieces to the NASA in space who will be telling them where the traps are around government premises.
Then out of nowhere this ONE guy who is responsible for all the evil in Burma will pop out, and some Daniel Craig looking chap will kill him and everyone will be saved.

Then, the hero will stick an American flag on top of the government institution and all will end well.

NATO is an institution of aggression - cannot see it being helpful in crisis such as this.

Unless there is something to bomb/destroy, in which case NATO should be consulted.

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.

YouTube video

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.