Re: Re: Burma (Myanmar) another UN/ NATO failure?
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 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.
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
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
source?
20 days after the cyclone Ban Ki-moon finally went to Burma after all other diplomatic avenues failed....
Originally posted by jaden101
to dadudemonyour 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 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....
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 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 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
Quite the opposite. I am referring to an entire nation protesting their suppressive government in anyway possible. Leave the country, die trying. Whatever.
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
The diplomats are the foundation where the census is built, but the secretary general is the shop where the decisions are sold.
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
However, a new report from the Sustainable Development Network -- Disasters and development* -- shows that the UN strategy is an unmitigated failure. The study concludes that the UN strategy has done nothing to reduce the impact of natural disasters. Indeed, the UN seems so far removed from reality that it claims that an increase in discussion of natural disasters is a sign of success! Yet talk-fests such as the WCDR are probably making things worse by diverting attention away from the real causes.