U.N.: 1 million cyclone victims still lack aid

[ReillyT]

The stupid one is you, you advocate destroying the very infrastructure that is keeping millions alive to save some others. You claim no troops would be needed at all. You are an idiot.

Re-read the last several posts to see where you go wrong, and where I address this concern. Oh wait... you don't need to, because surely you realize that you are an intellectually dishonest buffoon. Never mind, you silly boy.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Re-read the last several posts to see where you go wrong, and where I address this concern. Oh wait... you don't need to, because surely you realize that you are an intellectually dishonest buffoon. Never mind, you silly boy.

The only dishonest one here is you. You advocate bombing the transportation network, the military/Government facilities that run the country and provide the current aid and all the communications net works Claiming that these acts of war will force the Government to allow in civilian aid to a million people, while ignoring the effect those attacks would have on the aid delivered to the REST of the Country and the resulting potential chaos.

 

[ReillyT]

The only dishonest one here is you. You advocate bombing the transportation network, the military/Government facilities that run the country and provide the current aid and all the communications net works Claiming that these acts of war will force the Government to allow in civilian aid to a million people, while ignoring the effect those attacks would have on the aid delivered to the REST of the Country and the resulting potential chaos.

Hmmm... no I didn't. I questioned whether targeted bombing could force the government to allow humanitarian aid in. I questioned whether perhaps this aid would exceed the ability of the current regime to help its citizens. I questioned whether if these premises are true, military action might be warranted.

Were you too stupid to get this the first time around... or are you full of shit?

I go either way on this last question. On the one hand, I don't think you are terribly honest or principled, so the former possibility is certainly viable. On the other hand, I have little difficultly believing that you are truly that stupid. You see, it is a tough call. My instincts lead me to believe that both are correct, but in this scenario, it is clear that you can only be dishonest or stupid, not really both. Of course, I must clarify that you may be dishonest here, but stupid generally. Yes, I think that sounds about right. What do you think?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Caught advocating war and the destruction of the very infrastructure to help the " victims" and as usual, unable to defend you, a good liberal and all, resort to attacking the person pointing out your ignorant position.

Batting 1000 today on that Liberal handbook are we?

 

[editec]

Drop humanitarian aid AND weapons. blanket the country with them.

Let the people of Burma heal themselves first, and then let themdeal with their own corrupt government.

 

[Larkinn]

The stupid one is you, you advocate destroying the very infrastructure that is keeping millions alive to save some others. You claim no troops would be needed at all. You are an idiot.

Link please that the military infrastructure is keeping "millions" alive?