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

[Gunny]

Associated Press
updated 16 minutes ago

BANGKOK, Thailand - More than 1 million people still don't have adequate food, water or shelter a month after a devastating cyclone swept through Myanmar, and it's not clear what the military junta is doing to help them, the United Nations said Tuesday.

Humanitarian groups say they continue to face hurdles from Myanmar's military government in sending disaster experts and vital equipment into the country. As a result, only a trickle of aid is reaching the storm's estimated 2.4 million survivors, leaving many without even basic relief.

more ... U.N.: 1 million cyclone victims still lack aid - Myanmar cyclone - MSNBC.com

 

[cbi0090]

more ... U.N.: 1 million cyclone victims still lack aid - Myanmar cyclone - MSNBC.com

France is advocating going in by force with aid. Those nasty French!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

France is advocating going in by force with aid. Those nasty French!

Let them. Haven't we been told over and over that such actions are simply never warranted? Oh wait, I forgot, when the left LIKES a war, it is perfectly fine to invade, conquer and kill for just about any reason.

 

[ReillyT]

Let them. Haven't we been told over and over that such actions are simply never warranted? Oh wait, I forgot, when the left LIKES a war, it is perfectly fine to invade, conquer and kill for just about any reason.

Oh... what a lovely straw man you create. It is so fluffy, so cute, so... ripe for abuse.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Oh... what a lovely straw man you create. It is so fluffy, so cute, so... ripe for abuse.

Go ahead, explain why we have the right to invade another Country because YOU think the problem is something we should invade over, but we shouldn't invade a Country for other reasons. There is a word for that.

We should invade and fight a war, killing the very people we have come to save, in order to save them?

As REPULSIVE as the situation is, we have no right to force the Government there, by force, to do anything. Iraq we invaded for the purpose of defense. Talk about an elective war, invading Burma because of this would take the cake.

And remind me how France and Europe have been chomping at the bit to invade places like the Sudan where murder and starvation are rampant?

 

[cbi0090]

The UN has the "legitimate" right to use military force in this case. France is really testing it's resolve. We're sending our carrier's home because...well, we all know why.

 

[ReillyT]

Go ahead, explain why we have the right to invade another Country because YOU think the problem is something we should invade over, but we shouldn't invade a Country for other reasons. There is a word for that.

Explain what? The decision to take military action is always determined on a case by case basis, often with varying arguments as to its desirability based on the circumstances. No two situations are identical. Is this really so complicated?

We should invade and fight a war, killing the very people we have come to save, in order to save them?

I know this is a crazy scenario, but what if people aren't referring to an invasion? Maybe the problem all along is that you didn't understand that there can be military action short of invasion. I understand it is a difficult concept.

As REPULSIVE as the situation is, we have no right to force the Government there, by force, to do anything. Iraq we invaded for the purpose of defense. Talk about an elective war, invading Burma because of this would take the cake.

Actually, according to the UN, there is a responsibility to defend threatened populations, such as in the case of genocide or forced starvation. I am not personally advocating any military action, but I think what those who do advocate military action would suggest is something closer to what we did in Kosovo/Serbia than what we did in Iraq. Of course, that interpretation might just hinge on how badly Iraq has turned out.

And remind me how France and Europe have been chomping at the bit to invade places like the Sudan where murder and starvation are rampant?

I am going to ignore the invasion bit again, as it is a silly concept to be so focused on. Perhaps the situation in Burma could be more easily resolved then the situation in Sudan, which has involved government forces, extra-governmental forces, several independent rebel groups in the west, and an independence movement in the south. I know, complexity makes your head hurt, but try to keep up.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Explain what? The decision to take military action is always determined on a case by case basis, often with varying arguments as to its desirability based on the circumstances. No two situations are identical. Is this really so complicated?



I know this is a crazy scenario, but what if people aren't referring to an invasion? Maybe the problem all along is that you didn't understand that there can be military action short of invasion. I understand it is a difficult concept.



Actually, according to the UN, there is a responsibility to defend threatened populations, such as in the case of genocide or forced starvation. I am not personally advocating any military action, but I think what those who do advocate military action would suggest is something closer to what we did in Kosovo/Serbia than what we did in Iraq. Of course, that interpretation might just hinge on how badly Iraq has turned out.



I am going to ignore the invasion bit again, as it is a silly concept to be so focused on. Perhaps the situation in Burma could be more easily resolved then the situation in Sudan, which has involved government forces, extra-governmental forces, several independent rebel groups in the west, and an independence movement in the south. I know, complexity makes your head hurt, but try to keep up.

LOL, usual leftoid excuse making. So mister military genius, tell us how we FORCE Burma to do what we want? I mean with no threat of military action? Shall we bomb their infrastructure? Ya that will help the situation. Perhaps drop supplies from aircraft flying illegally over their territory? Ya lets remember how well that worked in Afghanistan and we had their permission.

How exactly does one use their military to force another country to do what they want with out invading if said country just ignores your demands?

 

[ReillyT]

LOL, usual leftoid excuse making. So mister military genius, tell us how we FORCE Burma to do what we want? I mean with no threat of military action? Shall we bomb their infrastructure? Ya that will help the situation. Perhaps drop supplies from aircraft flying illegally over their territory? Ya lets remember how well that worked in Afghanistan and we had their permission.

How exactly does one use their military to force another country to do what they want with out invading if said country just ignores your demands?

Well, since you don't understand the difference between military force and invasion, I will try to explain it to you very slowly.

If I were to advocate the use of force in Burma, I would take this into account.

Burma is controlled by a military junta. Basically, a few generals at the top use the military to keep control of the population.

What would frighten these generals? First, one could lay waste to the compounds where they live. Second, one could target the information infrastructure that enables them to spew propaganda to the masses and communicate with the armed forces in the field. Third, one could directly target elements of their military and the military infrastructure that allows them to keep control of the country. These are just some suggestions of things that fall short of invasion, but which do involve military force. Perhaps targeted bombing would force them to allow humanitarian aid in and perhaps it would not, but this is the type of stuff that is being referred to, not full invasion.

Is it really so complicated?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well, since you don't understand the difference between military force and invasion, I will try to explain it to you very slowly.

If I were to advocate the use of force in Burma, I would take this into account.

Burma is controlled by a military junta. Basically, a few generals at the top So you WOULD bomb the very infrastructure needed to use the military to keep control of the population.

What would frighten these generals? First, one could lay waste to the compounds where they live. Second, one could target the information infrastructure that enables them to spew propaganda to the masses and communicate with the armed forces in the field. Third, one could directly target elements of their military and the military infrastructure that allows them to keep control of the country. These are just some suggestions of things that fall short of invasion, but which do involve military force. Perhaps targeted bombing would force them to allow humanitarian aid in and perhaps it would not, but this is the type of stuff that is being referred to, not full invasion.

Is it really so complicated?

So you WOULD bomb the very Infrastructure that supports most of the population and allows what aid is moving in the country to move. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[ReillyT]

So you WOULD bomb the very Infrastructure that supports most of the population and allows what aid is moving in the country to move. Thanks for clearing that up.

There are different kinds of infrastructure. Burma has precious little of the kinds of economic infrastructure that one normally discusses. That is part of the reason that the country is so poverty stricken. However, it has a rather large infrastructure of control that could be targeted with minimal impact on civilian populations. TV and radio stations, government compounds, military bases, etc. These are the things that would probably be focused upon, as they are the pillars upon which military control exists.

Is it difficult to remain so obtuse? I mean, does it take active effort or does it come naturally? Does it tire you out after a long day?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There are different kinds of infrastructure. Burma has precious little of the kinds of economic infrastructure that one normally discusses. That is part of the reason that the country is so poverty stricken. However, it has a rather large infrastructure of control that could be targeted with minimal impact on civilian populations. TV and radio stations, government compounds, military bases, etc. These are the things that would probably be focused upon, as they are the pillars upon which military control exists.

Is it difficult to remain so obtuse? I mean, does it take active effort or does it come naturally? Does it tire you out after a long day?

Is your ignorance ever going to meet it's limits? That military is the ONLY thing moving supplies in said country. It is the only thing providing any form of Governmental control. You want even MORE people to be in danger of starving, go ahead bomb out the only means to keep them alive

 

[ReillyT]

Is your ignorance ever going to meet it's limits? That military is the ONLY thing moving supplies in said country. It is the only thing providing any form of Governmental control. You want even MORE people to be in danger of starving, go ahead bomb out the only means to keep them alive

Did you see the bit about 1.1 million people needing aid? The UN and the WFP could feed those people, with or without the assistance of the Burmese military, which isn't doing the job anyway. In fact, it is actively preventing food from being shipped to areas. The WFP often picks up the slack for governments incapable of feeding their populations. That is its function.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Did you see the bit about 1.1 million people needing aid? The UN and the WFP could feed those people, with or without the assistance of the Burmese military, which isn't doing the job anyway. In fact, it is actively preventing food from being shipped to areas. The WFP often picks up the slack for governments incapable of feeding their populations. That is its function.

Ya that should be easy enough after we bomb their military, comm sites and major transport facilities.( the military) not to mention the cities and towns those bases are in.

Last I checked there are a hell of a lot more than 1 million people in Burma that need aid. But hey those others can suffer cause they accepted aid from that corrupt government anyway.

Ever try to deliver aid in war zone? Ya a civilian group is gonna pull that off with out troops on the ground.

Ohh and exactly how is anyone in Europe gonna bomb anything in Burma? Wait, I forgot, we should do it.

 

[ReillyT]

Ya that should be easy enough after we bomb their military, comm sites and major transport facilities.( the military) not to mention the cities and towns those bases are in.

Last I checked there are a hell of a lot more than 1 million people in Burma that need aid. But hey those others can suffer cause they accepted aid from that corrupt government anyway.

Ever try to deliver aid in war zone? Ya a civilian group is gonna pull that off with out troops on the ground.

Ohh and exactly how is anyone in Europe gonna bomb anything in Burma? Wait, I forgot, we should do it.

This disagreement appears to boil down to a simple empirical question, from which follows possible solutions.

Could targeted bombing influence the Burmese government to allow aid operations to flow into their country? If yes, move to question 2. If no, don't take military action.

If yes, could the WFP, UN, and anyone else who is interested, supply greater levels of aid and save more lives than the Burmese government currently? If yes, consider a military option, moral questions being evaluated. If no, don't take military action.

I think this is the analysis that the French are undertaking when they refer to possible military responses. If you answer yes to both questions, you should also consider military responses. In the end, it is an empirical question based on our best evaluations of the facts currently in operation.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

This disagreement appears to boil down to a simple empirical question, from which follows possible solutions.

Could targeted bombing influence the Burmese government to allow aid operations to flow into their country? If yes, move to question 2. If no, don't take military action.

If yes, could the WFP, UN, and anyone else who is interested, supply greater levels of aid and save more lives than the Burmese government currently? If yes, consider a military option, moral questions being evaluated. If no, don't take military action.

I think this is the analysis that the French are undertaking when they refer to possible military responses. If you answer yes to both questions, you should also consider military responses. In the end, it is an empirical question based on our best evaluations of the facts currently in operation.

And again, you do not mind wars as long as they are something YOU support, but hey "Thanks for playing" TM 2008 RGS

 

[ReillyT]

And again, you do not mind wars as long as they are something YOU support, but hey "Thanks for playing" TM 2008 RGS

Do I mind wars if I support them??? Hmmm... by definition, no.

I guess you are right. Very insightful.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Do I mind wars if I support them??? Hmmm... by definition, no.

I guess you are right. Very insightful.

And so the "holier then thou" atttitude about any war is hypocritical when it comes from you, but thanks for clearing that up.

 

[ReillyT]

And so the "holier then thou" atttitude about any war is hypocritical when it comes from you, but thanks for clearing that up.

An example of RGS's logic.

Because you support military action in some instances, it would be hypocritical of you to not support military action in all instances.

Do you see how stupid this is?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

An example of RGS's logic.

Because you support military action in some instances, it would be hypocritical of you to not support military action in all instances.

Do you see how stupid this is?

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.