Marijuana.com

sterbo

Once again we have many hundreds of thousands of people dying, starving and suffering unimaginably.

Last week's cyclone in Myanmar (Burma) was bad enough, but as we've seen, the Government there is refusing virtually all aid - food, medical supplies, etc.
They continue to refuse any of the thousands of trained volunteers offering their services, to enter the country.
As a result there will shortly be a new wave of suffering that could easily dwarf that of the cyclone itself.

And yet the solution is readily at hand.
The world's aid organizations need only coordinate plane loads of the required supplies and parachute them in.
There's no way Myanmar's leaders can effectively do anything to stop it.
Sure, it would be a violation of their sovereign air space. So what?

Additionally, I'm sure there would be no end to the numbers of aid workers who would be willing to brave the danger of parachuting in (and their subsequent time on the ground) with the aid supplies.
And I bet independent contractors like the infamous Blackwater USA would be all too happy to donate their services providing protection for the aid workers as necessary

Bottom line is - What are we waiting for?
We blanket the countryside with the desperately needed aid and stave off a 2nd round of death, disease and destruction...

 

Trocisp

Because they are an independent nation, and what you're talking about is considered an act of war.

Not to mention, we need to help ourselves before we help others. I am perfectly okay with helping someone when they ask for it, and when you have it to spare. But they're not asking for it - in fact, they're turning it away.

We couldn't take care of New Orleans after Katrina, there are still problems there that need to be fixed (I believe that in some areas, sewage still leaks into the fresh-water system from time to time).

__________________
"No references to the need to fight terror can be an argument for restricting human rights." - Vladimir Putin
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." - Sir Winston Churchill
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
"Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months." - Oscar Wilde
"I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who overcomes his enemies." - Aristotle

IGemini

Considering that Myanmar is an isolated, military-operated country and has been for over 40 years (probably for good reason, having not been spared European imperialism), violation of air space is a pretty big "so what." Flying any unapproved place into foreign air space is grounds for it to be shot down. So yes, they can effectively do something about it. And regardless of the degree of human casualty, we would be in the wrong for trying to do supply drops without approval. Such is international politics.

Jake

I believe that if the workers/troops are willing to do it, there is no reason not to practically peacefully-invade their country with foodstuffs. We'll have air force planes dropping them off, and we'd be very clear of our intentions which would only be to give food to people who need it. I just don't think that a ruling party would risk their complete loss of popular support by stopping/seizing it.

I only hope that somehow these people can eat, one way or the other.

__________________

Trocisp

The current "party" in power isn't a party at all.

It's a Authoritarian Dictatorship that enforces its power with the Military. Popularity isn't exactly their first concern. And they'are already stopping supply shipments and aide workers.

And, quite frankly, it doesn't matter how "clear" you make your intentions. They have already said no, and they actually have a military policy that applies to this.

That's from the Tatmadaw charter/policy, and they would consider, without question, any unauthorized access to their territory as a violation of their territorial integrity. And they would be perfectly within their rights to shoot down any planes over their country.

They have many AAA scattered throughout the country (and 100+ Radar/Early warning systems), and in order to "air drop" supplies and/or personnel into the area, we'd no doubt have to take very significant risk to Air Force personnel and equipment.

 

Freedom_User

What gets me is the media. Tens of thousands of people have died over this tragedy. But, after a breaking report of 50,000 people have died. Shortly followed is the Hannah Montana and it's sold out concert.

I was watching a clip on the news, and their was literally bodies washed up on the shore line. I don't care what anyone has to say, but the biggest, baddest mother fuckers at one point in their life will need help eventually.

__________________

sterbo

I'm well aware of that. Like I said, Who cares?
This 4th rate, petty & corrupt, Podunk dictatorship is going to do exactly what?
Send up their bullshit fighter planes to take on the Allied Forces?
Hardly.

No. We are the "leaders of the Free World" eh. We need to help anyone we have the ability to help. And if it makes you feel any better - by doing so we also help ourselves.
"They"?
They are the degenerate leaders I reference above. "They" are letting tens, if not hundreds of thousands, of men women and children starve to death and die in horrible pain and suffering for absolutely no rational reason whatsoever.

Lets get real here. We're not talking about invading and/or occupying the country.
We're talking about a United relief effort and then we're gone.

Apples and oranges Tro.
And by the way, you say "we couldn't take care of New Orleans after Katrina, there are still problems".
I submit that it's not "we".
It's this utterly inept Administration that couldn't find a moral compass if one was glued to both their hands...

SpiralArchitect

I think it's really terrible what is happening, here is my 2 cents though

We are offering help to this country. Their government is denying it. People are dying. This is terrible...

Is this any different than a government initiating a genocide? Or even different from the gov't allowing militias to kill hundreds of thousands of people? Or what about a gov't just letting its citizens die after a natural disaster?

Not really. In the end, hundreds of thousands are dead. The well-being of a nations citizens is the responsibility of the government. The cause isn't important, the people are what is important.

Aid is being offered, and they are turning it down. They aren't supply aid themselves, so we really have to ask ourselves, is it imperative for us to step in and 'save' these people?

My answer is no. If the Buramese government doesn't want our help and is in fact denying it and the possibility of them attacking us for attempting to help than I say they are on their own. Leave them be...

The only other option is invading their country. How many more countries must we invade in the attempt to create justice, democracy and 'save lives'? How about we work on our own problems for once? I understand we have the resources and ability to help other countries, but c'mon folks, it's a simple shitty fact of life that natural disasters annihilate human populations.

My stance would totally be different if the government wanted and accepted help... I'd have to say I totally agree with IGemini when he said

edit: One last thought

We bring up Katrina and our governments failures, good point. What if in that situation China, or Russia had decided to invade us because we were fucking everything up? Our approval/disapproval aside, it's just something to think about....

__________________
I embrace my desire to
feel the rhythm,
to feel connected enough to step aside and weep like a widow
to feel inspired, to fathom the power, to witness the beauty, to bathe in the fountain,
to swing on the spiral of our divinity and still be a human.

Trocisp

For one, I do. Along with everyone else in the world who doesn't want someone elses will forced upon them.
When dropping in supplies and personnel from the air, you have to fly at lower altitudes than you would simply flying over, lower flights mean easier targets for AAA. AAA + Warning radars + low flying planes = more dead american boys and girls.

Don't need planes to shoot planes down.

In ye olden days, best planes made or broke a battle, now all but the best fighter jets and spy planes can be shot down with Shoulder fired anti aircraft rockets.

No, we're "another country." We don't need to be the leaders of anything.

Sticking our noses where it doesn't belong is what got us into Iraq in the first place.

Yep. And if you'd like America to enter into another Iraq war situation, lets go depose their government.

No, you're talking about violating the sovereignty of another nation.

That's an act of war, it doesn't matter what your motivations are. You're talking about violating the Geneva conventions in what, by definition is a "War of Aggression."

You say the Administration can't get shit done, yet you want them to violate the sovereignty of another nation in an attempt to send supplies to a country that has already, specifically, said that it doesn't want them. You're talking about putting men and women of the Armed forces at risk.

It's not apples and oranges, sterbo, it's apples and apples. People need help, right here in the USA, and they're not getting. 1 in 7 are uninsured, diabetics go without insulin, people with heart problems go without cardiograms... fix yourself, then fix others. That's why when you're on a plane they say "Secure the mask over your own face before helping children who may be near you."

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, sterbo...

sterbo

I'm really having a hard time grasping how providing food to starving people equates to having "someone elses will forced upon them". The people that is.
So called leaders who eat cake while their people die by the hundreds of thousands don't qualify as "someone" to me
Yea I hear ya. I know there are risks but come on. Burma? I really doubt that, even if they decided to shoot at us, they are even remotely a match.
We are the United States of America. We constantly tell ourselves and the rest of the world that we are the example to which all should aspire. It's our duty, and frankly our privilege, to set an example for all mankind in their darkest moments.

Ain't that the truth. But what I'm suggesting has absolutely nothing in common with Iraq.

You digress. Common Tro. Lets keep our eye on the ball. A series of air drops.
I wonder. Can you put yourself in their shoes? Pull yourself away from your books, TV and bong for a minute. Your Mom and little brother are lying on the ground, without shelter, without food and increasing contaminated water - injured and crying out to you in their agony for help and you have nothing to offer but your love. And then you hear rumors of the Americans going to airdrop food and medical supplies.
What exactly do you think your reaction would be?
1- No fucking way, they're going to violate the sovereignty of our airspace?
2- Thank you god, please, please make it that they come in time.

I don't recollect that when we did exactly this in Bosnia and Serbia that we were condemned by anyone in the free world, let alone being subject to charges of violating the Geneva Conventions.

Yea, this Administration is inept and pathetic but that doesn't mean they've never done anything with precision or with a momentary sense of morality.
Really now. This isn't rocket science (well sort of).
And yea. I want to help you save your Mom and little brother from a fate worse than you and I can really imagine.
The path to Hell is what haunts you when you die my friend...