Have you heard anything about Obama sponsored legislation that would take .7% of our gnp and use it to fight world poverty? The account I read says it could come to vote in the Senate very soon. I guess he is not satisfied with the 300 billion or so that we now send abroad. We can't afford him in the Senate, much less in the White House!

speechlesstx

Absolutely, and as the Standard's article notes that same UN is "stupefied" at the slow response.


Even when they do give attention to such atrocities the UN's most effective response is to "deplore" the situation. Unless you're talking Gitmo, the Patriot Act and the U.S. torturing terrorists...

tomder55

remember after the Iraq invasion the UN got together and declared they would be proactive in dealing with nations that abuse their citizens ?
The Responsibility to Protect

more empty rhetoric. just like their Millenium Goals are empty gestures

BABRAM

You implied it was just about the UN. The other day they permited some aid through when at first they would not. They are still welcoming of the aid. That's a fact. However the hold ups are happening to everyone; numerous organizations, UNICEF and Red Cross included. Now the hang-up with the junta is that they will permit aid, but not the workers. That part will also get resolved over the next few months and we just have to see how our government and the world deals with them.

speechlesstx

LOL, no, my point is that trusting the UN to "get it done" - as in ending world poverty - is as I said, an exercise in stupidity. The situation in Myanmar was just an example. The UN has done nothing about the human rights issues in Myanmar for how long? Now that they have a crisis, thousands are dying unnecessarily thanks in part to the UN's inability and unwillingness to do anything about the situation there over the years.

Sure they're welcoming the aid, and what they aren't giving out that's not rotten or sub par they're using as propaganda.

speechlesstx

Or using what they've been given as propaganda:

BABRAM

I don't know if I should laugh with you or at you?! Your argument is rudimentary flawed. Nobody has been getting it done in Myanmar for a long while. Not the UN, not the US, not Japan, not Australia, not UNICEF, not the Red Cross etc... Blaming the UN for a cyclone is equally idiotic to those that blamed Bush for hurricane Katrina. Most Americans didn't even know Myanmar existed and had it not been for a natural catastrophe would still be going about their everyday affairs. Myanmar is a third world country and although the the US is world first class, one could argue that their both controlled by crooks. The junta hoarding for themselves is no surprise, at least not to me. Like I said earlier, let's see how our government and the world deals with them. I'm getting bored now so let me ask you before I fall to sleep...what is it that you think the US should do (or should had been doing)???

tomder55

THERE is a certain familiarity to the concomitant series of actions and reactions when disaster strikes in the world. The US stands ready, willing and able to offer assistance. It is often the first country to send in millions of dollars, navy strike groups loaded with food and medical supplies, and transport planes, helicopters and floating hospitals to help those devastated by natural disaster.

Then, just as swift and with equal predictability, those wedded to the Great Satan view of the US begin to carp, drawing on a potent mixture of cynicism and conspiracy theories to criticise the last remaining superpower. When the US keeps doing so much of the heavy lifting to alleviate suffering, you'd figure that the anti-Americans might eventually revise their view of the US. But they never do. And coming under constant attack even when helping others, you'd figure that Americans would eventually draw the curtains on world crises. But they haven't. At least not yet.

So it was last week. The US stood ready to help the cyclone-ravaged Burmese people. It did not matter that Burma's ruling junta was no friend of the Americans. With more than 100,000 people feared dead and many more hundreds of thousands left destitute, US Air Force cargo planes loaded with supplies and personnel started arriving in nearby Thailand to begin humanitarian operations in Burma.

A US Navy strike group in the Gulf of Thailand sent helicopters ashore, ready to arrive in Burma within hours. Alas, Burma's military leaders left their people to die for 10 days before finally accepting help from the evil empire. Even if the Yanks are allowed to boost their assistance to Burma, they can expect a groundswell of criticism.

Back in 2004, the Americans - along with the Australians - arrived within hours to help the hundreds of thousands of people left devastated by the Boxing Day tsunami in Asia. A US carrier group steamed towards Indonesia's Aceh province. A second US Marine Corps strike force made its way to Sri Lanka with water, food and medical supplies.

The Pentagon spent millions of dollars sending C-130 transport planes from Dubai to Indonesia with tents, blankets, food and water. A navy chief in charge of co-ordination efforts said the US would deliver "as much help as soon as we can, as long as we're needed".

The resentment that comes from needing the military and economic might of the US translated into the most absurd criticism. Jan Egeland, the former UN boss of humanitarian affairs, cavilled about the stinginess of certain Western nations. His eye was on the US. Former British minister Claire Short was equally miffed, describing the initiative by the US and other countries as "yet another attempt to undermine the UN", which was, according to her, the "only body that has the moral authority" to help.

I love moral authority as much as the next guy, but the UN's moral authority is a mighty hard sell given that the UN club includes the most odious regimes in the world, such as Burma. And notice how the UN's moral authority did not quickly translate into helicopters laden with food and water?

When the UN finally does anything of use, it's propelled in large part by US dollars, with the US contributing more than any other country. Those other giants, China and Russia, are not filling the coffers of the UN's moral authority.

Then came the even more toxic comparisons between Iraq and US humanitarian assistance in Asia. In the anti-American mind, opposition to one US policy means blasting everything the Americans do. Of course, Egypt's Al Akhbar newspaper said the US was helping tsunami victims to "consolidate its hegemony" and had nothing to do with humanitarian and moral principles. But similarly rank reasoning was common. London's The Guardian newspaper columnist George Monbiot was not alone in sneering at US marines who, just a few weeks before saving lives in Sri Lanka, were "murdering civilians, smashing the homes and evicting the entire population of the Iraqi city of Fallujah".

The need to paint Americans as a greedy, selfish, war-mongering superpower cannot be disturbed by facts. It matters not that, in the year before the tsunami, the US provided $2.4 billion in humanitarian relief: 40 per cent of all the relief aid given to the world in 2003. Never mind that development and emergency relief rose from $10 billion during the last year of Bill Clinton's administration to $24 billion under George W. Bush in 2003. Or that, according to a German study, Americans contribute to charities nearly seven times as much a head as Germans do. Or that, adjusted for population, American philanthropy is more than two-thirds more than British giving.

There is a teenaged immaturity about the rest of the world's relationship with the US. Whenever a serious crisis erupts somewhere, our dependence on the US becomes obvious, and many hate the US because of it. That the hatred is irrational is beside the point.

We can denounce the Yanks for being Muslim-hating flouters of international law while demanding the US rescue Bosnian Muslims from Serbia without UN authority. We can be disgusted by crass American materialism and ridiculous stockpiling of worldly goods yet also be the first to demand material help from the US when disaster strikes.

The really unfortunate part about this adolescent love-hate relationship with the US is that, unlike most teenagers, many never seem to grow out of it. Within each new generation is a vicious strain of irrational anti-Americanism. But unlike a parent, the US could just get sick of it all and walk away.

The US has had isolationist periods in the past and it must be enormously tempted sometimes to have another one soon. The consequences of that possibility deserve some serious thought. If the neighbours worry about Russian bullying over oil and gas, just imagine a Russia unfettered by a US military presence in Europe. How long would South Korea, Israel or Taiwan last if the US decided it wanted to spend on itself the money it presently devotes to military spending in the Middle East and Asia?


None of this is to say the US does not deserve loud and frequent criticism. No country has as many or as strident critics - internally and externally - as the US. The US actually promotes such debate. But just occasionally we should moderate that criticism when circumstances demand a dose of fairness.

Indeed, why not break into a standing ovation every now and again? As more US C-130s and helicopters stand waiting on Burma's doorstep, desperate to help a shattered populace and stymied only by an appalling anti-US regime, this is one of those times.

Let's hear it for America.
Credit where it's due | The Australian

speechlesstx

No offense my friend but I think I should be the one chuckling, you can't seem to keep from addressing things I haven't said - like blaming the UN for a cyclone. LOL, I haven't gone off the deep end enough to imply such nonsense.

You're right that Myanmar has probably been off the radar for most Americans, but the reasons for that are another discussion. Surely you do remember though the pro-democracy protests that were all over the news last year. There was also the "8-8-88" protests of 1988 during which thousands were killed or vanished.

Now here's the thing, the UN is that global body of nations with the "shared responsibility" to secure rights, peace and freedom - not Japan, not the U.S., not Australia, not the Red Cross. Isn't that what everyone has been saying since we invaded Iraq? We should have let the UN do their job? They didn't do their job in Iraq. They haven't done their job in Burma. The best they can come up with is to be "graveley concerned" about the situation. The UN "notes with concern," "regrets," "stresses," "urges" and ultimately "deplores the continued violations of human rights in Myanmar." That was from a 1994 resolution. In 2002, the UN's decision was to endorse "the Commission's decision to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, as contained in Commission resolution 1992/58 of 3 March 1992**, for a further year, and to request the Special Rapporteur to submit an interim report to the General Assembly at its fifty-seventh session and to report to the Commission at its fifty-ninth session, and to keep a gender perspective in mind when seeking and analysing information."

How does a report that keeps "a gender perspective in mind" improve the "Situation of human rights in Myanmar?" It doesn't, it's as useless as being "gravely concerned" over the situation for 20 years.


You finally conceded the point. "The junta hoarding for themselves is no surprise" is the problem with trusting the UN to end world poverty. What should the U.S. do? I don't know, but to continue feeding a toothless, incompetent and corrupt UN that is increasingly anti-American isn't the answer.

BABRAM

[quote=speechlesstx]No offense my friend but I think I should be the one chuckling, you can't seem to keep from addressing things I haven't said - like blaming the UN for a cyclone. LOL, I haven't gone off the deep end enough to imply such nonsense.

None taken. I don't mind swimming over to visit you guys on the shallow end.




I'm also correct about the original posted data that we, the USA, made a commitment on world poverty as part of other countries worldwide. But since then I've been chasing Republican ghost images with the word "excuse" written across Casper's forehead.



Now here's the thing, the UN is that global body of nations with the "shared responsibility" to secure rights, peace and freedom - not Japan, not the U.S., not Australia, not the Red Cross. Isn't that what everyone has been saying since we invaded Iraq? We should have let the UN do their job? They didn't do their job in Iraq. They haven't done their job in Burma. The best they can come up with is to be "graveley concerned" about the situation. The UN "notes with concern," "regrets," "stresses," "urges" and ultimately "deplores the continued violations of human rights in Myanmar." That was from a 1994 resolution. In 2002, the UN's decision was to endorse "the Commission's decision to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, as contained in Commission resolution 1992/58 of 3 March 1992**, for a further year, and to request the Special Rapporteur to submit an interim report to the General Assembly at its fifty-seventh session and to report to the Commission at its fifty-ninth session, and to keep a gender perspective in mind when seeking and analysing information."


How does a report that keeps "a gender perspective in mind" improve the "Situation of human rights in Myanmar?" It doesn't, it's as useless as being "gravely concerned" over the situation for 20 years.

We declared war on Iraq and we "invaded Iraq." One, which was just stupid, and two, we didn't get enough full support and the countries that did initially backed off later. Why do you think that was??? I'll take time to refresh everyone memories on what I said from the beginning concerning our invasion: bomb them (Iraqi military installations and government buildings) until the hills are flat and make them go after their ruthless dictator. Don't be involved long it will only distract us from our pursuit of Osama Bin Laden. Iraq is not becoming the 51st state of the US.





Did you do the Vulcan mind-meld with Sky??? You're seriously starting to sound alike. I wrote everyone in these threads that I have a second home the SE Asia. To some degree, by experience, I understand the rebel mentality. I know what it's like to be staring down the end of a barrel. They run their country like the mafia. I told you that it is getting worked out. One day they (the junta) don't permit any aid into the country, next they allow some aid, but declared no aid workers are welcomed. They play games, hoard it and let some rot and go to waste. That's not blaming the US. It's unconventional to most Americans how we have to deal with their actions. I've stated twice before (to quote myself), "let's see how our government and the world deals with them." At least you admit not knowing. Now ripping the UN for their constant belligerence toward Israel, or the incidents in Africa when women and young girls were raped, and you'll have my knowledge of support. But don't beat on them when they are attempting to do good.


This has become repetitive and I don't see any reason to continue a thread that goes over everyone's views again and again. My wife wants to start applying for work so I need to free up the computer for her. She's been a homemaker and a good one, but we could use the second income. Catch everyone later.

speechlesstx

I'm waiting, I'm watching, and your next to last line here indicates you agree with me more than you'll admit

FYI, I'm not beating on them for trying to help in this disaster, I'm beating on them for decades of "attempting to do good" and getting nothing done.