[speechlesstx]

Steve I think the death toll will rise dramatically above the numbers cited as medeval pandemics occure because of the lack of a timely response.

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

Yet the air of self-delusion which the Burmese regime breathes so freely is shared by others, particularly those in the cloistered confines of the United Nations. For years, as the military junta has brutalized and impoverished its population, U.N. officials either have ignored its atrocities or imagined they could be negotiated away.

Indeed, the same U.N. institutions that have accommodated and "engaged" the Burmese government are stupefied by how sluggishly the regime has responded to this disaster.

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 Millennium Goals are empty gestures

[BABRAM]

Echo? You said "this is getting resolved" and I said it wasn't. Doesn't sound like an echo to me :D

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]

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. ;)

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.

Myanmar's military regime distributed international aid Saturday but plastered the boxes with the names of top generals in an apparent effort to turn the relief effort for last week's devastating cyclone into a propaganda exercise.

The United Nations sent in three more planes and several trucks loaded with aid, though the junta took over its first two shipments. The government agreed to let a U.S. cargo plane bring in supplies Monday, but foreign disaster experts were still being barred entry.

State-run television continuously ran images of top generals—including the junta leader, Senior Gen. Than Shwe—handing out boxes of aid to survivors at elaborate ceremonies.

One box bore the name of Lt. Gen. Myint Swe, a rising star in the government hierarchy, in bold letters that overshadowed a smaller label reading: "Aid from the Kingdom of Thailand."

"We have already seen regional commanders putting their names on the side of aid shipments from Asia, saying this was a gift from them and then distributing it in their region," said Mark Farmaner, director of Burma Campaign UK, which campaigns for human rights and democracy in the country.

"It is not going to areas where it is most in need," he said in London.

[speechlesstx]

The report today said that the junta is confiscating the aid and sending spoiled food to the people instead.

Or using what they've been given as propaganda:

Myanmar's military regime distributed international aid Saturday but plastered the boxes with the names of top generals in an apparent effort to turn the relief effort for last week's devastating cyclone into a propaganda exercise.

The United Nations sent in three more planes and several trucks loaded with aid, though the junta took over its first two shipments. The government agreed to let a U.S. cargo plane bring in supplies Monday, but foreign disaster experts were still being barred entry.

State-run television continuously ran images of top generals—including the junta leader, Senior Gen. Than Shwe—handing out boxes of aid to survivors at elaborate ceremonies.

One box bore the name of Lt. Gen. Myint Swe, a rising star in the government hierarchy, in bold letters that overshadowed a smaller label reading: "Aid from the Kingdom of Thailand."

"We have already seen regional commanders putting their names on the side of aid shipments from Asia, saying this was a gift from them and then distributing it in their region," said Mark Farmaner, director of Burma Campaign UK, which campaigns for human rights and democracy in the country.

"It is not going to areas where it is most in need," he said in London.

[BABRAM]

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.

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 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]

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.

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.

Myanmar is a third world country and although 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)??

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'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.

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

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.

[inthebox]

http://creationsafaris.com/crev200805.htm



What was the UN’s founding goal? World peace: to have nations work out their differences by diplomacy rather than war. There is arguably no war since its founding that the UN has successfully prevented, and oftentimes, it has made things worse.
The same goes for its “humanitarian” causes. The world has known about the Sudan genocide for years; millions have died, and the UN has done worse than nothing: reports of UN workers raping the people they were sent to help have been scandalous. UN workers also stood idly by or fled during the Rwandan genocide. The UN was irrelevant in Cambodia, or in Iraq, or in any communist or radical-Islamic country you can name. The first relief workers on the ground after a disaster are usually privately funded Christian ministries like World Vision. The UN is so inefficient with relief, it sends supplies locals cannot use (condoms to families who are starving), or the food rots on the tarmac, or it is delivered into the hands of corrupt dictators. Imagine the craziness of sending relief to the Sudanese government, which uses it to buy weapons to attack Darfur! Millions of Africans die from malaria but the UN opposes spraying to kill the mosquitos that carry it. Millions die from AIDS but the UN opposes teaching people about the most effective prevention: abstinence.
As for diplomacy, UN General Assembly meetings become soap boxes for the most radical countries to denounce the West. Since there are so many of small-country dictatorships, any voices of reason from democratic countries are often drowned out. The Security Council can never oppose totalitarian atrocities because one of the worst perpetrators, China, has veto power, as did communist Russia throughout the Cold War. The UN’s inability to act is legendary. Regardless of what you think about the Iraq war, President Bush’s coalition waited and waited for the UN to act on its own resolutions which mandated a military response to Saddam Hussein’s violations of UN rules. Coalition leaders pleaded with the UN to act on its own promises. The UN did nothing.
Meanwhile, the magnitude of the scandals at the UN – oil-for-food being one of the worst in history – is breathtaking. Does anything change? Kofi Annan brought in Paul Volcker to investigate and propose reforms. Volcker found that oil-for-food was not unique, but endemic to the UN’s practices. He proposed sweeping reforms, including opportunities for outside audits. None of them were passed. After months of negotiations, the reforms were rejected by a margin of two to one! Endemic corruption has thus been validated as official UN policy.
The world is now teetering under the threat of a nuclear Iran and North Korea, but the UN is essentially irrelevant, if not obstructionist in countering the threat. In sum, the greatest threat to world peace is now arguably the very institution chartered to safeguard it.