Comments on: This Week’s Dose Dream Mongering

By: Raven

Raven — Thu, 15 May 2008 15:07:14 +0000

I keep watching reports about how bad things are both Burma and China…and howls for the UN/world to act. The UN won’t take action on anything because it’s beyond their reach to even grasp this. Invasions are ok when its for UN defined humanitarian need…but they could care less about the people of these nations when natural disaster hasn’t struck.

By: civil truth

civil truth — Thu, 15 May 2008 07:24:07 +0000

Very interesting news reports (mostly Fox) as to how the OPEC countries are refusing to contribute to relief funds for aiding these countries. They’re even refusing to help Egypt which is facing food riots. Course these guys with all their oil money have been starving the Palestinians for generations, so this is just the same behavior.

And we all know that the OPEC countries have better things to do with their money than to help. :evil:

And as usual, the U.S. is the largest donor nation in the world.

And as far as U.N.-mediated military intervention, we’ll see the proverbial snowstorm in hell before that’s going to happen. China will veto in the Security Council, as it and other Asia powers have their trade contracts with Burma’s military junta to protect.

By: Jennifer

Jennifer — Wed, 14 May 2008 18:17:28 +0000

I like how these other countries want to say that the world can save Burma. Fine – do it yourself. Somehow I have a feeling US taxpayer money would be asked for and if it weren’t given then the US would be raked over the coals as inhumane. Let France do it – with their own money.

By: Bigfoot

Bigfoot — Wed, 14 May 2008 14:03:37 +0000

You’re inclining to unilateral approach set by the US. dangerous. The "unilateral approach" in Iraq? You mean the approach that produced a coalition of over 30 countries? You’d be dreaming if you think US can save the world. Agreed. I can think of only one Power that can save the world, and He hasn't yet returned. However, you've missed the point, kuma. The quote was "If we really want to save those people the world would stand up, beat the junta out of existence and take over that small country" (emphasis added). This quote is about "the world" taking over Myanmar and saving its people, not the US invading unilaterally and repeating our actions in Iraq. Do understand that we need to keep dialogues and actions miltilateral. Do understand that dialogoues with despots, tyrants and juntas can only be limited in their effectiveness. It’s got its budget and priority in invading other countries. See Iraq. Invading other countries is NOT a priority for the US. We invaded Afghanistan because they were harboring the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. We invaded Iraq after waiting for 12 years, under 3 presidents, for Saddam to stop flipping the bird at our demands and UN resolutions, and instead comply with them, which he never did.

By: kuma

kuma — Wed, 14 May 2008 06:28:29 +0000

By saying the junta should be beaten and ousted, you’re acknowledging the respnsiblity to protect. That the ruling (junta) failed to protect and others (UN ,US, France whosoever)should do something to protect the burmaese( by beating the junta).
So you’re in line with the R2P principle, except you don’t understand that aside from the US, other states are doing thei part and have their aid sent to burma to relieve the people there and tha the UN by condeming and urging really loosen the junta’s hold to block the country off from outside world.
You’d be dreaming if you think US can save the world. It’s got its budget and priority in invading other countries. See Iraq. Do understand that we need to keep dialogues and actions miltilateral. You’re inclining to unilateral approach set by the US. dangerous.