DescentBB

What do you think?

I don't know. This one's a toughy, so I haven't answered the poll yet.

If you invade, innocent people get killed in the crossfire. Look what happened in Iraq.

If we do nothing, people will still die of starvation and disease.

If you drop supplies from the air, the military will probably steal a lot it for themselves.

If we mind our own business, we'll look like we're heartless and approving of the military government that's in power.

It's a massive clusterf**k no matter which way you look at it!

tunnelcat wrote:I don't know. This one's a toughy, so I haven't answered the poll yet.

If you invade, innocent people get killed in the crossfire. Look what happened in Iraq.

If we do nothing, people will still die of starvation and disease.

If you drop supplies from the air, the military will probably steal a lot it for themselves.

If we mind our own business, we'll look like we're heartless and approving of the military government that's in power.

It's a massive clusterf**k no matter which way you look at it!

I agree 100% but lets let them all die then we divide the country up.

oops post count

Ya lets invade, the world hates us already because we have become the worlds police-force. it will give people more reasons to hate the Imperialistic Americans and GW

Since the government of Myanmar is hopelessly disorganized the simple thing to do is just anchor a ship in the Irrawaddy Delta and start delivering the goods directly to the people. The army hasn't left Rangoon since that is where the rich folks live and if they even managed to notice you were there they would be unable (and I think unwilling) to do anything but write a \"strong letter of protest\" to the U.N. General Assembly. A little gum flapping and general finger wagging would take place and a few hundred thousand people would be saved from unnecessary death by disease and starvation.
I think this is a strategy by the Myanmar military to depopulate the delta and then divide the land up amongst their buddies when the place drains and becomes habitable again as the rice bowl of the region. Heartless bastards that they are.

Let natural selection take place. We will end up the bad guys no matter what we do.

CUDA wrote:Ya lets invade, the world hates us already because we have become the worlds police-force. it will give people more reasons to hate the Imperialistic Americans and GW

Just to be clear, the question involves the United Nations, not The United States.

Oh in that case. no, let natural selection dictate there fate.

Overfly.

Right now their governement are removing indications that it was forign aid and sticking their labels on the aid that gets through.

I know it shouldn't matter, so long as the people get the food right?....but that really pisses me off anyway. The cargo needs huge ass US of A stickers, and contain mostly salsa, white onions, and blue corn chips.

IMO, The UN should not invade but as fellow human beings we should not turn our backs on people in need (especially in so much need).

If we fly over and drop supplies to the people, two things will happen. 1) Supplies often won't get to people who need them (people even in need tend to be quite greedy) and 2) it permits the current government/regime to continue holding the people down under their control.

Do nothing and we're no better than their current government.

Doing everything we can get permitted to do allows 1) the needy people to get needed supplies and *maybe* a better chance of the supplies getting distributed fairly. 2) At the same time the needy people get to see that we are not as bad as their government has been telling them. Also, 3) we get to show some deference to the currently recognized authority ... 4) perhaps get to build better ties to help things be better for the people in the long run.

It may suck, but IMO that's a better choice.

[quote]Doing everything we can get permitted to do allows 1) the needy people to get needed supplies and *maybe* a better chance of the supplies getting distributed fairly. 2) At the same time the needy people get to see that we are not as bad as their government has been telling them. Also, 3) we get to show some deference to the currently recognized authority ... 4) perhaps get to build better ties to help things be better for the people in the long run.
quote]
That sounds familiar...

I haven't even heard of this, I'll post a reply once I research it a bit.

Doing everything we can get permitted to do allows 1) the needy people to get needed supplies and *maybe* a better chance of the supplies getting distributed fairly. 2) At the same time the needy people get to see that we are not as bad as their government has been telling them. Also, 3) we get to show some deference to the currently recognized authority ... 4) perhaps get to build better ties to help things be better for the people in the long run.

That sounds familiar...

I haven't even heard of this, I'll post a reply once I research it a bit.

How does one get into a country when that country's leadership doesn't want you there?

Do we bomb their infrastructure, then drop food?

As horrific and terribly tragic as this has been, until we are invited, we can't get in, period, end of discussion.

And as for those forty-one members of the house who asked Bush to consider an \"aid intervention\", consider this: after the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina, when two dozens nations offered immediate aid, their aid was refused by the Bush administration.

Both the governments of the US and Myanmar didn't want to be embarrassed internationally by the shocking lack of resources, infrastructure, and preparedness which led to the devastation both Hurricane Katrina and Cyclone Nargis left behind.

I voted to overfly and drop food. Although that's what I'd like to do, I'm not sure it would be effective for many of the reasons already stated here. I'd like to see us try though. There's not much the Burma government could do about it.

I voted No. Help the third-world countries, then help the second-world countries.

TIGERassault wrote:I voted No. Help the third-world countries, then help the second-world countries.

Hmm, we agree on something - that's scary

what the heck is a \"second world country?\" (serious question here)

Is there a provision in the Geneva Convention for something like this? ... not that I think we or the UN should occupy them ... please..

Lol! The U.N. invade....anything?!?! Yes!!! I'd love to see that! Reminds me of the old saying Looks like two monkeys fu@#ing a football

That's... uh... sorta... my thought. The U.N. invade a country? I don't think so. No.

World government flexing some new muscles?

Agreed. Invasion is not the best way to help these people.

As far as air-dropping supplies, I'd say no to it being done by governments (with international relations as tenuous as they are), but I would support it being done by private organizations willing to take the risk.

I honestly don't care if the Myanmar government is dis-labeling the supplies. It does the same good no matter who gets the credit.

No, WE do the invading FOR the UN. Or they offer to act as a \"mediator\" like in Lebanon and get they're behinds kicked in the possess.

They UN never \"invades\" anyone.

Duper wrote:what the heck is a "second world country?" (serious question here)

Is there a provision in the Geneva Convention for something like this? ... not that I think we or the UN should occupy them ... please..

Have a map:
First world (blue), Second world (red), Third world (green)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ds_map.svg

As crazy as it sounds Duper, there are actually contingency plans at the UN to invade countries when the governments are incapable or unwilling to help disaster victims.

Source….The News Hour (PBS) If it aint true…blame them…

TIGERassault wrote:

Duper wrote:what the heck is a "second world country?" (serious question here)

Is there a provision in the Geneva Convention for something like this? ... not that I think we or the UN should occupy them ... please..

Have a map:
First world (blue), Second world (red), Third world (green)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ds_map.svg

LMAO! Thanks for the sign Tiger!

I honestly have never heard of that. Maybe because it's only Communist countries. Or those recently having succeeded Communism. Incidentally, Communism is still alive and well in Russia. I think we'll see the revival of the USSR (to great extent) in the somewhat near future.

It doesn't surprise me Spidey. The UN wants to take our guns away too. ..which has nothing to do with this thread.
Although I'm not sure what to think about it. I have several thoughts on the matter that conflict with each other and I just haven't spent the time to sort them out.

...put that on my to do list.