• Google
    This Blog Web

October 2011

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          

RSS Feed

Bookmark and Share

Email Feed



  • Powered by FeedBlitz

« Snarky Quote of the Month | Main | (Limited) Nano Futures »

May 07, 2008

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Karl Gallagher

Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of his subjects in man-made disasters. I consider that sufficient grounds for intervening. Others disagree. One thing we should agree on is that any real regime change, in any country (Iraq, Japan, Burma, etc.) will take a long time and a lot of blood.

Hal

My feeling is that ultimately it is up to the populace of these countries to take matters into their own hands. Perhaps this terrible failure on the part of the government will motivate average citizens to refuse to cooperate with such a dysfunctional regime.

Jon

Let's go to war with Burma. Overthrow their current dictators and put in a new puppet ruler. Oh wait, they are a poor country right? Nevermind...

Nato Welch

That depends entirely on the intervention being considered.

One is tempted to believe that your implication here is that the US invade, occupy, and rebuild the government of Burma into something more careful in order to promote better disaster readiness.

But why do you need government to do that?

Granted, there are many more important reasons to demand better, more representative, more careful government, but I don't think there's anything that says government is the only one permitted to build public disaster preparedness infrastructure.

To boot, contributions to private, foreign-funded efforts to do so would certainly be much cheaper (for them and us) than invasion, occupation, and paying KBR, Blackwater, and Halliburton to burn truck fleets and "misplace" palette-loads of cash.

The US may have the most powerful military industrial complex in the world, but that doesn't make it omnipotent. We need to re-think what it is we think we can really accomplish by waving our bombs around - ESPECIALLY if we can achieve the same objectives more efficiently and less destructively for all concerned.

Michael Anissimov

Invasion, yes. Would cost far less than Iraq. Not as much religious fanaticism in the area, less likelihood of theocracy taking its place.

We love "peace", but what about when war is required to liberate people from totalitarian rulers that torture thousands of their citizens every day?

Pious Thomas

We Indians are with Myanmar. Our prayers are offered to God to protect them from all disasters. let the god almighty save them at the earliest from this calamity. I request the people of the world countries to help them. Let God give them the courage and will to live and do good for others. I shall contribute to this cause the little I can.

Promising our prayers

Pious Thomas

Mike Treder, CRN

In response to some of the comments, I should emphasize that I am not implying that any one nation, including the U.S., should consider acting unilaterally. The only effective large-scale actions would be those that are backed by wide consensus and carried out through international bodies.

Mike

"Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of his subjects in man-made disasters. I consider that sufficient grounds for intervening. Others disagree." I take it you've forgotten who put Saddam in power, and who he worked for, and who paid for the 1980-88 war against Iran which cost over a million lives, and who supplied him with nerve gas, and who had no problem with him using the nerve gas on his own people, and who after he committed the genocide of the Kurds sold him more weapons. I'll give you a hint, it was the US of _ (buy a vowel). I guess you also forgot that the invasion had nothing to do with humanitarian issues and was undertaken through the guise of WMD's. America has never gave a dam about the Iraqi people, the largest atrocity ever visited upon the innocent in Iraq was Bill Clinton's economic sanctions which murdered 1.5 to 2.2 million men, women, and children. If you want to cool your blood off have a look at this little gem of Madeleine Albright justifying the slaughter of 500,000 children. http://youtube.com/watch?v=lK_QshS2EW8
The interview compares it to Hiroshima, but a better comparison for me would be the fact that more children died as a result of Clinton's sanctions than died in the gas chambers of Auschwitz. Don't get me wrong Saddam was killer, but he was only made possible by the Presidents who supported him. Both Bushes and Clinton should have been walking that gallow with Saddam. Believe me the Iraqi's aren't stupid, their better informed about the history of British/American imperialism in their county than you or me, yet we have the gall to ask why they keep shooting at occupying troops.

Michael Anissimov

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1739053,00.html?cnn=yes

Tom Craver

There's invading, and then there's invading.

Why not "invade" their air space, in order to air drop supplies all over the country, with the transports protected by Air Force fighters?

"Invade" their coastal waters to deliver supplies by landing craft - with our navy protecting the deliveries. Sure, criminal gangs and government agents will grab up some of it - but every time they do, that'll be another dent in the dictator's reputation, another reason for his people to overthrow him.

If General Than Shwe wants to weaken his limited military trying to attack the "invaders", so much the better.

Get UN approval if possible, but it'd be intersting to see who would object to an unauthorized "invasion" to provide relief supplies...

Tom Craver

We should all give thanks to George Bush, for so lowering the standard of what is needed for violating the sovereignty of a country, that even good liberals are able to now think about invasion as a means of "doing good".

Imagine Iraq in 2003 had a cyclone - one that had killed off 10s or 100s of thousands of people by starvation and lack of medicines and so forth - all made far worse by Sadaam Hussein. Suppose GW Bush decided to invade for no other reason than to help the Iraqi people.

Would things be any better there now, for having had higher motives?

What is this road paved with, and where is it going?

The comments to this entry are closed.