Well, either you take a strict national integrity view, in which case it's none of our business and the people of Burma are to blame for the government they have, or you take the view that the government is an illegitimate imposition and bomb the bastards.

Personally I'd bomb the bastards, but that's just me.

With the world under the thumb of the progressive negativist hegemony, anything you do, or don't do, will be decried as wrong, so until we get rid of the tranzi arseholes it's all entirely hypothetical anyway.

I mean, basically they're a bunch of fux collectvtist debt trashers, if you know what I mean.

As sad as it is, I tend to think that whatever aid we give is just another way to help and keep those bastards in power.

If people get really desperate, they might start to look at the reason why. If they're kept just so, the bastards stay where they are.

There once was a time...actrually within living memory, boys & girls... when we could have done something...now we can't even get rid of our own bastards & their (our) masters in Brussels.

Keep sending the stuff. Parachute it in, more and more and more.

There's only so much tonnage of gear that "officials" and the "Burmese Army" (what they need an army for then?) can steal, rob, confiscate and sell.

Mix the drops with neat whisky, or Gin. that'll fix the looters, then the real stuff like medicies and antibiotics can go in, after the looter fascist statist bastards are dead drunk, or dead or both.

I take the strict national integrity view: (1) It's none of our business. (2) People (including us!) get the government they deserve, and if things get bad enough they'll do something about it or suffer the consequences. (3) It is immoral for our government to tax us and send the money to foreign countries, however noble the intent; such charity should be strictly private.

Well I'm for steaming right in and ignore the Generals and their thugs.If they give us any trouble they will be very sorry.
Screw National integrity, what Integrity have those murdering, thieving callous bastards got?
They obviously dont give a flying fuck for "The People".

I'm a human being first and Libertarian way second.
I cannot contemplate doing nothing while 1 million plus fellow humans are murdered through neglect by their own govt.

Save lives now!
We can sort the ideology later.

So, RAB, you take the position that we're the World Police, and it's our job to rush in and rescue people from their own governments? Such hubris. Sorry, but in my opinion spending tax dollars on military adventures of that sort is just as bad (worse, actually) than spending them on humanitarian aid. You want to topple the Burmese military government? Fine; raise an army and go do it. Just don't pick my pocket in the process.

No Laird, I dont think we are the worlds police
anymore than Oxfam thinks it is the worlds food provider.
Indeed I am against most Aid for the third world because it has become, like our own Welfare state, a crutch, that is never going to help people walk tall and straight again.
On the contrary, it will cripple them for the rest of their lives, and childrens childrens lives.

But this is a pure humanitarian stance I am taking here.
Just like I got my arm broken whilst helping a neighbour from being attacked, I just cannot pass by on the other side when someone calls for my help.

A head full of theories is all very well
but counts for nothing
If you dont have a heart full of Soul.

There are three US carriers and a French warship with thousands of tons of rice in easy chopper distance.

Just friggin do it! Get in there!
If the Burmese Military try to shoot down aid Choppers
what kind of fuckin monsters will they look to the world?

They dont give a damn of course!
Just get in there, and fuck the Junta!

What RAB said.

It's just population control for them. It's 10's of thousands of poor mouths it dosen"t have to help feed, or defend against.

I pretty much go along with RAB.
Take the aid in, and protect the aicraft carrying it on the way in and out.

Tell the Generals that's what will be done, don't ask them.
And don't give aid for the Burmese authotities to control the distribution.

But that looks a lot like an invasion, doesn't it?
It's not easy, but it's the least bad option.

I cannot see a justification for war. Bombing the junta won't trigger a glorious revolution that brings in peace and human rights. It might even trigger a drawn out inconclusive civil war. A full-scale invasion and occupation would be required, with all the related horrors and difficulties that brings.

If you want to invade somewhere in the name of making it a better place to live, invade Congo or Somalia, both of which make life in Burma look like paradise. In the case of Congo, a full-scale invasion probably wouldn't even make life worse for the civilian population, it's already such a hell hole.

What I would be more inclined to support, is trade restrictions on private enterprises selling arms to the Burmese junta. I'm sure we have these - too bad many other countries don't.

There will be no war. And this will not really be an invasion either, as this government is illegitimate by any standard. It is very much like NK, only without the nukes, and, I suspect, much less popular support from within.

Plainslow: bingo.

I suppose I would be called an isolationist if I suggested that we just stop sending welfare checks to dictators.

Just like I got my arm broken whilst helping a neighbour from being attacked, I just cannot pass by on the other side when someone calls for my help.

So don't pass by. You can get your arm broken. I might choose to get my arm broken. But if I try to force you to get your arm broken for a cause I think is important, then I'm not better than the original attacker.

It is the old story where 'person A' sees something he cannot abide, discusses it with 'person B', and together they decide what 'person X' is going to do about it. It is 'person X' who deserves our attention, both for his character, and for the many burdens placed upon him.

I cannot attribute this paraphrase, but I've always loved it.

Rich, your tax money has already been stolen from you, there is no way you are going to get it back. Wouldn't you rather it was spent on something you would spend it on anyway? Or is this latter assumption a wishful thinking on my part?

Rich Paul- are you referring to William Graham Sumner's 'The Forgotten Man':

'The type and formula of most schemes of philanthropy or humanitarianism is this: A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be made to do for D. The radical vice of all these schemes, from a sociological point of view, is that C is not allowed a voice in the matter, and his position, character, and interests, as well as the ultimate effects on society through C's interests, are entirely overlooked. I call C the Forgotten Man.'

Just remind me - is any of the stuff we sent after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami still sitting on the docksides, or did it get moved eventally?

neo-colonialism, make the failed states and other anti-social regims pay for their redevelopment under paternalist guidance from developed countries. After havig a taste of liberation (and the consequent lack of taste of food), I doubt any neo-revolutionary movements would get much popular support

There will be no war. And this will not really be an invasion either, as this government is illegitimate by any standard. It is very much like NK, only without the nukes, and, I suspect, much less popular support from within.

Plainslow: bingo.

Posted by Alisa at May 13, 2008 09:24 PM

Just to check the credibility of the witness, did you argue that Iraq "would be a slam dunk" and "would be paid for by oil revenues", and "would lower oil prices", and that we "would be greeted as liberators"?

Of course, it's moot to me. Why should we be forcibly impoverishing our own people in order to enrich strangers? If you want to send welfare to them -- or to Iraq -- or to anybody else -- get out your check book. Nobody's stopping you.

It's not generocity when it's somebody elses money.

Rich, your tax money has already been stolen from you, there is no way you are going to get it back. Wouldn't you rather it was spent on something you would spend it on anyway? Or is this latter assumption a wishful thinking on my part?

Posted by Alisa at May 13, 2008 10:41 PM

THERE

IS

NO

MONEY

A "tax cut" without a spending cut is merely a meaningless deferral. It is spending that must be cut, and severely, before we drive ourselves into an economic disaster so severe that, as Shakespeare put it, "civil blood makes civil hands unclean".

I miss-typed above. The world trade center bombing was a tiny fraction of the cost of the war in Iraq. I was, of course, referring to 9-11.

Rich, I see your point. But then, isn't there room for a debate on what spending should be cut first, and what later, if at all?

Just Wondering: if it's moot for you, why waste pixels?