There was an episode of The West Wing that reminds me of this very situation...can't remember the particulars sadly.

The sadness here is that the myanmar regime doesn't want our help.

What? Doesn't Myanmar have any oil?

sadly enough, i don't blame him for this. there's not much we can do to help short of using military force to push our way in.

So, subby is upset that the Bush administration is, for once, honoring another nations sovereignty??

I'll never be a Bush fan, but to say this is his fault, is a bit of a stretch.
His name isn't even mentioned in the article.

Hey assmitter, if you RTFA (or even just the article's headline) you'd see that "Defense Secretary Robert Gates could withdraw Navy ships," not Bush. That's some nice comprehension there, Lou.

It's about time he got something right.

Have some more kool-aid subby, you're pony-tailed teachers are probably watching.

Let's not get all high and mighty - the US refused aid from a number of countries after Hurricane Katrina.

FTFA:
Still, Gates affirmed again there is unanimous opposition in the international community to forcing aid to the Myanmar people suffering in the wake of the devastating cyclone that struck in early May.

"There is great sensitivity all over the world to violating a country's sovereignty," Gates said. "Particularly in the absence of some kind of U.N. umbrella that would authorize it."

My sides, they are hurting something fierce.

Unshavenhelga: The sadness here is that the myanmar regime doesn't want our help.

This. Yeah, this one isn't W's fault.

/can't believe I just said that
//cut and run Defeatocrat

We offer aid and they refuse it and yet it's our fault?

Nice one subby.

Ron Paul Revere

Damn, by 45 seconds!

Err, I'm gonna assume the Sad tag is for the locals who'll die as a result, and that subby isn't blaming Bush.

Not that a few cruise missiles through the junta's windows would break anyone's heart...

Whodat?: /can't believe I just said that
//cut and run Defeatocrat

hah!

/+1 for the first morning giggle

PunGent: Not that a few cruise missiles through the junta's windows would break anyone's heart...

I have a feeling theres at least a few people who would disapprove.

dreamcrusher: I have a feeling theres at least a few people who would disapprove.

Well, outside of the junta themselves, I don't think anyone would complain.

Selfabortion: Hey assmitter, if you RTFA (or even just the article's headline) you'd see that "Defense Secretary Robert Gates could withdraw Navy ships," not Bush. That's some nice comprehension there, Lou.

If you anything about the government you'd realize that the Secretary of Defense doesn't MAKE this kind of decision. This is the sort of thing that might be suggested by the defense department, kicked around the White House, and sent back with approval. Yes, this is the policy of the Bush administration, not the defense dept.

It also happens to be the right decision, since they aren't going to let us help. If you want to pick on subby, do it for the right reasons.

SCENARIO 1:
Bush: "Ok, let's move troops in to an area."
Libs: *Whine, Cry* "policing the world, not our problem" *Whine, Cry*

SCENARIO 2:
Bush: "Ok, let's take troops out of an area"
Libs: *Whine, Cry* "Bush is a unsympathetic meany-head" *Whine, Cry"

Anybody else notice the double-standards here?

That headline's just a wee bit off, or at least the tone of it is...

Maybe they need a little democracy Iraqi Freedom stylee?

Let's not get all high and mighty - the US refused aid from a number of countries after Hurricane Katrina.

IIRC, it was more a case of the US not having the political/economic/other mechanisms in place to accept the aid. It's not as easy as saying, "Sure, just drop those 5000 pallets of food and water rations over there, thanks." That said, the government's response to the whole thing left (and still leaves) a lot to be desired.

/not apologizing for Brownie and Co.
//just sayin'

Ron Paul Revere: FTFA:

"There is great sensitivity all over the world to violating a country's sovereignty," Gates said. "Particularly in the absence of some kind of U.N. umbrella that would authorize it."

Oh the irony. Sweet, sweet irony.

You see, the Bush administration didn't want to be tried for war crimes by sending the military in to deliver food and supplies.

Now a pre-emptive, Pearl-Harbor-A-day-that-will-live-in-infamy attack against another country? Murdering and torturing prisoners?No problem.

Ron Paul Revere:
FTFA:

"There is great sensitivity all over the world to violating a country's sovereignty," Gates said. "Particularly in the absence of some kind of U.N. umbrella that would authorize it."

Oh the irony. Sweet, sweet irony.

Indeed. But it's true that invading a country to force them to accept disaster relief would instigate a clusterf*ck of epic proportions. Because though the Burma regime richly deserves to be deposed, in-country violence would only increase the suffering of Burma's people right now.

jerry2a: Let's not get all high and mighty - the US refused aid from a number of countries after Hurricane Katrina.

But we had the means and material necessary to save New Orleans and restore it to its former glory in a matter of weeks and with almost no loss of life...

Stratigus64: SCENARIO 1:
Bush: "Ok, let's move troops in to an area."
Libs: *Whine, Cry* "policing the world, not our problem" *Whine, Cry*

SCENARIO 2:
Bush: "Ok, let's take troops out of an area"
Libs: *Whine, Cry* "Bush is a unsympathetic meany-head" *Whine, Cry"

Anybody else notice the double-standards here?

That's no double standard. They're maintaining their only standard - "It's always Bush's fault."

What ever happened to the "they're either with us or again us" propaganda bullshiat? I guess if there was oil instead of suffering people in Myanmar, this "Christian" regime would be ALL OVER IT.

/they certainly wouldn't be cutting and running
//farking hypocrites

Stratigus64: SCENARIO 1:
Bush: "Ok, let's move troops in to an area."
Libs: *Whine, Cry* "policing the world, not our problem" *Whine, Cry*

SCENARIO 2:
Bush: "Ok, let's take troops out of an area"
Libs: *Whine, Cry* "Bush is a unsympathetic meany-head" *Whine, Cry"

Anybody else notice the double-standards absurd oversimplification and deliberately incorrect characterization of a complex set of issues here?

FTFY

No Such Agency: Ron Paul Revere:
FTFA:

"There is great sensitivity all over the world to violating a country's sovereignty," Gates said. "Particularly in the absence of some kind of U.N. umbrella that would authorize it."

Oh the irony. Sweet, sweet irony.

Indeed. But it's true that invading a country to force them to accept disaster relief would instigate a clusterf*ck of epic proportions. Because though the Burma regime richly deserves to be deposed, in-country violence would only increase the suffering of Burma's people right now.

We used to air-drop supplies into Turkey and Iraq to help the Kurds when Saddam used the chemical weapons we sold him on the Kurds. Of course, we did drop a few pallets on the Kurds themselves...

Stratigus64: SCENARIO 1:
Bush: "Ok, let's move troops in to an area."
Libs: *Whine, Cry* "policing the world, not our problem" *Whine, Cry*

SCENARIO 2:
Bush: "Ok, let's take troops out of an area"
Libs: *Whine, Cry* "Bush is a unsympathetic meany-head" *Whine, Cry"

Anybody else notice the double-standards here?

Sorry kiddo, that's not "libs." That's isolationists in both parties. Most people isolationists tend to be conservative on issues like trade and immigration (regardless of whether they are Democrats or Repubicans). Liberals, in either the classical (free-trade, neo-liberal etc) or political (left-wing, human-rights loving) sense, would tend to support the relief mission.

Ron Paul Revere: FTFA:

"There is great sensitivity all over the world to violating a country's sovereignty," Gates said. "Particularly in the absence of some kind of U.N. umbrella that would authorize it."

Oh the irony. Sweet, sweet irony.

why irony?

FTA

"Asked if the military junta there is guilty of genocide, Gates said, "I tend to see genocide more as a purposeful elimination of people, this is more akin, in my view, to criminal neglect.""

Saddam was engaged in the purposeful elimination of parts of Iraq... and as a realistic follow up, Iraq had, and still has a reasonable chance of turning into a stable country. granted if stupident hadn't screwed things up Iraq things might already be completely stable... but thats not the reality we have.

Saturn5: Stratigus64: SCENARIO 1:
Bush: "Ok, let's move troops in to an area."
Libs: *Whine, Cry* "policing the world, not our problem" *Whine, Cry*

SCENARIO 2:
Bush: "Ok, let's take troops out of an area"
Libs: *Whine, Cry* "Bush is a unsympathetic meany-head" *Whine, Cry"

Anybody else notice the double-standards here?

That's no double standard. They're maintaining their only standard - "It's always Bush's fault."

You two are cute together.

You do realize these are entirely separate situations

Neocons actually need to be told that. Sad.

Wait, are there there 17 UN sanctions against Myanmar? Did they violate a cessation of hostilities agreement? No? Well then that sounds like there is no UN umbrella, just like Gates says. That other country you lot are referring to? Yeah. They did have an assload of sanctions. There was indeed a UN umbrella. K THX BAI

Speaking of the UN? Where are they? Standing around doing nothing while the US bears the brunt of the heavy lifting and criticism no doubt.

TheShavingofOccam123:

No real comment, just wanted to say that's an awesomely clever, multilayered name ya got there.

If anyone expects Politics, Liberalism, or Conservatism to be logical, you are going to be disappointed.

Y'know, based on the news reports of the Burmese Junta taking the few UN food shipments that were brought in, re-painting them with "A gift of the Burmese Government" or something to that effect, and then redistributing them to who they chose to, I don't think that I'd be too upset if we otherwise peacefully invaded Burma to bring food aid, or at least staged a Berlin Airlift-type of operation to drop food and supplies via parachute where we felt they were needed... So long as we let the Burmese institute "Regime Change" entirely on their own...

jerry2a: Let's not get all high and mighty - the US refused aid from a number of countries after Hurricane Katrina.


THIS

Tr0mBoNe: If anyone expects Politics, Liberalism, or Conservatism to be logical, you are going to be disappointed.

I LOVE me Independence!

:)

The Burmese military junta got off easy. The US has unilaterally cruise missile'd lots of people for less.

For future reference, can anyone tell me what exactly is the threshold of torture, genocide, and oppression that qualifies an Asian nation for US humanitarian invasion and occupation?

Surely one of you self-righteous, concern-trolling, pro-war, Iraq occupation apologists who like to post pix of dead Kurds can tell the rest of us the magic number of mass graves that there needs to be before the US Executive Branch starts its bleeding-heart bombing runs...



Aung San Suu Kyi (new window)

Selfabortion: TheShavingofOccam123:

No real comment, just wanted to say that's an awesomely clever, multilayered name ya got there.

Thank you. I was drunk.

What better way to weaken the political will of a populace than to deny them food, medical aid and roof over the heads in a disaster.


/gas prices
//medical coverage
///recession

This is what it takes to get a green? Write a false predictable headline? blah.

le mew: What? Doesn't Myanmar have any oil?

Actually, they do. And lots of rubber too. Why do you think the Japanese liked them so much? Most of SE Asia is rich with natural resources.

Stratigus64: SCENARIO 1:
Bush: "Ok, let's move troops in to an area."
Libs: *Whine, Cry* "policing the world, not our problem" *Whine, Cry*

SCENARIO 2:
Bush: "Ok, let's take troops out of an area"
Libs: *Whine, Cry* "Bush is a unsympathetic meany-head" *Whine, Cry"

Anybody else notice the double-standards here?

Sweet. Because aggressive unilateral invasion and occupation is EXACTLY the same thing as aid given to victims of a natural disaster. Well done.

Stratigus64: SCENARIO 1:
Bush: "Ok, let's move troops in to an area."
Libs: *Whine, Cry* "policing the world, not our problem" *Whine, Cry*

SCENARIO 2:
Bush: "Ok, let's take troops out of an area"
Libs: *Whine, Cry* "Bush is a unsympathetic meany-head" *Whine, Cry"

Anybody else notice the double-standards here?

I have no problem with the decision here, but your comparison is inaccurate.

Providing aid to a county that has had a disaster is not the same as invading a sovereign country, overthrowing their government, and forcing them to embrace democracy.

I would have said it a week ago. He held out longer than I would have.

Boy, the military junta in Burma sure must be glad they don't have any oil there. If they did, the generals would be dug out of their holes in a matter of days.

Wait...why aren't we helping? Those people need help...

Whatever happened to that "fark the regime, the people need us" mentality?

Some people grind their axe at any opportunity, regardless of how appropriate or relevant it might be at the given moment, it seems.