Reason to 'invade' Myanmar?

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Your kind words earlier make me want to blush...

I am confused though. I take it you are averse to war? Yet, here you pretty well advocate it? Is this a conscious distinction? War is OK under certain situations, perhaps those that suit one particular moral code, but not another? It is OK to meddle in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation to bring one moral standard to bear, but not the moral standard of protecting one's own citizens? This sends a really, really mixed signal to me...

I do not advocate war at all. I call for a UN Resolution and its implementation to take humanitarian relief to the people of that delta. Should the Myanmar army try to intervene then a show of force would be required to protect the safety of the aid deliverers. So at all times it is up to the generals and their antiquated army whether a shot is fired or not. I do not call for regime change though I feel there is still insufficient sanctions imposed on Myanmar and it is no surprise that it is China, recipient of discount natural gas from Myanmar, that is the main stumbling block.

On a more personal level that you hint at, I would not Kill for any 'cause' but I most certainly would to protect my own life or that of someone reliant on me.

Tao

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I do not advocate war at all. I call for a UN Resolution and its implementation to take humanitarian relief to the people of that delta. Should the Myanmar army try to intervene then a show of force would be required to protect the safety of the aid deliverers. So at all times it is up to the generals and their antiquated army whether a shot is fired or not. I do not call for regime change though I feel there is still insufficient sanctions imposed on Myanmar and it is no surprise that it is China, recipient of discount natural gas from Myanmar, that is the main stumbling block.

On a more personal level that you hint at, I would not Kill for any 'cause' but I most certainly would to protect my own life or that of someone reliant on me.

The only hint I am dropping is the matter of degree. Murdering one is murder. Murdering more than one at some point becomes war, and that line is a bit fuzzy and dependent.

Sovereignty is a kind of sacred thing of its own. You and I may disagree with how Myanmar or any other nation conducts their affairs, but when we advocate the forcible imposition of our own will (no matter the intent) we are advocating conducting a war with *all* that entails.

At some point we are no longer our brother's keeper, *if* he has even closer kin. Funny thing about kin, you can choose you friends; kin you're stuck with for life, better or worse.

For better or worse, the people of Myanmar are subject to the ruling government. What we think of that government is irrelevent, it is what the people of Myanmar think of their government that matters. Same is true be it North Korea, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Cuba or any other sovereign nation. For one who chastises others concerning war, I find it terribly disconcerting how quickly you are willing to war...motivation notwithstanding. So, in the end, it really is just a matter of degree...

[Tao_Equus]

Hi Juantoo,

First off I disagree that it would be an act of war to bring relief to people that are being deprived of emergency relief in the aftermath of a natural disaster. The only act of war is from its own Junta on its own people. I have stated here many times that I consider myself a global citizen in the global village and that is over and above any national considerations. If a national government fails to help the vulnerable victims of natural disaster it forfeits the right to prevent others doing what they cannot. Its that simple.

Tao

[Francis king]

In the UK?

log onto WWW.DEC.ORG.UK to donate...

peace be upon yas...

FK

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

nope, no reason to invade and invade by whom? which nation or group of nations is going to invade a country that is suffering from such a natural disaster?

airlifting the supplies to the people, similar to how the United States helped Berlin, is out of the question. the geographical considerations make it impractical.

unfortunately, the people there are going to die. they will die slowly and painfully whilst the world looks on debating what it is that we can do, which is precisely nothing.

metta,

~v

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I say it needs an immediate UN mandate to go in whether the generals like it or not and with use of force to prevent interference if necessary.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

First off I disagree that it would be an act of war to bring relief to people that are being deprived of emergency relief in the aftermath of a natural disaster. The only act of war is from its own Junta on its own people. I have stated here many times that I consider myself a global citizen in the global village and that is over and above any national considerations. If a national government fails to help the vulnerable victims of natural disaster it forfeits the right to prevent others doing what they cannot. Its that simple.

I am not arguing simply to argue, Tao. I am attempting to get you to see what you are advocating for what it really is.

Your focus is helping other people. That is always a noble ambition. It has also blinded you to the reality of how you are advocating going about that task.

Forcible imposition of one governmental structure onto another governmental structure is by definition "war." May I refer you to the first quote above, in your own words, bolded to make the point. Hiding behind the UN is only an illusion, the fact is the UN is still just another governmental structure.

No matter the philosophical and moral issues, the logistics of what you are saying are outrageous. It would quite literally be risking WW3. Let's look at this from another angle; Scotland gets some devastating natural disaster, a tidal wave (tsunami) or something. Scotland is extremely isolationist, it's the way they've always done things, culturally reserved, rugged individualism, "can do" attitude, to hell with the world we can take care of everything ourselves.

Only this disaster is a bit more than they bargained for. So along comes Red China, offering assistance, with the condition that they must be allowed access to the country.

Whoa, wait a minute. China isn't our enemy, but neither are they exactly our friend. And we know just how sneaky and cunning they can be, who's to say they won't be doing a little spying while they are here? Or worse, who's to say they won't plant subversive thoughts into our children's heads? Maybe teach their heathen ways to the youth? Maybe foment discontent and incite revolution?

No. Let's keep them at arm's length. We'll accept the aid, but we'll distribute it ourselves.

But the world says otherwise. And the pressure is put on...

Just who are these people to tell us how to deal with our own? Who are they to tell us how to take care of our own, when they can't even get their own act together?




You see, I might disagree with how Myanmar is handling the situation, but I do think I understand why they are doing it. I would do the same. It's about trust, at an international level. It's the sneaky people that want to get inside the country in order to exploit the opportunity that spoil the international trust...that is what Myanmar is concerned with. And I don't blame them one bit.

[Tao_Equus]

lol Juantoo,

Since the USA has such expertise in interference in other countries, Cuba, Peru, Colombia, Guatamala, Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, Grenada, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Afghanistan,, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and scores more why can they not do take the lead and do what they usually do, create a puppet to invite them in?

What I advocate is not an invasion of one nation by another but a humanitarian aid mission under the mandate of the United Nations which is not by any definition a 'state'. If Myanmar so values its isolation from the international community and will not respect the basic human rights of its own people under international convention then it must be given its isolation in totality. Nothing goes in or out.

Putting a ground based relief team in is the best option but is not the only one. There should already have been passed a resolution to provide aid 'drops' which I understand are far from the ideal system of delivery but are better than nothing.

[greymare]

one would think that this kind of tradgedy surpasses governments, politics and the like. to me, it puts in perspective how stupid and futile we try to make things by trying to isolate ourselves, by saying, i am ..... or i believe ........ we are humans and we should be concerned with each other, not what we think we believe or who should be in power . Our land masses are actually insignificant, its the people and the living things that make the planet.


(betcha didnt think i could be so deep, huh?)

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Francis king

In the UK?

log onto WWW.DEC.ORG.UK to donate...

peace be upon yas...

FK

or in the US?

IRC | International Rescue Committee - Aiding refugees and communities victimized by war

s.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Since the USA has such expertise in interference in other countries, Cuba, Peru, Colombia, Guatamala, Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, Grenada, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Afghanistan,, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and scores more why can they not do take the lead ...?

You mean like the US Naval vessels that have been at the ready just outside in international waters almost since the event happened, waiting for the invitation to come in and help?

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

What I advocate is not an invasion of one nation by another but a humanitarian aid mission under the mandate of the United Nations which is not by any definition a 'state'. If Myanmar so values its isolation from the international community and will not respect the basic human rights of its own people under international convention then it must be given its isolation in totality. Nothing goes in or out.

The UN does not have to be a state to be a governmental entity. Imposition of foreign will whether by one or an alliance, is still war. And like it or not, Myanmar as all sovereign nations does have the right to say "no" and block foreigners from entering.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Putting a ground based relief team in is the best option but is not the only one. There should already have been passed a resolution to provide aid 'drops' which I understand are far from the ideal system of delivery but are better than nothing.

I heard tonight that Myanmar is now open to allowing *charitible organizations* in to assist in distributing aid. That is a far cry from asking another nation or the UN for aid, which would likely be military based (which explains the reluctance to accept). Aircraft can still spy, so I can understand reluctance in that regard too, particularly military aircraft. But at least some *diplomatic* progress is being made, and private aid groups are being allowed in to distribute on the ground. See? No force necessary. Just have to find the correct way to sugar coat the diplomatic request.

You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.

[Ciel]

And many are the monks in active aid, helped through the donations of this organization listed below...........

Burma Cyclone Aid Report

- c -

[Snoopy]

Good to see that the cyclone hasn't dulled the junta's sense of priorities and right-and-wrong.

"Burma's ruling junta has renewed pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi's house arrest.
Police earlier detained about 20 activists as they marched to the Nobel Peace Prize laureate's home in Rangoon, where she has been held since May 2003."

BBC NEWS | World | Asia-Pacific | Suu Kyi's house arrest extended



s.

[seattlegal]

Perhaps the junta is not allowing foreign aid workers in precisely because they see them as an invasionary force?

[wil]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Perhaps the junta is not allowing foreign aid workers in precisely because they see them as an invasionary force?

They've been saying they'll accept local aid. The US had two aircraft carriers and tons of supplies and boats and helis to move in quickly but has been held at bay for the reason you state. Our diplomatic relations have been off and on, mostly off for years in regards to the 'house arrest'. It is fairly obvious why there is concern over letting us in...