Re: U.N. 'furious' as Myanmar aid 'seized'

On May 9, 4:26=A0pm, "ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 9, 6:49=A0pm, PaPaPeng <PaPaP...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 9 May 2008 14:47:02 -0700 (PDT), bmo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> > >What if only one grain of rice reaches the people? You're saying that
> > >no matter how shameless and horrible the junta is, we should bend
over
> > >backwards to comply with their edicts, even if it means more people
> > >will die. Sovereignty is im****tant but in so is saving lives,
arguably
> > >moreso in this case. It's too bad the junta is in charge. They don't
> > >deserve to be.
>
> > This is a human disaster not a morality play. =A0There is no place for
> > good and evil battles. =A0Do what is possible first and that is to get
> > drinking water food and shelter, medical supplies to the disaster
> > site. =A0Who gets the supplies is irrelevant at this moment. =A0The
> > im****tant thing is to get the stuff there on the ground. =A0Then argue
> > about the fairness and the morality of allocation. =A0
>
> Good point. Another unwarranted assumption is that foreign aid workers
> will deliver fairly and/or effectove

Garbage. If the aid workers are kept out the situation will be much
worse.

>;u. As a matter of fact, western
> aid effort has bad track record. =A0Michael Maren, a long time American
> aid worker had written a book with the title of "The Road to Hell: The
> Ravaging Effects of Foreign Aid and International Charity."
>
>
>
> > If the regime is stupid enough to hoard the supplies only for itself
> > then the anger of the people will have a unstoppable basis to topple
> > the regime with. By then their lives are already written off and dying
> > with a bullet is better than their families and themselves slowly
> > starving to death. =A0The ordinary army =A0ranks will certain not
sup****=
t
> > a regime that immoral for their own families will also die in the
> > disaster.
>
> I am not saying one should not try to get the best results.

Then why are you proposing an approach that almost certainly will not
get the best results?

> But if one
> can choose, he would choose to have no disaster in the first place.
> But then a disaster is a disaster. It is not anyone's choice. And it
> is not a time for optimal results =A0Concerning about the leaders of
> Myanmar, they are also a force of nature. If they are bad, they are
> also a kind of natural disaster. And they cannot be wished away. Hence
> no reason to be furious about their behaviior. We can only hope that
> they are smart enough to distribute the emergency supply quickly and
> fairly. If they are to claim all the credits, I will say "let them."
>
> Anyway, if a donor country set out to have condition for giving aid,
> should it not expect the aid receiver also has conditions.?

The junta's condition means a lot more people will die. Nice
condition.

You're not fooling anyone.