On May 12, 6:18 pm, Peter Franks <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> John M. wrote:
> > On May 12, 2:33 am, Peter Franks <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> John M. wrote:
> >>> On May 11, 5:05 pm, Poetic Justice <@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>> Dog.com> wrote:
> >>>> James wrote:
> >>>>> <Chief_Bi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>>>>>news:1e7016ba-9191-4bef-82ed-2971099a9b95@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>>> On May 9, 3:15 pm, "James" <kingko...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>>>> <Chief_Bi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >>>>>> This is not the case in Myanmar (Burma) at all. These areas have
been
> >>>>>> habitated by people
> >>>>>> since before Christ, and are not filled-in wetlands. Displacing
these
> >>>>>> people for safety reasons
> >>>>>> would be like making Ethiopeans leave their country because of
> >>>>>> possible famine, or the Swiss
> >>>>>>> leave the Alps because of possible avalanches.
> >>>>>> What is upsetting to me, and probably not many others, is the
anger
> >>>>>> shown by other governments and people that we be allowed in to
help.
> >>>>>> They are an isolationist country and it's no ones business but
theirs.
> >>>>>> And that's the way they want it. Now, I'm hearing some bad mouth
from us
> >>>>>> and the U.N. on their leaders. It seems it doesn't matter what
they
> >>>>>> want, we know what is best for them.
> >>>>>> It shouldn't matter how their country is run but to most it
seems, we
> >>>>>> would be justified going in there by force. For humanity reasons
> >>>>>> naturally. How arrogant and demanding we have become.
> >>>>> So you justify a totalitarian military government treating a large
> >>>>> ****tion of their population, who are injured,
> >>>>> starving, and dying, inhumanely simply because 'it's their own
> >>>>> business' ? You have no compulsion to
> >>>>> provide aid to prevent widespread death by malnutrition and
disease.
> >>>>> You would not have a problem
> >>>>> with Louisiana not providing relief to hurricane Katrina victims
simpy
> >>>>> because it is a State issue, which in fact it was and not a
Federal
> >>>>> one.
> >>>>> What I am saying is that we should not force our wants on others.
The
> >>>>> aid is there if they want it. The help is there if they want it.
But
> >>>>> that doesn't seem to be enough for pricks who love forcing others
to see
> >>>>> it their way. When they don't, they will bad mouth them to the
rest of
> >>>>> the world. The government structure there is irrelevant.
> >>>>> New Orleans victims had much they could have done themselves but
chose
> >>>>> to sit there and let the nannies provide for them. The liberal way
is to
> >>>>> provide everything and those people said ok which proves that
government
> >>>>> is your enemy in these sorts of situations. Louisiana and other
states
> >>>>> get benefit of federal moneys no matter who provides the relief.
> >>>>> Your analogy of Louisiana to another country is stupid.
> >>>> The people of burma should have used the confusion of the aftermath
to
> >>>> attack and kill all the government officials. Then start over by
> >>>> forming a new constitutional government.
> >>> They live in a flooded river delta with no food and weapons. The
> >>> government lives in a purpose built, isolated city far from the
> >>> effects of the cyclone and aftermath. It has close on 500 000 well-
> >>> armed troops spread around the im****tant centres and hubs.
> >> So, how well is that working out for the people*?
>
> >> (*There is absolutely NO intent in making light of their current
> >> situation. What has happened in that area is very tragic and
> >> unfortunate. I hope the best for all of those affected, and likewise
> >> hope that my humanitarian contributions help in this situation, even
if
> >> just a little.)
>
> > Your humanitarian contributions will, like those that went to Iraq
> > under SH, end up in the coffers of the ruling junta. I'm sure they
> > feel that every little helps in the drive to subjugate their people,
> > just as do political parties in our so-called democracies.
>
> I'm fairly confident that my humanitarian aid will NOT end as you
> outline, although I presume that, generally speaking, a lot of it will.
>
> So, hopefully we can agree here, the problem isn't due to climate
> change/warming but rather to those in power.
>
> I propose that we will solve a lot more of the worlds ills by through
> 'power control' than 'climate control'. Perhaps we should primarily
> focus our energies on that problem...
In as much as ordinary people being rendered powerless to tackle the
world's ills, such as rampant autocracy, plutocracy, theocracy (with
their attendant nepotism) - hence being powerless in the face of
climate change, population growth, pandemics - yes, I agree with you.
The political system that just might deliver has been so vilified by
the establishment, that here in France the name has had to be changed.
We no longer speak of "Anarchism" but have it re-branded as
"participative democracy.
|
