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

On May 9, 5:16=EF=BF=BDpm, "ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 9, 3:27=EF=BF=BDpm, CKSF <ck_in_...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > On May 9, 3:10=EF=BF=BDpm, "ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wro=
te:
>
> > > Don''t know what is the issue. =EF=BF=BDCan someone explain?
> > > Does delivering food and aid need special training and cannot be
> > > handled by local people?
>
> > Yes - esp in countries where the donated food and supplies are
> > siphoned off for something else.
>
> I know what you mean. But this is an emergency. If only 50% will reach
> the people, it is still better than 0%. It does not make a lot of
> sense of have string attached during an emergency. For instance, China
> sent in the emergency supplies and transferred them to the local
> officials.
>
>
If you knew what I meant, why bother extending your baseless logic to
further your skepticism?

The crux of the matter is you have no idea if 100% or 0% of the food
and aid will go to anyone. But we do know that 100% isn't going
anywhere as the result of the junta refusing access.

Seriously, if Indonesia can allow the US Pacific Fleet to do its job
in helping the thousands hit by the tsunami in a matter of 24 hours
after the disaster ... why does it take Burma some 7 days and
counting?

China is more than happy to not know where that aid has gone, but in
most western relief organizations, we the tax payers and donators
demand to know if our money and efforts have gone to the right
people.

The requests made by all foreign (with the exception of China and
North Korea or Cuba) relief agencies are within customary practices
over the past 60 years. Even China accepted such practices in the 1977
Tangshan earthquake disaster. As does North Korea in its famin of
2004.

> > Besides there is something called checks and balances to ensure the
> > donated food and supplies to those who are meant for.
>
> If the government is considered illegitimate, than the other
> government should not recognize it in the first place. To the degree
> that a government is recognized as legitimate, then it is assuming it
> represents the people and the interest of the people.

Bull****. There is no issue of legitimacy here. Stop raising red
herring.s

>
> > Simply put, the world does not trust the Burmese junta/military
> > rulers. Would you, given what they have done so far???
>
> It is odd to send this message in this juncture.

Indeed, but then it is odder still to ignore evidence.

CKSF