Burma has the West over a barrel

[Skybird]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-553889,00.html

It is not good enough just to have good intentions - and allow to do evil in the name of these mentioned intentions. this is an example setting that in the long run creates more bad than good, and encourages to copy the behavior shown by the generals.

I have a much better alternative plan. Hold criminal offenders and murderers personally responsible and make them suffer bitter tragedy and grief themselves. Send some dozens to some hundred Tomahawks for the private homes of the criminals in uniform and kill them and the next generation. Flatten the Junta's military key installation via more robot-bombs, and tell the survivors that every day so and so many key officers' homes and families will be bombed as long as they do not fully open the country for aid organisations and play ball with them and behave nice and honstely towards these help organizations. do not bomb the whole country and civilian installatuions. but try to assassinate the responsi8ble officers and their families, personally. There is a simply reason behind killing the families as well. It is a reasonable assumption that these gangster have educated their offsprings in the same selfish brutal attitude their fathers are living by.

You'd be surprised how fast they would change their policies regarding incoming international aid. If not for the sake of saving their families, then they will do it for the sake of protecting their houses and possessions.

[kurtz]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-553889,00.html

but try to assassinate the responsi8ble officers and their families, personally. There is a simply reason behind killing the families as well. It is a reasonable assumption that these gangster have educated their offsprings in the same selfish brutal attitude their fathers are living by.



Has somebody hacked your account?

I'm surprised to hear you calling for a, well, Biblical revenge on the perpetrators and thier offspring. Do you reserve this just for multiple murderers, or do single murderers and perhaps thieves deserve this? The logic follows..

[Skybird]

The junta is delaying help, while the world is being warned that now the life of tens of thousands of children is at risk, which qualifies for a description of the junta commiting genocide against their own people. that is the basis from which I start - not a singular act of street crime or murder of passion negotiated at a civilm court in berlin.

I target the gangsters responsible for this lethal mess. and that you react so surprised shows me that my calculation is correct. Because they - like you - also cannot imagine so far to be personally held responsible for their brutality and cold blooded poker game, and they - like you can't imagine as well - also must not fear that they eventually will pay for their crimes with the loss of what is dearest to them: their lives, their villas and possessions, their wifes and offsprings.

Targetting the officer chorps also helps to increase the probability of a threat of revolt within the military, which also would force the junta to change.

and finally, I believe that it is reasonable to assume that gangsters acting as unscrupellous as these gangsters in uniform would raise their offsprings in the same selfish, brutal attitude and inhumane spirit that they live by themselves, so why giving them the opportunity to form the next generation of the tyranny and supression, or even conduct revenge for their fathers being executed for crimes against humanity? It would be stupid to do so.

I am aware that this is a brutal option. But encouraging this example set by the junta, endlessly giving ground to diplomnatic desasters like Screbrenica, Darfhur and now Burma, means that our western nations who are inpossession of the striking power to do what I suggest - instead become guilty of complicity.

Biblical, you said. The only thing being biblical is the perspective of a mass dying of biblical dimensions. If that could be prevented by enforcing access for aid orgnbaiozations via killing more or less milizary afficers and the next egneration ready to uphold the regime, I consider it to be a good deal. Maybe it is not kind, and not nice, and not humane, and all the other things a toothless UN is so heavy about. but it is Realpolitik causing effective results. In case of Burma, we are not about trying to install our economic interests, or our political systems, and make them subjugate to our civilisartion. Burma is not Iraq. It is about preventing genocide, and saving tens and hundreds of thoisuands of people. At Screbrenica, NATO should have cluster-bombed the Serbish forces in the area, no matter what the Un thinks of it. In Darfhur, we should have chased, bombed and killed the Djandjawhid and the Sudanese government. And in Burma, we should threaten to kill the generals themselves and the next generation coming after them.

Good intentions is not enough. You also need realsitic options. Subjugating to the general's demands is creating more of this in the future. Killing them, but saving the country and rescuing the people, is

[Skybird]

And just in case my respected readers are not aware of it, and while we discuss the subtleties of the West's superioir morality, some more people in burma already have died in these two minutes of cholera, or have detoriated in their health level so much that they will not survive in the forseeable future. The rate at which cholera is spreading, is currently increasing in pace.

[Tchocky]

This kind of thing hasn't worked before.

The strange thing about this talk of attacking/invading Burma is that everyone knows that it isn't going to happen.
Therefore, arguing for the use of force is self-righteousness without responsibility. Talking up the consequences of military action before it has happened is always a bad idea, and always misleading. Remember McCain saying US forces will be "welcomed as liberators".
But hey, it's never going to happen, so you get to say "I'm right, but unfortunately no-one listened to me".

Not directed completely at you, SKybird, I've read a lot of calls to invade Burma recently.

[Skybird]

This kind of thing hasn't worked before.

It never has been tried in this way and on this scale before.


I do not talk of "attacking Burma", and not of invasion - I talk of targetted assassination of clearly defined single people and families and/or destruction of their possessions, however that can be acchieved best. Likely that this will cause even more uproar - assassination! Pewh! I'm not the UN, and I never have claimed to be civilised - I do not care for such accusations. I have a priority, and it is clearly defined - enforcing access for aid to the people of Burma being affected by the desaster and being threatened by death in the forseeable future, woitho9ut setting up another example of illustrating how lucrarive it is to blackmail the west and abuse it'S well-meant intentions. The survival and/or personal interests of supporters of the Junta, and loyal officers - is not a priority. Not even close.

And I already said: this does not compare to Iraq, and the lies and intentions behind that Iraq war. It is no invasion, and no desire to change their country, and exploit them economically. Just doctors and aird workers and transport planes delivering food and water and medication and according equipment.

[Schroeder]

I would prefer it if the UN or NATO or whoever is able to do it, would sent some transportplanes to Burma with a fighter/fighterbomber escort. Then they should just fly over Burma and drop off the needed goods (I know that goods alone aren't the only things needed, doctors and specialists who can operate water cleaning devices, for example, are needed as well). But at least something would happen and a least bit of relief could be achieved!!! If the transports should get under attack then the escorts should be able to deal with it.
As long as no one attacks anyone everything would run peacefully. Besides I actually don't think that Burma's military leaders would have the balls to start any fight with NATO/UN/EU/USAF planes. That would be way to dangerous because then Skybird's suggestions might become reality.
In the news they just said that the UN and EU are raising the pressure on Burma. Hell they are raising it??? Why aren't they already at full power? Do they really want do wait until thousands of people have died?:nope::down:

[bradclark1]

Stop delivering supplies. Bombard the place with leaflets saying the junta won't allow help. The world can't be responsible for those that won't accept help but on their terms.

[kurtz]

Stop delivering supplies. Bombard the place with leaflets saying the junta won't allow help. The world can't be responsible for those that won't accept help but on their terms. And then what are they supposed to do? Rise up like we got the Kurds to do in Iraq?

Burma is not Iraq. It is about preventing genocide
IIRC one reason we went into Iraq was for the attempted Genocide of the Marsh Arabs and Kurds.
I don't know much about modern Burma but in WWII Burma was a quite disparate country with predominantely Xtian Karens in the north/centre budhists East and South and muslims West. If we went piling in there again (remember Britain left after WWII, which I think is why they don't want usback and prefer the Japanese) who's to say we could make it work?

What I meant by Biblical was this punishing to nth generation for all you or I know they could be Grandfathers running the country, then where will you stop killing?

Sometime ago we were discussing waterboarding and I rather flippantly said,"It's okay if they only do it to the baddies", and you quite rightly pulled me up on it, now your openly advocating state terrorism and the slaughter of innocents, on the grounds that they might grow up to be like their parents, which quite honestly sounds like the kind of thing I would say.

[Skybird]

IIRC one reason we went into Iraq was for the attempted Genocide of the Marsh Arabs and Kurds.
No, that was not part of the excuse to go there. On the surface, the excuse pretty much was limited to WMD. In reality, the hidden agenda pretty much was about getting certain companies lucrative contracts with the army and inside Iraq's oil business, in key positions, and install a government friendly to these plans of effectively being economically taken over, and establishing a new strategic platform in the region as an option for American foreign policies. Compensation for the rebellion of the people that one had encouraged after 91 and then let down, resulting in tens of thousands being killed, was not part of the excuse.

Burma does not compare to Iraq.

What I meant by Biblical was this punishing to nth generation for all you or I know they could be Grandfathers running the country, then where will you stop killing?

When the generals of today stop playing gambles at the costs of their popüulation and allow aid sent in, unharmed, and without conditions. I am not about regime-chnage, although that would be a nice side-effect, but that is not what it is about. I have defined the goal of this tactic I suggest, and did so precisely and clear. I did not mention "nth generations". Bombing a villa of a general or colonel, should not be prevented becasue his family lives there. and when you cant get the man, try to get his family, yes, I defend that. For it is hard to imagine that he has not raised his opffsprings in the same attitude by which he himself acts in life, and look what a inhumane crime that man is defending, for he earns privileges by doing so. Hurt the man in any way possible, until he gives up his blackmailing of the West and allows help in the country.

Sometime ago we were discussing waterboarding and I rather flippantly said,"It's okay if they only do it to the baddies", and you quite rightly pulled me up on it, now your openly advocating state terrorism and the slaughter of innocents, on the grounds that they might grow up to be like their parents, which quite honestly sounds like the kind of thing I would say.

I have a motto when it comes to figthing, and it is two-sided: try to avoid fighting, but not at all costs, for the costs may be higher than the fight, and when you do fight, never allow anything to come between you and the destruction of your enemy. since I include my own health and life in that formula the conclusion is that you better think twice and three times wether or not the objective you want to acchieve is worth it. Preventing a mass dying of the scale that is about to start, is such an objective for me, and it is of perfectly acceptable moral standard. This is neither conquest nor subjugation nor invasion nor taking-over. It is helping victims from natural desaster - many victims.

What you say essentially is to let the gangsters continue the way they have started, for you refuse to hit them where it really hurts. But I say hit them were they are the weakest and where it hurts them the most, and hit them at this spot, with all power, and strike again and again as long as they do not chnage. Once they have realised that we are determined beyond compromise not to accept their conditions, but to enforce access for help nevertheless, and that they and their next of kin are being turned into the hunted inside their own country, they will come to terms very quickly, I promise you. They will try to avoid naming it a surrender in public and will try to save their faces, which is of no concern for me, but they will play ball. Refusing to accept blackmailing, teaches a lesson. Accepting to be blackmailed, also teaches a lesson. Either the one or the other takes place. Question only is which one you choose.

The access for help must be enforced, and the example of how to successfully blackmail the international community, must be prevented - it was successful in the past so many times, at some time you better start to stop that tradition. In the immediate past years, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, in various hotspots had been killed with the west being passive or even contributijg to the slaughter, all in the name of cynical moral superiority. Judging by the outcome, the West's standards are not really convincing. In fact, they are disgusting, becasue they pay lip-confessions, but refuse to really engage with determination and the force needed to add substance to this hollow talking. But then to claim how civilised one is, and that one has a superior moral, is gisgusting,l and cynical. The lives of tens of thousands of children and hundreds of thousands of adults is at stake. Compared to that, the family idyll of some murderous generals and colonels is of no interest. Strike and hurt them where the pain is worst for them, take from them what is dearest to them: their lives, their possessions, their families, and be uncompromisingly determined to use absolute superior power wherever possible. A solid wall of Tomahawks, used from a distance, seems to be the tool capable to acchieve this, since they lack the capability to strike back in any way. Stop when they do no longer try to blackmail us. Do not stop before they give up their attempts to blackmail us.

If you do not do this and accept their conditions, it is only a question of time when the next country will implement exactly the same tactics. For you allowed this tactic to work successfully.

[kurtz]

No but there are parrallels.

and maybe it was not given as the reason at first when people started to laugh at the WMDs which could be deployed at 40mins notice the genocide reason was trotted out at least in Blighty.

But what you are saying really is that it is okay to break international law and invade soveriegn territory with the express intention of killing individualls without trial. This may be the right thing to do but who are you going to entrust the decision to do what is right to?..the USA?..UN...England?..Skybird?

[Tchocky]

Knock off the top of the army. You're left with the next layer of commanders, who are just thrilled to be in charge. THere's 350,000 soldiers, so this will take a while to knock down to 3 or 4.

The only result is that instead of victims of a natural disaster, they'll be all that plus hostages.

[Platapus]

I have a much better alternative plan. Hold criminal offenders and murderers personally responsible and make them suffer bitter tragedy and grief themselves. Send some dozens to some hundred Tomahawks for the private homes of the criminals in uniform and kill them and the next generation. .... but try to assassinate the responsi8ble officers and their families, personally. There is a simply reason behind killing the families as well. It is a reasonable assumption that these gangster have educated their offsprings in the same selfish brutal attitude their fathers are living by.

You'd be surprised how fast they would change their policies regarding incoming international aid. If not for the sake of saving their families, then they will do it for the sake of protecting their houses and possessions.

Did you just finish your Al Qaeda correspondence course or something?

Substitute IED/Suicide Bomber for Tomahawks and this sounds like it came out of a terrorist play book.:nope:

[Skybird]

No but there are parrallels.

and maybe it was not given as the reason at first when people started to laugh at the WMDs which could be deployed at 40mins notice the genocide reason was trotted out at least in Blighty.

But what you are saying really is that it is okay to break international law and invade soveriegn territory with the express intention of killing individualls without trial. This may be the right thing to do but who are you going to entrust the decision to do what is right to?..the USA?..UN...England?..Skybird?

Why is invasion always mentioned? I said repeatedly now that I have no idea for invasions, and huge wars. the intel services surely know the locations of houses and villas. That translates into GPS coordinates. Send a missile there, and to likely locations where the person in question at the time of the strike is present. Period. No bridge bombing. No power plants destroyed. No divison fighting it out on the map.

If international law allows mass dying taking place for reasons of concerns like you are raising them, then something is wrong with international law. BTW, the UN anti-genocide-charta labels action in case of genocide as mandatory and obligatory - signing states have no other choice by valid international laws then to implement those measures needed to prevent genocide. Which is why so often in case of genocides you see diplomats balancing words and avoiding terms so often in order to avoid such a horrific event being claled genocide - because then their nations would have a binding obligation to do what is needed to prevent genocide. And such investements often are not wanted, especially when it is not about oil or other precious ressources.

Tchocky,
kill a dozen generals and colonels and illustrate that you do not stop at their dorrsteps - and you will have triggered creative thought processes in the braisn of two hundred other generals and colonels. Most likely you do not need to bomb everyone of them. Just help them to get an impression that you are determined to go as far as needed, and they will change. Promised. I said I am not about enforced regime change, so if after the current top being killed, the colonels become generals and take over, it is not really a concern for me as long as these new generals have learned their lesson and allow aid being send in - as the price for themselves being inpower now.

all I want is enforce unlimited access for foreign aid to the affected regions and the population, without the Junta interfering with good transports, and taking its share, and without needing to accept their blackmailing. that is the objective, precise and clearly.

[Skybird]

I have a much better alternative plan. Hold criminal offenders and murderers personally responsible and make them suffer bitter tragedy and grief themselves. Send some dozens to some hundred Tomahawks for the private homes of the criminals in uniform and kill them and the next generation. .... but try to assassinate the responsi8ble officers and their families, personally. There is a simply reason behind killing the families as well. It is a reasonable assumption that these gangster have educated their offsprings in the same selfish brutal attitude their fathers are living by.

You'd be surprised how fast they would change their policies regarding incoming international aid. If not for the sake of saving their families, then they will do it for the sake of protecting their houses and possessions.

Did you just finish your Al Qaeda correspondence course or something?

Substitute IED/Suicide Bomber for Tomahawks and this sounds like it came out of a terrorist play book.:nope:
Enjoy your solid roof over your head, your warm and safe bed, and enjoy your dinner this evening. Mmmmm, smells lovely. Life can be so pleasant, right? nothing beats a fire in the chimney, the company of friends, a glass of red vine, and having a civilised discussion on philosophy and moral standards.

[kurtz]

I have a much better alternative plan. Hold criminal offenders and murderers personally responsible and make them suffer bitter tragedy and grief themselves. Send some dozens to some hundred Tomahawks for the private homes of the criminals in uniform and kill them and the next generation. .... but try to assassinate the responsi8ble officers and their families, personally. There is a simply reason behind killing the families as well. It is a reasonable assumption that these gangster have educated their offsprings in the same selfish brutal attitude their fathers are living by.

You'd be surprised how fast they would change their policies regarding incoming international aid. If not for the sake of saving their families, then they will do it for the sake of protecting their houses and possessions.
Did you just finish your Al Qaeda correspondence course or something?

Substitute IED/Suicide Bomber for Tomahawks and this sounds like it came out of a terrorist play book.:nope: Enjoy your solid roof over your head, your warm and safe bed, and enjoy your dinner this evening. Mmmmm, smells lovely. Life can be so pleasant, right? nothing beats a fire in the chimney, the company of friends, a glass of red vine, and having a civilised discussion on philosophy and moral standards.

I thought this was fair comment this is nothing other than terrorism.

and you will have triggered creative thought processes in the braisn of two hundred other generals and colonels

Well, that would be a first.

Actually, considering the Burmese oilfields I'm surprised the International Community haven't attempted to destabilise/destroy the regime so they could step in and 'help'. After all I susdpect it went some way to convincing Imperial Japan to liberate the Burmese people from Western Imperialism, that's what I meant by some parrallels.

[Skybird]

Terrorism I call it to allow thousands dying just to respect the interests of some dozen perpetrators. It also is complicity in my book.

"Tolerance of evil is a crime." (Thomas Mann)

[bradclark1]

Stop delivering supplies. Bombard the place with leaflets saying the junta won't allow help. The world can't be responsible for those that won't accept help but on their terms. And then what are they supposed to do? Rise up like we got the Kurds to do in Iraq?

It's not about what we get them to do. We/us aren't responsible for them.
Unless we are prepared to take the junta and their supporters (which is probably most of the officer corps) out and replace replace them with a UN backed group it's not our business. If the junta wants to let them die rather than allow aid in then thats up to them. If the UN doesn't do anything then as cold as it sounds "Oh well". All we are doing right now is backing a dictatorship. Thats what we are doing. We are aiding the junta and feeding their machine. Screw being goody two shoes unless you have an iron fist behind it.

[August]

Terrorism I call it to allow thousands dying just to respect the interests of some dozen perpetrators. It also is complicity in my book.

"Tolerance of evil is a crime." (Thomas Mann)

And it's NOT evil to tolerate the deliberate murder of a small child just because you don't like her daddy?

Hypocracy thy name is Skybird. :nope:

[mrbeast]

"Tolerance of evil is a crime."

Indeed, but surely two evils don't make a good.

[SUBMAN1]

Ouch. I do not support invasion of a sovereign country when there is no harm done against the west by this country. I do not support assasination here either. I bet these leaders however have another thing coming if their population gets demorilized far enough.

As said above, two evils...

-S

[MothBalls]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Even Bush knows that.

That's why he decided to see if three wrongs make a right, or maybe four, or five.....

[SUBMAN1]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Even Bush knows that.

That's why he decided to see if three wrongs make a right, or maybe four, or five.....Please... :roll:

[Platapus]

Two wrongs don't make a right

But two wrights do make an airplane :D

[MothBalls]

Two wrongs don't make a right

Three lefts make a right.

[bradclark1]

What is for the greater good?

[kurtz]

Terrorism I call it to allow thousands dying just to respect the interests of some dozen perpetrators. It also is complicity in my book.

"Tolerance of evil is a crime." (Thomas Mann)

You can call it what you want but it doesn't make it so.

Complicity? with a cyclone?

[Iceman]

Every word spoken a man shall give account for in the great day.As well every deed wether it be good or evil shall be brought to light and thrown into fire and tried.

A man must decide what is right and wrong himself and live accordingly.

What is happening there seems to me to amount to genocide....hence those responsible will be punished as well as those who have the power to act and do not.

Flying over the airspace, littering the area with supplies seems the "Least" we can do "Now"....NOW.

[Skybird]

In the end, Kurtz, what you say helps to make sure that many hundred times as many people eventually die and those responsible for it get away with it, than would die by what I suggest. That is your civilised, moral superiority and sophisticated sense of humanism.

I don't tell you you can be proud of that - for I am sure you already are.

[kurtz]

In the end, Kurtz, what you say helps to make sure that many hundred times as many people eventually die and those responsible for it get away with it, than would die by what I suggest. That is your civilised, moral superiority and sophisticated sense of humanism.

I don't tell you you can be proud of that - for I am sure you already are.

And what you say prevents it?

What I don't want is for us to hand our a carte blanche to governments to invade a country because it's oppresing it's own people and has a oil. I don't think we're so very different, you and I.

[Skybird]

We just have read another poster who mysteriously looses the ability to correctly read when it is written "no invasion" - although it has been written by me several times now. "No invasion" means: "no invasion". It does not mean: "let's start an invasion". One could even say it means exactly the opposite: not to invade. Because if I would intend an invasion, probablity is oin favour of that I would have said that. But I wrote not to invade, so - any bright conclusions wether I intend an invasion or not? :dead:

I also repeatedly said what the mission objective is in doing like I suggest. It is not meaning something that I have not written, and is not something different than what I actually have written. So: I mean what I actually have written, and do not mean what I have not written.

I admit: this is extremely complex thought matter, and thus may be too difficult to be thoroughly understood. Morning excercise to help blood circulation, and an occasional cup of strong coffe may help, who knows.

[August]

No Kurtz there's no "invasion" in the Skybird-Schlieffen plan. Just a few random missile attacks that will undoubtedly miss their targets and hit nearby orphanages, hospitals and religious facilities often enough to give the west yet another public relations black eye.

It's sort of like Bill Clintons idea of bring terrorism to it's knees by blowing up aspirin factories and Chinese Embassies.

[kurtz]

I admit: this is extremely complex thought matter, and thus may be too difficult to be thoroughly understood. Morning excercise to help blood circulation, and an occasional cup of strong coffe may help, who knows.
Try them, then consider what the out come of knocking out tiers of government would be in a fractured country with oil reserves, evrybody would be along to 'help'

EDIT: hey, I know if you didn't like the way a country 'helped' perhaps you could kill it's president and his wife and children.

[McBeck]

Remember to play nice...I consider you close to crossing the line. :ping:

[kurtz]

Remember to play nice...I consider you close to crossing the line. :ping:

I think your right, I don't see this going anywhere. No more posts from me.

[August]

Remember to play nice...I consider you close to crossing the line. :ping:

Who are you talking to?

The guy who advocates bombing the families of his enemies or the people who mock him for that position?

[Happy Times]

I dont accept bombing gangster regimes, that would consist most of the world..
I accept attacking if someone openly or covertly wages war or terrorism against you.
All regimes will fall when people have had enough, the desire for freedom has to come from within. We cant make the whole world like us, enough problems in defending what we have.

[McBeck]

Remember to play nice...I consider you close to crossing the line. :ping:
Who are you talking to?

The guy who advocates bombing the families of his enemies or the people who mock him for that position?
Im talking about people getting very close to personal attacks/name calling. I do not judge their opinion...

[August]

Remember to play nice...I consider you close to crossing the line. :ping:
Who are you talking to?

The guy who advocates bombing the families of his enemies or the people who mock him for that position? Im talking about people getting very close to personal attacks/name calling. I do not judge their opinion...

Well thank you for your opinion.

[AntEater]

Humanitarian interventions (some kind of an oxymoron) seem to have fallen out of fashion rather rapidly after the 1990s.
I sometimes think the whole "kill people to feed people" idea had one purpose mainly:
To provide the military forces of the NATO countries with a reason to exist with the main enemy gone. Now the NATO militaries have passed the budgetary dry spell of the 1990s, they can safely do without feeding anyone.
Also, the concept of humanitarian intervention was a tool to do away with the principle of non-intervention in internal affairs of other states. I don't know if that was deliberate or not.

Btw, what did they put in Skybird's drink?

If somebody were to invade Burma I suppose it would take about a month to turn grateful Burmese citizens into resistance fighters against (most likely US) occupation forces. People don't like foreign interventions.

[Skybird]

If somebody were to invade Burma I suppose it would take about a month to turn grateful Burmese citizens into resistance fighters against (most likely US) occupation forces. People don't like foreign interventions.

I am tempted to take it personally from now on. Do people poke pencils in their eyes before reading here? Once again, and for the last time, for the long sleepers and slow thinkers out there: it is written down clearly black on white by me in this thread, repeatedly, that I did not talk of "invasion", but exactly the opposite.

I think some people just read a thread title, and leave it to that when replying.

At the bginning of the Iraq war, Cruise missiles were personally aimed at Saddam in an attempt to take him out. After the Balkans war, the man-hunt for the heads responsible for war crimes was open. Bin Laden is being attempted to be killed, if possible.

Valid international law, in the form of the anti-genocide convention of the UN from 1948, do not just allow to take action against it: it is MANDATORY, OBLIGATORY, LEGALLY BINDING to take action that is needed to prevent it. If a mob of criminal gangsters in uniform at the top of the army, cause a mass killing amongst their people by actively preventing aid getting to them, in my book this qualoifies for being called genocide. To stop these gangsters continuing like that, is not just an option for voluntary action - it is a legally binding obligation for all signing states of the UN anti-genocide-convention.

Rwanda. Darfhur. Screbrenica and Balkans. Just a few of the most recent catastrophes where all those civilised, well-meaning humanists miserably failed and just watched while the land turned red with blood. Many hundreds of thousands died of starvation imposed on them, or were slaugthered. The morally superior watchers discussed wether by their own international and UN laws it were crimes happening, or not. People were massacred - the international community had a civilised debate, and in the end shook hands and reassured each other that one was agreeing on not acting, for philosophical concerns. Great. that is true superior level of modern civilisation. but I would not call it that.

You can also become guilty of complicity by not acting, and allowing crimes to take place, too - as guilty as those who actively wish for it, and carry out. Many Western law-codes put refusing to help in case of accident and emergencies under penalty as well. That's how it is in germany, and I am sure Germany is not alone.

You guys talk of ethics and morality. while you do, the tragedy unfolds, but you do not care. Main thing is that your superior morality superficially remains intact, and shining and polished. That is more important then to save probably tens of thousands of lifes and not supporting and not playing by the demands of a man-hating, mass-killing gang of murderers.

You do not want to kill the godfathers of the Junta-Mafia over there, and you do not want to put them under pressure by threatening what is dearest to them. that way, you already have given away all efficient tools to acchieve their falling back and allow access for forign aid. Instead, you hope to pay them monhey and goods, much money and many goods, ending up in the hands of the rgime to support the regime and make sure that it survives some time longer. But bombing Iraq and it's society back into stoneage for far lesser a cause, and for lies and selfish strategies, and by that actively causing the killing of tens of thousands, and bringing hundreds of thousands into misery far worse then it was under Saddam, and killing hu7ndreds if not thousands as side-effect or by mistake and wipe it off the table by calling it collateral damage: that is very much okay for some of you. Ha, if that is not bigot!

Double moral standards - that's all what it is. I do not know if it will become the worst case scenario over there. But I know that during one of the next times during a desaster, another regime will remeber the lesson burma has löectured to the West: and will copy the example, only that this time the price it demands will be even higher. For it has beejn learned that doing so pays off - and one gets away with it. Blackmailing of this kind is a win-win-situation, becasue the West refuses to reply with uncompromised determination.

Spend some money to relief organisations, and have a clean conscience that way. Who cares that currently much of that money spend will end in supporting the junta of criminals committing crimes against humanity, and their own people, and the future mess yoj justg have helped to create - bah, tomorrow is abnother day, the sun will shine anyway, andwhen the next time has arrived - nopbody will remember burma anyway and how one has failed in that: so nobody must feel responsible for having helped giving birth to "next time".

What fantastic sensible, humanistic, moral people we are. False glory blinds our own eyes, and we stumble around in darkness, calling it a parade in celebration of civilisation. But infact we are dancing on many graves of those who died in silence for our ignorrance and bigotry.

In the end it is simple math to me: Two or three dozen generals and colonels and parts of their families being dead, and let's say one hundred villas and private properties of theirs being destroyed - or terns of thousands of children, maybe even several times as many adults in the long run dying of deseases and starvation, and physical weakness. Let ther ebe no doubt that it is not needed to kill half of their army officers: regimes of this kind do not really know loyalty, but every crow wants to get the greatest opiece of the cake. A second line of officers already stands ready to accept foreign aid if that is all price they need to pay in order to take over power from their current superiors. kill a few of those bastards personally and show them tjhat you do not fidle around with a regular wa, but go for them personally, and the surviving ones soon will learn that it is better to live and become rich and the next generation of masters, instead of seeing yourself being targetted by a missile - even if your family stands between you and the bomb.

[Skybird]

German Focus magazine: Five motorboats the UN has given to the Burmese authorities so that they could reach to critical regions faster - are being used to hunt down foreigners and journalists instead. Police and military have started to shoot locals who just have talked to foreigners.

http://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/tid-10082/birma-tagebuch-sie-verwenden-alles-gegen-ihr-eigenes-volk_aid_303527.html?drucken=1

„Schenkt unserer Regierung überhaupt nichts!“, empören sich unsere Helfer. „Sie verwenden sofort alles gegen ihr eigenes Volk.“

Translation: "Give our government nothing as a gift. They immediately start to use it against their own people."

Yeah, sure - don't touch the generals. That is morally correct.

[Stealth Hunter]

And just in case my respected readers are not aware of it, and while we discuss the subtleties of the West's superioir morality . . .

"Respected readers"?:roll: :rotfl:
Are you a newspaper columnist now? Jesus Christ, don't make me laugh!

Ego ahoy! Aye, thar she blows! Her belly must be at a hundred fathoms! Saint Christopher, it be like a gigantic whale!:arrgh!::rotfl::roll:

If by "superior morality" you mean "brainwashed Jesus-dedicated society that's slowly killing religious freedom and beliefs", then we are out of the game. These people are ahead of us in that field.

And the rest of your post... well, that's a "No ****, Sherlock?" case.

[Skybird]

Take note of the context of that sarcastic quote you gave. ;)

BTW, Sherlock, the killing over there already is getting into swing right now - by weapons' force, not just by disease, lacking water, and food.

We did not care for Rwanda, or Darfhur, and many others where hundreds of thousands were killed, for "diplomatic considerations". So we have solid and valuable precedents not to do anything this time as well to stop the killers.

What a relief!

[Skybird]

Unbelievable that the Burmese junta still gets dealt with wioth soft gloves on:

After some days ago, when they pleased western politicians and made mockery of them when superficially agreeing on letting aid getting in (aid organisations were sceptical from the start on and said they do not believe it before they see it), the aid workers that got in complain about having been allowed in, yes, but when setting sail to go for an affected region: being send back to their bases and roadblocks and redirected and sent back by military patrols over and over again, and getting trapped and blocked and sent home by each day ever new permissions needed that one day before nobody ever had known of. Now the UN starts complaining about not only help being hindered to reach those in need, but those being in need getting hindered to get to places were inernational aid has been established, how ever limited it may be. the Juta says the country is in good shape, and send people back to their destroyed villages to let them die there.

And today, medias quote US defense minstre Robert Gates comparing to the international aid after the Tsnumani desaster, saying: "With Burma, the situation has been very different - at a cost of tens of thousands of lives. Many other countries besides the United States have also felt hindered in their efforts."

In other words: the junta commits mass murder against it's own population. Aid agencies estimate that less than 30% of the affected population has had seen any help so far.

And what is being done about it?

the international willingness to accept this murderous mafia acting like it wants and accept itS terms for and humiliations of foreign aid, angers me to the bone, and also hits me emotionally, remembering me of some scenes of misery I have seen myself in foreign countries years ago. More than ever I am convinced that these criminal sickos need to be targetted personally, and must be targetted and introduced to personal misery, and that we commit a crime ourselves to just let them get away and not hindering their evil unfolding by killing them. I can't justify the death of tens of thousands of totally innocent with the well being of these gangsters and their families, and I cannot even imagine how that should ever be possible.

Related stories:
http://voanews.com/english/2008-05-31-voa1.cfm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7428916.stm
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/30/MNRV110MR8.DTL

Shame on our phlegmatism and lacking determination. We could change the situation, but we chose the comfortable alternative instead and just let it happen, hiding behind some pseudo superior carricature of a philosphy. Shame on us.