US Navy leaves Burma after the junta refuses aid.

[Dommo]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7435188.stm


This is pretty disgusting that the Burmese junta turned them away. The US Navy has the best logistical capabilities in the world, and this small battle group had quite a few helicopters, as well as ship borne desalination capabilities that are desperately needed over there.

If there is a group that could use a missile up the ass, it's the Burmese government.

[SPMiller]

I'd be careful with Burma. I don't want any piddly encounter to lead to WW3. I'm sure you can understand everyone's hesitation to interfere.

[MattW]

F-them.

[Shadow_Ferret]

The Navy Came,
To Save the Day,
But the Junta said,
To Go Away.

Burma Shave.

[cethklein]

I wonder what the mighty UN, the "defenders of human rights" will do about the junta.

I'm hedging my bet on "nothing." Although they might send the junta an angry letter if they'e feeling brassy.

[donroc]

More likely the UN operatives are getting their cut of the drug trafficking.

[icerose]

I wonder what the mighty UN, the "defenders of human rights" will do about the junta.

I'm hedging my bet on "nothing." Although they might send the junta an angry letter if they'e feeling brassy.

They have sent an angry vibe their way. I'm sure that's as far as it will go. It doesn't matter that the person who was actually elected president is under a 12 year house arrest, which is against burmese law, and it doesn't matter that the military has engaged in ethnic cleansing, and that they rule with an iron fist, or anything like that.

[Godfather]

They have sent an angry vibe their way. I'm sure that's as far as it will go. It doesn't matter that the person who was actually elected president is under a 12 year house arrest, which is against burmese law, and it doesn't matter that the military has engaged in ethnic cleansing, and that they rule with an iron fist, or anything like that.


pff

technicalities

[cethklein]

Can you imagine:

Junta Leader: We're not letting anyone in to help.

UN Envoy: You will allow international aid or else.

Junta Leader: Or else what?:

UN Envoy: Or else this letter, that I hold in my hand, WILL be mailed to you. And I assure you, it will not be pretty. The contents WILL hurt your feelings. I'm going to drop it in the mail slot! I'll do it!

UN Aid: Watch it junta-people! He'll do it man, that mother-$&%#er's crazy!

[icerose]

Can you imagine:

Junta Leader: We're not letting anyone in to help.

UN Envoy: You will allow international aid or else.

Junta Leader: Or else what?:

UN Envoy: Or else this letter, that I hold in my hand, WILL be mailed to you. And I assure you, it will not be pretty. The contents WILL hurt your feelings. I'm going to drop it in the mail slot! I'll do it!

UN Aid: Watch it junta-people! He'll do it man, that mother-$&%#er's crazy!

Yeah, exactly.

[Godfather]

badass idea.

let us, the aw, write an angry letter to them, the un. lets see them recover from that!

[cethklein]

There will be blood! We'll cut them with our words and impale them on our.....words.

[Sarpedon]

I wonder why people expect the UN to do anything more than issue statements.

Its simply an organization meant to facilitate diplomacy and international cooperation. It has no real power of its own. Why do people mock it for doing nothing? If you want something done, write to your own government and have them do it. Governments have power. The UN is not a government.

[icerose]

I wonder why people expect the UN to do anything more than issue statements.

Its simply an organization meant to facilitate diplomacy and international cooperation. It has no real power of its own. Why do people mock it for doing nothing? If you want something done, write to your own government and have them do it. Governments have power. The UN is not a government.

Because my government is the US and the world thinks we get into other people's business too much as it is.

[Sarpedon]

And yet you sit around and blame the UN for not doing anything. The reason that the UN can't do anything is because people, especially the US, have said that they don't WANT a world government, and thus have opposed all proposals to give it any sort of meaningful independant powers.

[Shadow_Ferret]

I wonder why people expect the UN to do anything more than issue statements.

Its simply an organization meant to facilitate diplomacy and international cooperation. It has no real power of its own. Why do people mock it for doing nothing? If you want something done, write to your own government and have them do it. Governments have power. The UN is not a government.
Which brings about the ultimate question: Why then do we even have a UN? So world government reps can all lounge around in NY and take in a Yankees game?

[cethklein]

Because my government is the US and the world thinks we get into other people's business too much as it is.

Exactly. Everyone pisses and moans when America does something. The UN DOES have power, they have security forces they send into areas (although they usually turn tail and run once someone starts shooting. Come on, it's hard to take seriously a force that wears camo uniforms complimented with bright blue helmets.)

If the UN is gonig to jsut be a statement-giving group then they need to act like it. They need to disband their security forces if they're not going to do anything.

[Sarpedon]

Well, I think the UN is worthwhile as it is; a forum for diplomacy, a mediator, an organizer for international aid and so forth. Its not as if its THAT expensive.

There is no UN army. There is no UN Land for them to come from. UN security forces are sent by various countries. They are regular soldiers or sometimes policemen assigned by their country of origin to UN peacekeeping mission. India is the largest contributer of UN security forces, I believe. You can't disband UN forces, because they aren't UN forces. They belong to UN member nations.

[cethklein]

And yet you sit around and blame the UN for not doing anything. The reason that the UN can't do anything is because people, especially the US, have said that they don't WANT a world government, and thus have opposed all proposals to give it any sort of meaningful independant powers.

So it's America's fault the UN is worthless? Riiiiight.

They have power, America doesn't have to grant it to them, they just refuse to use it. Remember Rwanda?

[Shadow_Ferret]

Well, I think the UN is worthwhile as it is; a forum for diplomacy, a mediator, an organizer for international aid and so forth. Its not as if its THAT expensive.
Yes, because we all know everyone is paid up on their dues.

[Sarpedon]

I'm not saying its the US's fault. I don't want a World Government either. I'm just pointing out that it isn't one, and why.

[Bravo]

while the UN makes mistakes, sardepon is absolutely right to point out that the power given to it is determined by it's member states, esp. it's most powerful state america.

the way the UN is run suits the bigger powers, and the bigger powers do not want to cede any of their control to anyone else so you end up with a stalemate. 5 nations can essentially determine everything for the rest of the 170 odd nations in the world.

the veto power these 5 nations have prevents the UN from doing much of anything. china would veto anything on burma, the US will veto anything with israel, russia vetoes anything w serbia, so you end up with a spineless organization. and that is exactly what superpowers want.

this belief that america acts for the good of other nations is naive, idealistic, and ultimately dangerous. it's time to grow up and realize that the US acts for it's own economic, political, and strategic interests, sometimes those interests help the local population but more often than not the US doesnt care one way or another, and most of it's policies definitely do not help the rest of the world.

i can name about two dozen dictators and brutal thugs america has supported and armed throughout the 20th century, madmen who butchered entire villages but who are our allies and friends. i can name a half dozen different coups the CIA has been involved with, coups where a democratically elected politician has been overthrown, replaced with a more complacent strongman.

so yeah, let's quit with the kneejerk UN bashing and actually accept the reality of the world we live in for once.

[Sarpedon]

And I do remember Rwanda. I do remember that it was the UK that introduced the proposal to withdraw the UN peacekeeping force, and that the US supported the resolution, and that was that.

I don't know who you think the 'they' are who can make the decisions to use troops without the support of the member states. The UN, as an organization, has no such decision making power.

[donroc]

It is difficult not to deal with dictatorships, juntas, and thugs in the real world. If the UN is an alternative, consider the high % of member nations run by the usual dictators, thugs, juntas, and oligarchies of the greedy.

Imo our government (and all others do try to varying degrees of competence) should operate its foreign relations first with realpolitik/raison d'etat which may include being when possible humane and altruistic.

[cethklein]

And I do remember Rwanda. I do remember that it was the UK that introduced the proposal to withdraw the UN peacekeeping force, and that the US supported the resolution, and that was that.

I don't know who you think the 'they' are who can make the decisions to use troops without the support of the member states. The UN, as an organization, has no such decision making power.

So in other words, the UN is worthless. If they have no power on their own, then they are worthless. Yes, tey should just be a forum for maknig statements. Which means they need to disband their peacekeeping forces seeing as they have no real power. The UN needs to make up its mind as to what it is. ou say they are only there to make statements but THEY Apparently don't see it that way.

[Sarpedon]

You aren't paying attention; The UN has no peacekeeping forces. Other countries assign forces to SPECIFIC missions under UN supervision. They do not have some force that they can use wherever they see fit.

The success of any particular mission depends greatly on the commitment of the nations involved. I do not think anyone would say that the UN mission in the Golan Heights has been worthless.

The UN is an organization that facilitates international cooperation. When countries want to cooperate, its dandy, and is certainly is useful. When countries do not want to cooperate, like in Rwanda or Burma, there's not much it can do. If this surprises or disappoints you, maybe its because you have unrealistic expectations.

[cethklein]

That's right, but those forces fight under the banner of the UN. This should NEVER be done. If the member states chose the missions then THEY are wrong (as tHEY ARE the UN.)

When I say "the UN" I'm referring to the nations that make up the UN, and yes that includes the US.

Right now the US wants to send in aid. So where are the other UN nations tying to force Berma to accept it? So far, I believe the French are the only other group to really push them.If the UN cannot band together to force the hands of tyrants then it may as well not exist. Secretary Ban is supposed to be the leader, the one to rally the UN. What's he donig besides maknig token visits?

[Sarpedon]

I don't believe there is any international consensus on when outside nations are justified in taking military action to combat the internal problems of another country. This is not to say that they never should, only that there's no agreement, and there probably never will be. In this instance, I expect many people think using force against Burma will only increase the suffering of the Burmese people, which is a reasonable point of view.

[robeiae]

You aren't paying attention; The UN has no peacekeeping forces. Other countries assign forces to SPECIFIC missions under UN supervision. They do not have some force that they can use wherever they see fit.
Peacekeeping force? You mean a military?

The UN can never be an effective body because it will never have it's own military. And at the very least--for this to work--that military would need to be as large and as powerful as the largest and most powerful military of any nation.

Regardless, the UN stinks at everything. It's mostly ineffective and a waste of resources. Sure, it does some good, but at what price? Better to disband the whole thing.

Of course, the reality is that the UN is the prime vehicle for enriching third-world despots. It even does better than the oil companies because it expects nothing in return.

[Dommo]

What bothers me about this is the willingness for a government(Burma's) to intentionally let thousands die because their own paranoia.

The US in this is sort of caught in a catch 22. We can either respect the sovereignty of Burma, and allow the deaths of thousands, or we can depose the Junta which may or may not make the situation worse. In either case people around the world a going to be pissed at us for either not acting, or violating international law.

It's frankly a frustrating position to be in.