UN halts aid to Myanmar after junta seizes supplies

[maddezmom]

Source: AP

YANGON, Myanmar - A U.N. official says the World Food Program is suspending cyclone aid to Myanmar because its government seized supplies flown into the country.


He says the WFP has no choice but to suspend the shipments until the matter is resolved.

WFP spokesman Paul Risley said Friday that all "the food aid and equipment that we managed to get in has been confiscated." The shipment included 38 tons of high-energy biscuits.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080509/ap_on_re_as/myanmar_cyclone;_

[ellisonz]

1. *expletive* *expletive* *expletive*

:-(

[saigon68]

9. "Freedom and Democracy are on the March", the Chimp

Sure looks like it

[mainegreen]

2. Well there's a surprise.

[bdamomma]

3. SOB government would rather see their citizens die cause of

their political sick ideals. Sounds like ours huh?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

35. Right out of Cheney's playbook

You die. I get rich. Life is good.

[Zachstar]

4. Time for the UN to go in

Arrest all these fucks and install a gov that can get the aid in before thousands fucking die!

[comtec]

6. too late =[

If the UN really gave a fuck, they would have gone into Burma the LAST time the junta started whole-sale slaughtering their people!

[Zachstar]

11. Fine if the UN wants to be a bunch of fucking political wussies they can piss off.

People are suffering and are going to start to die in droves if we do not take control of that government. Or atleast remove the threat of it's military so we can airdrop aid in.

Bush Invaded a peaceful country. How about giving our armed forces a chance to fucking save lives for once!

Yes I am outraged because the UN having to stop shipments means others will stop and every day that aid is siezed the more that die.

[Sixty_cycle_humm]

14. We should stay out

of Burma, let China go in and distribute (and donate) the aid
this time, they are already in bed with the Junta. 


They want to step up and be seen as a world leader?  Here is a
perfect example for them to demonstrate to the world their
commitment to being one.

[Hugabear]

16. And if China won't, what then?

Do we just allow hundreds of thousands of people to die ONCE AGAIN because of our inaction?

Or do we only act when it's in our strategic (Kosovo) or economic (Kuwait) interest?

[Zachstar]

17. Bingo!

[atreides1]

20. Answers

Yes

Yes

[Psephos]

24. Get a clue. The UN IS a bunch of political wussies.

Chinese hegemony over S.E. Asia (especially true in Myanmar) means that nothing meaningful can/will be done at the UN.

Except a bunch of meetings and statements of grave concern, of course. Business as usual.

PS You seem to have forgotten how US, Australian, and NATO armed forces aided Indonesian tsunami victims while the UN stood by and flapped its jaws.

[OhioChick]

5. I was watching the MSM

late last night (CNN) and they were showing the few clips they had of the area, since very few are given access and.....my God. It's such a catastrophe there. Truly heartbreaking.

K&R

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

7. They're just doing a heck of a job...

[Hugabear]

8. They're doing their damnest to make Bush's response to Katrina look good

This is just friggin' unbelievable. The UN should go in anyways, with an armed escort. I've seen reports that up to 500,000 people could die if they don't get assistance. The world CANNOT allow this to happen, the Myanmar government be damned.

[Zachstar]

10. Damned?! How about sent to the hauge and sent to hell!

Only fucking monsters seize supplies meant for the people when they will die without it.

These fuckers are little better than Hitler!

[atreides1]

21. And it's obviously working

Where does the UN get the armed escort from? Hell they can't even get the troops and equipment to help Dar fur!

As for the world, the last time I checked a sovereign country can except or not except assistance. And if the world does what you seem to think it should do, when does it stop, who decides which countries should be invaded, who gets to set the standards?

Any reasonable answers that you can provide would be appreciated.

[Hugabear]

22. When does it stop? How about "when should it start"?

Let's just use a hypothetical here. Suppose Germany had never invaded any other country prior to WWII. For sake of this argument, let's say that Hitler decided to focus entirely on his "final solution". Let's say that we knew that Jews were being rounded up and exterminated. They haven't invaded anyone, and they are a sovereign nation. Should the world just sit by and allow a country to slaughter its own citizens?

So what's the magic number? You seem to be okay with a few hundred thousand innocent people being killed. What if it's a million? Does that rise to the level where intervention is justified? How about two million? How about six million?

Did we learn NOTHING from the lessons of WWII and the Holocaust? Do the words NEVER AGAIN mean anything at all?

[AngryAmish]

32. If you think "Never Again" means something than you have not been paying attention

1. Congo
2. Uganda
3. Viet Nam
4. Cambodia
5. Darfur
6. Rwanda
7. China (Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution)
8. East Timor
9. Bosnia
10. I give up trying to list them all

"Never Again" is a marketing phrase to raise money for those who promote it. Nobody is serious about it. It makes people feel good. It carries the same moral weight as "You deserve a break today" because it is ignored. We won't do anything about it and the civilized world won't do anything about it.

[bdamomma]

27. the Myanmar government should be held for inhumane treatment of people.

[marshall]

12. I wish I could say I'm surprised

There is nothing we can do about it unless we want another Iraq.

[Sheets of Easter]

13. Yeah, who didn't see that coming?

Fricking evil bastards.

[MikeNearMcChord]

15. The military junta in Pakistan pulled the same stunt in 1971

and it resulted in Bangladesh declaring independence, with India's help. I wonder if there are those in the Burmese Army, who may persuaded to dump the present regime?

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

18. At the UN

http://www.unhcr.org/news/NEWS/48242c4f4.html

Myanmar: UNHCR seeking every means to send urgent supplies
Date: 9 May 2008 | UNHCR Briefing Notes



We are seeking all possible means to send urgent shelter materials and household supplies to victims of the recent cyclone in Myanmar.

We are hoping to start airlifting 57 tonnes of emergency shelter from our major stockpile in Dubai. The first load of 32 tonnes of aid cargo – mainly urgently needed shelter materials such as plastic sheeting, blankets and kitchen sets – is set to be transported on a World Food Programme aircraft. A further 25 tonnes of supplies are expected to be airlifted over the weekend on a joint charter flight. The UNHCR airlift will provide shelter materials for around 22,000 people.

More than a million people are estimated to have been left homeless by the powerful cyclone which slammed into Myanmar's southern regions.

On another front, UNHCR is emptying its stockpile in north-western Thailand to deliver some 5,000 plastic sheets and some 200 tents to people in desperate need of shelter across the border.

As we speak, UNHCR is loading trucks with supplies for 10,000 people. The road convoy could leave for Myanmar as soon as this weekend, crossing from Mae Sot in Thailand to Myawadi in Myanmar and on to Yangon.

The distribution of UNHCR's humanitarian aid inside Myanmar to the cyclone victims will be handled by the Myanmar government's Disaster Management Committee and the Myanmar Red Cross.

UNHCR is focusing on emergency shelter as part of joint UN efforts in cyclone-hit Myanmar. In the UN Flash Appeal which is scheduled to be launched later today in New York we are asking donors for $6 million to meet the immediate shelter and household needs of 250,000 victims of the disaster. In the meantime, we are releasing funds from our own reserves.




Also, I'm contacting the UN about this. Something more MUST be done.

[Blue_Tires]

19. who in fuck's name is in charge over there?

[marshall]

25. it's a military dictatorship

Pray we don't decide to invade and take over.

[OnionPatch]

29. From what I read

the dictatorship is in bed with Exxon, who has big operations there. I highly doubt we'll be "bringing democracy" to Burma under those circumstances. :(

[Haole Girl]

23. This is so sad...

and so fucking idiotic.

x(

[ckramer]

26. It looks like they neither trust the U.S. nor the U.N.

Easier way is to invade them.

[bdamomma]

28. read this article

this comment is what the Myanmar government said:

"Myanmar's military government indicated on Friday that while it wanted relief supplies, foreign aid personnel were not being called for".



http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C4EAE5F3-1E26-4A15-80F3-C04E12F4D3A0.htm

[Hugabear]

31. In other words - we want that stuff for us, not the people

"Just give us the relief supplies. Then leave, so you can't see what we do with it"

[bdamomma]

37. exactly.

[Kajsa]

30. Link to the latest news and action links.

http://uscampaignforburma.org/

(scroll down for the latest news from Burma.)

- this is typical coming from the military thugs who
now rule Burma.

Besides the fact that they are ruthless and care not
if hundreds of thousand people die, they aren't
too damn bright, either.
With a good portion of the population gone,
who will rebuild Burma?

The people don't matter, the animals don't matter,
the future of Burma doesn't matter.

All that matters to them is that they stay in power
AT ANY COST. :(

[High Plains]

33. The Burmese government "seized supplies"....

Does that mean it took control over their distribution? Isn't that what we would expect?

[Hugabear]

34. If you really want to believe that, go ahead

Military dictatorships like that don't always have the best interests of their people in mind, and are primarily concerned with themselves. North Korea is a perfect example of this, where the ruling elite prosper while millions literally starve to death.

The problem is that without outside observation, there's really know way to know if any of that aid will reach the intended victims, or if it will simply go into the ruling junta's storehouses.

[Kajsa]

38. They are not allowing international aide workers

to distribute the supplies, also.

Why Not?

Don't they need all the help they can get?

What are they hiding?

[LanternWaste]

39. When was the last time...

When was the last time an authoritarian, military dictatorship did just that?

Anyways, it's a moot point-- Myanmar doesn't have the infrastructure or the air lift power to move that amount of material over that amount of ground in so short a time. The only reason the U.N. would have a chance of getting it efficiently and effectively distributed is due to a comprehensive (shared)airlift capacity.

[debbierlus]

36. We don't have any military for TRUE needs

They are all sitting duck targets in a civil war in Iraq.