# Aid being refused by Burma



## Larkinn (May 8, 2008)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080508/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_myanmar

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday the U.S. military was moving forward with plans to mount a relief mission in Myanmar, but he said he couldn't imagine air dropping aid without permission from the Asian nation's government.
ADVERTISEMENT

His comments followed those earlier Thursday by Ky Luu, the director of the U.S. Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, that an air drop was one of the options being considered as Myanmar's junta continued to stall on accepting assistance from the United States.

Gates says the military is moving aircraft and ships into place to help deliver humanitarian supplies once permission is granted.

"I cannot image us going in without the permission of the Myanmar government," Gates said at a Pentagon press conference with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen.

Asked if it would not be helpful to victims for the U.S. to drop supplies, Mullen said: "We could. Typically, though, it's sovereign airspace and you'd need their permission to fly in that airspace."

"It's all tied to sovereignty, which we respect whether it's on the ground or in the air," Mullen said.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

WASHINGTON (AP)  Defense Secretary Robert Gates says he can't imagine dropping relief aid into Myanmar without the military junta's permission.

Another U.S. official says the U.S. is looking at that possibility anyway, to help victims of a devastating cyclone in Myanmar.

Gates says the military is moving aircraft and ships into place to help deliver humanitarian supplies once permission is granted. But he says he can't imagine doing it without the Myanmar government's go-ahead.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen says it's a matter of Myanmar's national sovereignty.


Peh, the International Community needs to force Burma to accept aid.   I doubt the US will agree to that though and so foreign aid will be slow in coming to them.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 8, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080508/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_myanmar
> 
> WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday the U.S. military was moving forward with plans to mount a relief mission in Myanmar, but he said he couldn't imagine air dropping aid without permission from the Asian nation's government.
> ADVERTISEMENT
> ...



Force them How? Perhaps we should invade?


----------



## Larkinn (May 8, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Force them How? Perhaps we should invade?



Read the article.



> that an air drop was one of the options being considered as Myanmar's junta continued to stall on accepting assistance from the United States.



And yes, I would love if we invaded Burma.   But its not necessary to save lives, we can just do air drops of food.


----------



## Annie (May 8, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Read the article.
> 
> 
> 
> And yes, I would love if we invaded Burma.   But its not necessary to save lives, we can just do air drops of food.



Let one USAID pallet hit someone, not worth the risk anymore. I feel sorry for those people, however as I learned from some great minds on messageboards, unless the people overthrow the government, we really should mind our own business-after all, it's their government.


----------



## Dogger (May 8, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Let one USAID pallet hit someone, not worth the risk anymore. I feel sorry for those people, however as I learned from some great minds on messageboards, unless the people overthrow the government, we really should mind our own business-after all, it's their government.
> __________________
> "We are fighting today for our life, for our liberty, for our all, we cannot go on being led as we are. Somehow or other, we must get into the Government men who can match our enemies in fighting spirit, in daring, in resolution and in thirst for victory."~Leo Amery 1940, while staring at Chamberlain



Interesting post, especially when read together with your sig.


----------



## Larkinn (May 8, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Let one USAID pallet hit someone, not worth the risk anymore.



If one USAID pallet hits someone, then what?   Someone dies.   So because we are afraid of killing a few people, thousands upon thousands will starve?  Brilliant really.   



> I feel sorry for those people, however as I learned from some great minds on messageboards, unless the people overthrow the government, we really should mind our own business-after all, it's their government.



No, actually its the government that controls them, it is NOT their government.  And mind your own business?   Which is why you were so against going into Iraq, right?


----------



## Alpha1 (May 8, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> If one USAID pallet hits someone, then what?   Someone dies.   So because we are afraid of killing a few people, thousands upon thousands will starve?  Brilliant really.
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually its the government that controls them, it is NOT their government.  And mind your own business?   Which is why you were so against going into Iraq, right?



So Mr. Brilliant....you want to invade them and force our rice down their gullets weather they want it or not...???? Will they throw flowers at our troops feet?

Next you might want to force our freedoms down their throats too....will they throw those flowers at our troops then too....

We can force the rice but not the freedoms, you say...????


----------



## Annie (May 8, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> If one USAID pallet hits someone, then what?   Someone dies.   So because we are afraid of killing a few people, thousands upon thousands will starve?  Brilliant really.


 Isn't worth the risk, even one death is one too many. 





> No, actually its the government that controls them, it is NOT their government.  And mind your own business?   Which is why you were so against going into Iraq, right?



I learned the lesson, isn't that what you've been writing feverishly for so long for? Face it, Saddam controlled his people unmercifully, but that didn't warrant unjust interference, sanctions, war.


----------



## Larkinn (May 8, 2008)

Alpha1 said:


> So Mr. Brilliant....you want to invade them and force our rice down their gullets weather they want it or not...???? Will they throw flowers at our troops feet?



Are you fucking stupid?   Can you differentiate between the government and the people?   The government doesn't want the US to send in food, the people are begging for it.  



> Next you might want to force our freedoms down their throats too....will they throw those flowers at our troops then too....



Those freedoms which they obviously don't want.   Oh wait didn't they just revolt trying to get those freedoms?


----------



## Larkinn (May 8, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Isn't worth the risk, even one death is one too many.



What part of*thousands will die of starvation * didn't you understand?  



> I learned the lesson, isn't that what you've been writing feverishly for so long for? Face it, Saddam controlled his people unmercifully, but that didn't warrant unjust interference, sanctions, war.



Iraq was nothing compared to Burma.   Tens of thousands of people just died, and it took them days to allow the UN to bring in a set amount of food.   But its all good because deaths by starvation somehow matter less than deaths by force


----------



## Annie (May 8, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> What part of*thousands will die of starvation * didn't you understand?
> 
> 
> 
> Iraq was nothing compared to Burma.   Tens of thousands of people just died, and it took them days to allow the UN to bring in a set amount of food.   But its all good because deaths by starvation somehow matter less than deaths by force


Wait, tens of billions died in Iraq through our hubris, thinking we could free the people and bring democracy to some. We simply cannot once again ignore a sovereign government so we can 'feel good' dropping food in, just because 'we can'. 

Seriously, you are being heartless.


----------



## Annie (May 8, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Are you fucking stupid?   Can you differentiate between the government and the people?   The government doesn't want the US to send in food, the people are begging for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Those freedoms which they obviously don't want.   Oh wait didn't they just revolt trying to get those freedoms?



If they revolt and succeed, then they can ask us for the help. That's the right way to deal with this. We'll be on the correct side then.


----------



## Dogger (May 8, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Wait, tens of billions died in Iraq through our hubris, .  .  .



You might want to reflect on that number.


----------



## Annie (May 8, 2008)

Dogger said:


> You might want to reflect on that number.



No, it's on good authority, those that have posted for so long. See, daily we were allowing tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis to die. Logic says that some days it had to be hundreds of thousands, after all we have some pretty good bombs and all that depleted uranium...

The US must stop asserting it's will onto others. I can't imagine at this date the suggestion that we should ignore a government saying that our aid is not wanted and dropping it into that country, just because we can.


----------



## Alpha1 (May 8, 2008)

Math obviously not her best subject....
That number a little too big for her to imagine....


----------



## Dogger (May 8, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Wait, tens of billions died in Iraq through our hubris, .  .  .





Dogger said:


> You might want to reflect on that number.





Kathianne said:


> No, it's on good authority, .  .  .



You might want to reflect on that number. 

See World Population Clock Projection.


----------



## Annie (May 8, 2008)

Dogger said:


> You might want to reflect on that number.
> 
> See World Population Clock Projection.



Come now, we all know that there are those that just want to make the US look, not so bad. In any case, many of use, regardless of numbers know that no longer should the US go where they aren't asked.


----------



## Dogger (May 8, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Wait, tens of billions died in Iraq through our hubris, .  .  .





Dogger said:


> You might want to reflect on that number.





Kathianne said:


> No, it's on good authority, .  .  .





Dogger said:


> You might want to reflect on that number.
> 
> See World Population Clock Projection.





Kathianne said:


> Come now, we all know that there are those that just want to make the US look, not so bad. In any case, many of use, regardless of numbers know that no longer should the US go where they aren't asked.



You might want to reflect on that *number*.


----------



## Larkinn (May 8, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Wait, tens of billions died in Iraq through our hubris, thinking we could free the people and bring democracy to some. We simply cannot once again ignore a sovereign government so we can 'feel good' dropping food in, just because 'we can'.
> 
> Seriously, you are being heartless.



Your drunk again, aren't you?


----------



## Annie (May 8, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Your drunk again, aren't you?



LOL! Can't really deal with the new take? Why am I not surprised. Hey, all I've been doing is regurgitating and applying what you've been saying for months, if not years.


----------



## Larkinn (May 8, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> LOL! Can't really deal with the new take? Why am I not surprised. Hey, all I've been doing is regurgitating and applying what you've been saying for months, if not years.



Ah I see.   You have not been posting your views.   Instead you have been posting your perceived view of what the "liberal" viewpoint is, and attributing that to me.   

Why don't, instead of just making some bullshit up, if your going to attribute things to me go off and find quotes.   Because I would NEVER say that a government has the right to deny humanitarian aid to its people who are starving en masse.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 8, 2008)

Dogger said:


> You might want to reflect on that number.
> 
> See World Population Clock Projection.



You guys are hilarious. That you think she really means billions and is not yanking your chain is just more proof of the ignorance of some people on certain topics.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 8, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Come now, we all know that there are those that just want to make the US look, not so bad. In any case, many of use, regardless of numbers know that no longer should the US go where they aren't asked.



Kath, come on, it is FINE and DANDY to invade anyone we want, so long as a Liberal supports it.


----------



## Dogger (May 8, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You guys are hilarious. That you think she really means billions and is not yanking your chain is just more proof of the ignorance of some people on certain topics.



Nice rationalization. Totally wrong, and unsupported by anything she wrote, but nice try nonetheless.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 8, 2008)

Dogger said:


> Nice rationalization. Totally wrong, and unsupported by anything she wrote, but nice try nonetheless.



Keep digging in you dumb ass. I am laughing my ass off at your total ignorance.


----------



## Larkinn (May 8, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Kath, come on, it is FINE and DANDY to invade anyone we want, so long as a Liberal supports it.



Actually she was talking about dropping food, not invading.   You do get the difference I hope?  



> You guys are hilarious. That you think she really means billions and is not yanking your chain is just more proof of the ignorance of some people on certain topics.



And you are hilarious that if someone is a Republican and they say something idiotic you say they are joking, if a liberal said that you would be foaming at the mouth in impotent fury


----------



## Dogger (May 8, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> And you are hilarious that if someone is a Republican and they say something idiotic you say they are joking, if a liberal said that you would be foaming at the mouth in impotent fury



Don't use the word "impotent" about RGS. It's accurate, but it's a little too close to home.


----------



## Annie (May 8, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You guys are hilarious. That you think she really means billions and is not yanking your chain is just more proof of the ignorance of some people on certain topics.



Do not blow this, notice Larkinn knows better, but others, well they prove the points. I admit, I've gotten bored and this amuses.


----------



## Dogger (May 8, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Do not blow this, notice Larkinn knows better, but others, well they prove the points. I admit, I've gotten bored and this amuses.



Sorry, I'm not buying it. You kept digging your hole and missing my point until RGS stepped in and pretended that your stupidity was intentional.

You didn't get bored. You got caught, and you stopped responding when you realized that, because you were too dense to devise your own rationalization.


----------



## Annie (May 8, 2008)

Dogger said:


> Sorry, I'm not buying it. You kept digging your hole and missing my point until RGS stepped in and pretended that your stupidity was intentional.
> 
> You didn't get bored. You got caught, and you stopped responding when you realized that, because you were too dense to devise your own rationalization.



Ok, I'm too dense to understand what you just wrote.


----------



## Dogger (May 8, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Ok, I'm too dense to understand what you just wrote.



You jest. But many a truth spoken in jest.


----------



## Annie (May 8, 2008)

Dogger said:


> You jest. But many a truth spoken in jest.



I don't really jest, but infer all you like.


----------



## Dogger (May 8, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> I don't really jest, but infer all you like.



You implied (after prompting by RGS) that your previous posts were in jest. I knew that wasn't true.  Thanks for conceeding.


----------



## Swamp Fox (May 8, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> No, it's on good authority, those that have posted for so long. See, daily we were allowing tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis to die. Logic says that some days it had to be hundreds of thousands, after all we have some pretty good bombs and all that depleted uranium...
> 
> The US must stop asserting it's will onto others. I can't imagine at this date the suggestion that we should ignore a government saying that our aid is not wanted and dropping it into that country, just because we can.



I'm thinking at that rate we would have run out of Iraqis by now.........


----------



## Annie (May 8, 2008)

Swamp Fox said:


> I'm thinking at that rate we would have run out of Iraqis by now.........



Nope, they are like rabbits. Who would have thought?


----------



## Swamp Fox (May 8, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Nope, they are like rabbits. Who would have thought?



Good thing we don't have to feed them all.


----------



## Annie (May 8, 2008)

Swamp Fox said:


> Good thing we don't have to feed them all.



Well it's a 'you broke it' scenario, but then again it's the US and it's time to cut and run. I'm still a bit confused how we killed so many, yet there are more than just kiddies around, heck some of them look middle aged and older. Amazing.


----------



## dread (May 8, 2008)

DAMN!


Dogger cant admit when he got ate the fuck up....He bought that shit, hook, line, and sucker!


Oh and going after Larkin was fuckin priceless. 


Damn sweetest post I have seen in a LOOOOOONG time.


----------



## Dogger (May 8, 2008)

dread said:


> DAMN!
> 
> Dogger cant admit when he got ate the fuck up....He bought that shit, hook, line, and sucker!
> 
> ...


Nice how the right wing liars all stick together on this one.


----------



## Gunny (May 8, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Your drunk again, aren't you?



She's damned sure spanking y'all's asses and you're too damned dumb to figure it out.


----------



## Gunny (May 8, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Ah I see.   You have not been posting your views.   Instead you have been posting your perceived view of what the "liberal" viewpoint is, and attributing that to me.
> 
> Why don't, instead of just making some bullshit up, if your going to attribute things to me go off and find quotes.   Because I would NEVER say that a government has the right to deny humanitarian aid to its people who are starving en masse.



No, she's been throwing your own shit back in your face.  Call it what it is.


----------



## Gunny (May 8, 2008)

Dogger said:


> You implied (after prompting by RGS) that your previous posts were in jest. I knew that wasn't true.  Thanks for conceeding.



You ARE kidding, right?  Surely YOU jest.  You've been HAD.


----------



## Gunny (May 8, 2008)

Dogger said:


> Nice how the right wing liars all stick together on this one.



Shit, I saw it first thing.  I've known kath for years and I know how she posts.  
PWNED!!!


----------



## Dogger (May 8, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Shit, I saw it first thing.  I've known kath for years and I know how she posts.
> PWNED!!!



Look at my responses again. All I did was point out the absurdity of claiming that more people had died in Iraq than currently live on the planet. I wasn't responding to the rest of her garbage.

Sorry for going over your head again.


----------



## Larkinn (May 8, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> She's damned sure spanking y'all's asses and you're too damned dumb to figure it out.



Right...We're too dumb to figure out that a moron is acting like a moron?   



> No, she's been throwing your own shit back in your face. Call it what it is.



I did call it what it is.   Her making shit up.   Perhaps you want to find quotes since shes backed down from the challenge?   Or just going to bluster and insult and add nothing of substance per the usual?


----------



## Swamp Fox (May 8, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Right...We're too dumb to figure out that a moron is acting like a moron?
> 
> 
> 
> I did call it what it is.   Her making shit up.   Perhaps you want to find quotes since shes backed down from the challenge?   Or just going to bluster and insult and add nothing of substance per the usual?



She was applying your Iraq theories to Burma and showing you how stupid they are.  But, obviously, you are too stupid to recognize that fact.  Do you need someone to draw you a picture????


----------



## Dogger (May 8, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> I did call it what it is.   Her making shit up.   Perhaps you want to find quotes since shes backed down from the challenge?   Or just going to bluster and insult and add nothing of substance per the usual?



I'm betting on the usual.


----------



## Larkinn (May 8, 2008)

Swamp Fox said:


> She was applying your Iraq theories to Burma and showing you how stupid they are.  But, obviously, you are too stupid to recognize that fact.  Do you need someone to draw you a picture????



Are you retarded?

I said to her:  



> Ah I see. You have not been posting your views. Instead you have been posting your perceived view of what the "liberal" viewpoint is, and attributing that to me.



Now, I've challenged this to two other brain dead Republicans already, 3 times the charm.   Care to find quotes about my Iraq position, or are you going to just play the same bullshit, that because I identify as liberal you can just make shit up and assume its true?


----------



## Annie (May 9, 2008)

Dogger said:


> Sorry, I'm not buying it. You kept digging your hole and missing my point until RGS stepped in and pretended that your stupidity was intentional.
> 
> You didn't get bored. You got caught, and you stopped responding when you realized that, because you were too dense to devise your own rationalization.



Uh huh, except the first response was to Larkinn, guess you missed that.


----------



## Ravi (May 9, 2008)

What I learned from this thread...

Conservatives are selfish.
Conservatives are brainless.

Wait, I already knew both those things.

I learned nothing.


----------



## Dogger (May 9, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Uh huh, except the first response was to Larkinn, guess you missed that.



A parody of a liberal viewpoint is one thing, but a parody of a conservative's distorted idea of the liberal viewpoint is different. It's like a double negative. Wish I could dumb it down far enough for you.


----------



## Annie (May 9, 2008)

Dogger said:


> A parody of a liberal viewpoint is one thing, but a parody of a conservative's distorted idea of the liberal viewpoint is different. It's like a double negative. Wish I could dumb it down far enough for you.



Badly wounded am I.


----------



## Dogger (May 9, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Badly wounded am I.



I tried that out on my dog, and he reacted the same way.


----------



## ReillyT (May 9, 2008)

I don't believe in invading Burma or anything, but I am beginning to think that we should threaten to bomb the shit out of the residences of their top officials if they don't let the aid through.  I don't want to kill scores of innocent people, but I have no problem taking out the leaders.  Targeted bombing worked in Serbia.


----------



## Larkinn (May 9, 2008)

They also just confiscated a bunch of the UN aid...


----------



## ReillyT (May 9, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> They also just confiscated a bunch of the UN aid...



That is what prompted my post.  Those people are really pissing me off.  How many tens of thousands of people are going to die because of their actions?


----------



## Gunny (May 9, 2008)

Dogger said:


> Look at my responses again. All I did was point out the absurdity of claiming that more people had died in Iraq than currently live on the planet. I wasn't responding to the rest of her garbage.
> 
> Sorry for going over your head again.




I saw your responses.  You assumed kathianne's comments were serious and not a parody of the left's whinings about Iraq.  When you got called, instead of just bowing out gracefully, you have instead chosen to accuse everyone of lying rather than you be wrong.

Well, you're wrong.  I had to look at her first post twice because the stance she has taken here is compeltely out of character for her.  You got had.  Simple as that.

If you were half as smart as you think you are you'd probably be a formidable adversary.  As it is, you got the Black Knight thing going here.


----------



## Annie (May 9, 2008)

Dogger said:


> A parody of a liberal viewpoint is one thing, but a parody of a conservative's distorted idea of the liberal viewpoint is different. It's like a double negative. Wish I could dumb it down far enough for you.



But I will NOT piss on your leg, whether you deserve it or not.


----------



## Dogger (May 10, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> You ARE kidding, right?  Surely YOU jest.



You tell me.


----------

