Here we have an excellent example of a situation into which a benevolent military force could be inserted, the way some people would have us believe was done in Iraq. Should we do it? There probably isn't much oil but that's not important, right?

Here it is:

Red Cross condemns Burma 'abuses'
By Imogen Foulkes
BBC News, Geneva

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has publicly denounced what it says are major human rights abuses by Burma's military government.
In a highly unusual departure from its normally neutral stance, the ICRC said the actions of Burmese authorities were causing immense suffering to thousands.

The group accuses the regime of using detainees as army porters, and abusing people living along the Thai border.

It says Burmese officials have refused to discuss the abuse, or take action.

This statement is the harshest public criticism from the Red Cross since it denounced the genocide in Rwanda more than a decade ago.

It is a sign that the normally reticent organisation, which prides itself on the results it can achieve in confidential discussions with governments, thinks there is little to hope for from Burma's military rulers.

'Impossible task'

The ICRC accuses the regime of forcing thousands of detainees to work as porters for the armed forces - depriving them of food, and in some cases, killing them.

The statement also highlights repeated abuse of men, women and children in communities along Burma's border with Thailand, including murder, violence, and the destruction of food supplies.

All of these things, the ICRC says, have been witnessed by its own staff, or documented by them in private interviews with civilians.
Despite repeated requests, the government of Burma - also known as Myanmar - has refused to discuss the abuse, or take any action to stop it.

Last October several ICRC offices were closed by the Burmese authorities, and ICRC delegates forbidden to make prison visits.

The group is used to working in the most repressive and conflict-ridden parts of the world but Burma, it seems, is proving impossible.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/asia-pacific/6252024.stm

Published: 2007/06/29 05:51:24 GMT

© BBC MMVII

Any takers?

A fellow named Ernie Pellegrino wrote a letter to the editor of (at least) both Madison daily newspapers over the weekend or whenever. He was in Saturday's Wisconsin State Journal and Monday's Capital Times. I saw the need to rebut both of them though neither has as yet seen print. What set him off was seeing a bumper sticker that read: War Is Not Pro Life

Here is my first rebuttal:

I have to disagree with the "facts" presented by Ernie Pellegrino in his Saturday letter. He says "Even the Iraq war had as its goal the saving of lives of Iraqi Shiites, Kurds and neighboring peoples from Saddam Hussein." This is not at all true. The Bush administration knew that it could never get the backing of the American people for such a mission. The case that was presented was that Hussein's Iraq was an imminent threat to us.

He also goes on to say that "...a military success might eventually be achieved if America has the stomach for it." Again, wrong. A military success has been achieved. One can argue that Hussein and Iraq no longer (did they ever?) pose an imminent threat to us (mission accomplished, remember?). Unfortunately our "success" has led to the current mess. A perfect illustration of the fact that we can't solve everyone else's problems through the use of our military.

I sent off the second one to the Capital Times about twenty minutes ago. I wanted to write a second, distinct rebuttal for three main reasons. 1) They might both get printed and I didn't wish to appear lazy. 2) It appears that he might have (otherwise the editors did some serious editing) and I wanted to be on point completely, and 3) I thought that it would be good practice if nothing else.

Here's the second:

Ernie Pellegrino raises an interesting point in his Monday letter (Sometimes War Is Needed To Save Lives) in refutation of a bumper sticker (War Is Not Pro-Life). "Using WWII as an example", he writes, "there are millions of survivors and descendants of survivors of the concentration camps of Europe and the Pacific that will tell you that action taken by America and its allies saved countless lives that would not have been saved without going to war." Nobody disputes this (save for perhaps a facile bumper sticker or two).
However he goes too far when he tries to make the case that "...even the Iraq war had as its goal saving the lives of Iraqi Shiites, Kurds and neighboring people..."
This is called revisionism. The reason given by the Bush/Cheney administration for the necessity of the U.S. led invasion of Iraq was that Iraq was an imminent threat to the security of the United States, due in large part to Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction". There would have been little if any support for an invasion based on saving the Shiites and the Kurds. I understand that there is a desire on the part of the administration and its supporters to rewrite that part of history but unfortunately (for them) we aren't all that memory impaired.
As to his parting shot at the softies on the left who don't have "the stomach" for the military success that could still be achieved at some unknown point in the future: we've achieved any military success that we're going to over there (mission accomplished, remember?) It's long past time for the people of that region to learn how to co-exist. That's not something that we can do for them.

This from a BBC News story about the recent "knighthood" of Salman Rushdie and the resulting furor:

"It has seriously wounded the beliefs of 1.5 billion Muslims and followers of other religions."

My question: how is anybody "wounded" by any of this? You (and millions of others) believe in a creator god who expects a certain code of conduct from all of us and who is all-powerful and all-knowing and will punish or reward each of us in an eternal after-life.

I, and others, do not.

You are vocal about your beliefs and, indeed, feel some need to "spread the word". I am not shy about sharing how I feel about the whole idea, especially when somebody else brings it up.

Who's wounding whom? Are you "wounded" any time somebody disagrees with you? If so, the problem lies with you.

The quote, actually, was that "the beliefs of 1.5 billion Muslims and followers of other religions" are what has been "wounded".

Again, how? Is it because your belief is based on fantasy and mythology and it's hard enough to quell your own doubts without people making public statements critical of the whole idea of a supernatural creator-being?

Or do you just feel disrespected whenever someone disagrees with you?

There is a commonly expressed sentiment that we need to "respect" the beliefs of others. How many people actually apply this idea themselves? Do Muslims respect the beliefs of Salman Rushdie? Do most Christians respect the beliefs of Muslims? Or Jews? Or atheists?

Some people no doubt feel that our society is dependent upon religion and it's rules of conduct, that a belief in eternal life and it's promise of reward or punishment is the only thing keeping us from descending into chaos. If this is true, why do we need laws? Just for the atheists? Do atheists commit more crimes than "believers"? And can the various religions even agree on what the rules are?

How about this for an idea: believe what you want about "God", an after-life, the "creation", the "Bible", express your opinions if you so desire. But... don't be "wounded" when other people disagree. Is that so much to ask?

Almost done moving and everything, a new post coming soon!