Burma

Submitted: Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 08:11
ThreadID: 57712 Views:2813 Replies:14 FollowUps:33
This Thread has been Archived
Watch the video:
Burma disaster

Please e-mail the Prime Minister here:
Prime Minister e-mail

And your Federal MP:
Find your Federal MP
click on your electorate name to see who your MP is.

Find the e-mail address of your MP here:
Federal MPs e-mail

Please ask the PM and your Fed MP to apply as much international pressure as possible to ensure outside help reaches the people of Burma - the time for cautious diplomacy has passed, each day lost means more people, needlessly, die of hunger and illness whilst the supplies to help them sit on ships just a few kilometers away.

We _cannot_ allow such a thing to pass us by.

Mike Harding
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: RosscoH - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 08:32

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 08:32
I say fix Australia before we worry about overseas, I'm sure there gonernments wouldn't be the first to help someone else. It might sound harsh but lets get back to some reality here.
AnswerID: 304432

Follow Up By: Member - Doug T (FNQ) - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 08:47

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 08:47
Got my yes vote on that

Image Could Not Be Found

.
still going strong with 836,179 K's

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 570514

Follow Up By: Top End Explorer Tours - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 08:57

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 08:57
I agree as it was over 6 weeks before Maningrida and Oenpelli and other communities had help after cyclone Monica, these people already lived in 3rd would conditions, in a country that is one of the richest in the world.

The kids were going to school at Oenpelli with a huge mahogany tree smashed through the classrooms, there were many other dangerous situations as well but there was a huge 0 care factor from anyone of importance.

Did you give a RATS about them Mike ? Probably not as no one new about them as it wasn't important.

Cheers Steve.
0
FollowupID: 570515

Follow Up By: Member - Borgy.. (SA) - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 10:28

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 10:28
Get my vote as well

Well said Steve
0
FollowupID: 570527

Follow Up By: Member - Footloose - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 12:28

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 12:28
Perhaps it's not a matter of "Them or us".
Perhaps it's a matter of "them AND us" ?
0
FollowupID: 570542

Follow Up By: Bware (Tweed Valley) - Monday, May 19, 2008 at 15:03

Monday, May 19, 2008 at 15:03
Ahhh Footy,

Upsetting the apple-cart by posting common sense again, are we? ;-))

0
FollowupID: 570757

Follow Up By: Member - Footloose - Monday, May 19, 2008 at 17:17

Monday, May 19, 2008 at 17:17
Bware, certainly hope revvin Kevin's little helper thinks the same when they read my email :)
0
FollowupID: 570777

Reply By: Member - Nev (TAS) - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 09:04

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 09:04
Hi Mike,

hear! hear! I agree with your ideas and have done so. It is a very inhumane situation in Burma and it should not be tolerated.


Rgds






AnswerID: 304437

Reply By: Best Off Road - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 11:45

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 11:45
Done.

Jim.

AnswerID: 304463

Reply By: disco driver - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 12:46

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 12:46
Mike,
While I agree with the message posted and the request to contact the PM and your local Member to apply pressure on the Burmese Junta, do you really think that the Junta gives a rat's arse about what anyone else thinks.

Unfortunately, in this case, no country can enter another country without approval or permission from that country.

That is an Invasion and could be construed as an "Act of War".

For the same reason I opposed, and still do, the Coalition of the Willing and their invasion activities in the Middle East and adjoining lands.

"The greatest threat to peace in our time is the current President of the mighty USA."
God save us from lunatics like him !

Disco.
AnswerID: 304466

Follow Up By: Top End Explorer Tours - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 12:56

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 12:56
Well said disco.

Dare I say that the people of Burma have the President of the USA to thank for the inactions of the UN, as he rendered them a useless organization, after he ignored there sanctions and invaded Iraq.

I don't think there is much oil there either, so that counts out the USA for any help.

Cheers Steve.
0
FollowupID: 570546

Follow Up By: Gramps (NSW) - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 17:10

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 17:10
Steve,

LOL the UN was a useless organization long before George W came along.

0
FollowupID: 570569

Follow Up By: Top End Explorer Tours - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 17:34

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 17:34
Yeah Gramps Fair call, he just made sure of it.

Cheers Steve.
0
FollowupID: 570573

Follow Up By: Mike Harding - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 17:44

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 17:44
>I don't think there is much oil there either, so that counts
>out the USA for any help.

BBC - text and optional video

You have one child, I think, Steve.

BBC - Burma young 'starving to death'

Mike Harding
0
FollowupID: 570575

Follow Up By: Top End Explorer Tours - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 18:29

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 18:29
It's good to see you haven't changed Mike.

Cheers Steve.
0
FollowupID: 570582

Follow Up By: Best Off Road - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 19:29

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 19:29
I agree totally Steve.

The man has always been one of solid principles.

Jim.

0
FollowupID: 570601

Follow Up By: Top End Explorer Tours - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 20:21

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 20:21
So Jim you think Mike is a man of principal ?

Yet my way of thinking is, a man of principal would have discredited all the posts on here that thought like I did 96% of them, yet he chose to discredit me alone, not that I care as I can take his comment how I feel and not give a bleep .

Jim as for you, I was told the other night by a member that you were not the D!ckhead I thought you were, then you come along and post you crap and prove him wrong.

Feel free to post your derogatory remarks about me any time you like as I really don't give a bleep what you think, I am sure that I am not the only one who thinks this way.

I will not post on any of your threads or Mikes for that matter ever again, If you choose to post something in mine or post something about me in others, feel free to do so knowing that I will not respond to your pathetic attempts to degrade me.

Now I suggest to you to go and grow up and get a life, rather than sit behind you keyboard and make a fool of your self.

Steve.


0
FollowupID: 570623

Follow Up By: Best Off Road - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 20:37

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 20:37
I grew up ages ago and have a wonderful life.

You couldn't begin to understand how great things are for me.

Life is beautiful.

Jim.

0
FollowupID: 570631

Follow Up By: Member - Matt M (ACT) - Monday, May 19, 2008 at 13:09

Monday, May 19, 2008 at 13:09
For those of you who think that the US was responsible for the inaction of the UN and for rendering it a useless organisation, I don't think you could be any further from the truth.

The irony is that the US decision to take unilateral action in Iraq, actually saved the UN from a very embarrassing back down in the face of Iraq's refusal to comply with UN (not US) weapons inspection programs. The UN's impotence was there for all the world to see, but at least the US led invasion of Iraq took the focus away from one simple fact; Saddam Hussein had thumbed his nose at the UN over weapons inspection and human rights demands since the end of the first Gulf War, because he KNEW that as an organisation they were powerless to enforce them. He badly misread the US resolve to act outside of the UN umbrella however and ultimately paid a big personal price for his brinkmanship. Now right or wrong, the US invasion of Iraq probably prolonged whatever credibility the UN had.

To suggest that the US doesn't want to get involved in Burma because there is no oil is misleading and simplistic. Who have been the loudest in demanding that the junta allow aid in? Who do you think will bankroll and supply the bulk of the aid that goes in? Who has been most vocal in suggesting that a stronger line should be taken in forcing aid into the country? The answer would be the same country that funds 22% of the UN's operating budget. The same country that has more peacekeepers deployed around the globe than the remaining UN members combined.

To suggest that the US is responsible for emasculating the UN ignores the fact that the US contributes nearly three times the funds to the UN than its nearest security council friends (Germany, UK and France), 10 times the contribution of China and nearly 20 times the contribution of Russia (who as a permanent security council member don't even make the top 10 list of contributing countries).

So don't let your anti-US bias cloud the facts. Inevitably they will supply and fund the vast majority of whatever aid gets into Burma and will remain very vocal in pressuring the junta to accept the assistance that is on offer and waiting.

Matt.

0
FollowupID: 570739

Follow Up By: Top End Explorer Tours - Monday, May 19, 2008 at 14:22

Monday, May 19, 2008 at 14:22
quote:
The U.S. arrears issue

The UN has always had problems with members refusing to pay the assessment levied upon them under the United Nations Charter. But the most significant refusal in recent times has been that of the U.S. For a number of years, the U.S. Congress refused to authorize payment of the U.S. dues, in order to force UN compliance with U.S. wishes, as well as a reduction in the U.S. assessment.

After prolonged negotiations, the U.S. and the UN negotiated an agreement whereby the United States would pay a large part of the money it owes, and in exchange the UN would reduce the assessment rate ceiling from 25% to 22%. The reduction in the assessment rate ceiling was among the reforms contained in the 1999 Helms-Biden legislation, which links payment of $926 million in U.S. arrears to the UN and other international organizations to a series of reform benchmarks.

U.S. arrears to the UN currently total over $1.3 billion. Of this, $612 million is payable under Helms-Biden. The remaining $700 million result from various legislative and policy withholdings; at present, there are no plans to pay these amounts.

Under Helms-Biden, the U.S. paid $100 million in arrears to the UN in December 1999; release of the next $582 million awaits a legislative revision to Helms-Biden, necessary because the benchmark requiring a 25 percent peacekeeping assessment rate ceiling was not quite achieved. The U.S. also seeks elimination of the legislated 25 percent cap on U.S. peacekeeping payments in effect since 1995, which continues to generate additional UN arrears. Of the final $244 million under Helms-Biden, $30 million is payable to the UN and $214 million to other international organizations.
+ U.S. debt to the United Nations, from 1995 to 2005
Year Regular budget Peacekeeping Total
31 December 1995 $414 million (73%) $816 million (47%) $1.231 billion (56%)
31 December 1996 $376 million (74%) $926 million (57%) $1.303 billion (61%)
31 December 1997 $373 million (79%) $940 million (60%) $1.313 billion (64%)
31 December 1998 $316 million (76%) $976 million (61%) $1.294 billion (64%)
31 December 1999 $167 million (68%) $995 million (67%) $1.170 billion (67%)
31 December 2000 $165 million (74%) $1.144 billion (56%) $1.321 billion (58%)
31 December 2001 $165 million (69%) $691 million (38%) $871 million (41%)
31 December 2002 $190 million (62%) $536 million (40%) $738 million (44%)
31 December 2003 $268 million (61%) $482 million (45%) $762 million (48%)
31 December 2004 $241 million (68%) $722 million (28%) $975 million (33%)
30 September 2005 $607 million (82%) $607 million (28%) $1.246 billion (41%)

source: Wikipedia: United States and the united Nations

Steve.
0
FollowupID: 570753

Follow Up By: Member - Matt M (ACT) - Monday, May 19, 2008 at 14:46

Monday, May 19, 2008 at 14:46
So that's it? A cut and paste from Wikipedia? What is the point you are trying to make?

If you are saying that the US owes arrearages then you are entirely correct. And guess what, they are not alone. Under Article 19 of the UN Charter, countries with arrears totaling more than the member’s assessments for the two preceding years lose their vote in the UN General Assembly. There are about 16 countries in this situation at the moment, but not the US, although it came close in 1999 as the Helms-Biden Legislation was being developed.

Helms-Biden, as you noted in your cut and paste was, in part, an effort by the US to tie its funding of UN activities to a series of benchmarks which governed the way the UN spent its money and how that was governed. Is it unreasonable for a country to ensure that the money it gives (supplied by its taxpayers) is spent in a manner that is sound and accords with the contributing country's principles? Maybe, maybe not.

Arrears notwithstanding, the US is still the largest financial contributor to the United Nations, with Japan second.

Cheers,

Matt.

0
FollowupID: 570755

Follow Up By: disco driver - Monday, May 19, 2008 at 15:21

Monday, May 19, 2008 at 15:21
FFS What's the point of posting a comment here when it provokes such irelevant crap, pro and anti USA comments, and personal criticism.

GROW UP!!!!.


The tragedy is the people of Burma who are dying as a result of their so called government 's inaction.


Disco.
0
FollowupID: 570760

Follow Up By: Member - Matt M (ACT) - Monday, May 19, 2008 at 15:40

Monday, May 19, 2008 at 15:40
'For the same reason I opposed, and still do, the Coalition of the Willing and their invasion activities in the Middle East and adjoining lands.

"The greatest threat to peace in our time is the current President of the mighty USA."
God save us from lunatics like him !'

What do you mean Disco? Are you referring to the sort of irrelevant anti-American crap like the quote above?

Now where did I get that from?
0
FollowupID: 570766

Follow Up By: Gramps (NSW) - Monday, May 19, 2008 at 15:42

Monday, May 19, 2008 at 15:42
disco driver,

"For the same reason I opposed, and still do, the Coalition of the Willing and their invasion activities in the Middle East and adjoining lands.

"The greatest threat to peace in our time is the current President of the mighty USA."
God save us from lunatics like him !"

What was that drivel for? Who cares what you think of Iraq etc. Exactly what relevance did it have to this post?

Before you start getting on your high horse I suggest you have a damn good look at yourself.

0
FollowupID: 570768

Reply By: Hairy (NT) - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 13:39

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 13:39
Gday Mike,
No one likes to see this sort of thing happen and I think any one who wants to donate there own personal money and time to the cause should do so.
As for the Gov. giving away our money to every disaster relief they see fit I don't agree with.

Try telling the poor widow who has just lost her house and husband that her taxes are going to be sent abroad to help someone else.
Her house might have been taken by the bank instead of a cyclone and her husband was suicide rather than a natural disaster but still the same outcome.

What about the 84 year old lady who was bashed and robbed last week ( and the Nun , and the Disabled lady!)? She will probably never walk home from the shops again!
All because the gov cant afford more police to control the violence.

I think the Gov. needs to look in their own back yard before the try and save the world.

Cheers
AnswerID: 304476

Follow Up By: dedabato (SA) - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 17:44

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 17:44
Yeah, and the list goes on and on and on. Totally agree with your statement and "charity begins at home" sooo many holes to filled up in Oz before we commit our hard earned money to others. As for the UN and USA ... ha,ha,ha, Great joke.
Regards
dedabatoImage Could Not Be Found
0
FollowupID: 570574

Follow Up By: Saharaman (aka Geepeem) - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 20:06

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 20:06
Yes its true charity begins at home ..... But it should never end there!!

As I read Mike Hardings post he is suggesting we lobby our Govt to pressure Burma to allow the international aid thats sitting in ships offshore to actually get to where its needed. Who could be against such a suggestion - no harm can be done but people power may make a difference. He is not suggesting we ask our Govt to increase aid to Burma.

In any case the federal Govt allocates a certain amount of funding for overseas aid each year - whether it goes to Burma or anywhere else depends on natural disasters and need etc. This is not money taken away from our own citizens as such as its especially allocted for overseas aid and has been for decades by both sides of Government.

Cheers,
Glen
0
FollowupID: 570616

Follow Up By: Bware (Tweed Valley) - Monday, May 19, 2008 at 15:00

Monday, May 19, 2008 at 15:00
Glen,

It's good to hear the voice of reason :-))

regards

Brian
0
FollowupID: 570756

Follow Up By: Hairy (NT) - Monday, May 19, 2008 at 19:06

Monday, May 19, 2008 at 19:06
Gday Saharaman,

"This is not money taken away from our own citizens as such as its especially allocted for overseas aid and has been for decades by both sides of Government."

Hahaha.........
I supose they just picked it off that big money tree.

I agree with putting pressure on their so called government or millitary but not at another huge cost when their are people in Australia commiting sucide because of financial loss and getting bugger all help from the Gov.
0
FollowupID: 570791

Follow Up By: Saharaman (aka Geepeem) - Monday, May 19, 2008 at 20:44

Monday, May 19, 2008 at 20:44
HI hairy,
Thanks for your comment.
The point I was making is that overseas aid and extra financial help for our own citizens are NOT alternatives. The Federal Government always budgets a certain amount for overseas aid every year (used to be based on a %age of GDP). This money goes to developing countries in our region (eg PNG) as well as some is kept for emergencies like natural disasters. So its nothing to do with taking money from our own citizens. The Govt has a $21.7 billion surplus - if they wanted to increase pensions or help needy Australians they could do so without reducing the overseas aid budget. Yes the overseas aid comes out of consolidated revenue but the point is if it wasn't used for overseas aid it would NOT be given back to Australian in need anyway. The Rudd Govt made a choice not to increase pensions - but it has absolutely nothing to do with our level of overseas aid.

Cheers,
Glen
0
FollowupID: 570814

Reply By: Member -Signman - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 18:18

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 18:18
What's ' ExplorOz' about this post..
Unless you want to go 4WDing in Burma..!!!

AnswerID: 304526

Reply By: Member - Lionel A (WA) - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 19:46

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 19:46
Irespective of the bully tactics often displayed by the US, I much prefer them being the Worlds Police rather than Putin, Mugabe, that off the wall Iranian and a host of other international despots.

Even the poor old Poms are quickly becoming a muslim powerhouse.

I still trust the Yanks to do the right thing.

Cheers....Lionel.
AnswerID: 304554

Follow Up By: Member - Lionel A (WA) - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 19:51

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 19:51
Oh and yes Mike, a sad series of events both in Burma and China also.

I have some real problems with their politics and policies but not with their people.

Cheers.....Lionel.
0
FollowupID: 570608

Reply By: Best Off Road - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 21:28

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 21:28
I find it very disturbing that many people have a disregard for human life UNLESS it is Australian Human Life.

Aren't we all people on this planet?

Jim.

AnswerID: 304588

Follow Up By: Mike Harding - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 21:41

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 21:41
Agreed Jim.

I have been both disappointed and astonished by many of the responses to this thread.

All I sought was that people lobby our politicians to pressure the international community to get aid into Burma - is that a bad thing? Do we, as human beings, wish to see others suffer and die? Perhaps we do.

Mike Harding
0
FollowupID: 570653

Follow Up By: Best Off Road - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 22:13

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 22:13
Mike,

I was disappointed, but certainly not astonished.

Sadly, I half expected the comments. My expectation was exceded.

The world is full of selfish, bigotted bastards. I suppose we have to get used to that.

If my comments cost me a sale or two, I don't care.

Regards,

Jim Best.



0
FollowupID: 570666

Follow Up By: Member - Lionel A (WA) - Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 22:52

Sunday, May 18, 2008 at 22:52
Jim/Mike....I dont think lambasting [Ithink thats the word] people because they have a different opinion than yourselves is helpful.

It would take a hard man not to be affected by the reports and pictures flooding in from these places. In fact a recent programme by SBS showed what kiddies endure in a Bucharest orphanage had me in tears. Even the wife said she hadnt seen me weep before.

Opinions are usually based on media, rumour, discussion and experience. However, I dont know of any law that forbids one from having an opinion.

To label a person as selfish and biggoted would be as bad as labeling someone as stupid and naive.

Just my response to what appeared as an overly strong comment.

Still mates

Cheers.....Lionel.
0
FollowupID: 570673

Follow Up By: Best Off Road - Monday, May 19, 2008 at 16:09

Monday, May 19, 2008 at 16:09
Loinel,

I agree that everyone is entitled to an opinion.

When someone effectively makes a statement of 'let the poor bastards starve to death because they are not Australian it is my opinion that they are selfish and bigotted, should have added cold blooded and heartless.

That's just my opinion.

Cheers,

Jim.



0
FollowupID: 570770

Reply By: dedabato (SA) - Monday, May 19, 2008 at 00:24

Monday, May 19, 2008 at 00:24
To attempt and replay to Mike and (Best of Road) Jim,
I know that this is not a proper place to start an argument of who's wrong and who's write but it is a place where people express various opinions on different matters and subjects, so here it goes,,,, No body said anything bad about our government lobbying in order to allow help trough to people, but when you Jim (brave heart) go on and attack with remarks like" selfish bigotted bastards" then I think to my self...well this bloke is just like the mighty Bush,Mugabe,SaddImage Could Not Be Foundam etc,... How can you label others like that yet justify your own behaviour about tolerance and human approach ????""IF YOU ARE NOT WITH US - YOU ARE AGAINST US"" Well (there I say) Mate, Relax a bit and take a brake somewhere over yonder. Chill out man.
Kind Regards to ALL
dedabato
AnswerID: 304619

Reply By: PajeroTD - Monday, May 19, 2008 at 12:12

Monday, May 19, 2008 at 12:12
So some Aussies think "ahh it's not up to us, it's up to the Yanks to fix the world problems" Well Myanmar (no longer Burma) had Americans there from the start ready to go in and help. Unfortunately, their local government wanted to play politics and not grant access to the US. This gives US and it's allies including Australia, two options. US could invade against their will, but that is going to cause outrage to the same people who are complaining they are doing nothing. So damned if they do and damned if they don't. Doesn't some of the responsibility lie with the Myanmar government? None of this really helps the residents there, but the only way is to put pressure on the Myanmar government to at least accept our help.
AnswerID: 304688

Reply By: robak (QLD) - Monday, May 19, 2008 at 16:02

Monday, May 19, 2008 at 16:02
Mike

This was once a 4wd forum that excelled from the others. Unfortunately it has now sunk to a point where the stereotypical 4wder (ie poorly educated, self rightous, abnoxious, arrogent, overweight, rum and coke drinking bloke) is no longer in the minority.

These people prefer to focus on local issues. Like having to pay more tax on their mixed drinks. While innocent children die because they have to drink water which is contaminated with the dead bodies of their parents.

Don't waste your efforts here.

R.
AnswerID: 304716

Follow Up By: Member - bushfix - Monday, May 19, 2008 at 19:25

Monday, May 19, 2008 at 19:25
internet accessability allows the demographic at a place like this, to widen, rapidly.

old school (and I include myself there) need to make the decision to stay or go, participate/tolerate/educate where applicable or lurk. it's difficult some people change their user name to lurk or retreat perhaps. i guess i'll just keep a constant rev and speak when i am prompted to.

not a bad thing, but just proves the continuing theme, the world is getting smaller. learn to live with each other.

yep, some people seem to "bone up" and all of a sudden after being a quiet contributor become full of passion, or whatever .... good. but it's all a balance and respect needs to be patient on the internet.

love and quiches everyone....ha ha......time to light another fire in the backyard, it's a clear sky tonight.


ha ha he hits the submit button without caring to check what he typed....
0
FollowupID: 570796

Reply By: Mike Harding - Monday, May 19, 2008 at 17:55

Monday, May 19, 2008 at 17:55
Responses to this post have saddened me for a couple of reasons; the number of reads, about the same as “How to silence a generator” but in twice the time and, secondly, the appalling lack of sympathy for the suffering of people affected by a tragedy akin to the worst of the past century. I, honestly, do not understand how people can have such cold hearts.

Surely to God if ever there were a topic which should bind us together, as human beings, it is one of this nature.

Lionel said:
>Jim/Mike....I dont think lambasting [Ithink thats the word] people
>because they have a different opinion than yourselves is helpful.

Unusually, for me Lionel, I have held my tongue throughout this post :) However I could not, if I tried, more strongly, disagree with the inference of your statement.

There is no moral requirement to respect opinions (or the people who hold them) when it comes to matter of basic humanity and those opinions centre upon indifference to suffering or, indeed, require the suffering of others for their success. Obvious examples are things such as slavery, racism and child prostitution – there are many people who hold opinions postulating such things as acceptable, desirable even, but I am sure you, as I, would condemn them out of hand. I do the same for people who propose we turn our backs on the tens of thousands of men, women and children who are, right now!, suffering slow deaths in the Irrawaddy Delta.

As individuals we cannot save the world, we cannot prevent most of the suffering which occurs but, if we try, we can prevent a small amount of it and even if we cannot do that we should, at the very least, feel sadness and empathy for those who suffer whilst we do not - unless we can do that what moral, indeed human, worth do we have? Do such people feel for their own families I wonder?

What we have seen in this thread is parochialism being used as a disguise for selfishness and lack of care for others - such people should be ashamed of themselves.

You were asked to write two e-mails… was that really so difficult?

Mike Harding

mike_harding@fastmail.fm
AnswerID: 304726

Follow Up By: Member - Lionel A (WA) - Monday, May 19, 2008 at 22:02

Monday, May 19, 2008 at 22:02
Fair enough mate, well argued.

Just fired my two emails away.

Cheers....Lionel.

PS: Rereading the entire post again, I began to notice a sort of 'pack' mentality creeping in. It maybe just me. If it is, i'll have to stop playing with the dogs.
0
FollowupID: 570824

Reply By: Member - Davoe (Yalgoo) - Monday, May 19, 2008 at 18:53

Monday, May 19, 2008 at 18:53
Every day the papers are filled with some kind of human misery somewhere
If I could save every person in the world i would but I cant- theres alot more going on than in Burma its just that the papers have picked up on it as tradgey of the week
AnswerID: 304737

Follow Up By: Member - bushfix - Monday, May 19, 2008 at 19:33

Monday, May 19, 2008 at 19:33
Davoe,

you are right, there are many battles to fight. We are called to fight certain ones, and we should try to fight some, whatever we can do. Mike was called and has posted, I am not about to put him down, and no, am not suggesting you are.
0
FollowupID: 570800

Reply By: Shaker - Monday, May 19, 2008 at 23:28

Monday, May 19, 2008 at 23:28
It really is hard to believe what I have just read, this thread should be removed by Admin as it is an embarassment to the forum!
AnswerID: 304790

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (14)