MYANMAR

[MJZiggy]

I've heard estimate of a death toll of as high as 150,000 in this Myanmar cyclone--28,000 + confirmed as of several days ago.

I looked up the official death toll from Katrina--a storm at least as bad, and it was 1,810.

I just read an article about a country near and dear to me, the Philippines, specifically, the ten worst typhoons there over the last sixty years--presumably, at least some of which were as bad or worse than what hit Myanmar. One of these had an estimated 5-8,000 killed. All of the others had less than 1,000 killed.

The Philippines is not exactly a country with a sterling record of lack of corruption either. However, it has always been solidly pro-American and Christian--and thus, a legitimate member of the community of civilized nations. That is in stark contrast to a third world pro-Communist government in Myanmar which is in effect murdering its own people by indifference and neglect.

Now we have the earthquake in China--Communist China--15,000 dead confirmed, estimates of over 50,000. China does not seem to be deliberately letting people die like in Myanmar, but I have to ask, would a body count like that be allowed to occur here? Not unless the circumstances were far worse.

An 8.1 Richter Scale quake (compared to 7.9 in China) killed 10,000 in Mexico City in 1985in a more densely populated area--a huge number, but way under the China toll.

Leftists, etc. get all bent out of shape when I speak of superiority of America, the American Way, etc. Well, the evidence is right there, not only with this cyclone, but with dozens of indisputable events every year.

Ummmm...I hate to break this to you, but the Phillipines are quickly becoming a Muslim nation...

The reason that people don't die in developed countries in these instances is because the developing nations don't have the access or the money to invest in good infrastructure. It's not the superiority of America and Mexico, it's the superiority of our buildings, bridges, tunnels and roads to withstand the forces of these storms and not crumble on the residents and to allow rescue workers to get to them (not so much the case in Myanmar, but that's the usual scenario). So then what you're saying is that America is better because people don't die in disasters, which means that we're better because we have money which means that China is better than us because they have all of our money right now. Thanks George.

[texaspackerbacker]

Ummmm...I hate to break this to you, but the Phillipines are quickly becoming a Muslim nation...
__________________________________________________ _______________________

This is almost too idiotic to even comment on, but never let it be said I don't comment on idiocy.

Approximately 8% of the population of the Philippines is Muslim. They are a downtrodden and hated minority group--with good reason based on their general behavior. They had a flourishing rebel group in the Cold War days which still exists way back in the hills, but is no longer a threat.

As for your thoughts on why anti-American third world countries--and even China, which is hardly third world--allow so many more of their citizens to suffer and die, you can be in denial all you want, but the reason is the simple obvious answer that it seems to be: they lack the compassion, humanity, and civilized behavior even toward their own. Are you going to try to spin it differently in Myanmar? China? The earthquake in Iran a few years ago? Rwanda? Somalia? All of these are glowing examples of how the other half lives--the portion of the world sick American liberals like to fantasize is somehow NOT inferior to America. They are also shining examples of the kind of socialist republic American liberals used to install and still do picture as the ideal third world government.

There have been numerous natural disasters in third world countries where the American Way has been promoted and rubbed off to varying degrees, also. In addition to Mexico and the Philippines, there has been similar situations in Chile, Ecuador, Honduras, even Pakistan and Turkey in recent years. Even the horrendous tsunami in Indonesia, Thailand, and Sri Lanka etc. was much less deadly than it might have been and would have been if the governments had reacted like Myanmar.

Why are blame-America-first liberals so loath to acknowledge that there is a superior, more compassionite attitude with greater emphasis on humanity promoted by America in stark contrast to the indifferent to human life attitude of our enemies?

[MJZiggy]

First off, I excepted Myanmar in my post. There is no excuse for the behavior of the junta turning down available aid. And the situation in Rwanda Secondly, I'm well aware of the compassion and generosity of not only the American government, but its people as well. And I'm not willing to go back into a cyclical argument about the willingness of Christians to abuse their fellow humans just like any other religious group (except MAYBE the Buddhists and Taoists). That is human-based, not religious and we've been there, done that.

If you recall, 126,000 people died in that tsunami. How is that about an non-compassionate government as opposed to a horrible tragedy of nature? I don't recall Iran turning down American aid. How were they lacking in compassion? What were they supposed to do for the folks trapped in the mountains that they couldn't get to (recalling that the Americans had a helluva time reaching them as well)? Sometimes it's about logistics and cash, not about civilized behavior. Have you been to any of these regions that were hit and learned about their people and infrastructure? I somehow highly doubt it.

[texaspackerbacker]

You show me a nation that comes close to being our "peer" among the stinking rabble of the world--with the possible exception of Britain, and I'll think of them as our peer--but I assure you, such does not exist.

It's not a problem that you think that America and its ways are far superior to those of, say, Brazil and India.

The disconnect from reality comes where you think we can treat other countries as subordinates, and this will somehow work out OK.

Brazilians and Indians are proud people too, and increasingly successful. For instance, India has beat-us out to be the brains behind China's exploding economy, they do the computer programming and business accounting for China. Brazil has built an entire auto-industry around 100% ethanol-fueled cars. These are no longer little brown people that we can lead around by the nose.

Harlan, I almost missed your post.

Yeah, Brazil and India are nice thriving examples of pro-American free enterprise representative democracies--examples of what CAN BE when countries follow the American Way. Just the same, both these countries are relatively recent converts to seeing the light. Rest assured, the pre-Reagan/Bush/Bush foreign policy would NOT have encouraged that kind of American style development. Indeed, this is exactly the kind of American lifestyle which the anti-American idiots of the left--God damned piece of shit Obama at the top of the list--CRITICIZE the Bush Administration for INFLICTING on the crap third world. As relative newcomers to the responsible pro-American portion of the world, both of these countries still fall well below America both in terms of freedom and in terms of standard of living.

Nice try, though, Harlan. If we can just keep Obama and his kind out of office, in a generation or two, maybe Brazil and India will progress to near our level. Or maybe if Obama and other leftist trash like him get in, America will drop down to the level of those two and other countries.

[MJZiggy]

Tex, how could you have missed his point so completely?

[red]

[texaspackerbacker]

Tex, how could you have missed his point so completely?

Oh, I know what his point is--denial of the superiority of the American way of life--I thought I covered that in a nice positive way by accepting his examples, as well as citing the reason why.

Or perhaps you mean his laughable criteria for national success--ethanol-powered cars and phone centers for American businesses.

What I failed to say and probably should have is that probably the best thing that ever happened to India was the rise of Muslim terrorism, etc., which gave them and us a common enemy and drove India to our side in the worldwide clash of civilizations.

The point which apparently escapes YOU, Ziggy, and other libs, is that the Bush foreign policy which is so hated by the idiots on your side--spreading and encouraging representative democracy and free enterprise--is RESPONSIBLE for the great success of these countries--something which could turn around drastically if a socialist-loving America-hating IDIOT like Obama gets in.

[MJZiggy]

1. His point is not a denial of American life. His point is that if you try to act all superior to them like you have the right to tell them what to do, they will reject you cold and your promotion of the American way of life will fail.

2. He is trying to tell you that the two countries in discussion have made a great deal of progress and are innovating all on their own without us telling them what to do.

3. India cooperates with us because we have money and power. They are not resenting us by any means but remember that they pulled themselves out of British rule. BRITISH. Their enemy was the British. They simply figured out a better way to make their point than terrorism. But their enemy was the British, not the Muslims.

4. I'd say that India and Brazil have been rising long enough that you might want to look to give that credit to Clinton and all the nation building that the Republicans were bitching about for so long...and with Bush in office, it's hard to call anyone else an idiot.

[Kiwon]

Ummmm...I hate to break this to you, but the Phillipines are quickly becoming a Muslim nation...

MJZ, I go to the Philippines at least a few times a year. I definitely don't see any evidence of this.

There are some very vocal Muslims in the southern part of the country, but they are a separatist movement looking for independence. The violence that some of them have embraced has turned the rest of the country against their cause, IMHO.

[MJZiggy]

Good.

[Tarlam!]

Ummmm...I hate to break this to you, but the Phillipines are quickly becoming a Muslim nation...

There are some very vocal Muslims in the southern part of the country, but they are a separatist movement looking for independence. The violence that some of them have embraced has turned the rest of the country against their cause, IMHO.

Yup. Having been to the Philipines 8 times, I can confirm what Kiwon says to be spot on. I haven't been there in 2 years, but I doubt it's gotten that Muslim in that time that thie statement doesn't hold.

[texaspackerbacker]

1. His point is not a denial of American life. His point is that if you try to act all superior to them like you have the right to tell them what to do, they will reject you cold and your promotion of the American way of life will fail.

2. He is trying to tell you that the two countries in discussion have made a great deal of progress and are innovating all on their own without us telling them what to do.

3. India cooperates with us because we have money and power. They are not resenting us by any means but remember that they pulled themselves out of British rule. BRITISH. Their enemy was the British. They simply figured out a better way to make their point than terrorism. But their enemy was the British, not the Muslims.

4. I'd say that India and Brazil have been rising long enough that you might want to look to give that credit to Clinton and all the nation building that the Republicans were bitching about for so long...and with Bush in office, it's hard to call anyone else an idiot.

First of all, as I said, and the other two pretty much confirm, the Muslims are fading--the Moro National Liberation Front--ever since they lost their Soviet benefactors, more so since Bush scared the bejesus out of Khaddafi, their other major backer.

Regarding your points above:

1. If that's the case, they--whoever "they" may be--will be the losers along with their people--case in point: Myanmar.

2. A big "yeah right" to that. It's not so much "telling them what to do" as it is backing the right side and encouraging the right people. That is why it is so important to keep scum like Obama out, as he would go back to backing the socialists.

3. Britain was a benevolent colonial power which the early Indian leaders pretty much emulated. The relevant issue, however, is not 50 or so years ago, but now. The Hindus are blood enemies of the Muslims. That is why Britain set up India and Pakistan as separate countries. Perhaps you have heard of Kashmir, where there has been open warfare 3 or 4 times in the past 50 or 60 years.

4. I said back to Reagan/Bush/Bush--with a brief respite under Clinton--whose foreign policy encouraged socialist regimes, although not quite as virulently and actively as in the pre-Reagan era.