Skewz is a place to read conservative and liberal stories selected by users.
Join the community and vote to reveal the bias in the news!
Join the community and vote to reveal the bias in the news!
Media Bias Chart
Media Bias Cloud
"Skew This" Bookmark
Tools/Widgets
Subscribe to RSS feed
Add to iGoogle
Skewz Podcast
Liberal
Conservative
The disaster in Burma presents the world with perhaps its most serious humanitarian crisis since the 2004 Asian tsunami. By most reliable estimates, close to 100,000 people are dead. Delays in delivering relief to the victims, the inaccessibility of the stricken areas and the poor state of Burma's infrastructure and health systems mean that number is sure to rise. With as many as 1 million people still at risk, it is conceivable that the death toll will, within days, approach that of the entire number of civilians killed in the genocide in Darfur So what is the world doing about it? Not much. The military regime that runs Burma initially signaled it would accept outside relief, but has imposed so many conditions on those who would actually deliver it that barely a trickle has made it throu
Posted by:
mstcrow
10-May-2008 16:06
Source:
![[A]](/images/thumbnails/news.yahoo.com.ico?1194557036 "source avatar")
news.yahoo.com
Type:
Editorial/Opinion
Category:
Foreign Policy & Global Affairs
10-May-2008 16:06
Source:
news.yahoo.com
Type:
Editorial/Opinion
Category:
Foreign Policy & Global Affairs
Share
Tell a friend
Del.icio.us
Digg
NewsTrust
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Permalink
Quick Read
)Inappropriate
8 Comments
More warmongering from the progressive fascist TIME magazine.
My dear MSTCROW what you fail to understand is that TIME magazine views the U.S.Military as a meals on wheels program.Sort of a “Have MRE’s,will travel”. Shame on you for failing to grasp this point:).
Side note, I love how TIME falls all over themselves in this article to avoid mentioning that BURMA is run by a Communist Military Dictatorship. Instead they use words like “regime” and “Junta” without the modifier”Dictatorship”.
Most people know, Marlowe, that a junta is an unelected group of thugs that takes over a country. That they happen to be communist thugs hardly makes them any worse. Thugs always have a similar philosophy: to hold on to power while brutalizing the people.
Communism has never been anything but an unelected group of thugs. Other forms of Collectivism have actually been elected, not that elections validate anything.
I do not believe this is true. There was an interesting article posted suggesting that some parts of India elect Communist party members regularly. Now, this is the context of state wide democratic elections, but the people do choose this party regularly. Other parts of the country do not. But in that context of state’s rights environment, it does appear that people choose. In the case of Burma, upon further inspection; we can note that the Communist association is nominal anyway and is a SOP to their main backers the Chinese.
It’s certainly possible a majority of voters in a sub-location will vote for Communism. Just look at Massachusetts or Vermont. However, there has never been a system of democracy in which Communists have won enough votes to take over the country. Except maybe the Stalinist Allende regime in Chile, but the Supreme Court fought back, and Allende’s reign of terror and mass murder ended with him dead instead.
Why is the Communist association nominal due to the involvement of the fascist Chinese?
I would say that the Communist link is a bit tenuous given that the ideology is not really pushed at all. At some point totalitarian communism and totalitarian fascism just converge. My primary point is that omitting the communist link in this article is less likely to be a cover up than a more genuine expression of the vague nature of the ideology of the military junta in charge. They’ve largely remained in power through force versus appeal of ideas. The Buddhists are largely collectivist in mindest and are no fans of the ruling crew. This, in the end, is a mafiosa style government. Burma is extremely rich in resources and is part of an interesting game between China and India…and to some extent the US. China has out maneuvered the Indians on this geopolitical interest.
“This, in the end, is a mafiosa style government.”
That’s Collectivist government, most closely associated with Communist and Fascist expressions of Collectivism.
Add Comment