Aid to Myanmar, should we do fly overs?

DaDakota · May 8, 2008

It seems the military regime in Myanmar is wanting the aid to be dropped off at the airport and they left for them to distribute.

The UN is getting frustrated, and they are not allowing US aid as of now.

Link to article

Should we just say "Screw it" and fly over and use parachutes to drop the rice and supplies in the affected areas?

Put nice big American flags on them and drop the supplies in...tell their government that we are going to help their people whether they like it or not?

DD

pirc1 · May 8, 2008

DaDakota said:

It seems the military regime in Myanmar is wanting the aid to be dropped off at the airport and they left for them to distribute.

The UN is getting frustrated, and they are not allowing US aid as of now.

Link to article

Should we just say "Screw it" and fly over and use parachutes to drop the rice and supplies in the affected areas?

Put nice big American flags on them and drop the supplies in...tell their government that we are going to help their people whether they like it or not?

DD
Click to expand...

They might shoot at the planes. Just let them be.

weslinder · May 8, 2008

We should let private individuals and organizations give whatever they feel is right, and however they feel is right. Forced charity is bad enough, forced charity that gets people shot is criminal.

glynch · May 8, 2008

Well it would be a change. Usually we are doing flyovers to bomb folks.

Hey, then people need to be fed, so it would not be a bad thing. It is complicated, but probably still best to go through government channels.

I do find it somewhat hypocritical after killing so many Iraqis and pursuing food policies around the world that lead to millions of deaths that we are so almost frantically concerned with helping in this crisis.

I think it is an urgency to try to improve our tattered image around the world. It also feeds into the propaganda at home that as a country we are very generous when the US is among the stingiest of the weatlhy countries in foreign aid.

Do they have oil or some sort of resources?

bigtexxx · May 8, 2008

glynch said:

Well it would be a change. Usually we are doing flyovers to bomb folks.

Hey, then people need to be fed, so it would not be a bad thing. It is complicated, but probably still best to go through government channels.

I do find it somewhat hypocritical after killing so many Iraqis and pursuing food policies around the world that lead to millions of deaths that we are so almost frantically concerned with helping in this crisis.

I think it is an urgency to try to improve our tattered image around the world. It also feeds into the propaganda at home that as a country we are very generous when the US is among the stingiest of the weatlhy countries in foreign aid.

Do they have oil or some sort of resources?
Click to expand...

totally unwarranted pot shots, glynch. We're trying to help them

edwardc · May 8, 2008

They don't want America's help let them work it out.

yuantian · May 8, 2008

this is hard to pick. nobody deserve to be starving right now. but it's their decision. as long as they are accepting other countries donation, they should be decebt. at the moment, money doesn't do crap. good thing they are shipping food, shelter, and medicine already. i remember before the reform in China, they would not accept anything from international aid. it sucked for some folks.

glynch · May 8, 2008

Well the amounts of US aid talked about on the ABC News are a token amount anyway.

$3 million dollars. Give me a break. We spend that every few hrs in Iraq. Hopefully it was $3 billion, what we spend in Iraq in a week.

pirc1 · May 8, 2008

glynch said:

Well the amounts of US aid talked about on the ABC News are a token amount anyway.

$3 million dollars. Give me a break. We spend that every few hrs in Iraq. Hopefully it was $3 billion, what we spend in Iraq in a week.
Click to expand...

Do they have oil? If not who cares what happen to them really.

LouisianaRocket · May 8, 2008

I really wish they would let us help more, it is a very sad situation. looking at those pictures and seeing the news makes a lot of us feel helpless that we can't help them.

such a sad event that happened, my prayers go out to all the people affected by mother natures latest fury.

LouisianaRocket · May 8, 2008

glynch said:

Well it would be a change. Usually we are doing flyovers to bomb folks.

Hey, then people need to be fed, so it would not be a bad thing. It is complicated, but probably still best to go through government channels.

I do find it somewhat hypocritical after killing so many Iraqis and pursuing food policies around the world that lead to millions of deaths that we are so almost frantically concerned with helping in this crisis.

I think it is an urgency to try to improve our tattered image around the world. It also feeds into the propaganda at home that as a country we are very generous when the US is among the stingiest of the weatlhy countries in foreign aid.

Do they have oil or some sort of resources?
Click to expand...

God help this poor man that seems to have no soul at all.

weslinder · May 8, 2008

Not judging this situation individually, but Foreign Aid has a horrible record overall. It has crippled economies, propped up dictators, and fueled revolutions.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa065.html

Excerpt:

Africa--Foreign Aid Wasteland

In the 1960s, AID and other donors began a concerted effort to help the newly independent nations of Africa develop their economies. Since 1960, per capita food production in Africa has fallen 20 percent, roads and bridges have been collapsing across the continent, and Africans' faith in the future has shriveled. As a recent Foreign Policy article con- cluded, "Average per capita income in the continent at the end of the 1980s may be lower than it was at the beginning of the 1960s."[32] Despite huge influxes of development aid, export volumes for most African countries actually fell during the 1970s.[33] AID, the World Bank, and other donors helped set up many of the state-owned enterprises and state farms that disrupted African agriculture and contributed to the starvation of thousands of people.

AID's record in Africa is dismal. AID agricultural projects routinely provide little or no benefit to African farmers. An AID inspector general report on AID agricultural programs in the Sahel (a belt of eight poor countries just south of the Sahara) concluded that "no one with a modicum of business sense" could have avoided seeing many of the problems associated with AID projects.[34] According to the report, "Food production projects in the Sahel have accomplished little, if any, desired results."[35] A 1981 AID report concluded, "The Sahelian states cannot effectively use this magnitude of assistance."[36] Yet AID continues to pour money into the region.

The Operation Mils Mopti project in Mali is typical of AID African agricultural assistance. In 1976, AID launched a project to boost food production and marketing in the Mils Mopti area of Mali. AID plowed over $10 million into this project, which included the usual development array of applied research, more tools and fertilizer for farmers, better roads, and better grain marketing.

Almost everything went wrong, but AID kept financing the program long after its failure was evident. AID paid for the building of eighteen warehouses, but five were not built, three were not finished, three collapsed, two had their roofs blown off, and three more quickly crumbled owing to "serious structural deficiencies."[37] Fifty-four open wells with contaminated water were to be sanitized, but only nine were actually improved. A hundred mills for grinding grain were to be constructed; the project managers built and tested one mill, then gave up. The road-improvement project repaired less than one-quarter of the roads scheduled for upgrading.

Operation Mils Mopti sought to increase grain marketing, but the government marketing board paid farmers only the official price for their crops, which was far below free-market prices. To fulfill the marketing goals, the government forced farmers to sell their crops, thereby effectively expropriating their harvest. Instead of increasing sales, Mils Mopti resulted in a fall in total procurement by the government marketing board of over 80 percent by the time the project ended in 1979.

Although the government refused to pay farmers a fair price for their crops, it did spend $4,900 on a mural to promote the project. AID auditors found the same kind of mural for sale in a nearby gift shop for less than $700. At last report, the $4,900 mural was inspiring the farmers while hanging in the project headquarters' lavatory.

Livestock-production projects in Senegal were equally unsuccessful. In the mid-1970s, AID committed itself to improving the livelihood of Senegal's livestock producers. AID aimed to increase the number of cattle in the Bakel region from 11,200 to 25,000. However, after almost $4 million in U.S. aid had been spent, only 882 more cattle were on the range. A $7 million project in the Sodespt region also sought to boost livestock production and marketing but managed to sell only 263 cattle. The project was also designed to sell 4,950 goats and sheep, but it failed to sell any.

Both livestock projects sought to stem the deterioration of Senegal's rangeland, which threatens to subvert the entire Senegalese livestock business. They were launched to respond to the devastating droughts that had struck Senegal in the early 1970s, but they assumed that normal climatic conditions would prevail. The projects made no provision for livestock forage in case of renewed drought. In addition, the project was so poorly planned that although it tried to encourage increased production, it did nothing to alter the grazing use of the public commons area. In 1982, Senegal was again hit by drought, and the country's livestock business suffered greatly.

One report by the AID inspector general observed that AID's Senegal mission felt "considerable pressure existed [from Washington] to program and spend project funds, with a lesser concern for effective use of the monies," and "overstated project objectives were required to gain AID/Washington approval." In asking for a renewal of the project, AID's Senegal mission "disregarded key evaluation findings," insisting that the "project was sound in goal and purpose."[38] As usual in politics, spending money was more important than getting results. The same pressures that led to failure in Senegal are at work in almost all AID projects.

The Sahel agricultural projects relied on credit sales to poor farmers. As the AID inspector general noted, "The farmers, who were primarily subsistence farmers, were asked to put themselves in debt for a technical package which offered few short-term benefits for them. Although AID officials recognized this problem, no research was performed to correct it."[39] The credit programs were designed so haphazardly that interest rates were set largely by guesswork, with rates ranging anywhere from zero to 12 percent. Farmer demand for loans was less than anticipated, and of those farmers who did borrow, over half de- faulted. It was surprising that the default rate was not much higher, in that the farmers often received the impression that the loans were gifts that did not have to be repaid.

Most of the Sahel agricultural projects relied on extension services to spread the good news. But according to an AID report, "Almost no effort was made in any of the audited projects to determine whether the technical package was economically viable for the small farmers" who were intended to adopt it. The extension agents themselves were "totally ineffective." The report also noted, "In virtually every project we audited, these agents were found to be unqualified to undertake those responsibilities. Though every project paper emphasized the need for training, little or no substantive training was provided. Further, little or no guidance was provided to the agents."[40]

In many African countries, it has been clear that the success or failure of AID agricultural projects could be a life-or- death issue for the citizens. Yet, as is obvious from the AID inspector general's summary on the eight countries of the Sahel and from other reports, AID has bungled its relief efforts. African governments--with state marketing monopolies and policies that force farmers to sell their crops to the government at a loss--bear most the responsibility. (In some African countries, farmers are routinely shot for trying to sell their crops on the black market). Nevertheless, AID has continued to bankroll these governments, regardless of their pernicious policies.

The more foreign aid African governments have received, the worse they have tended to perform. As GAO noted, "The large number of donors and their administrative requirements place a considerable burden on recipient governments and strain their already weak administrative capacity."[41] A recent AID analysis noted:

Many African institutions officially responsible for planning and implementing development are saturated with development assistance, paralyzed by administrative inefficiency, staggering beneath a burden of complex and differing donor requirements, and are themselves in danger of becoming obstacles to development.[42]

Some African countries receive their entire investment budget from foreign aid. As GAO noted, "Governments, because of the importance of donor financing, are often more preoccupied with fund raising than structuring effective development plans."[43] As long as the foreign aid keeps pouring in, life will continue to be prosperous for the government employees who administer development programs.

Ample aid effectively allows governments to neglect reality. The World Bank observed, "African governments and donors continue to prefer new projects, especially new schools and hospitals, when the greatest urgency is to provide more resources to operate and maintain (and, increasingly, rehabilitate) existing projects."[44] Furthermore, "trucks no longer run because there are no spare parts and roads have become impassable; airplanes no longer land at night in some places because there is no electricity to light the runway."[45] Sixty-two percent of the farm tractors in Zambia are broken down owing to lack of maintenance or spare parts.[46] Government health clinics lack medicine, and schools lack textbooks and other supplies.

Despite all these failures, African civil servants continue to prosper. No matter how mismanaged the economy, the government can almost always find funds to provide raises for its employees. As one International Monetary Fund official assessed the effect of foreign aid on Zambia, "It is fair to say that what we have done is to allow Zambia to maintain a standard of living for its civil servants [whose payroll amounts to 20 percent of the country's gross domestic product] which is totally out of synch with the rest of the economy."[47] And no matter how far government extends its clumsy grasp over the economy, foreign aid donors keep pouring in the funds. In Zimbabwe, government spending has increased from 35 percent to 60 percent of the gross domestic product since 1980. Nevertheless, Reagan administration officials continue to boast that U.S. aid is encouraging positive economic reforms. In Zimbabwe, the Wall Street Journal recently noted, the media has been nationalized and the government now bans some foreign publications from entering the country.[48]
Click to expand...

pgabriel · May 8, 2008

unfortunately, you can't just drop aid and let the people handle the supplies. you need some sort of order

Rule0001 · May 8, 2008

weslinder said:

Not judging this situation individually, but Foreign Aid has a horrible record overall. It has crippled economies, propped up dictators, and fueled revolutions.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa065.html

Excerpt:
Click to expand...

While I have not read it, I believe that's the premise of the book "White Guilt".

leroy · May 8, 2008

Is this the definition of irony?

US "outraged" by Myanmar's response to cyclone

justtxyank · May 8, 2008

leroy420 said:

Is this the definition of irony?

US "outraged" by Myanmar's response to cyclone
Click to expand...

No. This doesn't even begin to compare.

MadMax · May 8, 2008

glynch said:

Well it would be a change. Usually we are doing flyovers to bomb folks.
Click to expand...

blathersby · May 8, 2008

You drop supplies wrapped in American flags directly to the people. It's called PSYOPS. Make sure they know how awesome America is.

conquistador#11 · May 8, 2008

This reminds me of the time when Castro offered a couple of dollars and doctors to Jorge W. for Katrina relief.

DaDakota · May 8, 2008

blathersby said:

You drop supplies wrapped in American flags directly to the people. It's called PSYOPS. Make sure they know how awesome America is.
Click to expand...

Kind of what I was thinking.

DD

Forums

Aid to Myanmar, should we do fly overs?

Should we ignore their government and drop supplies to the people

Yes - the people need the aid

No - Let the people starve while the military works it out

DaDakota Balance wins
Supporting Member

pirc1 Member

weslinder Member

glynch Member

bigtexxx Member

edwardc Member

yuantian Member

glynch Member

pirc1 Member

LouisianaRocket Member

LouisianaRocket Member

weslinder Member

pgabriel Educated Negro

Rule0001 Contributing Member

leroy Member
Supporting Member

justtxyank Member

MadMax Member

blathersby Member

conquistador#11 Member

DaDakota Balance wins
Supporting Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

Aid to Myanmar, should we do fly overs?

Should we ignore their government and drop supplies to the people

Yes - the people need the aid

No - Let the people starve while the military works it out

DaDakota Balance wins Supporting Member

pirc1 Member

weslinder Member

glynch Member

bigtexxx Member

edwardc Member

yuantian Member

glynch Member

pirc1 Member

LouisianaRocket Member

LouisianaRocket Member

weslinder Member

pgabriel Educated Negro

Rule0001 Contributing Member

leroy Member Supporting Member

justtxyank Member

MadMax Member

blathersby Member

conquistador#11 Member

DaDakota Balance wins Supporting Member

Share This Page

DaDakota Balance wins
Supporting Member

leroy Member
Supporting Member

DaDakota Balance wins
Supporting Member