anya

I heard yesterday that the US were asking for a 'corridor' to be opened up, but I also heard that the UK were suggesting going in militarily as well.

We get to see pictures of very neatly organized civilians receiving in lines food aid from smiling Burma officials, then we see pictures taken by journalists who have got in of tents having been put up where no one is and no one in them while people have not been reached. One place that journalists have got to has just about been flattened and the survivors have only had the Buddhist monks to go to for refuge and apparently they have received aid - 1 sack of rice!!!

I think what has thrown everyone is that the government in any country could be so indifferent to the needs of it's people.

They also diverted resources which could have been engaged in helping people into making sure this sham vote took place.

I believe the UN hoped that they would come round and they have let a small amount more help in since Friday.

And then, what would happen if people went in by force, and how would Burma be ruled after, what would happen, I do not know? I've heard people suggesting that the monks could be involved in looking after the country for a while which doesn't seem too daft as they apparently are used to giving political advice there, but they would need an army to protect them.

It's just been one of the most pitiful and insane incidents I have seen, where help is there, people need it but are unable to be given it.

I did also hear someone say that whether people decided to risk taking Burma on militarily might be to do with how much they weighted up whether it was politically helpful for them rather than genuine need to help.


I guess we will need to wait for the history books to find out whether we are criticised for standing outside while people died or did the best thing not making the situation worse bu going in....

that is unless we are still thinking of going in so late.