´óÏó´«Ã½

The problem with the media reporting of Burma is that it is diverting attention from far more serious crises like Darfur. By comparison to the 2 million refugees in Darfur, the population of Burma is relatively safe. Those in Darfur by contrast live close to the edge of dying at any time. I found it strange and almost incomprehensible that ´óÏó´«Ã½ asked on its World Have Your Say blog yesterday whether or not it was time for military action against the government of Burma!!!? Huh? Why now? What about Darfur? Why isn't it time for military action there too? Ill bet a few rockets launched at Sudan's parliament while it is in session and other government buildings, a few at its military headquarters, and a few at the homes of the wealthiest and most influential people in power along with a message that it could be just the beginning of foreign intervention and the entire campaign to commit genocide by killing all of the blacks to Arabize Sudan would end allowing 2 million people to return to what's left of their homes. Why is Burma suddenly so important?

I am not one normally given to concerns about morality or ethics in internatioal affairs but if I were, I'd wonder what the media including ´óÏó´«Ã½ was doing by suddenly finding Burma their own cause celebre. Where is the perspective, where are the priorities of what is most pressing in the world? It appears to me that ´óÏó´«Ã½ prefers instead to compete with the commercial networks in the US by focusing its attention on the most attention grabbing headlines, one more sure sign of its decline as a serious major player in news reporting.

I agree with Mark since the media reporting of Burma diverts attention from Cuba, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, and Darfur. But the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is the Voice of Freedom in a World that is losing that freedom.

The Monks of Burma [Myanmar] have my admiration for standing up to an oppresive dictatorship in spite of the repression. For the best information about Burma, Merinews [India] is giving up to date report.

Regardless, Thanks ´óÏó´«Ã½ for reproting on Burma.

It seems to me that ´óÏó´«Ã½ is trying to compete head to head with the likes of Fox News, CNN and MSNBC for their audience and markets. It would not surprise me if it opened a 24 hour cable news channel in the United States possibly even with commercials.

IMO, the quality of its product is now clearly inferior to PBS, C-Span, and other high end American news media. I don't think it really cares. It will likely continue to coast on its reputation as it makes the transition to an American mainstream comodity. It's a real shame.

From ´óÏó´«Ã½;

"An attack on an African Union army base in the Sudanese region of Darfur has killed at least 12 peacekeepers.
Sources in the region told the ´óÏó´«Ã½ that 2,000 rebels had overrun the base. Fifty AU soldiers are still missing."

"The AU, for its part, did not make clear whether it thought government troops or rebels were responsible."

"At least 200,000 people have died and some 2m(million) have been forced from their homes during the four-year conflict."

Now what was that about 9 protestors being killed in Burma?

Why would rebels kill the AU Soldiers who are protecting their own people? To capture arms? Africa is drowning in small arms which could be gotten almost anywhere. I put my money on the government or its surrogate militias, the Janjaweed. They are showing the AU and the UN they are still in control and can act at any time with impunity.

The role of the UN in Darfur and Burma, as it was in Iraq and as it is in Iran is to protect Russian and Chinese legal and illegal business interests by blocking any measures in the Security Council which might jeopardize them. The UN is not an instrument for international peace and justice, it's the biggest obstacle to them. There is no such thing as international law when it is applied selectively. Saddam Hussein didn't ask for UN permission to invade Kuwait. Burma's junta didn't ask for UN permission to take control from the elected government. Under the guise of not interfering in the internal affairs of other nations, the UN protects the dictators who cut the deals with China and Russia. Why does it require a resolution to take action in opposition? The Arabs didn't ask for permission from the UN to launch 4 wars of annihilation against Israel, a clear violation of international law, why are the settlements in the West Bank suddenly international legal violation #1? Who sets themselves up to say which laws are to be enforced and which are to be ignored? It is very dangerous for nations like the US and UK to subordinate their very own security and foreign policies to the dictates of the UN. It is long overdue for the US to pull out and throw the entire sordid gang of bastards off its territory. As for Burma, I do not see that the US or UK has any more at stake there than in most other repressive dictatorships around the world. Contrary to what some would say, the US is not and never has been the world's policeman, it acts in its own interests just like every other country. If the UK wants to show moral outrage, boycott the Peking Olympics. I don't think that would happen, it would take an invasion of the UK by Chinese troops before that would even be considered.