Friday, May 16, 2008

Ron Paul Opposes Condolence Bill to Burma

Reprinted from the Ron Paul Tumblelog:

H. Res. 1181: Expressing condolences and sympathy to the people of Burma for the grave loss of life and vast destruction caused by Cyclone Nargis.

Passed 410-1.

Ron Paul opposed a condolence bill to Burma because it also called on Burma’s military junta to postpone a referendum which would solidify their oppressive regime over the already-suffering country.

His spokeswoman, Rachel Mills: “It interferes with the internal affairs of another country. It’s just none of our business.” Note that the bill does not call for interference; it only contains an admonishment, not an invasion.

Take note: not only did Ron Paul refuse to express sadness for the plight of an Asian people burdened by the double disaster of natural calamity and tyrannical government, but he explicitly supports said military tyranny under the guise of a weak-handed isolationism.


FuckRonPaul said...

Of course Ron Paul voted no - the people of Burma aren't white.

Just when you think that he couldn't be any more of a douchebag, he pulls this out.

J.D. Hutton said...

Sometimes I wonder if he only votes against things such as this for the shock value- it certainly gets him attention.

That being said, he's a moron and a lunatic either way.

Anonymous said...

Ryan Hebert (Algonquin Regional High School) replied to your post8 minutes ago
It does interfere with other nations affairs. We are demanding to the government in Burma that we give aid to their people, and in the fashion we wish it to happen. Not to mention the fact that a cyclone in Burma has no bearing on our country whatsoever except for people giving sympathy.

Who was at our side giving us aid when Katrina hit? Who gave us money after 9/11? What about Andrew? Or Rita? Nope, we fended for ourselves. It is not any other country's business to hand a silver spoon to us if we were impacted by a natural disaster, and conversely it is none of our business to give aid to another country what was impacted by a natural disaster. And by "us" I mean the state.

If you feel bad for the people of Burma and want to help, write a check yourself, and make it due to the American Red Cross or other charity organization. Don't throw everyone else's money in the barrel so you can feel good about yourself helping a country in crisis. That, my friend, is selfish.

Anonymous said...

"Who was at our side giving us aid when Katrina hit? Who gave us money after 9/11? What about Andrew? Or Rita? Nope, we fended for ourselves."

That's complete nonsense.

glen.h said...

Australia offered aid for Katrina,and regulary gives reciprical aid in fighting major forest fires. Stop being such a whiner.

LP said...

Even Cuba offered to send doctors over after Katrina.

TheVarrior said...

AnonymousTard, you're comparing Burma's capability to cope with a disaster with that of the United States. A military junta incapable of feeding its people and routinely committing genocide against certain civilian populations, compared with the ability of the US government. You have to be an absolute fucking idiot to even suggest that Burma is capable of or even deserves to take care of itself in this kind of disaster.

And it's a complete and blatant lie to say that other countries did not help after Katrina occurred.

Anonymous said...

"Of course Ron Paul voted no - the people of Burma aren't white."

Yes blogger. Evil whitey is out to kill everyone. the poor oppressed non-white people should've rose to the top of civilization but the big bad white man is keeping them down. But I'm sure you feel good by donating your money to corrupt african terroist governments right?

Let me ask you concerned blogger, how much money have you given to the victims of this cyclone? Why should people be forced to spend money for every natural disaster that happens outisde of the country? As if we as a nation actually have the money anyways.

Sophie said...

The University of Kansas, the New York Giants, and the Louisiana State University are all located in the United States of America. Tibet, China, and Burma are half the world away.

What gives Congress the right to praise or censure a foreign country? It is not the business of the U.S. government to look after the affairs of anyone else aside from its own people as written in the Constitution. It is the responsibility of the American people themselves as compassionate human beings to offer support and/or condolence to the suffering peoples of other nations.

Also, if you think that offering the hand of peace, developing real free trade, and exchanging culture, language, and ideas with other countries -- as opposed to war, threats, and bribery -- is 'weak-handed isolationism', you're woefully mistaken.