My state alone has taken in 10,00 Burma refugees. They come thru a government program that funds the Christian Ministries that bring them into the US. But they bring in only Christians.

My town according to our paper this morning has taken in 550 of those. They reported that the police had responsed to a outbreak or incident of protest at the apartment complex where a number of them are housed at here after the news reports on Burma.

The nation of the US has taken in only 750 Iraq refugees.

The silence at this blog on the things we can do something about and aren't have become deafening.

Channeling the Neo-Cons: How can I makes Muslims in general and Iranians in particular response for the human rights disaster in Burma?

Sameer, many thanks for this post, it's great to have visible people talking about these details.

Carroll, I don't understand your complaint about silence on this blog. It seems to me the issues that relate to things we can do come up on this blog all the time. We can no more blog ourselves into democracy than we can bomb Iraq to democracy. We gotta actually do the political heavy lifting, and it seems to me that raising the important issues is the first step in that.

But maybe I'm missing your point. Certainly I agree that the US should take in more Iraqis, but I think the whole immigration thing is a crock anyway, like flag-burning and school prayer and the MoveOn ad; I'd be fine with taking in more of everyone. 'Course, I live in a city that has no ethnic majority, and I love it.

Chuck Dupree, It is good to see you here. I enjoy reading your blog. http://badattitudes.com/MT/. (However, I don't like pictures of dead bunnies or snakes too much!)

OT: For those of us who weighed in on Scott Paul's, Bollinger Gets An A post, here is a bit of information that I just discovered: http://tinyurl.com/323wts

Columbia's Bollinger - Hypocrisy At Large
Shortly after Columbia University's president insulted the invited guest Ahmedinejad by repeating lies of the Bush government, there was this event.

Columbia University World Leaders Forum, CMU

Monday, September 24, 2007, 9:00–10:00 a.m.
The Italian Academy, 1161 Amsterdam Avenue at 117th Street
Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov, President of Turkmenistan

Co-sponsored by the Harriman Institute

A keynote address followed by a question and answer session with the audience.

So what welcome did Berdymukhammedov receive?

The University director, Lee Bollinjer, a prominent scholar and author of a number of scientific treatises, books, textbooks, welcomed the Turkmen leader at the University.

Introducing the high guest to the teaching staff of the University, Lee Bollinjer noted that in seven months that Gurbnaguly Berdimuhamedov has been was leading the state, large-scale reforms, particularly, in education, science and culture were started in Turkmenistan.
Turkmen President speaks at Columbia University, Sept. 25, 2007

---
At least the guest was 'academic' enough to suffice Bollinger's standards:

Berdymukhammedov led an interactive presentation where pupils in supposedly regular middle schools in Turkmenistan were shown typing on sleek, late-model computer laptops, girls dressed in traditional costumes were dancing in a sparkling city park, and a provincial bazaar abounded in fruits and vegetables.

They were scenes of a Turkmenistan, where, as the president said, not natural gas, but people, are its "greatest asset.”

Turkmenistan is not known for its respect for its people or for human rights. Hundreds of people are imprisoned in Turkmenistan for their political beliefs.
...
At the conclusion of his presentation at Columbia, Berdymukhammedov urged all who are interested to know more about Turkmenistan, its economy, and other issues to approach and talk to the members of his delegation, which included several ministers and two deputy prime ministers.

Efforts by RFE/RL to speak with delegation members were unsuccessful.
Turkmenistan: President Says Press, NGOs Operate Freely, Radio Free Europe, Sep. 25, 2007

So why might Bollinger have used a different tone in this event? Could that be because Columbia has a 3 million investment in Chevron and other relations with the oil industry?

Berdymukhammedov - a former minister of health and the dentist of the country's previous ruler, Saparmurat Niyazov - was an unexpected choice to lead the impoverished country of five million people after Niyazov died last year.
...
ConocoPhillips, Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell and BP are among companies that have courted Turkmenistan recently, hoping to bolster their own reserves and tap non-OPEC sources.
U.S. officials woo Turkmenistan's president, IHT, Sept. 25, 2007

And, If you haven't seen this article published in Asia Times, it is excellent.
http://tinyurl.com/2u7auz

It begins:

A massive wrench thrown in Putin's works
By M K Bhadrakumar

"It almost seemed since the month of May that in the battles of the Caspian energy war, Russian President Vladimir Putin was destined to glide serenely from victory to victory until next March when he leaves office in the Kremlin.

But a backlash was bound to happen. Putin's standing as the ace player in the Great Game of our times had surely become an eyesore for Western capitals..."

Just to note the "Democratic Voice of Burma" is financed by the NED - a U.S. operation like Al-Hurra. So take their accounts with some salt.

The monks protesting are essentially young men who happen to have some immunity as they do their monastry-time everybody in Myanmar does. "Three day monks" they are called.

The real longterm monks are under government control and didn't protest.

I have never been in a country more infused with religion than Buddhist Burma. It is inconceivable that a junta which sacks the monasteries can be viable for long.

Posted by Chuck Dupree at September 28, 2007 07:52 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Perhaps I was overly snarky out of frustration.

I am talking about the fact that although once in a while the refugees in Iraq are mentioned (by numbers) nothing is deleved into or reported about any efforts going on to do something about them. And no mention at all about the Palestine refugees in Lebanon whose camps are being attacked. Those are two things the US has directly and indirectly caused ...and yet?

The Burma situtation we can get from regular news outlets. The other two, particulary Palestine refugees are verbotton in the MSM. Therefore I had hoped a widely read insider blog would concentrate more on what is not available from the usual sources and on the crisis the US has a hand in.

As I said my state has brought in 10,000 Burma refugees.
The United States has brought in only 750 Iraq refugees.
I would think those in the humantarian field would be looking into that disparity.

Carroll,

What state do you live in?

One of the reasons most of the refugees from Burma are Christian is most of them are from the Karen, Chin ethnic minorities, along with a few Kachins, and they just happen to be Christians. Furthermore, it is only in recent years that they have been eligible for third country resettlement. I suspect quite a few of them spent literally decades on the Thai border before being allowed in the US. I don't recall too many reports from the 1990s pointing out that despite US condemnation of the military regime in Burma, we weren't actually taking any refugees from Burma.

None of this detracts from your point regarding the Iraq refugee situation, just that I don't think, as you seem to imply, the Burmese are getting special treatment. I'd cynically suggest the Iraqis have at least another ten years to wait.

Posted by aiontay at September 29, 2007 05:10 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I am in North Carolina..and I am not suggesting the Burma refugees get special treatment. I am however suggesting that christian refugees are taken in more frequently than others due to the partnership between the State and the Christian religious groups that bring them in.
I talked today to a women who works for the local ministry involved and she wasn't hesitant about confirming this fact.

Then Texas is more progressive than North Carolina, since they take in some non-Christian Burmese as well. (I don't live in Texas, but I do know quite a bit about the situation there.) Still, given the demographics of the Burmese refugee population, it is going be largely Chrisitian no matter what since the refugees are largely ethnic minorities with large Christian populations fleeing persecution by the Buddhist Burman majority.

For that matter, a lot of the Iraqi refugees are also Christians.

Posted by aiontay at September 30, 2007 08:23 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

There is a difference between "some" and "mainly".
I don't have any stats on the religion of the refugees that come thru this program but if you do it would be interesting to see them and if it concentrates mainly on countries with christians under persecution.

Uh oh. Another Presidential candidate has come out saying exactly what Steve claims to be saying, but it is one of the non-mainstream candidates, so Steve will have to ignore him.

It must be rough trying to pimp for the actors that stand for everything you claim to oppose, while ignoring those statesmen that actually stand for the very policies and positions that you try to appear to advocate.

September 29, 2007 at 00:02:14

Democrats were Charged to End a War, Not Start One

by Mike Gravel

http://www.opednews.com

09/28/07 "ICH" -- - -Hillary Clinton was either misinformed or economical with the truth in Wednesday night’s debate when she responded to my challenge to her by saying the Senate’s resolution earlier in the day on Iran was designed to permit economic sanctions against individual members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.

She and her staff should know the United Nations Security Council on March 24 already slapped economic sanctions on individual Guard Members. Like the Red Army in China, Iran allows Guard commanders to own and run private companies. Security Council Resolution 1747, which the United States voted for, froze financial assets held outside Iran on the seven military commanders, including General Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr and six other admirals and generals.

I know of no law dictating the State Department must first designate individuals or groups as terrorists before sanctions can be imposed on them. Dozens of countries have been under U.S. unilateral sanctions that are not designated as terrorist. The U.S. first imposed sanctions on Iran in 1979 over the hostages, not terrorism. The only possible purpose of the Senate resolution asking the State Department to designate the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization is to set it up for military attack in George Bush’s war on terror.

As Virginia senator Jim Webb valiantly said in the Senate, the United States has never before designated the military services of a sovereign state a terrorist group. Indeed, though there is international dispute over the definition of terrorism, there is little disagreement on the legal point that terrorists are non-state actors who target civilians, i.e., never members of a government. Governments can be guilty of war crimes, but not terrorism. And the resolution talks about attacks on American troops, not civilians.

The hypocrisy of Hillary and the 75 other senators who called for more unilateral sanctions on Iran, was exposed Monday by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier who said, according to Spiegel Magazine, that American companies are violating existing U.S. sanctions by surreptitiously doing business with Iran through front companies in Dubai.

Joe Lieberman wrote the resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq that was passed with Democratic support on October 11, 2002. Lieberman’s new resolution setting up a Bush-Cheney invasion of Iran passed by 76 to 22 with Democratic backing on September 26, 2007. These are two dates that will live in infamy in the 21st century. Led by Senator Clinton, it was another sad day for the Senate and for Senate Democrats, who were elected to the majority in November in order to end a war, not start a new one.

Mike Gravel is a former US Senator from Alaska and is currently running for the Democratic Nomination for President.

If the Burmese refugees are Chins, about 99.999% are Christian. For the Karens (who I suspect is the group you are getting in NC), it get a bit more complicated, but rather than dragging this off into an ethnographic study, let's just say you're looking at a large majority of Christians among them as well.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, US policy favors refugees with US sponsors. Consequently, it is understandable that Christians would be favored. Now, one might argue that theologically the Christians shouldn't favor their co-religionists, but that would probably be a bit too Christ-like. The fact is, there aren't exactly a lot of S'kaw aminist Karens in the US to sponsor people. Perhaps you should check in to organizing sponsorship non-Chrisitians.

Free Burma!
International Bloggers' Day for Burma on the 4th of October

International bloggers are preparing an action to support the peaceful revolution in Burma. We want to set a sign for freedom and show our sympathy for these people who are fighting their cruel regime without weapons. These Bloggers are planning to refrain from posting to their blogs on October 4 and just put up one Banner then, underlined with the words „Free Burma!“.

www.free-burma.org

This may sound callous, but what the fuck are we going to do about the fact that our government has murdered over a million Iraqis, displaced a few million more, and are not anywhere near ending this horrendous disaster?

Now we are going to pick up the flag for the Burmese?

Give me a break. We can't even put a stop to OUR OWN government's fascist domestic policies and criminal acts of war against entire populations.

Meanwhile, Israel is embarked on the genocidal notion that the world community will turn a blind eye to their human rights abuses. And it appears they are correct.

The Burmese government has it all wrong. If they would just declare the monks "terrorists" and "enemy compatants", torture a few hundred of them, incarcerate a few thousand more without trial or representation, pollute the Burmese environment with deadly DU dust, and target the general population with cluster munitions, then perhaps the world community won't be so judgemental about their actions.

PissedOffAmerican,

The Burmese military has for quite some time tried to link their opponents to terrorism. Satire works best when it is informed.

Oh, and I don't think the Burmese need our help. If anything, you might want to study them and there methods since they come closer to toppling a regime than you have the Bush administration.

I certainly agree with Carroll that we're ignoring the massive problem of displaced Iraqis. I would also agree about the Palestinians getting no MSM coverage.

Probably Christian refugees get more attention and more help in the US. But it seems clear that the best way to avoid getting help is to be a country we invaded, or our surrogate invaded. Then we've already turned our blind side in your direction.

Perhaps you should check in to organizing sponsorship non-Chrisitians.

Posted by aiontay at September 30, 2007 01:28 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Perhaps you should have your tunnel vision checked.

"Perhaps you should have your tunnel vision checked."

Or, if that fails, he might consider greasing the corn cob before he inserts it.

October 1, 2007
http://www.counterpunch.com/roberts10012007.html

From Iraq to Burma
Hypocrisy Rules the West
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

Shame has vanished from Western "civilization." Hypocrisy has taken its place.

On September 28, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown could be heard on National Public Radio decrying the use of violence against democratic protesters by the government in Burma. Brown declared the British people's revulsion over the violence inflicted by the Burmese government on its people. But Brown said nothing about the violence the British government was inflicting on Iraqis and Afghans.

George W. Bush also struck the blameless pose when he declared: "The world is watching the people of Burma take to the streets to demand their freedom, and the American people stand in solidarity with these brave individuals."

Bush and Brown do not have the same sympathy for the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan. Neither Bush nor Brown stand in solidarity with those who are demanding their freedom from foreign occupation by American and British troops. Indeed, Bush and Brown, as commanders in chief, are on a killing spree that makes the government in Burma look extremely restrained by comparison.

Why were British soldiers sent to kill Iraqis and Afghans? September 11 had nothing whatsoever to do with the UK. No doubt but that the corrupt Tony Blair was paid off to drag the British people into Bush's Middle East war for American/Israeli hegemony, but Brown has done nothing to terminate Bush's use of the British military as mercenaries.

The NPR announcers also supported the Burmese people, but they, too, show little disturbance over Bush's five-year old wars that we now know were based entirely on lies. Al Qaeda is not the Taliban, and Iraq had no WMD. Neither country was a threat to the US. Now that we know this, why does the media still give Bush and Brown a free pass to use violence against Iraqis and Afghans?

To cut to the chase, what is the difference between Bush and Brown on one hand and the murderous Burmese government on the other? Bush and Brown are actually worse. They pretend to be democrats concerned with what people actually want. The Burmese government doesn't pretend to be anything but a military dictatorship. Moreover, the Burmese government is clean by comparison as it hasn't committed acts of naked aggression--war crimes under the Nuremberg standard--by invading other countries and attempting to occupy them.

Despite all the killing Bush has accomplished, he thirsts for yet more blood. Iran is in his and Israel's sights. All indications are that Bush is going to attack Iran. Propaganda, demonizations, and crass lies are pouring out of the Bush regime and its media and academic propagandists such as Columbia University president Lee Bollinger. Both parties in Congress have lined up behind the coming attack on Iran. The despicable senator Joe Lieberman even snuck language into a bill to give Bush the go ahead.

Who is going to stop Bush from a third war crime? Not his vice president, Not his national security adviser, not his secretary of defense. Not his secretary of state. Not Congress. Not the US military. Not the corporate fat cats. Not the Israel Lobby. Not the bought and paid for "allies." Not the anti-war movement. Not the American people. Certainly not the media.

Americans are content with whatever crimes their government commits as long as the justification is Americans' safety.

Americans' willingness to murder others out of fear for their own safety is a result of September 11. The antiwar movement is impotent, because it has accepted the government's 9/11 story. To oppose a war when you accept the government's reason for the war is an indefensible position.

The Bush regime knows that if people will believe its 9/11 story, they will believe anything. Propaganda silences facts, and Americans fall for one set of falsehoods after another. The alleged 9/11 hijackers all came from countries allied with the US, principally Saudi Arabia, but Americans believe the government's lies that Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and Syria are responsible. Americans have been convinced that without "regime change" in these countries, the American superpower will remain helpless in face of stateless Muslims armed with box cutters.

Americans have been brainwashed to believe that Muslims hate us for our "freedom and democracy," whereas in fact the problem is the US government's immoral foreign policy and interference in the internal affairs of Muslim countries. Bush's message to the Middle East is clear: Be a puppet state or be destroyed.

In the meantime, to prevent democracy and civil liberties from getting in the way of making Americans safe, Bush has set aside habeas corpus, due process, right to legal representation, privacy, and the separation of powers mandated by the US Constitution. Otherwise, Bush says, we will lose the "war on terror."

Bush says he has made Americans safe by ridding them of these constitutional impediments to their safety. And once American bombs fall on Iran and Syria, those countries will be free and democratic, too, like Iraq and Afghanistan.

In leading Americans to this conclusion, Bush has sunk the United States to a new low in human intelligence and morality.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com