Burmese authorities have been getting bad press in that they have been blocking foreign aid workers and shipments of supplies to the areas that were recently hit by the cyclone. See:

http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/feature-news/2008/05/10/hell-of-stockpiled-a id-for-stricken-burma-must-end-91466-20888791/

What, if anything, should be done about military dictatorships like these that intentionally allow their own people to suffer?

First, it would help a great deal if folks in the United States were not openly supporting military juntas. John McCain quietly let two of his campaign leaders go this last week when the typhoon hit, but the fact remains that he hired them knowing about their close ties to the regime. Hillary Clinton has also had members of her team involved in the promotion of trade with countries that have abysmal human rights records. The roots of this kind of double standard run very deep in both parties.

Second, the U.S. could actually enforce embargoes that directly impacted the leaders of these countries (e.g. freezing assets in banks, etc.) rather than cutting off food and other staple needs for the people. Too often sanctions hurt the very folks we seek to help. Much more can be accomplished by changing the leadership and to do that we have to make it less profitable to be a despot. What is happening right now in Darfur is a prime example of this globalist blood money. When there are no big returns on investments in oppression, there will be far less of it.

Third, we must no longer be bound to foreign policy that creates these kinds of situations. Haiti, the Philippines, Chile, Panama, Iraq and Iran -- to name a few -- were ruled by horrible people that we installed, supported or both. The crimes against their people were a direct result of interference by our intelligence services. When we were instrumental in deposing the elected government in the short term, we have no high ground or moral authority in the long run.

Finally, we must never hesitate to bomb any nation with food and medical supplies when the situation merits that kind of action. The Berlin Airlift was just one shining example of the potential we have to help others in need. We ran millions of tons of supplies over the "Hump" and built the Ledo Road in Burma. This is not unfamiliar territory. We would "shock and awe" the world if our military fed millions as part of a peacekeeping mission. Strength, might and technology mean nothing if they cannot be harnessed for more than just killing.

Ironically, I was just talking to my brother about this. His background for arguements sake is, he is a 31 year old missionary, who has lived in China for the last 10 years. He has to leave every 60 days so he travels the whole region constantly.In addition he is now, today, on his way there(Myanmar). He pointed out it was obvious to him why Myanmar has accepted no aid. It is because as a regime they know any aid from any country will bring spys, bottom line. They know that others are scouting them out for what ever reasons. The small % of lives lost are a calculated decision to remain in complete control. With that being said. I totally agree with Littlesongs. Can you imagine the seeds of love and goodwill we can plant by dropping supplies....granted the government would claim alot to sell or repackage and give them to the people as a gift from their own government. Not all could be gathered up by the government so it would be effective even if a smaller amount. Who cares how the supplies get to the people, just that they get them.