"Is it time to invade Burma?" You must be kidding me...

[Cogz]

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1739053,00.html?xid=site-cnn-partner

Is someone at "Time" high?

[constituent]

http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2008/0805/burma_irrawaddy_0509.jpg


looks like n.o. last time i spent any time there (fewer palm trees though).

[Dustancostine]

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1739053,00.html?xid=site-cnn-partner

Is someone at "Time" high?

No they are just liberal. We must invade Burma for their own good.



The disaster in Burma presents the world with perhaps its most serious humanitarian crisis since the 2004 Asian tsunami. By most reliable estimates, close to 100,000 people are dead. Delays in delivering relief to the victims, the inaccessibility of the stricken areas and the poor state of Burma's infrastructure and health systems mean that number is sure to rise. With as many as 1 million people still at risk, it is conceivable that the death toll will, within days, approach that of the entire number of civilians killed in the genocide in Darfur.

So what is the world doing about it? Not much......

"We're in 2008, not 1908," says Jan Egeland, the former U.N. emergency relief coordinator. "A lot is at stake here. If we let them get away with murder we may set a very dangerous precedent."

That's why it's time to consider a more serious option: invading Burma


This is sickening. The Burmese should be happy to get any help at all period.

Liberals just need to stfu sometimes.

[american empire]

Liberals just need to stfu sometimes.

thats exactly the problem...its not about liberals....its this belief that the other side is wrong hence we are right that makes even the easiest selling point regarding the constitution and other legalities hard to explain....

why cant we say its a ludicrous ideas and not blame the liberals.....some of teh stuff they say makes sense and some doesnt...so to generalize and say they are bloody stupid is pretty myopic...

we shouldn't attack any country period who has not antagonized us.....period

[Cowlesy]

If we don't invade Burma ASAP, the Terrorists have already won.

[Kludge]

thats exactly the problem...its not about liberals....its this belief that the other side is wrong hence we are right that makes even the easiest selling point regarding the constitution and other legalities hard to explain....

why cant we say its a ludicrous ideas and not blame the liberals.....some of teh stuff they say makes sense and some doesnt...so to generalize and say they are bloody stupid is pretty myopic...

we shouldn't attack any country period who has not antagonized us.....period

Fine, blame the statists - blame the interventionists blame whoever the hell you want - but this idea of intervening in Myanmar is disgusting.

[Kludge]

If we don't invade Burma ASAP, the Terrorists have already won.

Everybody's a got danged comedian these days.

[Dustancostine]

thats exactly the problem...its not about liberals....its this belief that the other side is wrong hence we are right that makes even the easiest selling point regarding the constitution and other legalities hard to explain....


Because it is the modern liberals regardless of party (I did not say Democrat even though you will be hard pressed to find one that is not a liberal) who promote intervening abroad for the good of the globe. This is an extension of the policies of Woodrow Wilson and FDR, and bedrock of modern liberal philosophy: the state can do anything if the liberals think that it is good.

So yes they need to stfu.

--Dustan

[driller80545]

Well of course you know that we will first need to build an army base so that we can efficiently distribute supplies

[anonymous6728]

Only a neocon on crystal meth would even conceive of such a thing. Consider the political situation in Myanmar. http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/22/news/shan.php

They have no air force, which means that food could be dropped by air where needed if we had to and some relief group that the junta trusts could move in with water purification systems and vaccines to minimize disease. The political situation is almost as stable as Iraq's was before the U.S. invasion. Shock and Awe the junta and we will have a civil war on our hands just like in Iraq. As soon as we leave, people will start killing each other. I think we should concentrate on emergency aid through diplomacy.

A person with a gun in their hands believes that every problem requires a military solution. Please put the gun down and pick up a telephone.

[xxsicknessxx]

If we invade, we will get attacked for sure, then we will be there to keep the peace for 100years :)

[anonymous6728]

Keep the peace--I know what you mean;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqESJY22ox0

[Fox McCloud]

I know it's not good to single out liberals, but in this case, I'm going to.

there's a great many people I've talked to who are totally against Iraq, but ever since this incident in Burma, they're more than happy for us to go in and provide aid, and they're more than happy that the UN is thinking about forcing aid on the people.

Granted, I think the Burmese government is detestable, but it's not within our right to send aid (government aid, I'm 100% for private aid) or "keep the peace".

[DriftWood]

Lets invade.. overthrow the govt.. start a civil war.. get killed and go broke.. pull out and just nuke the place. What a great idea. Yeeay.

Most people have not learned anything from Iraq and Vietnam.

Edit:

People forget that countries start out in anarchy, become dictatorships, and slowly become free. People find a way to change the system from the inside. In the long run the self interest of people will assure that they find a way to help themselves and gain more economic power, wich means gradually the state looses power, and something resembling a free society emerges.

If someone on the outside keeps overthrowing the dictatorships all the time.. all you get is constant anarchy, and civil war, after wich a new dictatorship will form. There is no shortcuts to freedom. Economic sanctions are just as destructive as war, it just keeps people down and slows down progress. Without trade people have no way to gain the economic power that is neccessary to bribe back power from the state. Even if most of the money from international trade goes to the govt, it will in the end trickle down to the people. The govt will waste the money it gets, but the people will use it more efficiently. The govt might buy guns or luxury items with the money.. a bad investment as these things do not produce more wealth after the money is spent. The people will invest the money less wastefully. They might buy a cow or some land.. A good investment as these things will continue to create more wealth even after the money is spent. This way the govt will become less wealthy and people will become more so. The more wasteful the govt is the quicker it will loose economic power to the people. You really cant keep people down forever. The people in Burma will find a way.

Cheers

[Minestra di pomodoro]

Lets invade.. overthrow the govt.. start a civil war.. get killed and go broke.. pull out and just nuke the place. What a great idea. Yeeay.

Most people have not learned anything from Iraq and Vietnam.

Iraq and Vietnam are not similar to Burma in that sense. In both Iraq and Vietnam there were already two warring factions, in Iraq's case Sunni and Shia, and in Vietnam's case, the communists and the anti-communists. We did not start the civil wars in either, and Burma has no equivalent.

[acptulsa]

Is someone at "Time" high?

Power is intoxicating stuff. It seems some in this country want us to be parent to the world--and be an abusive parent at that.

And no, we didn't learn a damned thing from Vietnam or Iraq--including, apparently, that a common enemy will get it from both sides of a conflict, or that the jungle provides one hell of a home field advantage.

"How can they resent us? We're liberaters!" So we sign up every young person who has no job, stick a gun in their hands and send them to a place where they don't speak the language and don't have a clue. Who could resent that?

Yeah, those liberals need to stfu.

[Minestra di pomodoro]

Yeah, those liberals need to stfu.

These are not liberals calling for the invasion of another country to 'liberate', these are the conservatives.

[DriftWood]

Iraq and Vietnam are not similar to Burma in that sense. In both Iraq and Vietnam there were already two warring factions, in Iraq's case Sunni and Shia, and in Vietnam's case, the communists and the anti-communists. We did not start the civil wars in either, and Burma has no equivalent.

Dont be naive (sorry for being blunt). There is always sides, even in burma. The govt has been fighting rebels from different ethnic groups for decades now. The only thing these groups have in common is that they are aganist the current govt. If the govt falls one of these will probably fight the current milita and the others groups for power. There is no telling that the winner will be any better than the current militia is.

Before the war people where just as ignorant and naive about the Iraq. They though that once saddam and his govt fell, the people would be free and happy. Few people knew the difference between sunni and shiite. Even the Iraqi people did not care much about wheter they married a sunni or shiite. All that changed after the war.

Just imagine what would happen to Burma and its etnic groups if the govt fell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_conflict_in_Burma

Cheers

[Minestra di pomodoro]

Interesting, I did not know that about Burma!

[angelatc]

They have no air force, which means that food could be dropped by air where needed if we had to and some relief group that the junta trusts could move in with water purification systems and vaccines to minimize disease. The political situation is almost as stable as Iraq's was before the U.S. invasion. Shock and Awe the junta and we will have a civil war on our hands just like in Iraq. As soon as we leave, people will start killing each other. I think we should concentrate on emergency aid through diplomacy.
.

Or here's a thought...leave them alone if that's what they want.

[Minestra di pomodoro]

Or here's a thought...leave them alone if that's what they want.

That's not what they want. People are dying there because of the military junta's unwillingness to accept foreign aid.

[acptulsa]

That's not what they want. People are dying there because of the military junta's unwillingness to accept foreign aid.

People are dying so let's go kill them!

[Minestra di pomodoro]

People are dying so let's go kill them!

The military government is living lavishly, those are the people the United States would strike if they were to invade Burma.

[acptulsa]

The military government is living lavishly, those are the people the United States would strike if they were to invade Burma.

Oh, yeah. The official line is that collateral damage is a thing of the past. Gee, how could I forget that?

[moostraks]

The military government is living lavishly, those are the people the United States would strike if they were to invade Burma.

Where have we heard this story before? Let's see if the family members left behind from our strikes on Iraq would agree to the effectiveness of targeting strickly those acting offensive in our opinion...

What gives you the right to take our children to fight a war for a foreign country because you take offense to their government? Are you going to put your life on the line to free them? Or are you going to sit in the comfort of your home patting yourself on the back for being a humanitarian for pressuring our government to take our young people to "free" yet another nation, thus rewarding us with the spirit of goodwill we see is so indicated by our intervention in middle east politics??:rolleyes:

[DriftWood]

Even if there was some super weapon that only killed the the leaders of the military junta without any collateral damage, i would still be against using it.

You see. Everyone in Burma has found a way to live around the current power structure. Stability means people can make plans for tomorrow, to improve their lives a little. They probably worked hard to get where they are. With stability comes predictability. They wont have to find a new way to survive, they know how they got food today, they will get food the same way tomorrow. Relationships, interpedencies and rules would have formed over time between the people and the ruling militia. People probably bribe officals to get a break, and maybe some of them marry into power and better lifes. People have found a way to survive and make the best of their lives in the current system.

But, If someone on the outside killed the govt, not just the top but most of the structure of society would fall. Everyone would suffer.. a new power and social order would have to be built from the ground up. The status that regular people had managed to build with the officals and echother would be lost. All that hard work, all those plans, the rules, the relationships with the law, trading routines, would be lost. People would have to find a new way to survive.

And after all the fighting of a civil war, and the rebuilding of society afterwards.. Life might be worse, not better.

Its like Iraq.. people say life was better before the war (even many of the shiites say that). Who knows how long it will take until Iraq progresses to the same point as it was before the war. My guess is atleast 20 years from the day that US leaves.

Cheers

[WRellim]

If we don't invade Burma ASAP, the Terrorists have already won.

Actually, Cowlesy, "My Friend" technically they won a long time ago.

Back in 2000 they got their team (s)elected as President and Vice President and filled a whole administration FULL of terrorists.

Now they have another terrorist as the GOP Nominee, and (yet another) team as the LP ticket.

So... so far they are winning. :(

[WRellim]

Even if there was some super weapon that only killed the the leaders of the military junta without any collateral damage, i would still be against using it.

You see. Everyone in Burma has found a way to live around the current power structure. Stability means people can make plans for tomorrow, to improve their lives a little. They probably worked hard to get where they are. With stability comes predictability. They wont have to find a new way to survive, they know how they got food today, they will get food the same way tomorrow. Relationships, interpedencies and rules would have formed over time between the people and the ruling militia. People probably bribe officals to get a break, and maybe some of them marry into power and better lifes. People have found a way to survive and make the best of their lives in the current system.

But, If someone on the outside killed the govt, not just the top but most of the structure of society would fall. Everyone would suffer.. a new power and social order would have to be built from the ground up. The status that regular people had managed to build with the officals and echother would be lost. All that hard work, all those plans, the rules, the relationships with the law, trading routines, would be lost. People would have to find a new way to survive.

And after all the fighting of a civil war, and the rebuilding of society afterwards.. Life might be worse, not better.

Its like Iraq.. people say life was better before the war (even many of the shiites say that). Who knows how long it will take until Iraq progresses to the same point as it was before the war. My guess is atleast 20 years from the day that US leaves.

Cheers


If only we could unleash that worst of all WMD's (Weapons of Monetary Destruction) -- the sub-prime mortgage backed by a CDO -- on the residents of certain federal buildings in Washington D.C.

'Cause the Sub-Prime is actually MORE effective than a neutron bomb... it really DOES just get rid of the people and leave the buildings intact... but WITHOUT the lingering radiation problem!

[Minestra di pomodoro]

What gives you the right to take our children to fight a war for a foreign country because you take offense to their government? Are you going to put your life on the line to free them? Or are you going to sit in the comfort of your home patting yourself on the back for being a humanitarian for pressuring our government to take our young people to "free" yet another nation, thus rewarding us with the spirit of goodwill we see is so indicated by our intervention in middle east politics??:rolleyes:

I don't have to use your children or mine, I would hire mercenaries.

[DriftWood]

If only we could unleash that worst of all WMD's (Weapons of Monetary Destruction) -- the sub-prime mortgage backed by a CDO -- on the residents of certain federal buildings in Washington D.C.

'Cause the Sub-Prime is actually MORE effective than a neutron bomb... it really DOES just get rid of the people and leave the buildings intact... but WITHOUT the lingering radiation problem!

Hehe, yeah (There was a bit of bleed threw though, from wall street to main street with those weapons of mass destruction). I would have liked to see what had happened if FED has not stepped in and bailed out Bears. It might have caused a chain reaction and killed off lots of reckless financial companies, but the economy would have regrown stronger without them. The economy, in that way, works much like evolution. There is no progress unless you let the sick ones die.

Cheers

[angelatc]

That's not what they want. People are dying there because of the military junta's unwillingness to accept foreign aid.

Isn't the military junta the ruling government, though? I think that we have to respect their authority. The people must be inspired to their own revolution.

[Minestra di pomodoro]

Isn't the military junta the ruling government, though? I think that we have to respect their authority. The people must be inspired to their own revolution.

The people are not the ones with the guns.

[asgardshill]

Isn't the military junta the ruling government, though? I think that we have to respect their authority. The people must be inspired to their own revolution.

Good thing the Marquis de Lafayette and the French Navy didn't feel the same way in 1777.

[ItsTime]

this is the exact thinking we will get with McCain and Obama

[acptulsa]

Good thing the Marquis de Lafayette and the French Navy didn't feel the same way in 1777.

Don't think they'd have touched us with a ten foot pole had we not been ready to revolt. Otherwise, they'd have had to go halfway around the world to fight everyone in the place. Who'd be stupid enough to do that?

Don't answer that...

[angelatc]

Good thing the Marquis de Lafayette and the French Navy didn't feel the same way in 1777.

I think we started the Revolution *before* they helped with it.

And I am a non-interventionist, through and through. There's always "good" reasons to send the troops into other countries.

And I'm not sure invading a country on China's border is a great idea.

We're already in a pissing match with them - apparently they want to be called Myanmar and we don't want to call them that. So much for freedom, eh?

"You can change your name when we say you can, dammit!"

[asgardshill]

I think we started the Revolution *before* they helped with it.

And I am a non-interventionist, through and through. There's always "good" reasons to send the troops into other countries.

And I'm not sure invading a country on China's border is a great idea.

We're already in a pissing match with them - apparently they want to be called Myanmar and we don't want to call them that. So much for freedom, eh?

"You can change your name when we say you can, dammit!"

Nobody's claiming that blanket nannyism on a continental scale and wholesale intervention in other country's affairs are a good thing. My note was a cautionary tale not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.