Would you support an invasion of Burma?

[/(. . )/]

(Sorry if this has been talked about before. I haven't had internet for 2 months.)

Just some facts:

Burma has various ethnic groups. The Burmese are the majority. The Karen have been fighting a civil war against the Burmese state military.

When Iraq was "liberated," it broke out into a civil war.

The refusal of the junta to let in foreign aid workers to help people in Burma means that the junta is trying to hide what is happening.

They don't care about the people. It would probably benefit the junta if people died.

The rice belt has been reported to be destroyed by the cyclone. The junta has a 400,000 military. If not fed, the soldiers might rebel. Many people become soldiers because it's the best way to feed their families. It is highly likely that the junta is stock piling the donated food to feed their soldiers. This means that the victims are being left to die.

This is a crime against humanity.

France has hinted at a UN invasion. There is already talk of unauthorized airdrops of aid.

Would you support a UN or independent (France, US) military action to remove the junta?

The junta is slowly, slowly following a "road map to democracy." They just held elections that passed a constitution. The constitution makes it illegal for people who have married foreigners or have half foreign children to be president. This law was written to prevent 1992 elected President Suu Kyi, whose late husband was British (they have two sons) and has been under house arrest for 12 of the past 16 years, from becoming the president of Burma.

Don't forget the 8-8-88 massacre and the brutal suppression of the recent monk protests.

[Kingsumo]

If this had happened 8 years ago, I would be totally behind it.. Now, I think that the US' attempt at liberating Iraq has proven that it would just be a bad idea.

And besides that, liberate them to what end? Would we overthrow the Junta and then step aside? Seems unlikely at this point.

I think as a solo action it would be ill advised, and add to that the fact that most of the world now sees us as a big bully, it would make things a bit worse.

Being part of a UN force and just adding muscle and logistics however, I think I might be able to be behind that.. If only barely.

[Jason California]

No.

[Amos Moses]

Dear God no. We should help that lady under house arrest though. But an invasion? Fuck that. Haven't we learned our lesson when it comes to that?

[c. page]

as part of a UN force, maybe, but only in terms of providing support.

[RickLM]

Our military has exhausted itself, and we are currently incapable of such an action. But we should encourage our NATO or Asian friends to do the right thing and prevent a humanitarian tragedy.

[Jerome Gibbons]

It's a scientific fact that invading other countries always works out well for the US.

[Amos Moses]

It's a scientific fact that invading other countries always works out well for the US.

Reagan had a Ph.D in it.

[Humphrey_Lee]

If the UN finally ruled that what they're doing to their people there was so immoral they had to do something about it, I'd be the first to hoot and holler in endorsement about it, but sadly, short of a new Hitler coming into a power I'm not a huge fan of invasion. But I dunno, the shit that goes down there is so fucking invasive of just base human rights I think I could change that position rather easily.

[nick maynard]

un invasion - yes. us invasion - no.

edit: secret invasion - omg yes.

[/(. . )/]

I was mainly referring to a UN led invasion. i think the US is rather stretched at the moment.

[Amos Moses]

I was mainly referring to a UN led invasion. i think the US is rather stretched at the moment.

I doubt that would ever happen, I can't see the Chinese agreeing to that.

"Oh you want to invade my neighbors, overthrow their junta and install a free an open Government? Why I wouldn't mind that at all!"

[/(. . )/]

I doubt that would ever happen, I can't see the Chinese agreeing to that.

"Oh you want to invade my neighbors, overthrow their junta and install a free an open Government? Why I wouldn't mind that at all!"

As where things are going, it's looking like "Fuck China's say, we're going to do some relief drops or thousands of people will die"

[DC Camel]

We don't "liberate" people unless there's something in it for us.

[joespam]

I'm ambivalent. The Burmese government sound like a bunch that could use a revolution, but if we set the precedent of invading when a natural disaster isn't handled well by the sitting government, what happens to us during the next Katrina?

[evilgenius]

On one hand, the local overthrow of the junta seems to be coming closer and closer with every day, leading to a recovering and democratic Burma with good ties to other countries.

On the other hand, every day they aren't overthrown means hundreds more dead and the rest more oppressed than yesterday, waiting for any kind of action at all is going to be costly.

I'd still go with the first option, but it really tugs at the heartstrings to see things still going unchanged.

[joespam]

It also goes without saying - why would we want to start another Iraq? We've already got one.

[Blandy vs Terrorism]

No.

[/(. . )/]

It also goes without saying - why would we want to start another Iraq? We've already got one.



not "we" though. Not a US invasion, a world wide UN invasion to stop crimes against humanity

[WinstonWolf]

No, because we already fucked up one country, we don't need to fuck up another.

[WinstonWolf]

Is the U.N really up to it? I don't think Clinton was really all that up on the U.N. The only time Clinton got giddy about the UN was when it was right next to the C and the T.

[Kingsumo]

not "we" though. Not a US invasion, a world wide UN invasion to stop crimes against humanity

Do you think the UN would actually take that step though? I can see them crafting a stern letter, but to actually throw down and say fuck you Junta, we are taking over, does not seem like something they would ever do.

[Kingsumo]

Is the U.N really up to it? I don't think Clinton was really all that up on the U.N. The only time Clinton got giddy about the UN was when it was right next to the C and the T.

:lol: Ok, that was pretty funny.

[Thomas Mauer]

"France has hinted at an invasion?" Guess they want their colonies back. :?

[joespam]

not "we" though. Not a US invasion, a world wide UN invasion to stop crimes against humanityThat's how Iraq was sold.

[Marcdachamp]

Wait... do they have oil? ;)

All jokes aside, unless a strong coalition was formed between several countries, there's no way it could work. Otherwise, it would just turn into Iraq 2.

[Thudpucker]

I don't support the invasion of one country by another, ever. The days when that could be called justifiable are over.

If the U.N. decides to intervene then U.S. should do it's part to contribute to the U.N. effort. That is the most that should ever be done though. The United States is not the police force for the world.

[Ashwin Pande]

An invasion wont really help in the long run. Destroying the junta is a good idea but unless there's a stabilising force that stays within the country to help rebuild it wont work. And that concept hasn't worked out with any country so far.

[Ashwin Pande]

Do you think the UN would actually take that step though? I can see them crafting a stern letter, but to actually throw down and say fuck you Junta, we are taking over, does not seem like something they would ever do.

We need Col. Fury back!!

Fuck Maria Hill and Tony Stark!!

[Kingsumo]

We need Col. Fury back!!

Fuck Maria Hill and Tony Stark!!

:lol: Yes, I would say that we certainly do.

[Taxman]

Would you support an invasion of Burma?
Sorry if this has been talked about before. Of these two statements, or rather statement and question, I could not decide which was funnier.

[WinstonWolf]

:lol: Ok, that was pretty funny.

And probably true as well.

[/(. . )/]

Do you think the UN would actually take that step though? I can see them crafting a stern letter, but to actually throw down and say fuck you Junta, we are taking over, does not seem like something they would ever do.

I think France is considering it, but China and Russia will stop it.

[/(. . )/]

An invasion wont really help in the long run. Destroying the junta is a good idea but unless there's a stabilising force that stays within the country to help rebuild it wont work. And that concept hasn't worked out with any country so far.

The NLD did win 87% of the vote. However, I think Suu Kyi would disapprove to a violent means of removing the junta.

What's going on there may be genocide.

Burma is an ethnically divided country with the Burmese living in the capital. I'm not too familiar with the country, but the towns destroyed by the cyclone might not be Burmese, so the junta may just be waiting for the people to die.

This is a crime against humanity. Is it not the world's responsibility to prevent such crimes?

[wes]

This is a crime against humanity. Is it not the world's responsibility to prevent such crimes?

We would end up invading half the countries in the world, if anyone actually gave a crap. Burma isn't the only place where liberal interventionism could be justified, off the top of my head there is also Sudan and probably Somalia, the entire Middle East and probably a bunch of other places.

Then there is the simple danger that we would be doing more harm than good.

[Ashwin Pande]

If only Superman were real.