If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Time)   Time poses the question on all our minds: is it time to invade Burma?   (time.com) divider line 272
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

13141 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 May 2008 at 3:19 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



272 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-05-10 12:50:07 PM
Time to invade Time.
 
2008-05-10 01:20:15 PM
what is the difference between the following:

a government:
intentionally kills 100,000 civilians
allows a paramilitary organization to slaughter 100,000
through GROSS incompetence allows 100,000 to die

is there any difference?

in the end, 100,000 people are dead and the government is responsible

in all cases, charges of genocide (or allowing genocide) should be leveled and the country should be invaded and the "controlling" government destroyed
(yes of course, the paramilitaries must be destroyed also)

a protectorship is set up until a civilian government can be put in to replace the old one
and then gradually withdrawn

HINT, this has been done over and over in the past
 
2008-05-10 01:25:40 PM
If i is time to invade, please have China do it. I'm sure China wouldn't mind, though, as it needs some additional raw materials and land to support the growing population.
 
2008-05-10 01:25:50 PM
Do they have OIL?
 
2008-05-10 01:30:10 PM
Soumac: Do they have OIL?

No, but they have rice.

/I hear you can buy *5* bags of it at their Costcos...
 
2008-05-10 01:36:45 PM
That's why it's time to consider a more serious option: invading Burma. Some observers, including former USAID director Andrew Natsios, have called on the US to unilaterally begin air drops to the Burmese people regardless of what the junta says. The Bush Administration has so far rejected the idea - "I can't imagine us going in without the permission of the Myanmar government," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday - but it's not without precedent: as Natsios pointed out to the Wall Street Journal, the US has facilitated the delivery of humanitarian aid without the host government's consent in places like Bosnia and Sudan.

Not a bad idea actually -- say fark the Burmese government, fly our planes over the affected areas and drop supplies that say "USA" on them. Let them know that it is their government, and not the international community, that is failing to allow them to receive aid. I would imagine, given the ridiculously insular nature of the Burmese regime, that dropping flyers with newspaper reports of the tragedy and the unwillingness of their junta to allow help in would be good stuff too.
 
2008-05-10 01:51:56 PM
People, Rambo just took care of that.

Try to keep up with current events.
 
2008-05-10 02:05:37 PM
Would that make any military operaion a Mission Of Burma?
 
2008-05-10 02:13:54 PM
when in doubt, invade

personally, i'd rather invade bermuda. nice beaches, better climate and a hell of a lot closer
 
2008-05-10 02:35:08 PM
clancifer: If i is time to invade, please have China do it. I'm sure China wouldn't mind, though, as it needs some additional raw materials and land to support the growing population.

That's China for you: whining about lack of "international respect" when you criticize them, but doing nothing to act like the superpower they want everyone to say they are.
 
2008-05-10 02:35:59 PM
We should only do that if we'll be greeted as liberators. And if they have oil.
 
2008-05-10 02:49:49 PM
So, are we going with Burma? I thought it was Myanmar.

I'm so confused.
 
2008-05-10 03:22:30 PM
Or we could, you know, mind our own business. Just throwing that crazy idea out there.
 
2008-05-10 03:22:57 PM
Soumac: Do they have OIL?

Came here to post that.
 
2008-05-10 03:23:23 PM
What about Myanmr? I hear they are having the same problems.

/keed
 
2008-05-10 03:23:50 PM
tbn0.google.com

For the Perfect Scrape Shave
 
2008-05-10 03:24:20 PM
PseudoNic:

Sorry. too slow.

/great minds wot wot
 
2008-05-10 03:24:38 PM
PseudoNic: So, are we going with Burma? I thought it was Myanmar.

I'm so confused.


Oburma, definitely
 
2008-05-10 03:25:17 PM
PC LOAD LETTER: Would that make any military operaion a Mission Of Burma?

Hey man.. when that goes down...

Thats when I reach for my revolver.
 
2008-05-10 03:25:54 PM
I don't think they have any oil, so we (the US) won't be doing anything there.
 
2008-05-10 03:28:29 PM
The problem with having China doing it is that when they invade, they don't leave. Just ask the Tibetan people how they like living under Chinese rule. Myanmar does have large deposits of Natural Gas and a little bit of oil so it might be worthwhile to China, Myanmar oil and gas production (new window).
 
2008-05-10 03:29:07 PM
BURMA!

Why did you say Burma?

I panicked.
 
2008-05-10 03:29:10 PM
www.homevideos.com

"I tell you, gentlemen, we have a problem on our hands."
 
2008-05-10 03:29:28 PM
WTF would they do if we told them to gtfo of our way and let the aid through?
 
2008-05-10 03:29:48 PM
Yeah, let's do it. Let's invade other countries in order to help them with their disasters.

That's the ticket.

We could send in these guys:

i185.photobucket.com
 
2008-05-10 03:30:59 PM
Well, they DO have oil.

Link (new window)
 
2008-05-10 03:32:05 PM
Myanmar is what the ruling military junta calls it. Burma is what the people who make up the majority of the country call it.

Your choice.

/happy to be corrected if this is wrong.
 
2008-05-10 03:32:11 PM
China's their ally, which is probably why someone didn't do it years ago.
 
2008-05-10 03:32:19 PM
This is the stupidest thing I've seen on CNN.com in years. What a bunch of idiots.
 
2008-05-10 03:32:45 PM
This is a sketch list of the order in which countries should be responsible for invading Burma:

China
Britain
Japan
India
Vietnam
.
.
.
Iran
Malaysia
Indonesia
Thailand
.
.
.
South Africa
Australia
France
Russia
.
.
.
Mexico
Turkey
.
.
.
Switzerland
Monaco
USA
 
2008-05-10 03:32:52 PM
Atypical Person Reading Fark: Easy man, those are battle hardened Super Speical Forces.

Shortened C-130's and pizza parties pizza parties
 
2008-05-10 03:32:55 PM
Actually, yes. Burma has a lot of oil.
 
2008-05-10 03:32:56 PM
Atypical Person Reading Fark: Yeah, let's do it. Let's invade other countries in order to help them with their disasters.

That's the ticket.

We could send in these guys:


Already deployed. They have been seen throughout the region in duck-ring Zodiacs and recoilless safety scissors.
 
2008-05-10 03:33:08 PM
To quote my Burmese friend (now in Austria, thankfully):

"We have elections, but if you vote wrong, they kill you."

He's part of some minority group there that gets blamed for everything that goes wrong, so whenever there's an increase in crime or somebody's been speaking out against the "assholes" (which is the best he could translate into English his hatred for the junta) his family's house gets raided by cops looking for excuses to harass them more.

Seriously messed up place. Invasion = do not want, though.

Tell India to do it if it's so important. Or Thailand. We can't afford our current wars, much less another.
 
2008-05-10 03:33:40 PM
Subby (or, to be fair, Time) Time poses the question on all our minds: is it time to invade Burma?

Oh, yeah. Great idea. Send a big army to invade and occupy a country that shares a border with China.


Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Soumac: Do they have OIL?

No, but they have rice.


Burma once was the world's major rice supplier. It now barely produces enough to meet its own subsistence needs.
 
2008-05-10 03:33:56 PM
they have huge natural gas
which is why china and india love them

duh
we never make friends with the countries who have the shiat we need
what the fark
 
2008-05-10 03:33:58 PM
Any decision for a global invasion of a single nation should not come from anyone in the US. We have a history of poor decision-making.
 
2008-05-10 03:34:18 PM
namatad: what is the difference between the following:

a government:
intentionally kills 100,000 civilians
allows a paramilitary organization to slaughter 100,000
through GROSS incompetence allows 100,000 to die

is there any difference?

in the end, 100,000 people are dead and the government is responsible


Yeah, send in FEMA!

/That'll teach 'em.
 
2008-05-10 03:34:40 PM
No need for full out invasion. Just fly cargo planes and copters in with heavy escort. We fry anything that takes a shot at them. Gets the people aid, shows the US is capable of using force for good reasons, and sends a message to the Burmese military that they're boned if they don't start shaping up.

I recall hearing on NPR that the navy is moving into the area. I've got no idea if this means small cargo or patrol ships, or a carrier group. My hope is for carrier group.
 
2008-05-10 03:34:53 PM
Invade Burma? With what?
 
2008-05-10 03:35:01 PM
blog.nbc.com
 
2008-05-10 03:35:17 PM
clancifer: If i is time to invade, please have China do it. I'm sure China wouldn't mind, though, as it needs some additional raw materials and land to support the growing population.

Force projection beyond its own borders is a bit of a problem for China. Burma may be right next door but topography and lack of infrastruture make invading a tough problem. Two examples. During WWII even without the Japanese shooting at us we had a difficult time moving supplies through Burma to China.

In 1979 China invaded Vietnam and by most accounts had their butts handed to them and had to leave. Logistics proved a prolem for China once again.

There is an old saying amatures study strategy professionals study logistics.


Right now China can buy the resoures it needs (at an increasing cost) but like the rest of the world, it relys on others, mostly the US Navy, to keep the sea lanes open to insure their uninterupted delivery.

China may intervene potlically though to raise its image in the world because of the beating it is takig over the Tibet/Olympics thing.
 
2008-05-10 03:35:34 PM
Oh, hell, yeah - 9,600 barrels per day

Invade, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity!
 
2008-05-10 03:35:48 PM
harris5: No need for full out invasion. Just fly cargo planes and copters in with heavy escort. We fry anything that takes a shot at them. Gets the people aid, shows the US is capable of using force for good reasons, and sends a message to the Burmese military that they're boned if they don't start shaping up.

I recall hearing on NPR that the navy is moving into the area. I've got no idea if this means small cargo or patrol ships, or a carrier group. My hope is for carrier group.


Hey, it's a slam dunk!
 
2008-05-10 03:37:11 PM
i285.photobucket.com
 
2008-05-10 03:37:40 PM
.namatad: what is the difference between the following:

a government:
intentionally kills 100,000 civilians
allows a paramilitary organization to slaughter 100,000
through GROSS incompetence allows 100,000 to die

is there any difference?

in the end, 100,000 people are dead and the government is responsible

in all cases, charges of genocide (or allowing genocide) should be leveled and the country should be invaded and the "controlling" government destroyed
(yes of course, the paramilitaries must be destroyed also)

a protectorship is set up until a civilian government can be put in to replace the old one
and then gradually withdrawn

HINT, this has been done over and over in the past


so all of you ready to go and invade raise your hands. we've already stressed our guys out. so we need volunteers. man up Nancy boys.
 
2008-05-10 03:37:50 PM
Invade Burma with what troops?

img1.fark.netimg1.fark.netimg1.fark.net
img1.fark.netimg1.fark.netimg1.fark.net
img1.fark.netimg1.fark.netimg1.fark.net
 
2008-05-10 03:38:36 PM
I would question the point of forcing relief efforts into Burma. What strategic value would this provide the U.S.? A foothold of U.S. support against China/India? Unlikely. If saving a bunch of people by invasion is truly worth it, then U.N., not the U.S., should be assembling a task force to do just that, however, with regional forces from Thailand, India, China, and Indonesia. Or at least these countries should use their diplomatic influence to allow in relief efforts. Oh wait, none of them want to? What does that tell you?


/Hint: No one cares.
 
2008-05-10 03:39:53 PM
clancifer: If i is time to invade, please have China do it. I'm sure China wouldn't mind, though, as it needs some additional raw materials and land to support the growing population.

exactly

There is a line of thinking among some policy wonks that we should enter into a gentleman's agreement with the other powerful nations in the world to have spheres of responsibility.

If a rogue nation gets out of hand then the nation in charge of that part of the world acts. The other major powers agree to support them, at least in the UN.

You don't have to act if a tyrant is only rattling sabers , but if he invades a neighbor, or commits genocide, then the nation in charge must act.

It is similar to the Balance of Power set up with the treaty of Versailles.
 
2008-05-10 03:40:25 PM
Why would anyone start caring about brown people now?
 
Displayed 50 of 272 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report