Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

13153 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 May 2008 at 3:19 PM (8 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



272 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2008-05-10 08:32:44 PM  
KaponoFor3: 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.

See, there's a tiny problem with this. The whole Gandhi civil disobedience thing doesn't work if the people you are resisting against have no conscience. Seeing as how the poor have no rights to begin with, all we'll see is a lot of crushed bones if we incite rioting.
 
2008-05-10 08:41:23 PM  
When exactly did "minding our own business" become so out of fashion?
 
2008-05-10 08:43:26 PM  
I feel badly for the suffering the people of Burma have experienced under a heads-up-their-asses military dictatorship.

However, given what happens to countries we've tried to "liberate" in the past 50 years, haven't they suffered enough?
 
2008-05-10 08:45:22 PM  
Well gee lets think about how the last two invasions went for the US.

I'm gonna go with no on this one.
 
2008-05-10 08:46:29 PM  
Soumac: Do they have OIL?

Ah yes the old "it's about oil" line. Sometimes the hate America crowd even contradicts themselves when trotting out this horse.
In 2003 the hate America crowd was saying at the same time the U.S. would not send troops into Liberia because they didn't have oil and that we were sending troops in only because they have oil (they do have oil off shore) So no matter what the US does the hate America crowd will find a reason to criticize it.

Link (new window)


While Liberia Burned
By Dr. Rufus Sanders
Special to USAfrica The Newspaper, Houston
USAfricaonline.com, The Black Business Journal
The way in which the United States government has treated the people of Liberia is simply a low down dirty crying shame. We sat back and watched as Monrovia literally burned - and that almost in total silence and blindness. Even while the pleas of the UN and the rest of West Africa and more importantly the Liberian people themselves begged like dogs for the crumbs that fall from a master's table. We waited and waited.
Only now on the eve of a presidential trip to Africa do President Bush shows a reluctant "compassion" or more properly should I say guilt.
How could America be so cold, callous, insolent and heartless of one of the few places it colonized? While Liberia does not have oil and its people are Black; these were not the concerns when just a few decades ago America stripped the nation of its precious rubber commodities and other natural resources.

hands off liberia!
http://www.geocities.com/youth4sa/liberia.html

"As much as 15 percent of America's oil now comes from West Africa - about the amount imported from Saudi Arabia. By next year, the West African portion is expected to jump to 20 percent. Also, West Africa has long been the playground of French imperialism, who through numerous troop deployments and meddling in the affairs of West African countries, has been able to reap the harvest of the region's natural resources. But now Washington is maneuvering to outflank Paris in its own backyard. It is casting around looking for bases and a foothold from which to dominate existing oil fields, such as those in Nigeria, and to begin exploiting the untapped reserves in the Gulf of Guinea.

The civil war in Liberia is indeed a tragedy, but it won't be ended by U.S. intervention. The U.S. government is not motivated by humanitarian concerns, and the setting up of a pro-U.S. puppet in Monrovia will not end the suffering of the Liberian people."
 
2008-05-10 08:48:02 PM  
I'm sure a draft to get enough troops to invade another jungle country would go over really well. It worked pretty well last time, didn't it?
 
2008-05-10 08:49:37 PM  
Dead for Tax Reasons: when in doubt, invade

personally, i'd rather invade bermuda. nice beaches, better climate and a hell of a lot closer


Closer than what?? I think you need to look at a map.
 
2008-05-10 08:56:30 PM  
You mean to say we HAVEN'T invaded Burma, yet?!

Well, this sets my ten year plan back a great deal...
 
2008-05-10 09:08:05 PM  
TFA is bullshiat.

If the Burmese (Myanmarian?) government is unable or unwilling to take care of their own people in times of crisis or disaster, fark 'em.

Too bad, so sad, your rulers are autocratic DICKS who who live in luxury and don't care if you live or die.

Not. My. Problem.
 
2008-05-10 09:08:07 PM  
Send in Michael Brown. He'll do a heckuva job.
 
2008-05-10 09:10:09 PM  
VRaptor117: 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.


The UN? This would be the same UN that did such a great job in Bosnia and Rwanda? How is that Haiti thing working out for them? The fact is without US military power the UN has a miserable record on dealing with this type of thing. Does Burma have an ally on the UN Security council that can veto intervention?

Then there is the question of national will. We went into Somalia to feed starving people (though the mission changed to nation building)
The U.S. takes 18 KIA in a single action while we inflict at least 500 casualties on the enemy yet we are the ones who end up retreating and a Secretary of Defense is forced to resign. Granted strategic and tactical mistakes were made but they are in all wars. By today's standards our entire WWII civilian and upper military leadership to from FDR to Ike, Bradley, Nimitz and MacArthur would have had to resign three times over for the mistakes made during that war.

American military engagements are basically governed by the 3 year rule. If we cannot win them in 3 years the less public support there is. The Civil War was a good example, draft riots and a former Union General running against Lincoln on a negotiated peace ticket". Even as World War II dragged on the public became less enthusiastic about unconditional surrender and the Army had to rely on draftees for 65% of its manpower. We like our wars over quickly, instant gratification. Would we be willing to stay in Burma for as long as it takes to get the job done?
 
2008-05-10 09:12:38 PM  
This is a terrible idea, seriously where would the troops come from? We are already hurting as far as that goes, assuming of course the Unites States is the attacker. Time really seemed to have dropped the ball logically in publishing this story.
 
2008-05-10 09:14:16 PM  
An invasion of Burma doesn't seem (to me) to be necessary. The government there is pretty unpopular, particularly with the Karin (sp?) people living in the jungles. They have formed militias and have been in a low-intensity conflict with the junta for a long time. We could better arm indiginous groups to capture control of part or all of the country through use of U.S. air support and SOF.

But the liberals might cry if we do... but they'll cry anyway if we don't.
 
2008-05-10 09:14:28 PM  
Mouser: Of course, that didn't stop Clinton from sending the US military into Bosnia, but then, there's a reason why Clinton was overwhelmingly despised by the US military.

Because the military just hates winning wars with no American deaths in combat?
 
2008-05-10 09:17:32 PM  
In terms of international law, internal issues are not a good enough reason for invading a country. The only two reasons to breach soverignty by attacking another country are that it is a threat to world peace or it is a failed state.

Burma has neither threatened another country, nor is it a failed state. It has a functioning government. That that government abuses its people is irrellivant to international law.

I should point out that most countries, especially the US, fully support these laws. After all, if the US had the power to breach other nation's soverignty on human rights grounds, then other nations could rightly breach America's soverignty on human rights grounds. Imagine if China had taken over New Orleans because of US government ineptitude. That is the last thing that the US wants.

The best hope is that if the leaders are committing crimes against humainty, they might be charged at a later time. Hopefully this will provide some deterent to other governments to avoid abuses of human rights.
 
2008-05-10 09:20:05 PM  
0Icky0: Because the military just hates winning wars with no American deaths in combat?

Exactly, like that death-less Clinton victory we had in Somalia.

No, wait...
 
2008-05-10 09:24:05 PM  
Poo_Fight: Exactly, like that death-less Clinton victory we had in Somalia.

No, wait...


I was responding to the statement that he was hated because of the Bosnian war.
 
2008-05-10 09:26:10 PM  
xbattlewax: phartnocker: I don't think they have any oil, so we (the US) won't be doing anything there.

Just like Serbia


Some of the hate America crowd even think that was about oil. Let there be oil within 1000 miles of the place and that is why we are there according to them. They even blame Bush for the whole Balkans thing:

Link (new window)

"The 1995 Dayton Accords led to a major NATO military operation to "pacificy" Bosnia-Herzegovina. For the multinational corporations working alongside NATO, one of the most important rewards will be the construction of a trans-Balkan pipeline to bring oil from the Caspian Sea region to Europe."
 
2008-05-10 09:26:15 PM  
landomojo: what about the 300,000 dead (and counting) in darfur?

I'll bet you don't even know where Darfur is.

I don't care about Burma (Myanmar, whatever), Darfur, Tibet, or any other Third World shiathole that qualifies as the Bleeding Heart Cause Of The Week.

Look, we in America can't even get our own house in order. Once we get our own country back on track, maybe then we might try to make the rest of the World a better place.

Until then, not our problem.
 
2008-05-10 09:27:29 PM  
icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com
 
2008-05-10 09:45:24 PM  
0Icky0: Poo_Fight: Exactly, like that death-less Clinton victory we had in Somalia.

No, wait...

I was responding to the statement that he was hated because of the Bosnian war.


Clinton was hated by the military for a lot reason, among them being turning the military in to a job corps for single moms. Troops were spending more time in sexual harassment and diversity classes than military training. The military became a social engineering lab.

For all the talk now about an over extended military and declining standards everybody seems to forget the 90s. We were extremely overextended during that time. We, myself included, were pulling back to back deployments on various peacekeeping and nation building operations or simply meeting regular deployments, at the same time the militaries budget was being cut and it was decreasing it size in search of that "peace dividend". Training, maintenance and living conditions also suffered also suffered because money for operations like the Balkans was not added to the budget and funds had to be shifted. The Bosnia operation for which Clinton said we would only be there 18 months back in 1995 was not even included in the budget till 1998. Something many of those shouting the most about it now were very quite about back then.

While the military may have trouble with recruiting it has no trouble with retention (which indicates once they get in and find out the truth things are nto as bad as the press protrays them). Re-enlistments are at record levels. Under Clinton both suffered For the first time in its history even the Air Force, under Clinton failed to meet its recruiting goals.
 
2008-05-10 09:59:38 PM  
Poo_Fight: 0Icky0: Because the military just hates winning wars with no American deaths in combat?

Exactly, like that death-less Clinton victory we had in Somalia.

No, wait...


London Sunday Times, May 29, 1994:
"It was the moment President Bill Clinton wanted to restore his tattered reputation with the military before his departure for the D-Day celebrations in Europe this week, James Adams reports."

"Eventually, after Clinton had sat on the paper work for eight weeks, two of the slain soldiers, Master Sergeant Gary Gordon and Sergeant First Class Randall Shughart, were posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor. As usual in such cases, the medals were presented to the next of kin."
"Following the May 23 presentation at the White House, the families of the two men were invited into the Oval Office for a private visit with Clinton. Inside the office, the father of Sergeant Shughart refused to shake Clinton's hand, then looked him in the face and calmly told him that he was responsible for his son's death, that it was for no purpose, that he was not fit to be President, and not fit to be Commander in Chief."
 
2008-05-10 10:03:23 PM  
hasty ambush

The funny thing is, the 'Hate America' crowd often doesn't realize that countries like Sudan and Burma are, in fact, wealthy in oil. Then again, they've never been bothered by facts anyway.
 
2008-05-10 10:07:29 PM  
You know who else liked to invade other countries...? Yep, the Hillary lovers.
 
2008-05-10 10:07:29 PM  
hasty ambush:

Oh, I agree with you. I have absolutely no faith in the UN. After reading Tony Zinni's book on what the UN did in Somalia(short version: US had everything somewhat stabilised, control of the mission was given to UN, and one month later Aidad was shooting up some Pakistanis, you know the rest), I lost all faith in the UN to actually successfully complete a mission. There are too many opposing interests(read U.S. vs China vs Russia) on the Security Council for the thing to work.

If only there was some global defense intiative, if not among the UN then the G8,creating a force that could capably perform missions like this.....

/le sigh
 
2008-05-10 10:18:38 PM  
Ok I have a question, for those more historically attuned:

We know Burma at least USED to produce oil

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

So what happened since then? Did they run out? It says here that during WW2, the British sabotaged their refineries so the Japanese couldn't use them. Did the Burmese just never bother rebuilding them? Seems like they would be missing out on a rather good source of revenue, to say the least.
 
2008-05-10 10:26:40 PM  
Yes, it's definately time to invade, because clearly not enough of them are dieing... wait, what?
 
2008-05-10 10:31:10 PM  
simpsonfan: No need to invade. Just have the military take in the supplies, if the local military doesn't like it, fark them. What could they do? They are good at killing unarmed civillians, but would be helpless against a real military. No need to occupy, that is where the trouble starts anyway.

Yeah, fly in military planes or aide planes in foreign airspace without government permission only to have them shoot one down and spark a war. Awesome idear.

/Good job you.
 
2008-05-10 10:33:10 PM  
Couldn't we just "shock 'n' awe" them with cheeseburgers, clean drinking water and medical supplies?
 
2008-05-10 11:14:17 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



I don't get it. Are you saying China should invade the US and set up a protectorship because of Iraq?
 
2008-05-10 11:30:51 PM  
The Philippines got that "People Power" thing

Worked to get rid of Marcos
Guess the Burmese didn`t take notes
 
2008-05-10 11:50:30 PM  
fat boy: The Philippines got that "People Power" thing

Worked to get rid of Marcos
Guess the Burmese didn`t take notes


There is a significantly lower guns/people ratio in Burma.

/2nd Amendment, keep it alive.
 
2008-05-10 11:53:03 PM  
Dynascape: Thats when I reach for my revolver.

I came here to say that.
 
2008-05-10 11:56:47 PM  
RAGING CYCLONE
KILLED US ALL
PRESIDENT WON'T
HEAR OUR CALL
Burma Shave
 
2008-05-11 12:11:02 AM  
bsphotos.com

"Come where the farking FOOD IS!"
 
2008-05-11 12:16:27 AM  
hasty ambush: 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.

I'm not saying you're 100% wrong, but remember that China basically defeated the UN Korea force with little more than foot soldiers and bugles. In terms of overall objectives, Vietnam defeated the USA too.

I doubt anybody truly knows the ground military capabilities of China (or any other nation for that matter) until it's put into action. (see: USA in SE Asia, USSR in Chechnya/Afghanistan, etc etc)
 
2008-05-11 12:26:15 AM  
crimsin23: What a bunch of nypocrites TIME Mag is. They are against the war in Iraq. A war against a government that killed countless of innocent people. Yet they are for us invading Burma, a government whos actions are now killing countless of innocent people.

There is no difference if the government of a country kills people in secret or they do it in the open; people are still dying. And a reason of 'we went into Iraq because of WMD' is not a response to my comment (for future posters).


Huh?Outshined_One: Frankly, if anyone should take military action in Burma, Thailand, Indonesia, and India need to be the ones to do it. They're the ones suffering worst from the drug trade that Burma is facilitating. Moreover, a Democratic Burma would do wonders for that region's stability and prosperity. It would do wonders for ASEAN's economic power.

However, China wants nothing to do with a Democratic Burma. They know Burma is one of the most resource-rich parts of Southeast Asia. It's comparable to Korea, where China does not want a united Korea on their front door and is happy to prop up the North Korean government. Burma has the potential to be a powerhouse. China would rather see them hamstrung.


Yeah, because Democracy solves everything. That Democratic Iraqi government is doing a heck of a job.
 
2008-05-11 12:28:27 AM  
xen0blue: the liberals were OK with saddam hussien killing his people, i'm sure they'll be fine with the burmese government killing theres.

Liberals like Ronald Reagan and Donald Rumsfeld? Yup.
 
2008-05-11 12:34:24 AM  
Sabyen91: That Democratic Iraqi government is doing a heck of a job.

Iraq's problems are caused by something other than democracy. I'll leave it to your imagination to figure out what that is.
 
2008-05-11 12:38:01 AM  
SemperLieSuckah: fat boy: The Philippines got that "People Power" thing

Worked to get rid of Marcos
Guess the Burmese didn`t take notes

There is a significantly lower guns/people ratio in Burma.

/2nd Amendment, keep it alive.


There is a great NRA ad...We have more guns than Myanmar.
 
2008-05-11 12:38:57 AM  
Mr Logo: Sabyen91: That Democratic Iraqi government is doing a heck of a job.

Iraq's problems are caused by something other than democracy. I'll leave it to your imagination to figure out what that is.


And yet Democracy doesn't seem to be the answer, does it?
 
2008-05-11 12:47:32 AM  
People,

This may sound very harsh and uncaring, but unless there is a disaster in Europe, Canada, the US, or some other very close ally with a similar way of living to ours, I don't think we should supply any aid. The world is growing massively overpopulated. I don't wish death upon them, but it not only isn't our job to help out everyone in the world, but we SHOULD NOT DO SO. I honestly fear for this planet in 50 years. 6.5 billion people mating will made our world's population so goddamned large that there is no chance we can support it.
 
2008-05-11 12:47:42 AM  
Sabyen91: And yet Democracy doesn't seem to be the answer, does it?

Yeah, because that revolution the French helped us with a couple hundred years ago was an immediate postwar success. A beacon of stability that everyone was sure would not only stay together, but prosper.

Look, I'm not gonna make this a rah-rah we're winning post, but statements like that always piss me off.
 
2008-05-11 12:53:25 AM  
SemperLieSuckah
fat boy: The Philippines got that "People Power" thing

Worked to get rid of Marcos
Guess the Burmese didn`t take notes

There is a significantly lower guns/people ratio in Burma.

Don`t think the Philippine people needed guns, 50,000,000 people just told him to GTFO
 
2008-05-11 01:02:51 AM  
Sabyen91:

Yeah, because Democracy solves everything. That Democratic Iraqi government is doing a heck of a job.

Kind of quick to judge a country that has never really known self government before using your own timeline aren't you? Take almost any country that you would call a democracy and they all went through some growing pains some still are. The US certainly didn't get off to a running start. Given the problems early in our history with the Articles of Confederation, Shay's and the Whiskey Rebellion would certainly have had a lot of people betting against us and the concept of self government.
During the War of 1812 we had people in some States actually thinking about cutting their own peace deal with the UK. During the Civil War an ex-Union general fired by Lincoln actually ran against him for office on a platform of negotiating a peace deal with Confederacy. Most countries go through this type growing process that takes years, decades and even centuries. Some countries never get it right. Russian, for example, basically gave up during the 90s and decided they preferred authoritarian rule.
Now because Iraq is not a fully fledged peaceful democracy over what is relatively a short time you are saying let's throw in the towel seems kind of short sighted.
 
2008-05-11 01:04:37 AM  
Deus Ex: People,

This may sound very harsh and uncaring, but unless there is a disaster in Europe, Canada, the US, or some other very close ally with a similar way of living to ours, I don't think we should supply any aid. The world is growing massively overpopulated. I don't wish death upon them, but it not only isn't our job to help out everyone in the world, but we SHOULD NOT DO SO. I honestly fear for this planet in 50 years. 6.5 billion people mating will made our world's population so goddamned large that there is no chance we can support it.


So we should just let people die because otherwise there will be too many of us? I'm not for invading Burma, but good God. If it were you and your family without food, clean water, and medicine, and you were lying around in your own shiat because your government was too proud to admit outside help, wouldn't you want me to do something?

Are you any more worthy of saving? If so, why? Because you were born to the haves, rather than the have-nots? Whose line is acceptable for breeding, and whose is not? If you are so fair-minded, why don't you forego medical care? After all, it's just keeping alive one more mouth to feed, one more person eating and breathing and shiatting away our precious resources.

Or do you mean that OTHER people should be left to rot?
 
2008-05-11 01:12:03 AM  
Mr Logo: Sabyen91: That Democratic Iraqi government is doing a heck of a job.

Iraq's problems are caused by something other than democracy. I'll leave it to your imagination to figure out what that is.


If Americans bothered to ask the Iraqi people what they would like, they will say they want a government that governs by Islamic law. A democracy means nothing to them.
 
2008-05-11 01:16:52 AM  
TigerStar: Mr Logo: Sabyen91: That Democratic Iraqi government is doing a heck of a job.

Iraq's problems are caused by something other than democracy. I'll leave it to your imagination to figure out what that is.

If Americans bothered to ask the Iraqi people what they would like, they will say they want a government that governs by Islamic law. A democracy means nothing to them.


I presume you've asked them what they would like, or have astutely ascertained that Arabs don't understand the concept of democracy. The people who preserved a wealth of ancient Hellenic knowledge from the hands of Christian zealots somehow simply do not, or cannot, understand what democracy is.

If they have a democracy, they can vote for theocrats. The other way around, not so much.
 
2008-05-11 01:27:43 AM  
Darth Invictus:
I'll bet you don't even know where Darfur is.

I don't care about Burma (Myanmar, whatever), Darfur, Tibet, or any other Third World shiathole that qualifies as the Bleeding Heart Cause Of The Week.

Look, we in America can't even get our own house in order. Once we get our own country back on track, maybe then we might try to make the rest of the World a better place.

Until then, not our problem.



You're right. and part of the problem is that we are listening to these self-righteous media conglomerates that are deciding the direction our country takes. Doing this through coercive persuasion (remember WMD's in iraq?) What we should be doing is something about our monetary funds, our major job sectors, and taking a hard look at why our government cares so damn much about the corporations and not us. This world is messed up, and the fact that Time is suggesting that we invade this country is absurd and stupefying. To think that we are the best and friendliest country is pretty funny; what's funny is we that give little for free, and Burma has every right not to let us interfere. Granted they are acting neglectful (from what we know), but to act so helpful towards this, and not Darfur (which is the northwestern Sudan, just east of Chad... no I didn't just google that, but I bet you did) is just sad and shows our true colors.

blah, I try to stay out of this shiat, but damnit, this stuff gets disturbing.
 
2008-05-11 02:03:20 AM  
fat boy:
Don`t think the Philippine people needed guns, 50,000,000 people just told him to GTFO


Might makes right. An armed people saying "GTFO" is more intimidating than an unarmed people saying "GTFO".
 
Displayed 50 of 272 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report