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  
•       •       •

13155 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 May 2008 at 3:19 PM (9 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

 
2008-05-11 03:29:44 AM  
It's the UN's job. See Responsibility to Protect passed in 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect#International_recognitio n).
 
2008-05-11 05:08:00 AM  
JuicenX Thanks for that :)
 
2008-05-11 08:22:08 AM  
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.

Who exactly do you think is propping up the junta? China will oppose anything that threatens the status quo. They already have access to anything they want in Burma.
 
2008-05-11 08:30:12 AM  
schief2: I happened to be in Rangoon around the time the Iraq war broke out. Several people I talked to (discreetly and in private, of course) told me that they would love to have the US invade their country and take out the junta. Of course, this was before everyone saw what an utter clusterfark post-combat Iraq turned out to be.

I heard the same sentiment myself, both there and here.
 
2008-05-11 10:06:42 AM  
Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Soumac: Do they have OIL?

No, but they have rice.

/I hear you can buy *5* bags of it at their Costcos...


The more important question is do they have a flag?
 
2008-05-11 10:08:21 AM  
I was in far southern Myanmar on the day of the cyclone (it was raining, but I certainly didn't know it was a cyclone), and I talked to one guy about the whole "government of suck" situation, and he was cool with a UN backed invasion to clear things up. Just one guy though, so I dunno. Personally, I'm a huge supporter of constant, relentless assassinations of military leaders who pull this kind of shiat.

Additionally, the military f*cks who run the border crossing are corrupt jackass thieves.
 
2008-05-11 10:37:00 AM  
TigerStar: Americans are so arrogant. Their solution to everything is invade the country...then they wonder why the world hates them. Psssttt. Would the USA let China invade Burma?

Better yet, would we let Burma, China, India, etc. all come running into our area during Katrina? With no oversight or checking. Just come on in, do whatever you want?

Not a chance.

sov·er·eign (sŏv'ər-ĭn, sŏv'rĭn)
n.
One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit, as:
A king, queen, or other noble person who serves as chief of state; a ruler or monarch.
A national governing council or committee.
A nation that governs territory outside its borders.
A gold coin formerly used in Great Britain.
adj.
Self-governing; independent: a sovereign state.
Having supreme rank or power: a sovereign prince.
Paramount; supreme: Her sovereign virtue is compassion.

Of superlative strength or efficacy: a sovereign remedy.
Unmitigated: sovereign contempt.
[Middle English soverain, from Old French, from Vulgar Latin *superānus, from Latin super, above.]

sovereignly sov'er·eign·ly adv.
 
2008-05-11 10:46:24 AM  
indylaw: 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.


Actually, a-hole, I know what the Iraqis want in a government because I work with Iraqi people and I asked them...Einstein. Thanks for being a narrow-minded a-hole. Obviously, you know everything, I am just Mr. Stupid. Democracy is not the solution for everyone.
 
2008-05-11 12:29:11 PM  
TigerStar: indylaw: 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.

Actually, a-hole, I know what the Iraqis want in a government because I work with Iraqi people and I asked them...Einstein. Thanks for being a narrow-minded a-hole. Obviously, you know everything, I am just Mr. Stupid. Democracy is not the solution for everyone.


Wow, you're a nice guy!

So you've asked every single Iraqi, or a randomly selected sample large enough to give meaningful analysis? Across various social and religious lines? Saying you've met some Iraqis is like saying that I know what the African-American population of the United States as a whole wants because I have a couple of black friends.

As for me being narrow-minded... you're the jackass who has been saying that democracy "means nothing to them." Again, I'll say, if the people want theocracy, let them take theocracy upon themselves. If only people in a democracy had a method of determining self-governance... If you impose theocratic rule on them (and whose theocracy? Sunni? Shi'a?), they won't have a say one way or another. Until they rise up in arms.

Then again, I should hardly expect an American who makes such brilliant overarching statements like "Americans are so arrogant (except for me)" to raise the discourse.
 
2008-05-11 12:58:47 PM  
indylaw:
Wow, you're a nice guy!

So you've asked every single Iraqi, or a randomly selected sample large enough to give meaningful analysis? Across various social and religious lines? Saying you've met some Iraqis is like saying that I know what the African-American population of the United States as a whole wants because I have a couple of black friends.

As for me being narrow-minded... you're the jackass who has been saying that democracy "means nothing to them." Again, I'll say, if the people want theocracy, let them take theocracy upon themselves. If only people in a democracy had a method of determining self-governance... If you impose theocratic rule on them (and whose theocracy? Sunni? Shi'a?), they won't have a say one way or another. Until they rise up in arms.

Then again, I should hardly expect an American who makes such brilliant overarching statements like "Americans are so arrogant (except for me)" to raise the discourse.


The USA government invaded Iraq then forced their way on the people. Iraq was a sovereign country prior to the invasion and occupation.

Americans are arrogant. After hurricane Katrina, the Americans did nothing. Yet, the Americans think they know everything and wish to tell the people of Burma how to do things...just like the wish to tell China to "Free Tibet". Americans are so perfect and the rest of the world is just so stupid. STFU.

BTW - I am not American.
 
2008-05-11 01:22:33 PM  
Darth Invictus: 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.


{*cough*}{Katrina}{*cough*}
 
OZZ
2008-05-11 01:23:39 PM  
America refused aid after Katrina, perhaps they should have been invaded.

Yanks and their double standards, dumb coonts.
 
2008-05-11 01:26:24 PM  
TigerStar:


The USA government invaded Iraq then forced their way on the people. Iraq was a sovereign country prior to the invasion and occupation.


No argument there. I didn't support the war when we went in. But now that we're there, and we're running the show, which is the indisputable reality we find ourselves in, is it better to a) act completely laissez-faire and let the Sunni and Shi'a factions settle their disputes with guns; b) impose either a Sunni or Shi'a theocracy and just tell the opposing side to deal with it; or c) help form a democratic government and let the people decide their fate with their votes?

Americans are arrogant.

As evidenced by your post, we have no monopoly on arrogance.

After hurricane Katrina, the Americans did nothing.

I wouldn't say we did *nothing*. What we did was inadequate at the time. However, we poured billions of dollars into creating trailer cities, gave victims cash payouts that many (but not all) spent on useless shiat they didn't need, and we're spending federal resources rebuilding a city that really has no business being rebuilt. Saying we've done nothing is insulting.

Yet, the Americans think they know everything and wish to tell the people of Burma how to do things

I hardly consider the military cabal that rules Burma with an iron fist and would rather see its citizens die in their own filth than accept unconditional relief from foreigners to be "the people of Burma. Just to be clear, I think invading Burma would be a ridiculous idea. And also, you seem to know everything. Is that a benefit of not being an American?

...just like the wish to tell China to "Free Tibet".

They should free Tibet, and it's not just the Americans saying so. In fact, despite concerns expressed by the American government, our leaders are still going to honor the People's Republic of China by attending official festivities. Which is more than what several European nations are doing. And we're the arrogant ones? Where do you get off? If anything, we're hypocrites.

Americans are so perfect and the rest of the world is just so stupid.

Your strawman is pathetic. If you are putting words in our mouths and claiming that we're self-righteous pricks, you do your own argument a disservice by acting even more self-righteous and, let's face it, like a knee-jerk jingoistic bigot for whatever non-American country you represent.

STFU.

I see Americans don't have a monopoly on being petulant, either.

BTW - I am not American.

I had assumed that because your profile puts you in Minnesota, and since you have this kneejerk reaction that America = retardKKKprudes, that you were a non-American trapped in an American's body. I'm relieved you're not American. And while you're at it, stay out of America if you find us so distasteful. We don't want your brand of elitist bullshiat anyway.
 
2008-05-11 01:36:11 PM  
OZZ: America refused aid after Katrina, perhaps they should have been invaded.

Yanks and their double standards, dumb coonts.


We did? Who offered it to us?

Ah, you're Norse. I find the Swedes to be much more warm and charming, their women to be hotter, and their furniture to be modern, hard-to-pronounce, and available for low-low prices right next to the meatballs.

All Norway's got is a Viking legacy, lutefisk and 6 months of twilight. I'd be a little belligerent and angry too.
 
SVX
2008-05-11 01:46:10 PM  
OZZ: America refused aid after Katrina, perhaps they should have been invaded.

Yanks and their double standards, dumb coonts.


Bring it on, biatch.
 
2008-05-11 02:12:59 PM  
indylaw: OZZ: America refused aid after Katrina, perhaps they should have been invaded.

Yanks and their double standards, dumb coonts.

We did? Who offered it to us?


Actually the US did refuse support from most countries that offered, including Canada, etc. Same with 9/11.
 
2008-05-11 02:55:37 PM  
jabelar: indylaw: OZZ: America refused aid after Katrina, perhaps they should have been invaded.

Yanks and their double standards, dumb coonts.

We did? Who offered it to us?


Actually the US did refuse support from most countries that offered, including Canada, etc. Same with 9/11.


Hmm, the more you know.

But at the same time, it's not like we refused other countries' help and then DID NOTHING. We have spent quite a bit of money on Katrina relief and 9/11 widow funds.

Point well taken, though.
 
2008-05-11 03:39:00 PM  
CrackrJak: skifdank: If by "invading" they mean flying over dropping packages of food and blankets then yeah, someone should probably do that.

Problem is they have radar guided SAM missiles and an Air Force of their own. So if we are to drop aid to the people safely, Myanmar's military would have to be crippled first.

Thats why I suggested smart bombs. First on the General's homes, Then the rest of their military resources including their Air Force and SAM sites.

Without any air defense, Then you could drop aid to where its needed safely. Along with it send some anti-junta propaganda, Some hand crank powered radio's, and maybe a few other things.


I don't know. The Soviets had some decent anti-aircraft material, yet the Berlin Air Lift was a monumental success.
 
2008-05-11 06:58:57 PM  
That question actually was on my mind yesterday
/dnrtft
//dntrfa
///off to do so
 
2008-05-12 01:12:43 AM  
"What strategic value would this provide the U.S.?"

It may present the opportunity to build a military base there for a permanent presence in the country. We already have about 800 military facilities worldwide. We even still have a 5 man Air Force base on Asencion Island in the South Atlantic,....left over from the Cold War.

We are fast becoming like the British in their colonial days,...having posts in exotic far away places with no practical use for the defense of our country.
 
2008-05-12 09:27:38 AM  
Obergruppenfarker: 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.


?
ny to bermuda - 773 miles
ny to burma - 8420 miles
 
2008-05-12 10:44:14 AM  
Impudent Domain:.....It is similar to the Balance of Power set up with the treaty of Versailles.

Um.... yeah.... that ended well.
 
Displayed 22 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





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

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