16 Oct 07
Individually and collectively, the people of the world are at fault regarding Myanmar.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/15/asia/myanmar.php
"But it was not clear precisely what more he - or the international community - could do to influence the behavior of a junta that appears not to care what the world thinks."
If your neighbor, along with his brother-in-law and a friend, were out in the yard beating his wife and children, would you do something? Call the cops? SOMETHING?
When will you effing peackniks get it through your heads that IGNORING this kind of bull$hit CAUSES FUTURE WARS!!!!
One flight of B-52s, knocking out oil installations would be a very appropriate wake-up call. And the Chinese can pound sand if they don't like it.
16 Oct 07
Originally posted by spruce112358So it's all your fault because you didn't send an airplane. Good to know. I was afraid the junta was going to have to accept responsibility for their actions; nice to know that isn't going to happen. So does that mean you're finally going to accept responsibility for Iraq too and stop blaming us? And could you fix the current genocides going on while you're at it, since you are individually at fault here? Or at the very least, a list of things you've personally done to rectify these situations would be nice, and multiple forum posts don't count.
Individually and collectively, the people of the world are at fault regarding Myanmar.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/15/asia/myanmar.php
"But it was not clear precisely what more he - or the international community - could do to influence the behavior of a junta that appears not to care what the world thinks."
If your neighbor, along with ...[text shortened]... uld be a very appropriate wake-up call. And the Chinese can pound sand if they don't like it.
16 Oct 07
Originally posted by spruce112358🙄
Individually and collectively, the people of the world are at fault regarding Myanmar.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/15/asia/myanmar.php
"But it was not clear precisely what more he - or the international community - could do to influence the behavior of a junta that appears not to care what the world thinks."
If your neighbor, along with ...[text shortened]... uld be a very appropriate wake-up call. And the Chinese can pound sand if they don't like it.
Of course bombs are the only answer. Trade sanctions against Myanmar and their main backer, China wouldn't achieve anything. A China desperate to become a world power financially don't care about their trade with other countries.
Nope, world war 3 is the only answer. Well done!
"Democracy advocate"? You should change your tag line to "DEATH OR DEMOCRACY!" LOL.
D
16 Oct 07
Originally posted by RagnorakGive me a break...you have a brain.
🙄
Of course bombs are the only answer. Trade sanctions against Myanmar and their main backer, China wouldn't achieve anything. A China desperate to become a world power financially don't care about their trade with other countries.
Nope, world war 3 is the only answer. Well done!
"Democracy advocate"? You should change your tag line to "DEATH OR DEMOCRACY!" LOL.
D
Carve out the gas fields. Sell the gas to China for the same price as before. Would China intervene? Of course not -- they could give a rat's a$$. They just want energy.
Enlarge and support the new DEMOCRATIC state, which is funded by the energy revenue against the old decrepit regime, which will eventually topple (or become ridiculous like N. Korea). Either way, half the people are saved. Better than none, right?
You don't get justice with sanctions or with bombs or with "peace", my friend. You get it by doing your darndest to make sure that the Just Causes win.
16 Oct 07
Originally posted by spruce112358Or fire their nukes at you.
Individually and collectively, the people of the world are at fault regarding Myanmar.
One flight of B-52s, knocking out oil installations would be a very appropriate wake-up call. And the Chinese can pound sand if they don't like it.
16 Oct 07
Originally posted by Ragnorakhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myanmar#Foreign_relations_and_military
🙄
Of course bombs are the only answer. Trade sanctions against Myanmar and their main backer, China wouldn't achieve anything. A China desperate to become a world power financially don't care about their trade with other countries.
Nope, world war 3 is the only answer. Well done!
"Democracy advocate"? You should change your tag line to "DEATH OR DEMOCRACY!" LOL.
D
"Burma’s foreign relations, particularly with Western nations, have been strained. The United States has placed a ban on new investments by U.S. firms, an import ban, and an arms embargo on Burma, as well as frozen military assets in the United States because of the military regime’s ongoing human rights abuses, the ongoing detention of Nobel Peace Prize recipient Aung San Suu Kyi, and refusal to honor the election results of the 1990 People’s Assembly election.[60] Similarly, the European Union has placed sanctions on Burma, including an arms embargo, cessation of trade preferences, and suspension of all aid with the exception of humanitarian aid.[61] U.S. and European government sanctions against the military government, coupled with boycotts and other direct pressure on corporations by western supporters of the Burmese democracy movement, have resulted in the withdrawal from Burma of most U.S. and many European companies. However, several Western companies remain due to loopholes in the sanctions. Asian corporations have generally remained willing to continue investing in Burma and to initiate new investments, particularly in natural resource extraction. Burma has close relations with neighboring India and China with several Indian and Chinese companies operating in the country. The French oil company Total S.A. is able to operate the Yadana natural gas pipeline from Burma to Thailand despite the European Union’s sanctions on Burma. Total is currently the subject of a lawsuit in French and Belgian courts for the condoning and use of Burman civilian slavery to construct the named pipeline. Experts say that the human rights abuses along the gas pipeline are the direct responsibility of Total S.A. and its American partner Chevron with aid and implementation by the Tatmadaw.[citation needed] Prior to its acquisition by Chevron, Unocal settled a similar human rights lawsuit for a reported multi-million dollar amount.[62] There remains active debate as to the extent to which the American-led sanctions have had adverse effects on the civilian population or on the military rulers.[63][64]
Burma’s armed forces are known as the Tatmadaw, which numbers 488,000. The Tatmadaw comprises the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force. Burma ranked twelfth in the world for its number of active troops in service.[2] The military is very influential in the country, with top cabinet and ministry posts held by military officers. Although official figures for Burmese military spending are not available, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in its annual rankings, ranked Burma in the top 15 military spenders in the world.[65] The country imports most of its weapons from Russia, Ukraine, China and India.
Burma is building a research nuclear reactor near May Myo (Pyin Oo Lwin) with help from Russia. Burma is one of the signatories of the nuclear non-proliferation pact since 1992 and a member of the IAEA since 1957. The military junta had informed the IAEA in September 2000 of its intention to construct the reactor. The research reactor outbuilding frame was built by ELE steel industries limited of Yangon and water from Anisakhan/BE water fall will be used for the reactor cavity cooling system.
"
17 Oct 07
Originally posted by uzlessHighly doubtful. The Chinese want guaranteed energy supplies. They aren't motivated so much by communist ideology anymore. Their support for this junta is skin-deep. Make it clear that the junta will not be allowed to do business as usual -- but an elected government would be -- and the Chinese would probably remove the junta themselves. They know which side their bread is buttered on.
Or fire their nukes at you.
17 Oct 07
Originally posted by Darth SpongeI wouldn't trust Bush to attack the problem of tying his shoelaces. I'm trying to think of something he is good at...no, I can't think of anything. He's a shallow, dogmatic, stubborn little man. There must be jobs where such people excel, but being a Statesman is not one of them.
edit: response to Spruce's "When will you effing peackniks get it through your heads that IGNORING this kind of bull$hit CAUSES FUTURE WARS!!!!"
Since the US didn't attack Myanmar, does Bush fall into your "peacenik" categorie?
17 Oct 07
Originally posted by spruce112358C'mon Mr Hughes, are you honestly going to try and get away with you end the potential of war by fighting one? War causes future wars! Ramping up the ante, drawing lines in the sand, having a provocative foreign policy, all these things cause wars. We cant always default to the Hitler justification, that because Chamberlain was a wimp we almost all got to speak German.
When will you effing peackniks get it through your heads that IGNORING this kind of bull$hit CAUSES FUTURE WARS!!!!
Relative to the US's strength, who measures up as a 'Nazi' threat to our way of life to warrant another war. For all the war on drugs which is what Myanmar (or Burma) will always be embroiled in, no thanks to the Slork and other such military presences(excrescences) who exist because of the profitable opium trade which for the hundredth time was started by the British government in the 19th century in an attempt to reconcile its balance of payments with China. State sponsored narco-terrorism by that bastion of well bred civility itself.
For once I would love to see the US use all of its technology and tracking capability and just round up all of those goons and detain them without trial. No B52's ,no sudden death from above, no posturing and chest beating and interminable excuses. They launched an attack on Iraq because they had to have a roadmap to peace in the middle east.
Kharma dictates that they do something just because it happens to be the right thing and regardless of who it angers, show some real leadership and clean up an important cycle of drugs at the source. Considering that not any of our protests about a shoddy intel war on Iraq caused anyone in Washington to lose any sleep, why would doing the right thing suddenly cause any more upset.
17 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by kmax87No it doesn't. War is like fighting a cold -- you do it when something is wrong. War is a response -- an attempt to remove an irritation. The most irritating thing in the world is Injustice. When people generally get a square deal, wars cease.
War causes future wars!
A square deal for most people is not free health care or public transport or food stamps. A square deal is mainly freedom -- to buy and sell their own stuff and not have it taken away, to vote capitalist or communist as they please, to say what they want without fear, to go where they please, to enter into contracts -- e.g. money for labor -- without fear that the contract won't be honored.
Wars result when someone decides to substitute an Ideology for Justice and Human Rights.
18 Oct 07
Originally posted by spruce112358Sounds good in theory but in practice, societies that enshrine ideologies like universal health care tend to be the societies that also enshrine human rights. Communism is bad but so is unchecked capitalism free of any regulation. All that devolves into is the law of the jungle and the fittest not only will survive, they end up surviving at the expense of others who are not as able and quick to exercise their freedom.
Wars result when someone decides to substitute an Ideology for Justice and Human Rights.
What is freedom if not an ideology? Health care is freedom wrapped into a higher order of societal engagement. It protects society from letting the almighty dollar from taking over and being the only 'God' that rules.
18 Oct 07
Originally posted by spruce112358Just causes?
You don't get justice with sanctions or with bombs or with "peace", my friend. You get it by doing your darndest to make sure that the Just Causes win.
And just which "just cause" has the US mingled itself with of late then?
Go on. I dare you. I double dare you.
18 Oct 07
Originally posted by shavixmirWell, the US is helping to rebuild that bridge that collapsed into the Mississippi River... a very just cause.
Just causes?
And just which "just cause" has the US mingled itself with of late then?
Go on. I dare you. I double dare you.
Oh, you mean, what has the US done for you, before it does for it's own citizens first?
Sorry, my pockets are empty.
G.
19 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by kmax87Freedom is a state. An ideology is a fixed notion that things have to be 'one way'. I don't advocate freedom and democracy because I am head of the Church of Freedomism. I'm also a scientist and question my beliefs constantly -- in line with the Socratic ideal that "an unexamined life is not worth living."
Sounds good in theory but in practice, societies that enshrine ideologies like universal health care tend to be the societies that also enshrine human rights. Communism is bad but so is unchecked capitalism free of any regulation. All that devolves into is the law of the jungle and the fittest not only will survive, they end up surviving at the expense of oth ...[text shortened]... society from letting the almighty dollar from taking over and being the only 'God' that rules.
But you find eventually, after repeated searching, that certain notions seem to stabilize -- they stand up, like certain scientific theories we all know about. One of these notions is that free, democratic, capitalist societies produce a high level of good for all concerned. Dictatorships tend not to.
So one can look at any case, and applies these laws to it, to see what might improve things. I've stated many of these in posts over the last few years and I think it forms a cohernent picture:
1) Saddam was a dictator. Out with him. Same for Il, Mugabe, Castro, Myanmar, etc. Good will eventually result.
2) The UN -- non-democratic. Make it so. Good will result.
3) Bush -- non-democratic tendencies. One of the virtues of democracy is that bad leaders disappear with time (unlike dictators).
4) Communism --sounds great in theory. In practice, has always devolved into dictatorship or oligarchy. Untill someone can prove that communism and democracy can co-exist, communism has to be avoided.
5) Palestinians -- clearly they have no access to democracy or freedom. Access needs to be provided ASAP.
The relationship between freedom and democracy and wealth is loose. Greater wealth seems to correlate with greater freedom -- but that's a good thing. Disparity in wealth among humans also seems to obey some kind of law -- 80-20 rule, etc. But democracy is the great leveler in the face of that -- one human, one vote. And counting bucks can be misleading. Do 20% of the people eat 80% of the food or buy 80% off the cars or TVs? No. So the distribution of real goods is not as skewed as the wealth curve makes out.