BF2S Forums Myanmar/Burma -- why not overthrow THEIR gov't??!!

ZombieVampire! wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

I see your point, but the difference between the situation in Myanmar and the death penalty in the US is that the people in Myanmar are actively denied their rights by their own government, while the death penalty in the US is the result of a democratic process, and can easily be reversed through that exact same process, if the electorate should decide so.

Who decides what their rights are?

B.Schuss wrote:

You know I am a strong supporter of sovereignity myself, and I am usually the last to suggest intervention, but a combined effort by the UN would clearly benefit the suffering people of Myanmar.
Not necessarily through a regime change. That is something that the local population must get done themselves.

How can they achieve it without regime change?

#1: come on now, don't be childish here. I think most of us would agree that there is something like a universal understanding about what human and democratic rights are. Denying your own people proper food and medical support in the face of such a disaster is certainly a violation of human right, at least in my book.

I know, I am applying western standards here, and the Myanmar government obviously doesn't subscribe to those, but if the australian government acted in such a way, would you defend their sovereignity, too ?

#2: well, looking at the somewhat small military potential Myanmar has, I think they could do little to stop western nations crossing the border and flying support goods into the region. Wether that sort of provocation is desirable is a different thing, of course.

Spearhead wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24665717

They are waiting for the US to do it for them.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

I agree that there are certain rights that ought be afforded to all people.  But I'm wary of forcing that understanding of others.

true, but you're not going to change the world by being nice to everybody. At some point, you have to make a decision wether to apply some "pressure" ( in whatever shape or form ) or leave the situation as it is and bow to sovereignity.

Sure, in theory the government of Myanmar is free to run its country as they please. But you have to remember, they didn't come to power as the result of a democratic process. This is a military dictatorship, and thus, my respect for their sovereignity is somewhat limited.

I mean, why should I respect their "sovereignity" if they - by the very means they came to power - showed their lack of respect for their own people like that ?

The fact is, there is lots more that the big world powers could do to apply pressure on Myanmar's government to start a democratic process.
I am not talking military intervention here ( recent history would indicate that such action is to be avoided ), but economic sanctions, for example.

I am rather isolationistic myself, and usually the last to question any country's sovereignity, but there are some nations out there that deserve a slap on the butt, so-to-speak, and Myanmar is clearly one of them.

ATG wrote:

I used to argue for democracy at gunpoint, but it got tiresome.

The Karen people have been jacked over for years. This might have finished them off.

Man... ATG..

Democracy at gunpoint works.  If any of our founding fathers were alive they'd tell you.  Also, look at Japan.

Turquoise wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I know what you're saying, but to be honest, I wouldn't mind it if we left the U.N.  They're pretty useless most of the time.

Largely because of the US' actions.

I was thinking more like, because of China and Russia.

China and Russia block a lot of stuff, but tend not to ignore what's gone through.  Unlike the US.

Turquoise wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Um... I don't think intervening in Sudan or Burma would do that.  There are times when intervention just makes sense.  Sovereignty should be a secondary concern to human suffering.

But you start down the slippery slope.

Yeah, but it's better to try than to sit back and judge.

Not if it fucks up the whole balance of power.

Turquoise wrote:

By the way, welcome back, Bubbalo... 

Thankee.  I'd give a cookie for being the first to spot it, but that was actually an anonymous karma which I think was ATG.

m3thod wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24665717

They are waiting for the US to do it for them.

Nah, wont happen....none of the black gooey stuff around

on a serious note the US are stretched enough as it is.  Some Asian alliance around? NATO equivalent?

Yea. Our whole take the oil thing has worked out so well for us here in America right?  Is that why Dems are all pissed off?  They said it was an oil war.  Now oil prices are up and the expected cheap gas isn't here.  So much for operation smash and grab.

Asian alliance? Nato? UN? HAHAHAHAHAHAAAA...

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Yea. Our whole take the oil thing has worked out so well for us here in America right?  Is that why Dems are all pissed off?  They said it was an oil war.  Now oil prices are up and the expected cheap gas isn't here.  So much for operation smash and grab.

Cheap gas?  And how would energy companies benefit from more raw material?  More oil means less profit.

Now starting a war, or two, in the middle of the most oil rich region in the world.  That's where the money is.  Oil is speculative commodity.  War, conflict, tension, competition, is good for profits, not consumers.

Last edited by Reciprocity (2008-05-19 22:09:44)

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Actually, if you believe (like myself) that nations naturally liberalise, then not intervening is not only *an* option, it's the usually the one which most quickly leads to a lasting better deal for the people.

my isolationist mind would agree, but the question is, for how much longer can our conscience allow us to ignore the plight of those poor people ?

On the other hand, I'd say that if the people of Myanmar don't have the will to fight for democracy and feedom, they don't deserve it anyway.
Sounds harsh, but that's the reality. Oppressive regimes rarely listen to the voice of reason. You gotta take the fight out of the classrooms, and on the streets.

I know, easy for me to say, sitting in my armchair, but still. History has shown that if people really want freedom, they are willing to fight for it.
Look at the way the Berlin Wall came down, for example. When those hundreds of thousands of protesters took to the streets in '89, they couldn't be sure if they'd live to see the next day, with tanks and infantry ready to deploy. But they marched anyway, and ultimately won their freedom, and re-unification.

Are the people of Myanmar ready for that same commitment ? and if they are not, wouldn't that indicate that they really don't want freedom ?

Kmarion wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Articles of interest.
http://www.startribune.com/world/190458 … efer=World
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne … ction.html
You should also take note that China would be the ones vetoing humanitarian intervention. Big surprise coming from the champion of human rights isn't it .
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/17/world … l?ref=asia

I know they have let some Americans in for relief, have they let any others?

A Russian cargo plane brought in some supplies but I'm not sure if it was impounded or anything.

Impounded? WTF.. was it double parked?

lol not the plane (giant wheel jacks)

Spark wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

m3thod wrote:

Nah, wont happen....none of the black gooey stuff around

on a serious note the US are stretched enough as it is.  Some Asian alliance around? NATO equivalent?

Yea. Our whole take the oil thing has worked out so well for us here in America right?  Is that why Dems are all pissed off?  They said it was an oil war.  Now oil prices are up and the expected cheap gas isn't here.  So much for operation smash and grab.

Asian alliance? Nato? UN? HAHAHAHAHAHAAAA...

Fail at the highest level.

SEATO? ASEAN? Hello?

Yes Sparkie you fail at the highest level.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEATO

SEATO -Not around anymore (and US was in it)

ASEAN - More incompetent than the UN (which the US basically funds)

Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2008-05-20 05:44:56)

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Really?  Because I don't recall seeing any wars break out in Asia recently, which is what they try to stop.

that's probably because all the asians are simply too busy producing and selling us crappy plastic stuff. No time for war...

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Spark wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Yea. Our whole take the oil thing has worked out so well for us here in America right?  Is that why Dems are all pissed off?  They said it was an oil war.  Now oil prices are up and the expected cheap gas isn't here.  So much for operation smash and grab.

Asian alliance? Nato? UN? HAHAHAHAHAHAAAA...

Fail at the highest level.

SEATO? ASEAN? Hello?

Yes Sparkie you fail at the highest level.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEATO

SEATO -Not around anymore (and US was in it)

ASEAN - More incompetent than the UN (which the US basically funds)

I don't know who you're trying to impress by impersonating my posting style, but anyway.

ASEAN is the only international body being admitted into Burma at the moment. They are the ones who will probably take the lead in the international effort.

Oh, don't be cruel, who was it?


I honestly can't think of anyone else who's called me Bubbles...........