The French Navy is there too.M.O.A.B wrote:
The US is the only one with a military presence in the area isn't it?Kmarion wrote:
Why should it be the US?M.O.A.B wrote:
They should go in in force, crushing their military wouldn't be difficult, get aid and attention to those who need it and then leave, in that scenario not much the junta could do about it. If they resisted and actively engaged supply columns and relief workes then it'll destory their reputation even more than it already has been.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- We’d rather let people die than allow the US Navy to help
I understand the concern and all, but honestly, if the rest of the world ain't doing shit about it, I don't see why we should. People say we shouldn't be the world's police, and then this shit happens, and then they want us to be it.Kmarion wrote:
And the military junta in Myanmar will surely get that wish. With the death toll predicted to reach well into six figures, the US had dispatched the Navy to deliver badly-needed relief supplies to the cyclone-stricken country. However, despite allowing American C-130s to deliver cargo elsewhere, the junta refuses to permit the US Navy to help save lives:
http://i25.tinypic.com/2ivnrth.jpg
The junta fears a collapse of its credibility more than anything else. If they are seen as so weak that the US has to step in and rescue the Burmese from the incompetence of the military dictatorship, then they risk a popular uprising when the country recovers. The junta already put down one round of demonstrations in the streets a few months ago, and now the people of Burma have even more motivation to put the dictators up against the wall.U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged Burma to focus on saving lives, not on politics, after the military government on Wednesday shunned a U.S. proposal for naval ships to deliver aid to cyclone survivors.
The U.N. says up to 2.5 million survivors of Cyclone Nargis face hunger, homelessness and potential outbreaks of deadly diseases. ….
Burma’s state-controlled media said that U.S. helicopters or naval ships were not welcome to join the relief effort.
The New Light of Myanmar newspaper said accepting military assistance “comes with strings attached” that are “not acceptable to the people of Burma.”
The report cited fears of an American invasion aimed at grabbing the country’s oil reserves.
http://i26.tinypic.com/2lkzckx.jpg
According to USA Today, though, the fear of American invasion isn’t just an excuse. The country moved its capital in 2005 from Rangoon to Naypyitaw to keep the government from being easily captured by the Americans. For those of us here in the US, this sounds absolutely ridiculous. Other than a desire to see Aung Sang Suu Kyi freed and democracy return to the country, Americans don’t have Burma on the political map. We haven’t any ambition to launch ourselves into another southeast Asian military enterprise for any reason, let alone the Burmese.
The junta may do to themselves what they fear we will do to them. Once the people understand that we have food and medicine off shore but cannot deliver it because of the idiotic paranoia of dictators in Naypyitaw, starving and dying people will descend on the junta and rip it to pieces.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008 … htm?csp=34
True, That'd be just fine if we turned around and fed our own impoverished people with the aid we freely give to others. In fact it should be policy to not help ANYONE until all our own are taken care of. I think John Edwards espouses a similar policy about aiding our impoverished citizens.
It'd be an act of war (dropping leaflets), but I would bet my porn collection that it wouldn't be denounced by anyone except the military junta. Either way, I'm certain the people of Burma will rise up against the dictatorship. People can only be kept complacent by force for so long. As they said, bread and circus placates the people. It's obvious these folks don't have either bread or circus... they'll eventually realize their government has betrayed them, and will overthrow them.
Does anyone have any idea about the strength of their military and government? What are the chances of them being able to overthrow it?HurricaИe wrote:
It'd be an act of war (dropping leaflets), but I would bet my porn collection that it wouldn't be denounced by anyone except the military junta. Either way, I'm certain the people of Burma will rise up against the dictatorship. People can only be kept complacent by force for so long. As they said, bread and circus placates the people. It's obvious these folks don't have either bread or circus... they'll eventually realize their government has betrayed them, and will overthrow them.
I think their military is pretty weak... we could fly over and drop some guns/supplies/ammo and i bet the starving people would take card of business on the Juntas.... then we can put a bestbuy and an applebees there...
Love is the answer
you can't plug a computer into a bamboo stalk...[TUF]Catbox wrote:
I think their military is pretty weak... we could fly over and drop some guns/supplies/ammo and i bet the starving people would take card of business on the Juntas.... then we can put a bestbuy and an applebees there...
might want to drop some generators first
I agree we should let the U.N or the E.U. take care of this mess , But for either one of them to do anything it may take a few years
lol... UN...logitech487 wrote:
I agree we should let the U.N or the E.U. take care of this mess , But for either one of them to do anything it may take a few years
The American Congress is more effective...
Weak...by that you mean the 9th largest military force in the world[TUF]Catbox wrote:
I think their military is pretty weak... we could fly over and drop some guns/supplies/ammo and i bet the starving people would take card of business on the Juntas.... then we can put a bestbuy and an applebees there...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myanmar_Armed_Forces
492,000 total in their armed forces; thats quite a bit for a civilian population to handle especially since they army has a command structure and plenty of millitary hardware and the civilians don't. Then again, they might have a few officers that might not be happy with the current government and would support an uprising. That and we can't rule out the involvement of a foreign force.
big =/= goodRohirm wrote:
Weak...by that you mean the 9th largest military force in the world[TUF]Catbox wrote:
I think their military is pretty weak... we could fly over and drop some guns/supplies/ammo and i bet the starving people would take card of business on the Juntas.... then we can put a bestbuy and an applebees there...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myanmar_Armed_Forces
492,000 total in their armed forces; thats quite a bit for a civilian population to handle especially since they army has a command structure and plenty of millitary hardware and the civilians don't. Then again, they might have a few officers that might not be happy with the current government and would support an uprising. That and we can't rule out the involvement of a foreign force.
A small, well organized and well equipped force can easily defeat a much larger army.
my favorite example
and this one
500,000 conscripted soldiers armed with early cold war era weapons can't do much to stop the U.S. army.
It'd be an easy fight, hell, it'd be a slaughter, but people don't like war, even if it helps save more lives than it cost...
The media doesn't want pictures of all the people that didn't die in an attack.
Last edited by S.Lythberg (2008-05-21 18:04:32)
Plenty of other revolutions have happened, e.g. the American Revolution.GorillaKing798 wrote:
Does anyone have any idea about the strength of their military and government? What are the chances of them being able to overthrow it?HurricaИe wrote:
It'd be an act of war (dropping leaflets), but I would bet my porn collection that it wouldn't be denounced by anyone except the military junta. Either way, I'm certain the people of Burma will rise up against the dictatorship. People can only be kept complacent by force for so long. As they said, bread and circus placates the people. It's obvious these folks don't have either bread or circus... they'll eventually realize their government has betrayed them, and will overthrow them.
As others said, there are probably members of the military who wouldn't take kindly to being ordered to shoot their own people. And if the junta started massacring civilians, a foreign intervention would quickly be on the table.
Also, what Lythberg said. Hell, look at Iraq. They haven't defeated us but the insurgents aren't wiped out either. A strong, determinate, well-organized guerrilla force can at the very least impede a proper military.
Last edited by HurricaИe (2008-05-21 18:03:35)
Madness.S.Lythberg wrote:
A small, well organized and well equipped force can easily defeat a much larger army.
My state was founded by Batman. Your opinion is invalid.
Great, but you're forgetting we're not talking about a smaller, better trained army, but about people with no experience of war picking up arms and killing a 500k strong army. Not going to happen.S.Lythberg wrote:
big =/= goodRohirm wrote:
Weak...by that you mean the 9th largest military force in the world[TUF]Catbox wrote:
I think their military is pretty weak... we could fly over and drop some guns/supplies/ammo and i bet the starving people would take card of business on the Juntas.... then we can put a bestbuy and an applebees there...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myanmar_Armed_Forces
492,000 total in their armed forces; thats quite a bit for a civilian population to handle especially since they army has a command structure and plenty of millitary hardware and the civilians don't. Then again, they might have a few officers that might not be happy with the current government and would support an uprising. That and we can't rule out the involvement of a foreign force.
A small, well organized and well equipped force can easily defeat a much larger army.
my favorite example
and this one
500,000 conscripted soldiers armed with early cold war era weapons can't do much to stop the U.S. army.
It'd be an easy fight, hell, it'd be a slaughter, but people don't like war, even if it helps save more lives than it cost...
The media doesn't want pictures of all the people that didn't die in an attack.
actually, there's two conversations going on, one about the U.S. cleaning house, and one about a popular revolt.ghettoperson wrote:
Great, but you're forgetting we're not talking about a smaller, better trained army, but about people with no experience of war picking up arms and killing a 500k strong army. Not going to happen.S.Lythberg wrote:
big =/= goodRohirm wrote:
Weak...by that you mean the 9th largest military force in the world
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myanmar_Armed_Forces
492,000 total in their armed forces; thats quite a bit for a civilian population to handle especially since they army has a command structure and plenty of millitary hardware and the civilians don't. Then again, they might have a few officers that might not be happy with the current government and would support an uprising. That and we can't rule out the involvement of a foreign force.
A small, well organized and well equipped force can easily defeat a much larger army.
my favorite example
and this one
500,000 conscripted soldiers armed with early cold war era weapons can't do much to stop the U.S. army.
It'd be an easy fight, hell, it'd be a slaughter, but people don't like war, even if it helps save more lives than it cost...
The media doesn't want pictures of all the people that didn't die in an attack.
A popular revolt would be bloody, but much of the millitary would likely fold under such conditions, it is not a volunteer army, and most soldiers arent willing to "cleanse" their own village.
Yeah I know what you said, but the guy your quoting was responding to someone suggesting dropping crates of arms down. Which personally I don't think would end well.
they'd land in military bases...ghettoperson wrote:
Yeah I know what you said, but the guy your quoting was responding to someone suggesting dropping crates of arms down. Which personally I don't think would end well.
As clarification, I was merely stating the armed forces of Myanmar have the ability of suppressing a rebellion. Against the US or any other well trained force, the MAF would stand absolutely no chance.S.Lythberg wrote:
big =/= goodRohirm wrote:
Weak...by that you mean the 9th largest military force in the world[TUF]Catbox wrote:
I think their military is pretty weak... we could fly over and drop some guns/supplies/ammo and i bet the starving people would take card of business on the Juntas.... then we can put a bestbuy and an applebees there...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myanmar_Armed_Forces
492,000 total in their armed forces; thats quite a bit for a civilian population to handle especially since they army has a command structure and plenty of millitary hardware and the civilians don't. Then again, they might have a few officers that might not be happy with the current government and would support an uprising. That and we can't rule out the involvement of a foreign force.
A small, well organized and well equipped force can easily defeat a much larger army.
my favorite example
and this one
500,000 conscripted soldiers armed with early cold war era weapons can't do much to stop the U.S. army.
It'd be an easy fight, hell, it'd be a slaughter, but people don't like war, even if it helps save more lives than it cost...
The media doesn't want pictures of all the people that didn't die in an attack.
leaflet?
Come on,... what are they gonna do, pick up their scythe and plan a raid?
The people of burma don't have anything to topple their government.
They need aid from the U.S.
Come on,... what are they gonna do, pick up their scythe and plan a raid?
The people of burma don't have anything to topple their government.
They need aid from the U.S.
Thats because we're fighting it on their home turf. That's a MASSIVE advantage for them.HurricaИe wrote:
Plenty of other revolutions have happened, e.g. the American Revolution.GorillaKing798 wrote:
Does anyone have any idea about the strength of their military and government? What are the chances of them being able to overthrow it?HurricaИe wrote:
It'd be an act of war (dropping leaflets), but I would bet my porn collection that it wouldn't be denounced by anyone except the military junta. Either way, I'm certain the people of Burma will rise up against the dictatorship. People can only be kept complacent by force for so long. As they said, bread and circus placates the people. It's obvious these folks don't have either bread or circus... they'll eventually realize their government has betrayed them, and will overthrow them.
As others said, there are probably members of the military who wouldn't take kindly to being ordered to shoot their own people. And if the junta started massacring civilians, a foreign intervention would quickly be on the table.
Also, what Lythberg said. Hell, look at Iraq. They haven't defeated us but the insurgents aren't wiped out either. A strong, determinate, well-organized guerrilla force can at the very least impede a proper military.
Also, the insurgents rarely have actual combat.dan673 wrote:
Thats because we're fighting it on their home turf. That's a MASSIVE advantage for them.HurricaИe wrote:
Plenty of other revolutions have happened, e.g. the American Revolution.GorillaKing798 wrote:
Does anyone have any idea about the strength of their military and government? What are the chances of them being able to overthrow it?
As others said, there are probably members of the military who wouldn't take kindly to being ordered to shoot their own people. And if the junta started massacring civilians, a foreign intervention would quickly be on the table.
Also, what Lythberg said. Hell, look at Iraq. They haven't defeated us but the insurgents aren't wiped out either. A strong, determinate, well-organized guerrilla force can at the very least impede a proper military.
When they do, they get owned.
Who would? The arms?S.Lythberg wrote:
they'd land in military bases...ghettoperson wrote:
Yeah I know what you said, but the guy your quoting was responding to someone suggesting dropping crates of arms down. Which personally I don't think would end well.
yes, the whole damn country is militarized...ghettoperson wrote:
Who would? The arms?S.Lythberg wrote:
they'd land in military bases...ghettoperson wrote:
Yeah I know what you said, but the guy your quoting was responding to someone suggesting dropping crates of arms down. Which personally I don't think would end well.
and the average civilian wouldn't know how to care for or operate a fairly sophisticated firearm.
thats probably why an uprising hasn't happened yet, the populace lacks the skills and equipment needed.
Hence why I was saying dropping arms into the country would be a bad choice.
now...ghettoperson wrote:
Hence why I was saying dropping arms into the country would be a bad choice.
If we were to drop Sylvester Stallone as well...
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- We’d rather let people die than allow the US Navy to help