"Is it time to invade Burma?" You must be kidding me...

[Minestra di pomodoro]

Or here's a thought...leave them alone if that's what they want.

That's not what they want. People are dying there because of the military junta's unwillingness to accept foreign aid.

 

[acptulsa]

That's not what they want. People are dying there because of the military junta's unwillingness to accept foreign aid.

People are dying so let's go kill them!

 

[Minestra di pomodoro]

People are dying so let's go kill them!

The military government is living lavishly, those are the people the United States would strike if they were to invade Burma.

 

[acptulsa]

The military government is living lavishly, those are the people the United States would strike if they were to invade Burma.

Oh, yeah. The official line is that collateral damage is a thing of the past. Gee, how could I forget that?

 

[moostraks]

The military government is living lavishly, those are the people the United States would strike if they were to invade Burma.

Where have we heard this story before? Let's see if the family members left behind from our strikes on Iraq would agree to the effectiveness of targeting strickly those acting offensive in our opinion...

What gives you the right to take our children to fight a war for a foreign country because you take offense to their government? Are you going to put your life on the line to free them? Or are you going to sit in the comfort of your home patting yourself on the back for being a humanitarian for pressuring our government to take our young people to "free" yet another nation, thus rewarding us with the spirit of goodwill we see is so indicated by our intervention in middle east politics??

 

[DriftWood]

Even if there was some super weapon that only killed the the leaders of the military junta without any collateral damage, i would still be against using it.

You see. Everyone in Burma has found a way to live around the current power structure. Stability means people can make plans for tomorrow, to improve their lives a little. They probably worked hard to get where they are. With stability comes predictability. They wont have to find a new way to survive, they know how they got food today, they will get food the same way tomorrow. Relationships, interpedencies and rules would have formed over time between the people and the ruling militia. People probably bribe officals to get a break, and maybe some of them marry into power and better lifes. People have found a way to survive and make the best of their lives in the current system.

But, If someone on the outside killed the govt, not just the top but most of the structure of society would fall. Everyone would suffer.. a new power and social order would have to be built from the ground up. The status that regular people had managed to build with the officals and echother would be lost. All that hard work, all those plans, the rules, the relationships with the law, trading routines, would be lost. People would have to find a new way to survive.

And after all the fighting of a civil war, and the rebuilding of society afterwards.. Life might be worse, not better.

Its like Iraq.. people say life was better before the war (even many of the shiites say that). Who knows how long it will take until Iraq progresses to the same point as it was before the war. My guess is atleast 20 years from the day that US leaves.

Cheers

 

[WRellim]

If we don't invade Burma ASAP, the Terrorists have already won.

Actually, Cowlesy, "My Friend" technically they won a long time ago.

Back in 2000 they got their team (s)elected as President and Vice President and filled a whole administration FULL of terrorists.

Now they have another terrorist as the GOP Nominee, and (yet another) team as the LP ticket.

So... so far they are winning.

 

[WRellim]

Even if there was some super weapon that only killed the the leaders of the military junta without any collateral damage, i would still be against using it.

You see. Everyone in Burma has found a way to live around the current power structure. Stability means people can make plans for tomorrow, to improve their lives a little. They probably worked hard to get where they are. With stability comes predictability. They wont have to find a new way to survive, they know how they got food today, they will get food the same way tomorrow. Relationships, interpedencies and rules would have formed over time between the people and the ruling militia. People probably bribe officals to get a break, and maybe some of them marry into power and better lifes. People have found a way to survive and make the best of their lives in the current system.

But, If someone on the outside killed the govt, not just the top but most of the structure of society would fall. Everyone would suffer.. a new power and social order would have to be built from the ground up. The status that regular people had managed to build with the officals and echother would be lost. All that hard work, all those plans, the rules, the relationships with the law, trading routines, would be lost. People would have to find a new way to survive.

And after all the fighting of a civil war, and the rebuilding of society afterwards.. Life might be worse, not better.

Its like Iraq.. people say life was better before the war (even many of the shiites say that). Who knows how long it will take until Iraq progresses to the same point as it was before the war. My guess is atleast 20 years from the day that US leaves.

Cheers

If only we could unleash that worst of all WMD's (Weapons of Monetary Destruction) -- the sub-prime mortgage backed by a CDO -- on the residents of certain federal buildings in Washington D.C.

'Cause the Sub-Prime is actually MORE effective than a neutron bomb... it really DOES just get rid of the people and leave the buildings intact... but WITHOUT the lingering radiation problem!

 

[Minestra di pomodoro]

What gives you the right to take our children to fight a war for a foreign country because you take offense to their government? Are you going to put your life on the line to free them? Or are you going to sit in the comfort of your home patting yourself on the back for being a humanitarian for pressuring our government to take our young people to "free" yet another nation, thus rewarding us with the spirit of goodwill we see is so indicated by our intervention in middle east politics??

I don't have to use your children or mine, I would hire mercenaries.

 

[DriftWood]

If only we could unleash that worst of all WMD's (Weapons of Monetary Destruction) -- the sub-prime mortgage backed by a CDO -- on the residents of certain federal buildings in Washington D.C.

'Cause the Sub-Prime is actually MORE effective than a neutron bomb... it really DOES just get rid of the people and leave the buildings intact... but WITHOUT the lingering radiation problem!

Hehe, yeah (There was a bit of bleed threw though, from wall street to main street with those weapons of mass destruction). I would have liked to see what had happened if FED has not stepped in and bailed out Bears. It might have caused a chain reaction and killed off lots of reckless financial companies, but the economy would have regrown stronger without them. The economy, in that way, works much like evolution. There is no progress unless you let the sick ones die.

Cheers

 

[angelatc]

That's not what they want. People are dying there because of the military junta's unwillingness to accept foreign aid.

Isn't the military junta the ruling government, though? I think that we have to respect their authority. The people must be inspired to their own revolution.

 

[Minestra di pomodoro]

Isn't the military junta the ruling government, though? I think that we have to respect their authority. The people must be inspired to their own revolution.

The people are not the ones with the guns.

 

[asgardshill]

Isn't the military junta the ruling government, though? I think that we have to respect their authority. The people must be inspired to their own revolution.

Good thing the Marquis de Lafayette and the French Navy didn't feel the same way in 1777.

 

[ItsTime]

this is the exact thinking we will get with McCain and Obama

 

[acptulsa]

Good thing the Marquis de Lafayette and the French Navy didn't feel the same way in 1777.

Don't think they'd have touched us with a ten foot pole had we not been ready to revolt. Otherwise, they'd have had to go halfway around the world to fight everyone in the place. Who'd be stupid enough to do that?

Don't answer that...

 

[angelatc]

Good thing the Marquis de Lafayette and the French Navy didn't feel the same way in 1777.

I think we started the Revolution *before* they helped with it.

And I am a non-interventionist, through and through. There's always "good" reasons to send the troops into other countries.

And I'm not sure invading a country on China's border is a great idea.

We're already in a pissing match with them - apparently they want to be called Myanmar and we don't want to call them that. So much for freedom, eh?

"You can change your name when we say you can, dammit!"

 

[asgardshill]

I think we started the Revolution *before* they helped with it.

And I am a non-interventionist, through and through. There's always "good" reasons to send the troops into other countries.

And I'm not sure invading a country on China's border is a great idea.

We're already in a pissing match with them - apparently they want to be called Myanmar and we don't want to call them that. So much for freedom, eh?

"You can change your name when we say you can, dammit!"

Nobody's claiming that blanket nannyism on a continental scale and wholesale intervention in other country's affairs are a good thing. My note was a cautionary tale not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.