+- Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org)
+-- Forum: Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Lounge (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: Thoughts / a rant on Myanmar (/showthread.php?tid=7296)
Pages:
1
2
Thoughts / a rant on Myanmar - WRXtranceformed - 05-11-2008
Partial rant here, so bare with me.
I read this article while on vacation and it really pissed me off that this is even a topic of discussion.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1739053,00.html?xid=feed-cnn-topics">http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... cnn-topics</a><!-- m -->
Why, please tell me why the fuck anyone thinks it's a good idea for us to invade Myanmar right now... on whatever terms they may be. You know what? Fuck Myanmar.
"YANGON, Myanmar (CNN) -- As aid groups struggled to distribute supplies to cyclone victims despite government obstacles, Myanmar TV was broadcasting messages urging people to vote "yes" in a referendum that critics say would strengthen the military rule.
The New York Times said it appeared that some resources for cyclone victims was diverted to the vote campaign. In some cases, generals' names were scribbled onto boxes of foreign aid before being distributed, according to the Associated Press."
I'm sorry, but as retarded as it is that the US feels the need to spread our political semen all over the globe, it's even more retarded to think that it's a good idea to force our way in like we did in Bosnia when this country is refusing our help. We've got plenty of problems stateside to worry about and our military resources are spread too thin thanks to the retards who thought the Iraq war was a good idea.
Yep, it's a terrible disaster they're enduring over there, but that means absolutely nothing to me if it came to our troops going over there and potentially creating another shitstorm. Let the worldwide aid groups deal with it and if they can't make any headway, let that country fall apart. That's their business if their government wants to allow it to happen.
There must be oil or WMD's in Myanmar that we haven't been told about :roll:
- Apoc - 05-11-2008
I'm generally one for America leaving as small a footprint as possible, but were there ever a place for us to flex our muscle, it's Burma/Myanmar.
The military dictatorship there took place after a coup and suppressed/killed countless innocents over the last 35 years. They're in cahoots with the major opium producers of the country and often pay workers in opium so they'll keep coming back to work. Read anything about Burma and you'll see just how fucked up of place it really is.
I don't necessarily think it's our job to remove the government, but I think we have some responsibility to make sure our aid actually gets to the people it's intended for.
- WRXtranceformed - 05-11-2008
Understand that I'm not contesting that it's a fucked up place. What I'm saying is that I don't care. There are a lot of fucked up places in the world, do we need to wait for a hurricane to hit them before we jump in there to "help out" too? I don't think I could be convinced in any way that sending US troops into Burma is a good idea, for whatever reason. There HAS to be some other political outlets for getting aid in there without sending troops into a country that's controlled by a military.
- Apoc - 05-11-2008
Well... some would argue we have the social responsibility to protect/serve those less fortunate. Either you subscribe that America should just mind it's own damn business about everything or you think we should help out where we can. If you're the latter (not you specifically), Burma should be towards the top of the list. We'd certainly be doing more of a humanitarian benefit than we did in Iraq.
- WRXtranceformed - 05-11-2008
Apoc Wrote:We'd certainly be doing more of a humanitarian benefit than we did in Iraq.
If we were to invade, I do agree with that 100%
- G.Irish - 05-11-2008
Sorry but I don't buy it. Hundreds of thousands of civilians have been massacred in Africa in the last ten years and we didn't lift a damned finger. There is no reason we should "invade" Burma to provide aid and possibly get into an armed conflict with the ruling junta. Their government may be corrupt and unjust but there are lots of governments like that around the world that we're doing nothing about. I don't see why Myanmar should be treated differently. I understand this is a huge humanitarian crisis but again, there have been several of those in Africa in the last few years.
If the United Nations wants to grow a backbone and lead the way in providing aid, I wouldn't be terribly opposed to the US supporting that effort. But we don't need to be the world's unilateral policeman, nanny, nurse, and/or garbage collector. There are several other militaries in the world that can volunteer their troops. If they're not willing to, why should we? We're already stretched very thin as is.
Besides, part of the reason Myanmar has been refusing help is because they are suspicious of the West trying to overthrow their government. Invading them would only confirm those suspicions. As the article suggests, other Southeast Asian countries need to take the lead to provide aid.
- Evan - 05-12-2008
Time wants us to invade a country? Oh the irony. I guess its only ok to go to war with the liberal's permission. Otherwise its "WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER (except when we say so)"
anyway, an invasion is asinine, and Im tired of us trying to fix 'humanitarian' problems caused by a country's own government. Not as much of a factor in this case since it was a natural disaster, but the government controlled media did not warn the people in time to take proper cover.
Im also sick of being the world's 911 while we have $10 trillion in debt.
- CaptainHenreh - 05-12-2008
*I* say don't give any aid at all. If aid is going to get stolen by a military dictator's regime, then, uh, don't give them any! Will people die? Yup. But maybe then the burmese will grow a pair and throw a tea party, Boston style. We're not going to invade (nobody's even planning to) so this is really kind of moot. At most I'll support SOCOM/SAS giving Than Shwe a .338 belated birthday present.
I say eliminate all foreign aid unless recipient countries agree to adhere to strict distribution and accounting guidelines.
- G.Irish - 05-12-2008
That's a good point Rex. Perhaps a disaster of this scale will motivate the Burmese to overthrow their ignorant and authoritarian government.
I'd also agree that strict auditing and accounting should be attached to any foreign aid.
- Apoc - 05-12-2008
G.Irish Wrote:That's a good point Rex. Perhaps a disaster of this scale will motivate the Burmese to overthrow their ignorant and authoritarian government.
That's a bit simplistic. When protesters are killed, in the hundreds or thousands, every time there's an uprising there's a bit of a barrier to change. They had a free election in '91 and the woman who won was placed under house off an on for the better part of 15 years. It's kinda hard for people who don't have guns to overthrow those with.
- CaptainHenreh - 05-12-2008
Apoc Wrote:It's kinda hard for people who don't have guns to overthrow those with.
Hard? Sure. Impossible? No. Not in the least. But "nation building" has bitten us in the ass too hard too many times for me to support giving guns to people. But that doesn't mean we have to directly support the totalitarian regime.
- G.Irish - 05-12-2008
Apoc Wrote:Sure its a barrier but the Soviet Union collapsed didn't it? And that government killed millions. A disaster of this scale could serve to weaken the ruling junta and incense enough people that they revolt in mass rather than a few thousand protesters in the streets that can be easily squashed.G.Irish Wrote:That's a good point Rex. Perhaps a disaster of this scale will motivate the Burmese to overthrow their ignorant and authoritarian government.
That's a bit simplistic. When protesters are killed, in the hundreds or thousands, every time there's an uprising there's a bit of a barrier to change. They had a free election in '91 and the woman who won was placed under house off an on for the better part of 15 years. It's kinda hard for people who don't have guns to overthrow those with.
- Apoc - 05-12-2008
The SU didn't collapse because of an uprising by the people.
- WRXtranceformed - 05-12-2008
G.Irish Wrote:Apoc Wrote:Sure its a barrier but the Soviet Union collapsed didn't it? And that government killed millions. A disaster of this scale could serve to weaken the ruling junta and incense enough people that they revolt in mass rather than a few thousand protesters in the streets that can be easily squashed.G.Irish Wrote:That's a good point Rex. Perhaps a disaster of this scale will motivate the Burmese to overthrow their ignorant and authoritarian government.
That's a bit simplistic. When protesters are killed, in the hundreds or thousands, every time there's an uprising there's a bit of a barrier to change. They had a free election in '91 and the woman who won was placed under house off an on for the better part of 15 years. It's kinda hard for people who don't have guns to overthrow those with.
If their government collapses due to this disaster, which I think is going to be unlikely, that's their issue whether it be for the better or worse. I'm tired of the US policing the whole world and acting like we're the moral saviors of these people. If you barge into a country that is brazenly run by a military, who happens to not want you there, you're playing with fire. Let them kill off their populace if that's how they want to run their country; if their citizens are unwilling to stand up for themselves then it's going to be a weak post-military controlled country anyway and the military might as well be in control of their lives.
- G.Irish - 05-12-2008
Apoc Wrote:The SU didn't collapse because of an uprising by the people.True, but the point is that it is not impossible for an oppressive regime to either collapse or be overthrown.
Quote:If their government collapses due to this disaster, which I think is going to be unlikely, that's their issue whether it be for the better or worse. I'm tired of the US policing the whole world and acting like we're the moral saviors of these people. If you barge into a country that is brazenly run by a military, who happens to not want you there, you're playing with fire. Let them kill off their populace if that's how they want to run their country; if their citizens are unwilling to stand up for themselves then it's going to be a weak post-military controlled country anyway and the military might as well be in control of their lives.
I agree. I'm tired of the United States ignoring other countries' sovereignty and acting like the world's unilateral mom. If the Burmese don't like their government, let them get rid of it. It is tragic that so many people are going to die as a result of this disaster but that's why it is important to fight for your rights when you can.
- Goodspeed - 05-12-2008
That article is way out in left field. The only part that made sense to me was the military leader stating that it is up to regional powers to intervene militarily and provide aid (Imagine that, the military leader knowing what is smart for the military to do/not do...). It seems the article stems from an idealist school of thought that has resorted to what they hate the most, military power and the exertion of it.
Like it or not, the US will not lift a finger to help Myanmar. First, there are dozens of NGO's that can and are attempting to provide aid. Secondly, Myanmar offers no benefits to the US; we are already in good relations with the only two SE Asian nations that really matter, Singapore and Malaysia. We don't need to exert any sort of soft or hard power in that region, we have little to no economic ties with them, obviously little in-line politically, and so forth. The most we'll ever do to be nice is impose sanctions on them through the UN and get China to wield their regional power through the Security Council as we do with them and N.Korea. Millions of people die every day and it is not our sole job to stop that; a natural disaster is not going to all of a sudden change our stance.
- Maengelito - 05-12-2008
wether or not we should or shouldnt stick our nose in Myanmar, thats not what this is about. Its humanitarian aid that is trying to be delivered to a region affected by natural disaster. It just so happens the ruling party is not allowing it. This is how the US delivers aid, with their military. Its how aid was delivered to the tsunami afflicted region, areas where earthquakes hit cities and even how we delivered aid domestically to victims of Katrina. Its not a show of military force, thats just how we do it.
All this talk of military force and uprisings and whatnot are a seperate topic for discussion and are all opinions.
- WRXtranceformed - 05-12-2008
That article is about forcibly invading Myanmar to push our aid supplies onto the country though Maeng. That government WILL see that as a show of military force, whether we "say" it is or not.
- Maengelito - 05-12-2008
ah, I assumed that excerpt under the linked article was from the article.
I'm just saying that the US delivers aid with its military. Thats a fact. Wether or not we should invade in order to deliver aid, well yeah, thats opinion.
- WRXtranceformed - 05-15-2008
Surprise surprise? Sounds like it's time for the people of that country to stand up for themselves WITHOUT our help:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/05/15/myanmar.ap/index.html">http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/0 ... index.html</a><!-- m -->