Is it time to invade Burma?

[simonpro]

Just noticed this article linked through the CNN (yes, I know, CNN) website:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1739053,00.html?cnn=yes


Anyone have opinions on that? Sounds like an absolutely terrible idea IMO

 

[C3PO]

IMHO it's about as useful as ****ing for virginity.

 

[thomasantony]

Hmm.. What would happen if the US unilaterally started dropping food packets from say .. B-2 Spirits ? or F-117s. .

~
Thomas

 

[dutchpirate]

How about a high altitude food and supply drop test that 'accidentally' drifts over Burma.

 

[Usonian]

My guess is that a "humanitarian" invasion will never happen.

Does Burma have vast oil reserves (like the Middle East)? Does Burma's instability threaten to spill over into some portion of the "1st World" (like the Balkans?). Although I confess a shocking lack of geographical knowlege for this part of the world, I am pretty sure the answer to both questions is, "No." There are no vital 1st World interests at stake in Burma.

The recent efforts to aid Indonesia show that 1st World countries will act on purely humanitarian motives - no vital interests there, either. But Indonesia is an open country, and that openess allowed a tidal wave of shocking video images to flood 1st World TVs and PCs, which inspired most of the aid. I could see Americans supporting aid drops, unapproved by the Burmese government, right up until the first plane is shot down - or just shot at.

Pre-emptive Warfare is bad policy, whether the motive is humanitarianism or hunger for oil. Why do people (especially Americans) continue to leap so quickly for a military solution?

 

[jedidia]

Is it time to invade Burma? no. Because if things go on like this, Burmese people will find a way to get rid of their governement.

Or would americans have been happy if the french would have fought the whole revolution for them??

 

[Andy44]

A "coercive humanitarian invasion" is an oxymoron. What stupidity. But it certainly doesn't surprise me that some boneheads would be thinking of this. There are several faults in thinking prevalent worldwide, starting with the notion that you are responsible for everyone else and their problems, as well as the idea that there is a Good War. War is a last resort for defending yourself when there is no other choice. You can't feed people by killing them, unless your objective is to reduce the number of hungry mouths by any means available.

 

[computerex]

My opinion on this is negligible, but to all the people opposing this notion, I would like to ask you to think what you would want if you were in the situation of Burmese people. It's easy to say big words while we are in the comfort of our air conditioned houses with our bellies full and our thirst quenched.

 

[jedidia]

hey, I work in the developement buisness

so, you want to go there guns blazing, kill the bad guys and then what? form a colony? leave them to form their own governement, which they can't since you just snatched away the oportunity for taking responsibility for themselfes from under their noses? Or do you help them to install a governement, which will never get independant from you anyways?

 

[Ghostrider]

We can't invade Burma, the country is under China's sphere of influence. And it's not China's military that pretty much puts a kibosh on any daring plans, but the fact that we Westerners have vital commercial interests that the economical elite will not want jeopardized, period.
And that's all there is to it. I'd love to Wild Geese the Burmese junta, but it's not going to happen. We will sooner sacrifice our firstborn than endanger some shareholders' dividends.
For "we" I intend the Western nations, of course, not "we" as individuals but "we" as individuals have no power to do anything.

 

[Andy44]

My opinion on this is negligible, but to all the people opposing this notion, I would like to ask you to think what you would want if you were in the situation of Burmese people. It's easy to say big words while we are in the comfort of our air conditioned houses with our bellies full and our thirst quenched.

If it's okay to invade Burma to overthrow their tyrant, than it's okay to invade Iran, too, and for the same reason.

That said, I think the U.S. prohibition on privateers and mercenaries should be lifted. If you personally would like to go over there and start some trouble, have at it. As long as you pay for it out of your own pocket and understand you will receive no support from your own government, you would be responsible for whatever happens.

Then you can put your money where your mouth is and find out personally if getting into a gunfight on the other side of the world against people who have never harmed you on behalf of people you don't know is really worth getting killed or mamed or captured and tortured for.

Meanwhile, please leave me with the choice to not participate or pay for your venture.

 

[tl8]

My opinion on this is negligible, but to all the people opposing this notion, I would like to ask you to think what you would want if you were in the situation of Burmese people. It's easy to say big words while we are in the comfort of our air conditioned houses with our bellies full and our thirst quenched.

Computerex, I agree with you there. The US doesn't want to start a war, doesn't want to change the government, Just help the out the people there.

The article doesn't always tell the full story, I heard about a day after the cyclone that the US were thinking about unauthorised air drops. I also doubt that they would be fired upon unless Burma has gotten some decent AA weapons

 

[ryan]

We can just can Sylvestor Stalone with his Rambo stuff, to sneak into burma and flip there heads over, then we will get Chuck Norris in from the west and so on.

 

[SiberianTiger]

No, the better and cheaper solution is to drop a dozen of nukes all over the place to stop their people's suffering. :dry:

Any idea on what the adjacent ASPAC countries think of this problem? ASEAN, perhaps? Does anyone remeber how the rule of Pol Pot was put to end by Vietnamese invasion?

 

[xmariox]

We can just can Sylvestor Stalone with his Rambo stuff, to sneak into burma and flip there heads over, then we will get Chuck Norris in from the west and so on.

Yes Sylvester Stallone with his Rambo in Burma. Famous movie

 

[eveningsky339]

"Humanitarian Invasion"? There's no such thing. People have a tendency to die in wars, and I believe that the countries giving aid are trying to achieve the opposite effect.

Besides, the U.S. is so tied up in the Middle East right now that sending more troops to Asia would be sheer folly, unless we mobilized our marines staying in Japan.

 

[Linguofreak]

Any invasion, if it happened, would likely be more a UN action than a unilateral US action. It would probably be a bad idea, but then again, some of these things only become clear in hindsight, whether they are good ideas or bad...

 

[thomasantony]

No, the better and cheaper solution is to drop a dozen of nukes all over the place to stop their people's suffering. :dry:

Any idea on what the adjacent ASPAC countries think of this problem? ASEAN, perhaps? Does anyone remeber how the rule of Pol Pot was put to end by Vietnamese invasion?

No thanks.

I wouldn't appreciate anyone dropping nukes 2000km from my home town. Or for that matter anywhere there since Myanmar borders India. I am sure our government would have *something* to say or do about it.

We may just decide to put something on the PSLV or the GSLV that shouldn't be there ... and fire it off.

~
Thomas

 

[SiberianTiger]

We may just decide to put something on the PSLV or the GSLV that shouldn't be there ... and fire it off.

~
Thomas

Wouldn't a *G*SLV (intended to carry payload to GEO) be a little overshoot for that? I thought you had Agni or Brahmos for such use.

 

[thomasantony]

Wouldn't a *G*SLV (intended to carry payload to GEO) be a little overshoot for that? I thought you had Agni or Brahmos for such use.

Well Agni ( 3500km for the latest one with 2490kg payload) and Brahmos ( 290km with 200-300kg payload) can only go so far. The PSLV .. or GSLV .. will have the capability to go anywhere in the world right? And with a lot more payload too .. if put on a sub-orbital instead of orbital trajectory.

BTW, a US cargo plane has landed in Myanmar now.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/05/12/myanmar.aid/?iref=mpstoryview

~
Thomas