AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: Let's Invade Burma
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Never use your military to protect your nation,but use it for Kosovo,Somalia and now Burma? I think these idiots need to watch some old WWII movies or read about Merrill's Marauders or maybe they really don't care about our soldiers after all,like most of us know is factual.




HERE
"Let's Invade Burma"

Uh, do they have oil?
I've got a great idea. Since we have so many eggs in our basket, let's 'sub' out some of these things to other caring and considerate countries. But under NO CIRCUMSTANCES leave it up to the UN, unless you want them to screw things royally.

Let's get some volunteers, such as India, EU, Japan, and perhaps Australia, and let them have the responsibility here. That we we can see who is really doing the best job at reforming these derelect nations.

But we just can't do it all. In fact, let's quit some of the ones we are in now, such as Kosovo. Let the Euros handle that one, if they can. Wink1
I'd agree,except no one has any business invading Burma,IMO.
JohnWho Wrote:"Let's Invade Burma"

Uh, do they have oil?

[Image: tr0308021sb.gif]
At this point it's just nut jobs at Time who are suggesting this ... not elements of our government ... unless you believe Ariana Huffington.

I think it's the Frogs that are pushing the "forced aid" thing. Based on that, I figure the junta is probably just going to go on repackaging the food in their "Big Brother Loves you" boxes, bury the dead and call it a day.

John L. Wrote:But under NO CIRCUMSTANCES leave it up to the UN, unless you want them to screw things royally.

I disagree, let the U.N. do what they are best at ... talking until they are blue in the blue in the face. They don't have airlift John. That's what the world depends on U.S. for ... they can vent all the hot air they want ... but what's going to happen? Do you really think the French are going to take this on by themselves? I realize that the USS Kitty Hawk and the USS Nimitz are close by, but I really don't see us going off on a wild hair. Bush has talked so far in terms of asking permission ... I don't see that changing.
It is just leftist/humanist stupidity and at least Bush isn't much into that. Why any human on earth would think like this is hard to figure,why I am always surprised is another good question because this is just the way lots of people think and I'm old enough to know that.

They don't care for their nation,but they care for people whom they do not know so much they would invade the nation and kill tons of them to save them. Pretty much genius think there.
mr_yak Wrote:I disagree, let the U.N. do what they are best at ... talking until they are blue in the blue in the face. .

Damn, but I like that. May I have permission to use it in the future? :mrgreen:
I read somewhere that China was shipping some aid to Burma.

Burma is on China's border. China relies on Burma for some raw materials, and is trying to develop that relationship. They might not like the US military in Burma.

So, keep the US military out of Burma. We already have one (or 2?) land wars in Asia.

Let Time magazine and other sympathizers recruit a mercenary army.
jt Wrote:Burma is on China's border. China relies on Burma for some raw materials, and is trying to develop that relationship.

Sure. That's what the Chinese are best at ... cultivating 'relationships' with countries like North Korea. However, I'm sure they'll toss a couple of bags of rice over the fence for good measure. Who knows, maybe they'll get a Nobel peace prize out of the deal?

jt Wrote:Let Time magazine and other sympathizers recruit a mercenary army.

Bad idea ... at least for the mercs ... have you ever seen the movie Wild Geese?
Palladin wrote:
Quote:Never use your military to protect your nation,but use it for Kosovo,Somalia and now Burma?

I think it has to do with the Uber Liberal's striving for moral purity, which is selflessness. Not onlyt can't you do something for your own benefit, you can't do something for someone else that also has potential benefit for youself, because the deed is contaminated with selfishness.

Since it is very difficult to think of any national benefit for the US to invade Burma, it is a morally pure proposition. Additionally, Uber Liberals always seek approval from other Uber libs, so it is very important that the rest of the world (that is to say, France and Germany) is onboard.

If you put on your Uber Liberal thinking cap, it all makes perfect sense.

-S
Self absorption + guilt = modern leftist.
JohnWho Wrote:"Let's Invade Burma"

Uh, do they have oil?
---------------------------------
Yes, they have actually. But not much.

Anyway it is a waste of resources to invade Burma (or Myanmar that is the official name).

It will not pay back anything. I don't see any sense in invading Burma.

/track_snake
Yeah, you are probably right -

the environmentalists wouldn't want us digging up flowers to drill for the oil anyway.
Palladin Wrote:Self absorption + guilt = modern leftist.
Here's a good example, if you can stomach it. P. Stephens lubrigates in the FT about the angst of being a good liberal and wanting to invade Burma "in order to help" as opposed to the "realists" who say there is no legal basis for invasion, "it is an internal affair". He comes to no conclusion, and I suppose we are just to admire his moral angst.

He ignores the fact that the EU or the UN could not possibly accomplish the invasion, even if they tried.
jt Wrote:
Palladin Wrote:Self absorption + guilt = modern leftist.
Here's a good example, if you can stomach it. P. Stephens lubrigates in the FT about the angst of being a good liberal and wanting to invade Burma "in order to help" as opposed to the "realists" who say there is no legal basis for invasion, "it is an internal affair". He comes to no conclusion, and I suppose we are just to admire his moral angst.

He ignores the fact that the EU or the UN could not possibly accomplish the invasion, even if they tried.

Yeah, what would they use for an invasion force? They are already trying to hand out welfare parcels.
John L Wrote:
jt Wrote:
Palladin Wrote:Self absorption + guilt = modern leftist.
Here's a good example, if you can stomach it. P. Stephens lubrigates in the FT about the angst of being a good liberal and wanting to invade Burma "in order to help" as opposed to the "realists" who say there is no legal basis for invasion, "it is an internal affair". He comes to no conclusion, and I suppose we are just to admire his moral angst.

He ignores the fact that the EU or the UN could not possibly accomplish the invasion, even if they tried.

Yeah, what would they use for an invasion force? They are already trying to hand out welfare parcels.
--------------------------------------
And I don't understand why we cannot let other people manage themselves even if they are doing stupid things. US cannot afford another Iraq project. Money is needed now to invest in nuclear power, refineries and oil exploration to combat high energy prices.

/track_snake
track_snake Wrote:And I don't understand why we cannot let other people manage themselves even if they are doing stupid things. US cannot afford another Iraq project. Money is needed now to invest in nuclear power, refineries and oil exploration to combat high energy prices.

/track_snake

Exactly my point. Let them correct their own mistakes. And like it or not, they have no startegic value for the US. Sounds heartless, but it's FACT.
John,

You mean Iraq?
Palladin Wrote:John,

You mean Iraq?

Is this thread about Iraq? Somehow, I assumed we were talking about Burma. Of course, I could be wrong.
Pages: 1 2