NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1739053,00.html?cnn=yes

Would you support military intervention to help the people of Burma (Myanmar)?

...no. It's neither my problem nor my country's.

Aye, because having their few working helicopters diverted from delivering aid to being used to transport troops around will help the people of Burma a terrific amount. Right?

After a massive storm has wiped out plenty of the infrastructure? Is that the best time to invade?

I'm all in favor of deposing the malicious regime, but I'm not interested in another Iraq. Considering the terrain, I can imagine loyalists wreaking havoc.

Perhaps. But It would be better to support the Karen and other rebel groups so the people could liberate themselves..

no as it would be a breach of national sovereignty and effectively tell the world "you will take our help or else!"

also why is it every time a nations enters China's sphere of influence it falls to pieces?

also why is it every time a nations enters China's sphere of influence it falls to pieces?


Just coincidence and nothing else. :p

Perhaps. But It would be better to support the Karen and other rebel groups so the people could liberate themselves..
The Karen can't win. That simple. Their people are so utterly destitute that they don't have the strength to rise up, especially against the strongest military in the region.

no but i would support the very illegal flying over and dropping of supplies to the people.

no as it would be a breach of national sovereignty and effectively tell the world "you will take our help or else!"

also why is it every time a nations enters China's sphere of influence it falls to pieces?Governments are there to serve their people. If governments fail this duty, the UNSC can revoke their right to rule. Unfortunately, China will prevent that from happening.

The Karen can't win. That simple. Their people are so utterly destitute that they don't have the strength to rise up, especially against the strongest military in the region.


No not win, but give the Karen the weapons and money they need to at least save themselves. Support other rebel groups also.. Support enough rebel groups that the military junta will be overturned.

Just coincidence and nothing else. :p

damn Chinese glue...

no but i would support the very illegal flying over and dropping of supplies to the people.

wouldn't that be like forcing food down house guests throats?

Governments are there to serve their people. If governments fail this duty, the UNSC can revoke their right to rule. Unfortunately, China will prevent that from happening.

don't forget Russia and (if the UNSC is ever modernized) India

No not win, but give the Karen the weapons and money they need to at least save themselves. Support other rebel groups also.. Support enough rebel groups that the military junta will be overturned.

supporting rebel groups unconditionally leads to Taliban-type governments and I don't really happen to be all that keen on the Maoist rebels

No way chevron has an oil pipeline there it might get damaged.

After a massive storm has wiped out plenty of the infrastructure? Is that the best time to invade?

I'm all in favor of deposing the malicious regime, but I'm not interested in another Iraq. Considering the terrain, I can imagine loyalists wreaking havoc.

Well, yes...
The confusion created by the disaster would make it difficult for them to put up a competent, organized defense.

Do they have oil?

supporting rebel groups unconditionally leads to Taliban-type governments and I don't really happen to be all that keen on the Maoist rebels

Of couse one shouldn't support Maoist rebels. Support the democratic groups or at least support the Karens so they can stop the attack on their people.

Well, yes...
The confusion created by the disaster would make it difficult for them to put up a competent, organized defense.Except they don't need to transport any heavy weapons to Myanmar, whereas an invading force does. The Junta is most likely going to strike from the safety of the jungles, hence the moving of the capital.

Except they don't need to transport any heavy weapons to Myanmar, whereas an invading force does. The Junta is most likely going to strike from the safety of the jungles, hence the moving of the capital.

Good point, I guess I'll have to call off my invasion plans...

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1739053,00.html?cnn=yes

Would you support military intervention to help the people of Burma (Myanmar)?

No oil.

/discussion.

Would you support military intervention to help the people of Burma (Myanmar)?

Not directly. However aid to the Karen and local resistance groups would get the thumbs up from me.

wouldn't that be like forcing food down house guests throats?


no it would be like sneaking candy to the kids of the food nazi family.

Good point, I guess I'll have to call off my invasion plans...The other question would be, why would you want to invade? It can't be to help the people, because during doing it during a crisis like this is going to guarantee that no help gets through even more than the current government.

no but i would support the very illegal flying over and dropping of supplies to the people.

^this^

The other question would be, why would you want to invade? It can't be to help the people, because during doing it during a crisis like this is going to guarantee that no help gets through even more than the current government.

Just because they're weak, or at least that's what my reason would be...


The whole concept of "let's invade them to help them out" is rather bizarre to me.

Do they have oil?

No oil.

erm...

Of couse one shouldn't support Maoist rebels. Support the democratic groups or at least support the Karens so they can stop the attack on their people.

why fight a doomed battle? I have better ways to throw money away

no it would be like sneaking candy to the kids of the food nazi family.

so you can encourage poor health and if your really unlucky discover their diabetic :eek:

*tells police Ashmoria has been grooming me again*

Do they have oil?

Oil - proved reserves 1.963 billion bbl (2007 est.)



they have oil so, we can invade burma.

they have oil we can invade.
Don't be silly. You can't invade oil.
they have oil so, we can invade burma.
The comma alone would have done the trick.

No not win, but give the Karen the weapons and money they need to at least save themselves. Support other rebel groups also.. Support enough rebel groups that the military junta will be overturned.
Uhu...

The more they fight back, the more we stand a chance of another Saddam-on-the-Kurds type end to the whole thing.

Don't be silly. You can't invade oil.

lol

No oil.

/discussion.
They have both oil and natural gas. And the junta is using it just as you might excpect (http://interact.newint.org/blog/dinyar-godrej/burma-billion-dollar-con).

They have both oil and natural gas. And the junta is using it just as you might excpect (http://interact.newint.org/blog/dinyar-godrej/burma-billion-dollar-con).

disagree with this bit from the article.

The only thing we can be certain of is that they are safely locked away from the people of Burma, to whom they rightly belong

those oil revenues belong to the companies that pumped them out of the ground (if American owned) first before they belong to anyone else.

I'm all in favor of deposing the malicious regime, but I'm not interested in another Iraq. Considering the terrain, I can imagine loyalists wreaking havoc.
This IS Burma we're talking here. All the hidey holes are already occupied by previous governments and guerillas of one sort or another. There's probably some sort of rota for who gets which damp jungle cave.

disagree with this bit from the article.


those oil revenues belong to the companies that pumped them out of the ground (if American owned) first before they belong to anyone else.:rolleyes:

no but i would support the very illegal flying over and dropping of supplies to the people.

^this^

That would be the easiest method. Do you also support combat air patrols that would go a long with it? There would be a 50/50 chance of US fighters shooting down a Mynamar plane. Would you be alright with a few Mynamar Air force pilots getting killed in the process?

This IS Burma we're talking here. All the hidey holes are already occupied by previous governments and guerillas of one sort or another. There's probably some sort of rota for who gets which damp jungle cave.

yeah but the goverment has several former rebel groups on its side. by mainly letting them grow sell opium. it would be a mess. some rebels groups would help use others would help the goverment. we would just have to kill everyone and start getting the oil ourselves.

That would be the easiest method. Do you also support combat air patrols that would go a long with it? There would be a 50/50 chance of US fighters shooting down a Mynamar plane. Would you be alright with a few Mynamar Air force pilots getting killed in the process?
I'm sure that the USAF would have no problems with the Burmese. Or the RAF. Or anyone outside of its nearby rivals.

And aye, bit of a shame about the Myanmar Air Force pilots, but you'd probably be overall saving lives, although, that said, the Burmese regime might just go mental all over the place, which is a Bad State Of Affairs.

No. We have had enough military misadventures for the rest of this century, no need to have another one.

No. We have had enough military misadventures for the rest of this century, no need to have another one.

but the century is jsut getting started. and we haven't nuked anything yet.

but the century is jsut getting started. and we haven't nuked anything yet.

Aye the century is young.

Aye the century is young.

exactly we need plenty more military misadventures and at least one nuking of a country to ashes.

exactly we need plenty more military misadventures and at least one nuking of a country to ashes.
Uhu.... why?

I'm not sure that direct military action is such a great idea in this case. A trade embargo would be ideal but there's no way that you could get China, India and Asean to go along with it - the incentive to violate it would be massive.

Uhu.... why?

To catch up with last century?

exactly we need plenty more military misadventures and at least one nuking of a country to ashes.

I call Iran.

Uhu.... why?Because trolling provides cheap entertainment to the troll?

I'm not sure that direct military action is such a great idea in this case. A trade embargo would be ideal but there's no way that you could get China, India and Asean to go along with it - the incentive to violate it would be massive.

How exactly is a trade embargo going to help Myanmar's citizenry?



Also; Asean? WTF is Asean?

Also; Asean? WTF is Asean?
The South Asian trading bloc IIRC.

How exactly is a trade embargo going to help Myanmar's citizenry?



Also; Asean? WTF is Asean?

Trade with China, India and the rest of Myanmar's neighbours isn't exactly helping the citizenry of the country either.

Asean is a free trade group consisting of South East Asian nations. They refused to allow Myanmar entry for many years but relented to get a slice of the trade that India and China were enjoying.

but the century is jsut getting started. and we haven't nuked anything yet.

Oh, boy.

The South Asian trading bloc IIRC.

The Association of South-East Asian Nations to be exact. Myanmar is a member.

The South Asian trading bloc IIRC.

Trade with China, India and the rest of Myanmar's neighbours isn't exactly helping the citizenry of the country either.

Asean is a free trade group consisting of South East Asian nations. They refused to allow Myanmar entry for many years but relented to get a slice of the trade that India and China were enjoying.

The Association of South-East Asian Nations to be exact. Myanmar is a member.

Thank you

wouldn't that be like forcing food down house guests throats? well, if they open their mouths really, really wide and our aim is good enough...

I'm not sure that direct military action is such a great idea in this case. A trade embargo would be ideal but there's no way that you could get China, India and Asean to go along with it - the incentive to violate it would be massive.

trade embargo.. yes, let's cut off trade and supplies untill they let us in with supplies...

I say we sit back and let the UN handle it. after all, they say they have all the answers...

trade embargo.. yes, let's cut off trade and supplies untill they let us in with supplies...

Is that a reference to the cyclone relief aid?

Is that a reference to the cyclone relief aid?

yep.

I remember hearing something about the Gov confiscating the aid packages being sent in... but that was in passing so I might be wrong about that...

and also, trade embargos have worked soo well in the past...

The way I see it, the Burmese government has no source of legitimacy. It was created in a military coup rather than a hand-over from some sort of legitimate government. It's certainly not by the people or for them. It is quite literally just a bunch of people with guns, no different to any other armed gang.

So if there is an accident somewhere, and a thug tries to stop the ambulance from getting there, what do you think the police will do to that thug?

So I support aid drops and the establishment of safe zones where aid can be distributed. You don't need an invasion, just the aid teams accompanied by teams of troops, relatively light equipment and lots of air support. I can't imagine many Burmese soldiers on the ground where it actually counts (ie the river delta and that area) actually shooting at people distributing aid. And if they do, they'll get killed. The infrastructure doesn't allow the Burmese military to move into the area properly anyways, and if they try a few air strikes can hold them back until the situation is at least somewhat stabilised. Then the aid teams and troops can withdraw.

Really, what's the alternative? I heard the Burmese visa office is now off on a three-day holiday and there'll be no more visas for aid workers during that time. What gives those idiots the right to decide the fate of hundreds of thousands of people? If all they have on their side is guns, then we've got them too.

The way I see it, the Burmese government has no source of legitimacy. It was created in a military coup rather than a hand-over from some sort of legitimate government. It's certainly not by the people or for them. It is quite literally just a bunch of people with guns, no different to any other armed gang. and the military held it. so it can be considered a legitimate Government.

So I support aid drops and the establishment of safe zones where aid can be distributed. You don't need an invasion, just the aid teams accompanied by teams of troops, relatively light equipment and lots of air support. err... you realize that by crossing into another nation's borders with armed troops you are in effect performing an invasion. moreso since they will have 'air support'.
I can't imagine many Burmese soldiers on the ground where it actually counts (ie the river delta and that area) actually shooting at people distributing aid. And if they do, they'll get killed. that kinda thinking sounds like Vietnam.
The infrastructure doesn't allow the Burmese military to move into the area properly anyways, yet they will move easier and faster than strangers like those aid transports with your armed troops for escort.
and if they try a few air strikes can hold them back until the situation is at least somewhat stabilised. Then the aid teams and troops can withdraw. err... airstrikes where friendlies are mixed in? can you say "Aid Convoy hit by Friendly Fire"?

Really, what's the alternative? I heard the Burmese visa office is now off on a three-day holiday and there'll be no more visas for aid workers during that time. What gives those idiots the right to decide the fate of hundreds of thousands of people? If all they have on their side is guns, then we've got them too. the fact that they took over the country with a military coup and held on to it... that gives them the right.

you bring in guns from outside and you are either 1) inciting a civil war or 2) invading (if troops come with those guns)

yep.

I remember hearing something about the Gov confiscating the aid packages being sent in... but that was in passing so I might be wrong about that...

and also, trade embargos have worked soo well in the past...

Thats the problem with trade with Myanmar just now - all trade is performed with the junta for the benefit of the junta. When an aid agency attempts to do operate outisde of the junta it confiscates the aid. They don't want aid or the benefits from trade to go to people who oppose the government so all trade will simply end up supporting the current government.

As for the previous record of economic sanctions - they have to be unilateral to be effective. They never have been unilateral due to the incentive to violate them, but I already made that point.

No not win, but give the Karen the weapons and money they need to at least save themselves. Support other rebel groups also.. Support enough rebel groups that the military junta will be overturned.

Only to be replaced with what? Another military junta?

Let's face it. Most of the time, rebel groups are just as bad as the government they're rebelling against. Only in truly rare cases, such as the American Revolution or the French Resistance can we really say that the rebel groups are actually the morally superior side(or at the very least won't be worse if they took power.)

The acts of the government of Myanmar are depraved and absolutely disgusting when over 100,000 of their own citizens have perished, but there is nothing we can do about it. Even if we decided to invade--a crappy idea at best--we don't have the military capacity at this point, and you know you're not going to be able to sell the European Union on another invasion plan.

As for the previous record of economic sanctions - they have to be unilateral to be effective. They never have been unilateral due to the incentive to violate them, but I already made that point.

actually, my thought against ES is that it only works if the government actually cares for all of it's people. if they don't give a rat's shit about the poor (like the Junta) then all they will do is block/limit whatever supplies will be going to the poor or just take more from them.

the poor and downtrodden (the ones we supposidly want to help) suffer the greatest during the economic sanctions.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1739053,00.html?cnn=yes

Would you support military intervention to help the people of Burma (Myanmar)?

Oh yes, after a giant hurricane which killed nearly 100,000 people and destroyed 90% of infrastructure in the South, the US should invade to try and defeat a country with a massive and modern army in which every iota of the economy gets channeled into military spending, costly the lives of thousands of soldiers and wrecking the country just so you can 'liberate' the survivors and give them 'humanitarian aid'.... Yeah great idea....:rolleyes:

How exactly is a trade embargo going to help Myanmar's citizenry?




right now the goverment seems to have an embargo between its people and food so I don't think it will change anything for them, just force their goverment out of power.

The South Asian trading bloc IIRC.

That'll be SAARC. The most useless grouping of nations currently in the world.

The Karen can't win. That simple. Their people are so utterly destitute that they don't have the strength to rise up, especially against the strongest military in the region.
That'll be news to China and India. Heck even to Thailand.

those oil revenues belong to the companies that pumped them out of the ground (if American owned) first before they belong to anyone else.

Because oil companies never use dodgy buisness deals to screw people. Like in Nicaragua, Cuba, Guatemala, DRC or the US.

A country's natural resources belong to that country. If they wish to democratise those industries (nationalise) that is their perogative. If they wish private, external tyrannies to continue supporting dictators and starting wars to keep control of resources they stole from the country, that is also their perogative.

To the OP: any invasion of Burma does not make rational sense. Should we kill them until they agree to stop killing each other?

Admittedly, humanitarian intervention did work in Cambodia, and Pakistan, but those were different places. The government was committing significantly worse acts, and the invading countries were close by, with a similar ethnic make-up. And even then it was long and bloody in Cambodia.

The choice is between a long and bloody war that will kill hundreds of thousands, or a government that will allow however many to die. In the case of Cambodia, that was millions, and therefore the war was less bloody than the peace. In the case of Burma and Darfur, it is the other way around.

In the meantime, the most important thing the American elite can do for South East Asia is pay the reparations due to South Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, admit their support for the most brutal tyrant of the 20th century (Pol Pott) and then withdraw their economic control of those countries. Then they can withdraw the cigarette sales they have forced on those nations, an act which is estimated to kill 2 million a year by 2020, or the greatest cause of death in world.

"Is it time to invade ______?"
The answer is always no.

Remember also that Burma is essentially a vassal state of China, similar (but to a lesser degree) to North Korea. Thus it is a diplomatically unpalatable option to invade Burma. Better is to simply fund the opposition within Burma. Much like USA funded the the insurgents in soviet-occupied Afghanistan. Stuff like that never comes back to bite you in the arse.

If there is any consistent lesson, it is to stay out of the affairs of other countries. If you disagree with a country, avoid them- don't trade with them, and especially don't entangle yourself into a costly invasion of them.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1739053,00.html?cnn=yes

Would you support military intervention to help the people of Burma (Myanmar)?

sure. why not?

The answer is not always no.

If a nation is threatening it's neighbours, destabilizing it's region, supporting external terrorism - these are reasons to do so.

If a nation is murdering it's own citizens by the truckload in a genocidal or ethnicidal spree - this is a good reason to do so.

To stabilize and restore a nation that has dissolved into warlordism and factional violence - this is a reason to do so.

And of course, if a nation attacks you, or commits any of the other actions that compose the internationally accepted Acts of War, there is no real question.

But Burma has done none of these things. They are fighting the Karen - but the Karen are trying to steal part of Burma, so the Burmese government is entitled to do that. Otherwise, while they are unpleasent, stupid, hateful, murderous bastards, the Junta has kept it's actions to it's own sandbox, and we have no valid reason to invade them.

sure. why not?

Because by the end of such a war you'd be wondering what would be left fighting for.

I think it's the height of ignorance and arrogance that the white-middle class armchair Generals on this thread think that the Burmese people deserve a crushing war just after 100,000 of their number are dead, 90% of their southern infrastructure is destroyed, and they are generally ravaged all-around.

Go back to Red Alert 2 and play war kids, this is RL we are discussing.

and the military held it. so it can be considered a legitimate Government.
I'm not gonna go into the whole "could it work" stuff, because quite frankly neither of us has enough information to say (and at any rate the preparation would take more time than is really available). More interesting is the idea that because the Junta happens to call itself a "government", we'd somehow be less justified in going over their heads than if the gangs in LA stopped aid from reaching a disaster zone that happens to be in their part of town.

So why do you think that might is right, and they have legitimacy by virtue of having been able to fight off other gangs?

I'm not sure that direct military action is such a great idea in this case. A trade embargo would be ideal but there's no way that you could get China, India and Asean to go along with it - the incentive to violate it would be massive.

you'd put a trade embargo on a country that just suffered a horrific natural disaster? that's pretty low.

Is It Time to Invade Myanmar?

There is no Myanmar. There are no Myanmar people or Myanmar nation. They're Burmese, from Burma. :)

I'm not saying we should occupy Burma (we're spread pretty thin in Iraq and Afghanistan as it is) but providing armed escorts for food, medical, building material, etc. aid so the military can't swipe it is a good idea. If a few military units get in the way and get wiped out, TS for them.

I don't know enough about the Karen to say they'd be better than the Burmese military junta, but they're probably not worse. If they're willing to help with the humanitarian aid, sure, let them.

That'll be news to China and India. Heck even to Thailand.
Outside of China and India, they're the strongest in the region.

I don't know enough about the Karen to say they'd be better than the Burmese military junta, but they're probably not worse. If they're willing to help with the humanitarian aid, sure, let them.
Uhu...

Giving repressed ethnic groups all of the power overly quickly is not a good idea. Needs to happen slowly, or bad things start to happen - see the Balkan crisis after Yugoslavia broke up.

What the hell is Myanmar?
Do you mean Burma?

No. It's neither my concern, nor that of my country, to police the world.

What with Burma being ruled by a Military Junta and up to 1.5 million Burmese going to die is it time to step in? But if we did what would China do? Should we take advantage of the oil there? What are your opinions on the matter?

http://www.groundreport.com/World/Would-Military-Intervention-By-The-US-Into-Myanmar

I think we should fly bombers over Burma and drop bottled water and food. HOWEVER we should not fire on the Burmese military unless fired on first and as soon as the situation is stabilized we should get out of there. Our aims should be to proved aid not start a pro-western coup.

Do nothing, and allow the rest of the world to arrange it's own affairs.

perhaps ms rice (or even laura bush) should be talking to the president of china to get THEM to pressure the myanmar govt to let relief workers in.

it would be a great time for china to polish up its image in time for the olympics.

I think we should fly bombers over Burma and drop bottled water and food.

There are issues including misrepresentation of action; flying bombers over a country has generally been to drop things more violent and more destructive than bottles of water and food. Besides, the only military in the world with the bomber force with the capability to do this is the United States ... well, perhaps the Russian Federation, but their strategic bomber force is in shambles, smaller and they are probably unwilling to use the little aircraft they have in one piece to drop water bottles. In any case, would the food and water survive the fall from such an altitude? And, if the Burmese government doesn't want to allow it then the action is no different from shipping the humanitarian aid to their ports - it would still be an illegal violation of their air space.

Unless the world has an economic interest in a country, the chances of helping the country with humanitarian aid are low. In fact, even if the country is of economic importance most of the time countries will turn a blind-eye in favor of continuing favorable economics (e.g. Nigeria has been plagued by guerillas fighting to liberate the country from the corrupt military dictatorship it has now, but no country has an interest in helping these guerillas given that the current government favors Western drilling of Nigerian oil, like France's Total).

It's rediculous, in my opinion. Countries like Spain (where I live) claim to deploy to Lebanon, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Afghanistan for the sake of providing humanitarian aid and peace, and yet they have not established these two goals in any of these three countries - in fact, Lebanon is now almost in a state of civil war, again, and Afghanistan can barely be stabilized by the nations actually doing the work (Denmark, the United States and the United Kingdom). Then you have countries like Burma, which are justified for humanitarian missions to establish peace, and no country is willing to step in and offer their help. The only response should be a hostile elimination of the current government by force of arms and the establishment of fair democratic elections, overseen by an international military force composed of troops from nations that have established working democracies.

perhaps ms rice (or even laura bush) should be talking to the president of china to get THEM to pressure the myanmar govt to let relief workers in.

it would be a great time for china to polish up its image in time for the olympics.

It's not in China's interets to do so from an economic standpoint, given that the Burmese government has allowed Chinese business to expand unrestricted inside the country. In fact, Burma is one of the few countries in Souteast Asia which caters exclusively to Beijing, while Vietnam, Thailand and Laos have been moving towards the United States and Europe in terms of trade and investment. China even overlooked Myanmar's establishment of relations with North Korea for the sake of continuing healthy economic relations with the only real anti-American ally in the region. It should be noted that it has been China that has refused to side with the United Nations and pressure Burman to release Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the democratic movement (and Nobel Peace Prize recipient).

- Jon Catalán

Much like USA funded the the insurgents in soviet-occupied Afghanistan. Stuff like that never comes back to bite you in the arse.



I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but funding the Afghan rebels certainly did bite us in the arse when we invaded Afghanistan and realized they hadn't thrown out all the weapons and cash we gave them.

and Afghanistan can barely be stabilized by the nations actually doing the work (Denmark, the United States and the United Kingdom).
*starts crying, since he's from Holland* I feel so unappreciated, whyyyy world!
The only response should be a hostile elimination of the current government by force of arms and the establishment of fair democratic elections, overseen by an international military force composed of troops from nations that have established working democracies.
Before you should consider doing that, you have to ask yourself a few things:
Does it really help?
What would show that it indeed helps.

Especially the latter is imporant. We've tried several times (for whatever reason), but did it help? Would Westren-style politics even fít in such a country, boom from a military dictatorship to a representative democracy. Is it even possible to do that and end up with a stable and improved government? And again, what would show that that would be possible.

*starts crying, since he's from Holland* I feel so unappreciated, whyyyy world!

I apologize; for some reason I have an issue with mixing up Denmark and 'the Dutch', and so when I mean the Netherlands it comes out as Denmark due to the adjective name. OTOH, both countries have sent combat units to Afghanistan, so both should be mentioned.

Again, I apologize!

We've tried several times (for whatever reason), but did it help?

Which countries? Each time we've tried there have been different factors which have decided success or failure, and most of the time it's due to contradicting true reasons we've tried. For example, in Iraq IMO a successful democracy could be established, but it has not really been a priority given the amount of corruption there has been between the Iraqi government, the U.S. government and the reconstruction companies hired by both governments which have stolen billions of U.S. dollars (unfortunately, online resources mostly offer evidence in a case-by-case scenario and most of the information came from a documentary played here in Spain on the issue).

But, I rather not get into an argument over Iraq, since it's irrelevant - it was simply meant to illustrate a point. Use any example you feel is correct.

Would Westren-style politics even fít in such a country, boom from a military dictatorship to a representative democracy.

Certainly, I wouldn't expect a change overnight, but it wouldn't be the first time there has been a change like this - even in countries with no previous examples of democracy. This includes German (I think the Weigar Republic is a poor representation of 'former democracy'), Japan and to-an-extent Thailand. Even Vietnam, a country in which the United States failed to keep the Republic of South Vietnam standing, is now theoritically a capitalist state, although in regards to government they aren't perhaps a democracy (but the transition can be seen).

The issue is staying the course until the country has been forced through the transition. This was the issue in both Germany and Japan, which had large U.S. contingents to oversee the process (whether directly or indirectly), and South Korea, as well. If there is a peacekeeping contingent in Burma, which can actually peacekeep (i.e. not a UN force), that can successfully 'occupy' the country and force democratic elections and oversee them I think Burma can be set on the right course. But, again, I think there is a lack of interest for this course of action because no other nation that has the capabilities to do so really has the interest - especially taking into consideration the importance of China to the world's economy, and China's obvious attitude over the matter.

- Jon Catalán

Limit for signatures is 8 lines, not 16.

hey I did my part, I smote them with a cyclone for their sins. if you want more than that its up to you...oh yeah... I also gave some of the top generals cancer.

There are issues including misrepresentation of action; flying bombers over a country has generally been to drop things more violent and more destructive than bottles of water and food. Besides, the only military in the world with the bomber force with the capability to do this is the United States ... well, perhaps the Russian Federation, but their strategic bomber force is in shambles, smaller and they are probably unwilling to use the little aircraft they have in one piece to drop water bottles. In any case, would the food and water survive the fall from such an altitude? And, if the Burmese government doesn't want to allow it then the action is no different from shipping the humanitarian aid to their ports - it would still be an illegal violation of their air space.

Unless the world has an economic interest in a country, the chances of helping the country with humanitarian aid are low. In fact, even if the country is of economic importance most of the time countries will turn a blind-eye in favor of continuing favorable economics (e.g. Nigeria has been plagued by guerillas fighting to liberate the country from the corrupt military dictatorship it has now, but no country has an interest in helping these guerillas given that the current government favors Western drilling of Nigerian oil, like France's Total).

It's rediculous, in my opinion. Countries like Spain (where I live) claim to deploy to Lebanon, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Afghanistan for the sake of providing humanitarian aid and peace, and yet they have not established these two goals in any of these three countries - in fact, Lebanon is now almost in a state of civil war, again, and Afghanistan can barely be stabilized by the nations actually doing the work (Denmark, the United States and the United Kingdom). Then you have countries like Burma, which are justified for humanitarian missions to establish peace, and no country is willing to step in and offer their help. The only response should be a hostile elimination of the current government by force of arms and the establishment of fair democratic elections, overseen by an international military force composed of troops from nations that have established working democracies.

So are we just going to LET genocide happen? Thats what this is! The government is refusing to allow aid in so I say we drop it in ourselves.
Why not use tactical transports escorted by fighters? Of course it will never happen because Brown and Bush are too concerned about Iraq and Afghanistan, however one can wish.

What makes Burma different to some of the other places that have had interventions, is that there are not that many of the population who like the generals.

Like it or not, Saddam was popular with a lot of his people. If you weren't on his black list, he did good things for his country. It was secular, probably only second to Israel in regards to rights for women, access to education, etc. Vietnam was also a case of the US propping up a very unpopular leader.

Burma actually would welcome the troops as liberating heroes.

So are we just going to LET genocide happen?

It wouldn't be the first time; in fact, in wouldn't be the first time governments have looked the other way in the interests of economic contracts, et cetera (Rwanda, for example). Unfortunately, little in global politics actually revolves around being humanitarian.

Why not use tactical transports escorted by fighters? Of course it will never happen because Brown and Bush are too concerned about Iraq and Afghanistan, however one can wish.

The issue is that this is basically a decleration of war, and all Western countries have interests regarding not crossing China in their backyard, especially given the Burmese-Chinese political and economic relationship I described in an above post.

- Jon Catalán

It's not in China's interets to do so from an economic standpoint, given that the Burmese government has allowed Chinese business to expand unrestricted inside the country. In fact, Burma is one of the few countries in Souteast Asia which caters exclusively to Beijing, while Vietnam, Thailand and Laos have been moving towards the United States and Europe in terms of trade and investment. China even overlooked Myanmar's establishment of relations with North Korea for the sake of continuing healthy economic relations with the only real anti-American ally in the region. It should be noted that it has been China that has refused to side with the United Nations and pressure Burman to release Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the democratic movement (and Nobel Peace Prize recipient).

- Jon Catalán

of course its in their interest. they are burma's big brother. as such it is their DUTY to lead them toward their own best interest--allowing foreign aid and workers--and their big brother's best interest--looking like the good guy to the rest of the world.

Outside of China and India, they're the strongest in the region.

Yes, their Air Force, comprised solely of vintage WWII planes, is especially impressive.

of course its in their interest. they are burma's big brother. as such it is their DUTY to lead them toward their own best interest--allowing foreign aid and workers--and their big brother's best interest--looking like the good guy to the rest of the world.

Sorry, but I think you've missed my point. A more democratic government may be more open to accepting investment from the United States and Europe, while this government is not and caters exclusively to China. As a consequence, politically and economically it's of interest to China to maintain the current regime.

- Jon Catalán

Sorry, but I think you've missed my point. A more democratic government may be more open to accepting investment from the United States and Europe, while this government is not and caters exclusively to China. As a consequence, politically and economically it's of interest to China to maintain the current regime.

- Jon Catalán

perhaps you misunderstand ME.

im not thinking that china should work to change the government in burma. as you say, that is NOT in their best interest. but china has great influence with the generals. they should talk to them and make them understand that its time to let foreign relief workers in.

its a good thing Burma has started playing nice then (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7394410.stm)

I don't care myself at best its a regional issue and certainly not an issue of western governments getting involved because we know better

- Jon Catalán

:confused:

Because by the end of such a war you'd be wondering what would be left fighting for.

I think it's the height of ignorance and arrogance that the white-middle class armchair Generals on this thread think that the Burmese people deserve a crushing war just after 100,000 of their number are dead, 90% of their southern infrastructure is destroyed, and they are generally ravaged all-around.

Go back to Red Alert 2 and play war kids, this is RL we are discussing.

Aye lets do as they do in real life, sit around discussing things.

See Bosnia, Rwanda and Zimbabwe for examples

Lets not intervene , after all the west will merely screw everything up like it did in Indonesia, Sri lanka in Jan 2005, or in Pakistan in 2005

In fact when the begging bowls come round for the next natural disaster , lets just nuke the place, after all that will have the same effect, and the people will suffer less as a result.

they should talk to them and make them understand that its time to let foreign relief workers in.

Ah, ok, yes I misunderstood what you were saying.

- Jon Catalán

Ah, ok, yes I misunderstood what you were saying.

- Jon Catalán

do you pronounce your name HHon?

do you pronounce your name HHon?

I actually have dual-citizenship and was born in San Diego, so I pronounce my name like it sounds in English and my last name like it sounds in Spanish. :p Although, I've been pronouncing it more like the French 'Jean' lately.

I actually have dual-citizenship and was born in San Diego, so I pronounce my name like it sounds in English and my last name like it sounds in Spanish. :p Although, I've been pronouncing it more like the French 'Jean' lately.

ahhh ok. i never met a spanish "jon". although there IS a town in eastern new mexico called "san jon" but i never stopped to ask how they pronounce it.

I think it's a great pity that Myanmar's government refused aid at first; I don't think we should make them accept it at gunpoint.

UN, step up to the plate, please.

Admittedly, the United Nations has tried to get Burma to release several political prisoners and has tried to persuade the leadership to open the country to humanitarian aid, but neither is the Burmese government apparently willing to listen nor is the Chinese government willing to aid (and have publically acted against United Nations interests). And, to be honest, the United Nations doesn't have the heart nor the capacity to do anything that the other party doesn't agree to, unless there are serious forces acting on their own accord and in their own interests, which I think in this case there are not.

Admittedly, the United Nations has tried to get Burma to release several political prisoners and has tried to persuade the leadership to open the country to humanitarian aid, but neither is the Burmese government apparently willing to listen nor is the Chinese government willing to aid (and have publically acted against United Nations interests). And, to be honest, the United Nations doesn't have the heart nor the capacity to do anything that the other party doesn't agree to, unless there are serious forces acting on their own accord and in their own interests, which I think in this case there are not.

True, but I very seriously do NOT want the United States to be expected to go in there like gangbusters, nor the United Kingdom, nor anyone else.

The United Nations should be the ones handling the negotiations/ offering the aid -- no single nation should be sitting on the border saying, "Take the help or we're coming in."

The United Nations should be the ones handling the negotiations/ offering the aid -- no single nation should be sitting on the border saying, "Take the help or we're coming in."

And somone should have stopped Hitler.

It's time for Colonialism people!

Send in the Royal Navy, RAF and Army and smash their evil government and save the people.

*insert obligatory 'Colonialism is right' rant here*

:D

And somone should have stopped Hitler.

It's time for Colonialism people!

Send in the Royal Navy, RAF and Army and smash their evil government and save the people.

Funny, I thought that was what World War II was -- many many somebodies (you know -- the world) stopping Hitler. Are you reading a different history book from mine, or are you honestly just writing a caricature of what you think the proper British attitude circa 1850 is?

Funny, I thought that was what World War II was -- many many somebodies (you know -- the world) stopping Hitler. Are you reading a different history book from mine, or are you honestly just writing a caricature of what you think the proper British attitude circa 1850 is?

no, someone should've stopped Hitler in 1923 or earlier. Sorry that wasn't clear. And WWII should never have needed to happen.

The United Nations should be the ones handling the negotiations/ offering the aid -- no single nation should be sitting on the border saying, "Take the help or we're coming in."

I agree; what do you think about the European Union? Although, it seems unlikely that the European Union would actually step up and do it, but it's an option.

no it would be like sneaking candy to the kids of the food nazi family.

Bad example. Sneaking candy to diabetic kids, bad.
Sneaking wheat products to celiac kids, bad.
Sneaking nuts to kids with diverticulitis, bad.

I'm not gonna go into the whole "could it work" stuff, because quite frankly neither of us has enough information to say (and at any rate the preparation would take more time than is really available). More interesting is the idea that because the Junta happens to call itself a "government", we'd somehow be less justified in going over their heads than if the gangs in LA stopped aid from reaching a disaster zone that happens to be in their part of town.

So why do you think that might is right, and they have legitimacy by virtue of having been able to fight off other gangs?

Not all governments are democracies, not all government are benign, and not all governments care about their people.

Don't forget, the USA wrestled it's freedom with force of arms. does that make us no better than those gangs you speak of?

Just because you don't agree with their 'government' doesn't mean you can just waltz in with your troops. Iraq should've been the lession in that.

Not all governments are democracies, not all government are benign, and not all governments care about their people.
And what does that make them? I'm saying that sovereignty is an enormously powerful thing. It basically puts millions of people at your unconditional mercy.

So it only seems natural to ask just where sovereignty comes from, and why the Burmese generals should have it.

Don't forget, the USA wrestled it's freedom with force of arms. does that make us no better than those gangs you speak of?
The US is very much ruled by the people, for the people. There are lots of elections in which people can have their say.

Just because you don't agree with their 'government' doesn't mean you can just waltz in with your troops. Iraq should've been the lession in that.
Iraq was a very different form of waltzing. I don't want to conquer Burma or overthrow its government, I just want aid distributed - and unfortunately it may be necessary to protect such operations against the Burmese military.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1739053,00.html?cnn=yes

Would you support military intervention to help the people of Burma (Myanmar)?
No. As much of a fan as I am chewing gum and kicking ass, I don't think an invasion would help right now. Probably would make it worse.

Perhaps. But It would be better to support the Karen and other rebel groups so the people could liberate themselves..
Looks like a job for USASF...

Why don't we drop supplies and aid on the Burmese? Everyone's happy then.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1739053,00.html?cnn=yes

Would you support military intervention to help the people of Burma (Myanmar)?Yes I am all for invasion because we must bomb the people in order to help them. Look how much good the Iraq invasion has done to for the Iraqis. Personally I would love to be bombed after a Natural disaster that has killed 10's of thousands or maybe even hundreds of thousands of my fellow countryman.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1739053,00.html?cnn=yes

Would you support military intervention to help the people of Burma (Myanmar)?

Only if the people request help

True, but I very seriously do NOT want the United States to be expected to go in there like gangbusters, nor the United Kingdom, nor anyone else.

The United Nations should be the ones handling the negotiations/ offering the aid -- no single nation should be sitting on the border saying, "Take the help or we're coming in."

Go figure...the UN is always sticking their nose in things.

:headbang: Um no...

I think we've learned that we are not capable of doing any good by invading/liberating a country. See Iraq, Vietnam, the Philippines, etc., etc., etc. as references. They don't want us there, and until the majority wants us there and we've agreed upon terms of our stay there, then there is nothing that we should or could do there.

And what does that make them? I'm saying that sovereignty is an enormously powerful thing. It basically puts millions of people at your unconditional mercy. that doesn't stop them from being legit Governments
So it only seems natural to ask just where sovereignty comes from, and why the Burmese generals should have it. you did ask, and I answered "because they took control and they held on to control. As long as they hold control, they are the government.

The US is very much ruled by the people, for the people. There are lots of elections in which people can have their say. one form of 'government'. when England's Queen held control, does that mean England didn't have a Government in place? what about when Alexander The Great had his Empire?

Iraq was a very different form of waltzing. I don't want to conquer Burma or overthrow its government, I just want aid distributed - and unfortunately it may be necessary to protect such operations against the Burmese military.
and that's probably why Burma is giving permission in trickels and keeping tight control. because you never know when some other goverment might deem an 'overthrow' to be 'necessary'.

such control is their right and what the other countries are doing is perfectly fine. to keep asking and pressuring Myramar to allow more aid in. they cannot force their way in and they have to abide by the rules that the Burmese Goverment sets down.

This thread gets an :rolleyes:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1739053,00.html?cnn=yes

Would you support military intervention to help the people of Burma (Myanmar)?

Great idea, seeing how the last "invasions to help the people there" have fared so far. Afghanistan and Iraq, anyone?

Great idea, seeing how the last "invasions to help the people there" have fared so far. Afghanistan and Iraq, anyone?

Well, at least be fair. Afghanistan was never billed as an invasion to help the people. It was vegnence. It has always been about vengence, and the government has rarely pretended otherwise.

I agree; what do you think about the European Union? Although, it seems unlikely that the European Union would actually step up and do it, but it's an option.

I don't think the EU would be given a free rein in the area by the UN Security Council, not while China sits in it: and the EU wouldn't dare to act without UN approval.

Well, at least be fair. Afghanistan was never billed as an invasion to help the people. It was vegnence. It has always been about vengence, and the government has rarely pretended otherwise.

Here in Italy the Berlusconi cabinet advertised it as "just war to free the poor afghani people from the brutal taliban dictatorship".

Here in Italy the Berlusconi cabinet advertised it as "just war to free the poor afghani people from the brutal taliban dictatorship".

Ah, my bad. I never noticed your location. So I shouldnt have just said "the governemnt".


Let me rephrase that. In the US, it was never billed as anything but revenge.

Great idea, seeing how the last "invasions to help the people there" have fared so far. Afghanistan and Iraq, anyone?

There's a reason that Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded and all the other opressive countries weren't - those wars had very little to do with liberation.

There's a reason that Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded and all the other opressive countries weren't - those wars had very little to do with liberation.

er... Afghanistan was because they refused to hand over Osama and were protecting him.

and Iraq was about liberation of oil, according to most people.

Ah, my bad. I never noticed your location. So I shouldnt have just said "the governemnt".


Let me rephrase that. In the US, it was never billed as anything but revenge.

Wars are always billed as "the thing that YOU citizens really really want". Take the invasion of Afghanistan. In the US, it was "revenge for 9/11". In Italy, it was "free poor afghan women from taliban oppression".

We might see a trend here, but that's for another time.

er... Afghanistan was because they refused to hand over Osama and were protecting him.
Aka revenge.


and Iraq was about liberation of oil, according to most people.

operation iraqi liberation, iirc.

Aka revenge.



operation iraqi liberation, iirc.

In the US it's "Operation Iraqi Freedom". "operation iraqi liberation" would have the initials "OIL". It would be a terrible choice of a name for Bush.

that doesn't stop them from being legit Governments
you did ask, and I answered "because they took control and they held on to control. As long as they hold control, they are the government.
Okay, and once they don't hold control any longer, say because we bomb the shit out of them, then we are the legitimate government, and everyone (hey, why not them themselves?) has to grant us the right to rule unconditionally.

Funnily enough, that's not how it works. Simply because you have the power to do something does not make the exercise of that power legitimate. No one pretends that it does - not the UN and not even the Junta. The Junta says the reason it needs to be in charge is because no one else can rule the country competently and keep it together.

Their utter and complete failure to rule competently here will have demonstrated to the world that the only possible way a military dictatorship is better than a civilian and democratic administration - the way the military can respond more quickly and with less red tape to a crisis - is not actually an advantage of this Junta, thus they have lost that argument.

Furthermore, they actually did hold an election in the 90s. Thinking they were popular, they allowed a vote, and Aung San Suu Kyi won by a landslide. So the Junta ignored the results and went on ruling, locking her away. So there goes another basis for the claim to rule.

And even if we didn't care about such legal technicalities, due to having shot hundreds of protestors earlier this year they also gave up any moral pretext of having a right to make law by virtue of being more able to make moral choices than another group of rulers.

I know that "they have control" is a really simple argument that would work quite conveniently for you, because it allows to argue against active interference no matter what. It is however invalid. You can't argue against the violation of a state's sovereignty on humanitarian grounds on this basis. In fact, I personally don't see how you could argue against the idea in principle at all.

No way chevron has an oil pipeline there it might get damaged.

To my understanding, there are two sets of pipelines in Burma. One runs south into Thailand and carries gas from offshore fields in Burmese EEZ waters and is owned by Total.

The other is a pipeline carrying oil and runs east to China and is owned by a Chinese consortium.

As for invasion. No. The government of Burma has failed in it's responsibilities toward the people. However to invade a country when it is already on it's knees will only serve to exacerbate the problems.

Okay, and once they don't hold control any longer, say because we bomb the shit out of them, then we are the legitimate government, and everyone (hey, why not them themselves?) has to grant us the right to rule unconditionally. Bombing the shit outta them won't wrest control. As long as the one in control can hold control, they are that area's ruling government. whether it's a Republic (a select few representing the many), Monarchy or true democracy, as long as those in power can hold on to that power, then they are that country's legit government.

Funnily enough, that's not how it works. Simply because you have the power to do something does not make the exercise of that power legitimate. No one pretends that it does - not the UN and not even the Junta. The Junta says the reason it needs to be in charge is because no one else can rule the country competently and keep it together. then what makes a legitimate government legit? Reconition of the people? guess what, if the people are not trying to wrest control of the current administration, then the current administration is the Government!

Their utter and complete failure to rule competently here will have demonstrated to the world that the only possible way a military dictatorship is better than a civilian and democratic administration - the way the military can respond more quickly and with less red tape to a crisis - is not actually an advantage of this Junta, thus they have lost that argument. who holds the power? Who do the other nations have to deal with for sending aid or supplies?
you call them a Military Dictatorship. a form of Government that is currently HOLDING POWER in Myramarr.

So what argument did they loose? a popularity argument? true, they are not popular, but that alone doesn't determine the government.

Furthermore, they actually did hold an election in the 90s. Thinking they were popular, they allowed a vote, and Aung San Suu Kyi won by a landslide. So the Junta ignored the results and went on ruling, locking her away. So there goes another basis for the claim to rule. and a point against you. The JUNTA is still holding power. thus is still the Ruling Government. not the people's choice for government, but still the Legitamate Government.

who's controling the people and economics in Myramar? Aung San Suu Kyi or the Junta? who has who arrested and locked away?

And even if we didn't care about such legal technicalities, due to having shot hundreds of protestors earlier this year they also gave up any moral pretext of having a right to make law by virtue of being more able to make moral choices than another group of rulers. since when is a legitamate Government one baised on moral choices?

I know that "they have control" is a really simple argument that would work quite conveniently for you, because it allows to argue against active interference no matter what. It is however invalid. You can't argue against the violation of a state's sovereignty on humanitarian grounds on this basis. In fact, I personally don't see how you could argue against the idea in principle at all. so just because the current government is not one you personally approve of, you call for military invasion saying it's ok because you don't personally approve of another country's government? can you say Iraq? International Diplomacy is more than just saying "well their Government is wrong so let's get rid of em with our military" and it shocks me that you think so.

and it doesn't matter what the reason, other nations cannot interfere in an internal crisis like this one without the current Government's approval. the fact that you do want to invade and ignore the current Government just because you view them as a LA Street Gang is more shocking than people saying that international LAWS is what's prohibiting them from just forcing aid into Myramarr.

Bombing the shit outta them won't wrest control. As long as the one in control can hold control, they are that area's ruling government.
It can of course take away the Junta's ability to control, which would then make Burma an anarchy, speaking in terms of legitimacy. And then there'd be nothing wrong with going in and helping people.

then what makes a legitimate government legit? Reconition of the people? guess what, if the people are not trying to wrest control of the current administration, then the current administration is the Government!
I've spent a lot of time in threads trying to figure these things out. Popular recognition is one thing, some level of democratic participation may be another (I'm not fully decided either way), consistent and equal application of the rule of law - basically government can only be legitimate if it exists to perform the functions of government, ie prevent the problems that occur when there is none. As soon as a government exists for the sake of government, or it governs for the sake of staying in power, it loses legitimacy. Of course there's the division between the actual ruling clique of the moment, and the apparatus of the state as a whole to consider as well, since both can be legitimate or not independently of each other.

and a point against you. The JUNTA is still holding power. thus is still the Ruling Government. not the people's choice for government, but still the Legitamate Government.
I'm not sure you understand what I mean with "legitimate". I mean "should they actually be in power?", or "is it actually right for them to be in power?". That's what legitimacy means, and whether or not they actually are in charge right now doesn't determine that at all.

And if someone is in charge, but illegitimately so, then there is no problem in violating that someone's sovereignty or just generally ignoring the rules they make.

since when is a legitamate Government one baised on moral choices?
It is necessarily. Regardless of what rule exists to determine legitimacy, it comes down to a moral judgement of some sort, since legitimacy is a question of "should" and "ought".

so just because the current government is not one you personally approve of, you call for military invasion saying it's ok because you don't personally approve of another country's government?
I pointed out three things this government did which make it devoid of legitimacy. None of these have to do with my personal approval. So no, what I think about Burma has nothing to do with it - in theory it's quite possible for an illegitimate government to exist that I support, though I can't think of one right now, primarily because things like shooting at your own people erodes my support.

But it does so independently of its implications for legitimacy.


can you say Iraq? International Diplomacy is more than just saying "well their Government is wrong so let's get rid of em with our military" and it shocks me that you think so.
Obviously it is, and that's the difference between realpolitik and a more idealistic approach. The point is however that you're not making an argument about realpolitik here. You ceased to do that as soon as you agreed to talk about legitimacy - realpolitik says to do whatever works, regardless of questions of legitimacy or who is right and wrong: deal with the "is", not the "ought".

But of course, that also implies that if we can get away with forcing aid into Burma, there would be nothing wrong with doing that.

and it doesn't matter what the reason, other nations cannot interfere in an internal crisis like this one without the current Government's approval.
Does this hold always and without exception?

the fact that you do want to invade and ignore the current Government just because you view them as a LA Street Gang is more shocking than people saying that international LAWS is what's prohibiting them from just forcing aid into Myramarr.
It's the logical outcome of a long line of thought that asks "what is government, and why does it exist?" If I think about what laws I should follow, and which ones I would be justified in breaking, then I come up with the start of what a government is. And then I also know what sort of things would make a government illegitimate, and if I see one in another country, I can well call it that. And if sovereignty is something associated with a legitimate government (and it is, because the idea of being protected from the interference of others in a time when we're no longer about princes choosing their serfs' religion can only make sense if we're assuming that a government knows best in its own area and cannot be improved upon from the outside), then logically an illegitimate government cannot enjoy sovereignty in the same way.

That's not about wanting to invade somewhere and wanting bombs to be dropped on people. I'd really prefer the idea of going there and the Burmese troops just helping (even against their orders, if necessary). It's about the recognition that the Junta is failing in such basic responsibilities of the state that it cannot have any reasonable claim to the benefits of being a state. What we do with that recognition is a question to be answered afterwards.

I'm not sure you understand what I mean with "legitimate". I mean "should they actually be in power?", or "is it actually right for them to be in power?". That's what legitimacy means, and whether or not they actually are in charge right now doesn't determine that at all.

Legitimacy has nothing to do with whether a government should or should not be in power, because should is subjective to the viewer. Otherwise you end up with the Presidential chimp declaring a government "illegitimate" before invading it. Are you sure you want to insist the two are the same thing?

It can of course take away the Junta's ability to control, which would then make Burma an anarchy, speaking in terms of legitimacy. And then there'd be nothing wrong with going in and helping people. except your bombing run is wrong in the first place. and it won't take away the Junta's ability to control. take Iraq and the USA's shock and awe.

I've spent a lot of time in threads trying to figure these things out. Popular recognition is one thing, some level of democratic participation may be another (I'm not fully decided either way), consistent and equal application of the rule of law - basically government can only be legitimate if it exists to perform the functions of government, ie prevent the problems that occur when there is none. As soon as a government exists for the sake of government, or it governs for the sake of staying in power, it loses legitimacy. Of course there's the division between the actual ruling clique of the moment, and the apparatus of the state as a whole to consider as well, since both can be legitimate or not independently of each other. There are some that say President Bush's 2000 Election was not because he was popular. (yet he became the head of the US Government.)
Democratic Participation won't exsist in a Dictatorship or Monarchy. (Yet they are also forms of Governments that exsist.
The Government makes the laws so they can change them (we are talking about ALL forms of Government.)
please site where these 'functions of Government are written and agreed upon all countries including Myanmar. and who removes the Government if it 'loses it legitimacy'?

I'm not sure you understand what I mean with "legitimate". I mean "should they actually be in power?", or "is it actually right for them to be in power?". That's what legitimacy means, and whether or not they actually are in charge right now doesn't determine that at all.

And if someone is in charge, but illegitimately so, then there is no problem in violating that someone's sovereignty or just generally ignoring the rules they make.
I term Legitimate in this case to be the one in power. thus even tho they have a democratically elected leader, she is not the legitimate government because she is not the one that is leading.

as long as the Junta is in power, all other nations have to deal with the Junta and thus if the Junta says "no, we don't need or want your aid" there is very little legally any other nation can do.

it is this that keeps one nation from invading another. even tho we all know the Junta should be removed, we should not invade.

so you can call them a gang, but you have to treat them as the government of Myanmar until such time as they lose their control over the country.

now if you send... 'councillors' to 'advise' the people on how to make the junta lose their control over their country...

and as long as no nation sanctions it...

that's different than sending in armed forces.

It is necessarily. Regardless of what rule exists to determine legitimacy, it comes down to a moral judgement of some sort, since legitimacy is a question of "should" and "ought". and who's morals are these judgements baised on? but the person with the power.

I pointed out three things this government did which make it devoid of legitimacy. None of these have to do with my personal approval. So no, what I think about Burma has nothing to do with it - in theory it's quite possible for an illegitimate government to exist that I support, though I can't think of one right now, primarily because things like shooting at your own people erodes my support.

But it does so independently of its implications for legitimacy. yet who is in control of Myanmar? the Junta. They are still the Government.

Obviously it is, and that's the difference between realpolitik and a more idealistic approach. The point is however that you're not making an argument about realpolitik here. You ceased to do that as soon as you agreed to talk about legitimacy - realpolitik says to do whatever works, regardless of questions of legitimacy or who is right and wrong: deal with the "is", not the "ought".

But of course, that also implies that if we can get away with forcing aid into Burma, there would be nothing wrong with doing that. Wrong, I'm still talking realpolitik because it's the Junta in control and any attempt to wrest that control away from them is a violation of their right as the nation of Myanmar. the "IS" is that the Junta IS in control. The Junta IS the government of Myanmar and the Junta IS the one other nations need to ask if they want to send in aid. you're arguing the "Ought" with we Ought to send in aid reguardless of the Junta.

Does this hold always and without exception? any examples of any exception? (note, individuals going without being sent by their government is not an act by the Government, but the person... and thus not part of that 'rule' nor an exception.)


It's the logical outcome of a long line of thought that asks "what is government, and why does it exist?" If I think about what laws I should follow, and which ones I would be justified in breaking, then I come up with the start of what a government is. And then I also know what sort of things would make a government illegitimate, and if I see one in another country, I can well call it that. And if sovereignty is something associated with a legitimate government (and it is, because the idea of being protected from the interference of others in a time when we're no longer about princes choosing their serfs' religion can only make sense if we're assuming that a government knows best in its own area and cannot be improved upon from the outside), then logically an illegitimate government cannot enjoy sovereignty in the same way.

That's not about wanting to invade somewhere and wanting bombs to be dropped on people. I'd really prefer the idea of going there and the Burmese troops just helping (even against their orders, if necessary). It's about the recognition that the Junta is failing in such basic responsibilities of the state that it cannot have any reasonable claim to the benefits of being a state. What we do with that recognition is a question to be answered afterwards.
yet as I said, Governments come in many forms and shapes. we may not agree with the ideals or methods of any government but that doesn't mean that those governments don't have the right to lead their land the way they seem fit.

I hate the fact that the Junta are showing that they don't care about their people, but there are international laws and guidlines as to what other countries can and cannot do.

Of course. Hurricane Katrina proved how adept the US is at disaster relief; why, cleaning up after a 100,000 casualty hurricane *and* a military invasion would be a snap!

war is categorically wrong. no, I would not support it.Perhaps. But It would be better to support the Karen and other rebel groups so the people could liberate themselves..because that strategy has never backfired. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_laden#Mujahideen_in_Afghanistan)

To my understanding, there are two sets of pipelines in Burma. One runs south into Thailand and carries gas from offshore fields in Burmese EEZ waters and is owned by Total.

The other is a pipeline carrying oil and runs east to China and is owned by a Chinese consortium.

As for invasion. No. The government of Burma has failed in it's responsibilities toward the people. However to invade a country when it is already on it's knees will only serve to exacerbate the problems.

the one that runs to Thailand is half owned by chevron, it was also built using slave labor.
http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2007/10/05/the-burmese-regimes-lifeline-chevrons-pipeline-by-amy-goodman/

Argh, somehow the response I wrote at uni was destroyed between sign-on pages. Anyways, short version of it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_%28political_science%29

and

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13689379

Argh, somehow the response I wrote at uni was destroyed between sign-on pages. Anyways, short version of it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_%28political_science%29

and

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13689379

awww man, I hate it when that happens! :mad:

anyway, from your wiki article.
Legitimacy in political science, is the popular acceptance of a governing regime or law as an authority. Whereas authority refers to a specific position in an established government, the term legitimacy is used when describing a system of government itself—where "government may be generalized to mean the wider "sphere of influence." According to Robert Dahl, legitimacy is considered a basic condition for rule: without at least a minimal amount of legitimacy, a government will lead to frequent deadlocks or collapse in the long run. now one can define popular acceptance as "the people like it." yet in the real world, popular acceptance is "allowing it to go on."

Robert A. Dahl has explained the concept of legitimacy by using the metaphor of a reservoir. For example, as long as the reservoir stays at a certain level stability can be maintained, if it falls below the required level it is endangered. Regimes in most states require the assent of a large proportion of the population in order to retain power. In several countries this is not the case: many unpopular regimes have survived because they are supported and considered as legitimate by a small but influential elite. and here you have why I say Myanmar's Junta is their legitimate government. The Junta is supported by their military and the influential elite.

so let's look at wiki's sources of legitimacy.
Weber, like the British Philosopher Thomas Hobbes, had an extremely negative and pessimistic view of human nature, and believed that societies often went through cycles. Weber did not see democracy as being necessary for legitimacy, as a government could be legitimized through laws and principles not established by a vote. Weber also claimed that it is perfectly possible for a modern society to revert back and become a follower of a brutal form of charismatic leadership, a phenomenon which later occurred in his home country of Germany under Adolf Hitler and which was also witnessed in other parts of the world, such as Mussolini's Italy.
Bolded contradicts the notice of Popular acceptance as being defined as "the people like it". and this is weber, the man who came up with those three sources of legitimacy.

the Red portion is also applicable to Myanmar.

so again, how is the Junta NOT the legitimate form of Government for Myanmar? and how does this contradict what I said about those holding control?

Weber's three sources.
Charismatic authority. Legitimacy based on the charisma of the leader, often partly based on the perception that this leader has certain extra or supernatural attributes. Example: a tribal chieftain or a religious leader. and this can also apply to military might.

Traditional authority. Legitimacy based on tradition; e.g., people accept the government for the simple fact that it has been around for so long and is based on popular customs and usages. Example: a monarchy. and the act of conquest/overthrow. such as Hawaii when the US overthrew the Hawaiian Monarchy or when Myanmar's military took control of their country.

Rational/legal authority. Legitimacy based on the perception that a government's powers are derived from set procedures, principles, and laws which are often complex and are written down as part of the constitution. Example: representative democracy or bureaucrats. this is more of the USA and other western countries.

I love the beliefs of 'it's not my fight/problem'. As free people in a free society, do we have absolutely no moral or ethical duty to help the deprived and oppressed? What of the victims of crime? It is the same principle as applied to inviduals and matters of the state; other states included. What is the alternative to not stand and fight for liberty? Freedom and justice for all...if you can afford it? That sounds really enticing. The catergorical imperative must be dead. It always comes down to money. Money money money, too expensive, too costly, we're too tired. We can print new money. We can't print out good governments.

I am beginning to think I will only be capable of getting rid of my angst by killing shitbags.

I love the beliefs of 'it's not my fight/problem'. As free people in a free society, do we have absolutely no moral or ethical duty to help the deprived and oppressed?

In all honesty - no. We have a responsibility to cause no harm to others, but we are NOT ethically required to place our lives on the line to aid another, particularly when doing such would require us to harm a third person

To put it more simply, we are NOT our brother's keepers.

What of the victims of crime? It is the same principle as applied to inviduals and matters of the state; other states included.

No, not in the least. When we speak of another citizen, we are all within an overarching structure of obligation and protection, which we call the law.

But other nations have their own structures, their own law, which need have nothing to do with ours. Each structure, each nation, is sovereign - which is, at it's simplest, the right to act as they choose provided it does not infringe on another sovereign state, and requiring no explanation orpermission from another.

What is the alternative to not stand and fight for liberty? Freedom and justice for all...if you can afford it? That sounds really enticing.

Yet, it is EXACTLY how democracy was born in the USA. The only difference was that instead of paying in money, we paid in spilled blood.

That is a cost we can choose to pay for another, but not one that we can ever be required to pay.

The catergorical imperative must be dead. It always comes down to money. Money money money, too expensive, too costly, we're too tired. We can print new money. We can't print out good governments.

No, we can't. Which is yet another point AGAINST intervention. The ultimate result of intervention can never be known.

One entirely forseeable consequence would be that we would end up blasting the living shit out of the Karen. They do not want to be part of Burma, under the Junta OR a democratic government. We'd have the choice of letting them carve the country up or smashing them.

I am beginning to think I will only be capable of getting rid of my angst by killing shitbags.

Go join the army. You might learn some things from a tour of Afghanistan or Iraq.

war is categorically wrong. no, I would not support it.

Ewwwwwww. You do not support wars ever? So fighting the Nazis was a bad thing? Wars that reduce human rights abuses are bad? You know that the devil fluorishes when men of good conscience do nothing right? Are you Satanic or what?

In all honesty - no. We have a responsibility to cause no harm to others, but we are NOT ethically required to place our lives on the line to aid another, particularly when doing such would require us to harm a third person

Utilitarianism and the categorical imperative are both obstacles directly ahead of this isolation assertion of yours. The danger (moreso reality) of your stance is the principle of justice and ethics itself stopping, changing, and morphing on a socially constructed line we call a border.

To put it more simply, we are NOT our brother's keepers.

...which is why the world is the way it is.


No, not in the least. When we speak of another citizen, we are all within an overarching structure of obligation and protection, which we call the law.

This does not answer the question and is a non sequitr. Justice and ethics do NOT stop on societal constructs but are parts as a whole we must affirm or deny. Currently distance and living location determines whether or not we come to the aid of someone, which I will add is a crock of shit. Under this idealogy of yours (and seemingly the worlds), the neighbor in the same country next to your house is afforded more rights than the neighbor living across the street on the other side of border under an oppressive regime. You describe this as working as intended under the veil of 'national sovereignty' and thus de facto moral relativism.


But other nations have their own structures, their own law, which need have nothing to do with ours. Each structure, each nation, is sovereign - which is, at it's simplest, the right to act as they choose provided it does not infringe on another sovereign state, and requiring no explanation orpermission from another.

So slavery and human rights violations are justified as long as the dominant group on the social hierarchy is capable of maintaining sovereignty. I'm not buying that. Rights of the individuals always trump the state, no matter the location. Justice as I have said before is a principle, not a border.

Yet, it is EXACTLY how democracy was born in the USA. The only difference was that instead of paying in money, we paid in spilled blood.

Democracy only for whites. Our founding fathers, as great as they were, were unable to solve the issue of slavery. It was written in our constitution that blacks count as 3/5ths of a person. During the civil war the Union invaded the CSA (a sovereign nation per your suggestion) and while doing so ended de jure slavery through the 13th and 14th Amendment. Was this war justified? Invading a sovereign nation with a different set of ethics and laws?


That is a cost we can choose to pay for another, but not one that we can ever be required to pay.

So it's a matter of money and convenience.

No, we can't. Which is yet another point AGAINST intervention. The ultimate result of intervention can never be known.

Neither can revolution. Are you advocating not even bother trying?

One entirely forseeable consequence would be that we would end up blasting the living shit out of the Karen. They do not want to be part of Burma, under the Junta OR a democratic government. We'd have the choice of letting them carve the country up or smashing them.

Governments should only serve for what is inherently right. Democracy, socialism, whatever the system. Principles don't change from one form to another, or from location to location. They are different means to the same end.

Go join the army. You might learn some things from a tour of Afghanistan or Iraq.


Already been thinking about it.

Perhaps. But It would be better to support the Karen and other rebel groups so the people could liberate themselves..

Definitely be a good move...

Shouldve been the move employed in Iraq, but we have incredibly stupid leadership, that, unfortunately, only know one move...

Utilitarianism and the categorical imperative are both obstacles directly ahead of this isolation assertion of yours. The danger (moreso reality) of your stance is the principle of justice and ethics itself stopping, changing, and morphing on a socially constructed line we call a border.

Yet, how can there be justice without law?

Without the social construct of government and law, there is only the individual. Since justice, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, no one could be guaranteed justice, nor could such be visited upon the wrongdoer, since none could truly say what justice is.

In law and government we try, however imperfectly, to define justice. And each government has it's own definitions, so yes, justice does change when the border is reached. When the alternative is no justice at all, it is a compromise worth having.

...which is why the world is the way it is.

Yes. We are living in the greatest Golden Age the human race has ever seen, are wealthy beyond our ancestors' wildest dreams of avarice, and are attaining miracles to rival or exceed those once attributed to gods. It is a wonderful time to be alive.



This does not answer the question and is a non sequitr. Justice and ethics do NOT stop on societal constructs but are parts as a whole we must affirm or deny. Currently distance and living location determines whether or not we come to the aid of someone, which I will add is a crock of shit. Under this idealogy of yours (and seemingly the worlds), the neighbor in the same country next to your house is afforded more rights than the neighbor living across the street on the other side of border under an oppressive regime. You describe this as working as intended under the veil of 'national sovereignty' and thus de facto moral relativism.


Well, I am a moral relativist.



So slavery and human rights violations are justified as long as the dominant group on the social hierarchy is capable of maintaining sovereignty. I'm not buying that. Rights of the individuals always trump the state, no matter the location. Justice as I have said before is a principle, not a border.

Whose principle? And by whose power shall you impose it?

We in the west invest final and ultimate power in our populace and all political power is derived therefrom. But it was not always so, and in many places it still is not.

Political power is like anything else - to move it, energy must be expended, a cost is incurred. In the US, this cost was a bloody revolution, in Britain a slow and inexorable pressure that eventually was one of the causes for the loss of empire.

So, if you wish to move the power of Burma from the Junta to it's people, are you willing to pay the cost? CAN you? Or will you have another pay it for you?

Democracy only for whites. Our founding fathers, as great as they were, were unable to solve the issue of slavery. It was written in our constitution that blacks count as 3/5ths of a person.

So, what's your point? That our intial attempt was flawed? Then I must ask, does that make it invalid? Is perfection alone worth trying for?

In the two centuries since, those problem have been corrected. But those corrections could not have been if the initial attempt had not been made - and the intial price paid.

During the civil war the Union invaded the CSA (a sovereign nation per your suggestion) and while doing so ended de jure slavery through the 13th and 14th Amendment. Was this war justified? Invading a sovereign nation with a different set of ethics and laws?

I would suggest you improve your knowledge of history. The USA did not invade the CSA - the Confederacy attacked and invaded the Union. The first fighting of the Civil War was the attack upon Fort Sumter by the South - and the first battle was fought upon Northern territory, against an invading Southern army.

Thus, the North has the ultimate justification - self defence.


So it's a matter of money and convenience.

I repeat - cost is all too often better measured in blood than in money. Will you die for Burma?

Neither can revolution. Are you advocating not even bother trying?

No. Some things are worth fighting for. But when we cannot be everywhere, when we cannot correct every injustice, and more, when we have no true right to interfere, then we are obliged to pick and choose and do what we can, and we have no interests in Burma.


Governments should only serve for what is inherently right. Democracy, socialism, whatever the system. Principles don't change from one form to another, or from location to location. They are different means to the same end.

Define "inherently right". What I see as good may be seen as bad by another, what I cherish may be reviled.
There is no inherent value to anything, only what we bring to it. Where I see freedom, another might see chaos. Where I see order, another would describe it as tyranny.

And I ask again: Do you want us to destroy the Karen?

Already been thinking about it.

No sarcasm, I would go for it. My tour in the Marines taught me a lot.

its time to end the people's republic of standard oil of california's support of its military regeme. if it takes federal or even international legal and enforcement action to do so.

this would not require nor involve direct intervention in that nations internal affairs, but only bring an end to a vested economic intrests already doing so.

=^^=
.../\...

Ewwwwwww. You do not support wars ever? So fighting the Nazis was a bad thing? Wars that reduce human rights abuses are bad? You know that the devil fluorishes when men of good conscience do nothing right? Are you Satanic or what?

You are very funny, going from someone saying that wars are bad through to denouncing them as a satanist...and they say satire is dead. You are not serious are you? By your logic a good Christian would go around starting wars all the time..oh hang on a minute...

Yet, how can there be justice without law?

Laws are for people who don't understand the principles behind them.


Without the social construct of government and law, there is only the individual. Since justice, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, no one could be guaranteed justice, nor could such be visited upon the wrongdoer, since none could truly say what justice is.

In law and government we try, however imperfectly, to define justice. And each government has it's own definitions, so yes, justice does change when the border is reached. When the alternative is no justice at all, it is a compromise worth having.


Rational people will have rational disagreements over what is the best type of government and law. These are subtleties when viewed against other problems. Both you and I would agree that no one should be oppressed, and would agree that involuntary servitude or an iron-fisted dictatorship (not benign) is a problem. We would differ in how to best serve the individual and by which government. We do not have to have an objective definition of justice to move closer to it.

The problem with your last sentence is that there is no justice that any rational debate could hold around multiple countries around the world and nothing is being done about it. It is easy to ignore people who live thousands of miles away and not next door and excuse their bad government's behavior, calling it 'irreconcilable differences' between two sovereign nation states.

Yes. We are living in the greatest Golden Age the human race has ever seen, are wealthy beyond our ancestors' wildest dreams of avarice, and are attaining miracles to rival or exceed those once attributed to gods. It is a wonderful time to be alive.

It is not a golden age. Opportunities are not based on individual merit but the random life chance to which you were born. There is a difference between someone being born in the USA and someone being born in Mali. Wealth should not be a symbol of a 'golden age', but people being rewarded for who they are and what they have achieved. To do that we must start on an even ground. Why bother cheering for a team at a baseball game when one gets to start 10 runs ahead, and surprise, most of the time they win. The problem is that this is on a much larger scale across the world and across populations.


Well, I am a moral relativist.

and I am not. It excuses too much evil and makes it too easy to wash the hands of the blood we created either through isolationism or globalization.

Whose principle? And by whose power shall you impose it?

We in the west invest final and ultimate power in our populace and all political power is derived therefrom. But it was not always so, and in many places it still is not.

Political power is like anything else - to move it, energy must be expended, a cost is incurred. In the US, this cost was a bloody revolution, in Britain a slow and inexorable pressure that eventually was one of the causes for the loss of empire.

So, if you wish to move the power of Burma from the Junta to it's people, are you willing to pay the cost? CAN you? Or will you have another pay it for you?

Principles between rational people. I cannot define what Justice is, but two rational people with two different rational and logical explanations could come pretty close to any objective difference while arriving there using sound and meritable argument. I do not believe excusing violent oppression is rational in any way and is a cop out. Here's an example: would you to prefer to live in Burma or the U.S.A? Would any rational person wish to be oppressed? I don't believe the answer to the latter is yes.

When it comes to trying to achieve an ideal that you believe in, I find the best doctrine is to take part in the action to do so. Similar to Obama wishing to bring about deeper reaching social policies to the poor and disenfranchised but only finding the money to donate 1% of his income. I don't like pointing out how things should be and then sitting on my ass. I've already taken steps for a career which I think is a good start.

So, what's your point? That our intial attempt was flawed? Then I must ask, does that make it invalid? Is perfection alone worth trying for?

In the two centuries since, those problem have been corrected. But those corrections could not have been if the initial attempt had not been made - and the intial price paid.

My point is that the Founding Fathers left for the problem to be decided for future generations instead of themselves. We can see this daily with human rights violations as the result of groups of people who have hated each other for centuries being lumped together under colonialism and then left to fight each other for survival, or the lack of nuclear energy since petroleum and gas-powered industry has been cheaper until now. The world loves operating on waiting until the problem becomes insurmountable instead of taking incremental steps to fix it.

The initial price of the Continental Congress was that the status quo was maintained and blacks counted as 3/5ths of a person to keep the south happy; a solely economical factor. Not one of principle but of money. This problem persisted until Lincoln.

I would suggest you improve your knowledge of history. The USA did not invade the CSA - the Confederacy attacked and invaded the Union. The first fighting of the Civil War was the attack upon Fort Sumter by the South - and the first battle was fought upon Northern territory, against an invading Southern army.

Thus, the North has the ultimate justification - self defence.

You paint it too easy of a picture. South Carolina became part of a sovereign nation other than the Union as the result of Lincoln being re-elected, since Dixie knew that slavery under Lincoln would be on the way out and against their 'own' set of laws. South Carolina peacefully through diplomacy tried to get the Union to remove the garrison in a southern federal fort which had moved there without authorization from Washington. The first shots were fired as the Union attempted to supply the garrison.

Bull Run was not a Confederate advance, unless you're referring to another battle.

I'm not here trying to defend the Confederacy. I'm glad that they lost and that de jure slavery was abolished. I am trying to point out that sometimes a 'sovereign nation' has bullshit laws which need to be eradicated in the name of human dignity.

I repeat - cost is all too often better measured in blood than in money. Will you die for Burma?

Going by myself would be pointless since it would have zero chance of changing anything. From the sounds of the isolation on this board and others that I hear any kind of movement would be nullified and stopped anyways. If a country is going to dispose of another country's government for the better you have to do it right. We did this very well in West Germany, Japan, and Korea. Obviously not as well (if at all) in Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan.

No. Some things are worth fighting for. But when we cannot be everywhere, when we cannot correct every injustice, and more, when we have no true right to interfere, then we are obliged to pick and choose and do what we can, and we have no interests in Burma.


The difference between us is that we do have a right to interfere and stop injustice when we see it. 'No interests in Burma' is a synonym for 'Burma not having any kind of economical interest to us', again making this a matter about money. Would we be friends with the Saudis if they were not giving us oil? Or the Chinese and their low-wage laborer's goods? I doubt it.

Define "inherently right". What I see as good may be seen as bad by another, what I cherish may be reviled.
There is no inherent value to anything, only what we bring to it. Where I see freedom, another might see chaos. Where I see order, another would describe it as tyranny.

And I ask again: Do you want us to destroy the Karen?


I don't believe most of your statement. Jefferson writes of these truths as being self-evident. I don't believe I need to explain it any further than that.

No sarcasm, I would go for it. My tour in the Marines taught me a lot.

I've been thinking about how I could apply it for a career or if I need it to get going.

Rational people will have rational disagreements over what is the best type of government and law. These are subtleties when viewed against other problems. Both you and I would agree that no one should be oppressed, and would agree that involuntary servitude or an iron-fisted dictatorship (not benign) is a problem. We would differ in how to best serve the individual and by which government. We do not have to have an objective definition of justice to move closer to it.

The problem with your last sentence is that there is no justice that any rational debate could hold around multiple countries around the world and nothing is being done about it. It is easy to ignore people who live thousands of miles away and not next door and excuse their bad government's behavior, calling it 'irreconcilable differences' between two sovereign nation states.

Not "nothing". Burma is subject to a variety of imposed blockages by nations all around the world, and is regularly chastised about their actions and policies by nations and NGOs alike. This type of pressure wears away the defences of the Junta day by day - it takes time, and will on the part of the chastisers, but it works, and without the need for death and destruction. War can only ever be the last resort - and like it or not, nations will not put their people into harm's way merely for the benefit of another nation's people. Today, it takes more than that, and Burma has not given any such excuse.



It is not a golden age. Opportunities are not based on individual merit but the random life chance to which you were born. There is a difference between someone being born in the USA and someone being born in Mali. Wealth should not be a symbol of a 'golden age', but people being rewarded for who they are and what they have achieved. To do that we must start on an even ground. Why bother cheering for a team at a baseball game when one gets to start 10 runs ahead, and surprise, most of the time they win. The problem is that this is on a much larger scale across the world and across populations.

There is no even ground. There never has been, and there never will be.

We will always have rich and poor, both nations and individuals. But in the west, our poor live like ancient nobility. We have extended lifespans, cured disease, made farms from wasteland and built cities to touch the sky. We stand on the verge of space, and wield power undreampt of. Not a Golden Age? Then perhaps a Platinum one!

I'm sorry that Mali cannot say the same, but that is not my responsibility. We cannot change Mali; we don't have that power. Years ago, it chose not to be part of the nation it had been part of, to go it alone - it's right as a sovereign state. From that moment, their destiny was their own, to heaven or to damnation. They made their choices.

The fact that much of the third world remains poor does not tarnish our achievements, or reduce our accomplishments. As I said before, we are not our brother's keepers.

Principles between rational people. I cannot define what Justice is, but two rational people with two different rational and logical explanations could come pretty close to any objective difference while arriving there using sound and meritable argument. I do not believe excusing violent oppression is rational in any way and is a cop out. Here's an example: would you to prefer to live in Burma or the U.S.A? Would any rational person wish to be oppressed? I don't believe the answer to the latter is yes.

I'm not excusing anything. I'm asking where you want the power to make the change to come from, and pointing out that if it's from military force, then you are asking to have people killed.

When it comes to trying to achieve an ideal that you believe in, I find the best doctrine is to take part in the action to do so. Similar to Obama wishing to bring about deeper reaching social policies to the poor and disenfranchised but only finding the money to donate 1% of his income. I don't like pointing out how things should be and then sitting on my ass. I've already taken steps for a career which I think is a good start.

Good. You are attempting to use what power you possess to enact change n an intelligent manner.



My point is that the Founding Fathers left for the problem to be decided for future generations instead of themselves. We can see this daily with human rights violations as the result of groups of people who have hated each other for centuries being lumped together under colonialism and then left to fight each other for survival, or the lack of nuclear energy since petroleum and gas-powered industry has been cheaper until now. The world loves operating on waiting until the problem becomes insurmountable instead of taking incremental steps to fix it.

I cannot agree. We are ever taking steps to fix problems - but the will and power to change things is often small, so the effect is small. Often, to act swiftly and precipitously is only to break the situation altogether - which creates a greater problem, not a lesser one. To, for instance, ban the use of Coal for power generation, would leave half the planet in the cold and dark for years, bring industry to a halt and destroy the economy. To choose to build the next power station using Nuclear, does not end the problem - but takes us one step closer to doing so.

The initial price of the Continental Congress was that the status quo was maintained and blacks counted as 3/5ths of a person to keep the south happy; a solely economical factor. Not one of principle but of money. This problem persisted until Lincoln.

Actually, it had almost nothing to do with money. It had to do with power - and specifically with congressional redistricting and the Presidential College. Those states with large populations of slaves sought to have them counted on the census in order that they would have more Representatives and more College votes, while those without felt that only the Enfranchised should be counted. Thus, the 3/5ths compromise.

You paint it too easy of a picture. South Carolina became part of a sovereign nation other than the Union as the result of Lincoln being re-elected,

No, on two counts: Lincoln was not "re" elected, he was simply elected, and secondly, South Carolina joined the Confederacy as the result of the Legislature of South Carolina passing the requisite bill.

since Dixie knew that slavery under Lincoln would be on the way out and against their 'own' set of laws.

Then Dixie wasn't listening. Lincoln had stated several times, on record, that though he disliked slavery, he would do nothing against it.

South Carolina peacefully through diplomacy tried to get the Union to remove the garrison in a southern federal fort which had moved there without authorization from Washington.

Well, no, actually. South Carolina sent various demands that Fort Sumter be evacuated, but engaged in no diplomacy. A diplomatic effort would have included such things as negotiation of methods of transport, resupply of the garrison en route, and compensation for the seizing of the Federal Government Owned land that Forts Sumter and Moultrie were on.

Also, please note that Fort Moultrie was where that garrison was orginally. It was on the shore, and largely indefensible from land attack - and the garrison commander had every right to move his command to the newer, more defensible and (so he believed) less antagonizing fort which was also within his command area.

The first shots were fired as the Union attempted to supply the garrison.

And the Union was supposed to let them starve? A Blockade is a cause for war.

Bull Run was not a Confederate advance, unless you're referring to another battle.

Well, while I was wrong about it being in US territory (it was in Virginia, not Maryland as I'd initially thought), Bull Run was most definitely an advance. Directly towards Washington, in fact.

Only after the fact was it discovered that Johnston and Beauregard had no intention of attacking the capital; McDowell believed he was stopping an invasion force.

glad[/I] that they lost and that de jure slavery was abolished. I am trying to point out that sometimes a 'sovereign nation' has bullshit laws which need to be eradicated in the name of human dignity.

And I'm just pointing out, that has never been sufficient reason to go to war. The Nazis were not stopped until they took on two too many opponents; the Soviets were never stopped at all. Until another country is engaged, national sovereignty stands supreme.

Going by myself would be pointless since it would have zero chance of changing anything. From the sounds of the isolation on this board and others that I hear any kind of movement would be nullified and stopped anyways. If a country is going to dispose of another country's government for the better you have to do it right. We did this very well in West Germany, Japan, and Korea. Obviously not as well (if at all) in Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan.

Well, we didn't do very well in Korea either. For one thing, we weren't trying to change anybody's government there - and when we ended up doing so, we turned South Korea into a brutal dictatorship that took years to get rid of. If they didn't need us to keep NK out, they'd've probably told the US to take a hike years ago - and been right to do so. As to Iraq and Afghanistan, I'd say the jury is still out.

But in EVERY one of those cases, the nation in question, at the very least threatened other nations. Burma does not.


The difference between us is that we do have a right to interfere and stop injustice when we see it. 'No interests in Burma' is a synonym for 'Burma not having any kind of economical interest to us', again making this a matter about money. Would we be friends with the Saudis if they were not giving us oil? Or the Chinese and their low-wage laborer's goods? I doubt it.

All right. Then I presume you would have no problem with Saudi Arabia coming to the US and requiring all citizens to convert to Islam under pain of death.

It's clearly for our own good, since Islam is the only true religion and way to eternal life. That being the case, our christian government is committing an injustice by not making Islam compulsory - and since they have the right to interfere and stop injustice, they should.

Of course they DON'T have the right to come here and interfere. What you don't seem to realise, is that neither do we. We are not the government of plane earth, and we can't act like it.

I don't believe most of your statement. Jefferson writes of these truths as being self-evident. I don't believe I need to explain it any further than that.

No, you don't. But Jefferson was wrong.

I've been thinking about how I could apply it for a career or if I need it to get going.

Depending upon your previous qualifications, you could get a quite lucrative specialist's position. I'd suggest you talk to your local recruiting agent.

Just two things: DON'T believe any promises that aren't written down, and be prepared to do at least one tour in Iraq or Afghanistan as a rifleman.

Meh, better the devil you know... it may be better to bribe them into letting the world "help".. that's all they want anyway --> Control over the resources in that region. They absolutely do not want their people to figure out that the world does not revolve around Burma's government. Besides no one can afford another war right now... The USA will not pay for it, and no one else will committ to it.

I think we should invade, remove the government in that country, replace it with democracy then stay there for fifty years to protect the people from the rebels.

/end sarcasm


Or we could actually do something for the American people..