[Piper]

Originally Posted by Mekong Delta

Erm no U.S. used to be pretty cool before WWII. Minding their own business and all. After 1950's, it just seemed to stick its nose everywhere and it's growing worse.

Yes. The US should have let England fall to the Nazis and then let the Nazis occupy Canada. It came pretty close. We should now let Canada take care of itself, and not get free protection from the US military. Canadians should be paying for a navy and army that can match the Russians who want to take over the Northwest Passage and the oil that's there. They've already planted their flag. What would Canadians say about the US if it told Canada: "You're on your own now"?

[Rascuache]

Originally Posted by Kerabatsos

No we shouldn't invade.

Why? Because when it becomes difficult I don't want to see the same people whining about it for 5 more years. I do find it ironic that people who are gainst Iraq are all for this. It would bascially be the same thing.

No, it is not an analogous situation to Iraq...

I think we could get coalition to go into this country and help sort things out...There are plenty of Burmese, including Aung San Suu Kyi who would be perfect to run a democratic Burma...

This gov. has many human rights violations and has even attempted to exterminate ethnic groups they do not like...We should of went here instead of Iraq...

[Sanin]

Originally Posted by Chthon

Regarding Burma's internal conflict and the status of Aung San Suu Kyi, that is possible, I don't have enough knowledge of her history specifically to comment.

One thing I will say with confidence is that even if she is a possible leader for the Burmese people, an invasion from any foreign country will fuck up any and all chances of them stabalizing any time soon. I'm just aghast that people would even suggest that considering the grand mess Iraq is, let alone the results of that kind of intervention in other countries.

The difference here is in the kind of invasion. There are already armed militias operating around the borders. They wouldn't need to be disarmed and could transition into a peacekeeping force in partnership with UN supervision. And as for stabilizing, its already chaos. The situation literally could not get much worse. The driving force behind the Juntas opening up to the world, which was a play for tourism which failed miserably, included thousands of rural Burmese taken at gunpoint and used as slave labor. Needless to say the farmers were unable to harvest their crops and many died.

[uppercuts21]

Originally Posted by PECK CHOKE

Here is the joke of the day! Let the U.N. handle it!

Certainly a better option than the US. How did Iraq go again?

[hypocalking]

Originally Posted by chardog

you can compare the government as modern day nazis. Do we as a nation allow genocide?

Yes we do.

[WrestlingNerd]

Originally Posted by uppercuts21

Certainly a better option than the US. How did Iraq go again?

How did anyplace the UN intervened go? I remember a funny story about a massacre in a safezone in Yugoslavia while the Peacekeepers watched.

[Commissar]

Anyone who considers invading a country as a good solution to saving lives is an idiot.

[Beisia]

Yes, we should to save 100,000 lives and to put the brutal military junta on trial for crimes against humanity. Its unbelievable that such a brutal regime steals UN supplies for themselves while the massed die off.

But guess who is blocking any efforts to get rid of that brutal military junta?! Russia and China. They don't want another western nation to invade a country at their door step.

[Chthon]

Originally Posted by Sanin

The difference here is in the kind of invasion. There are already armed militias operating around the borders. They wouldn't need to be disarmed and could transition into a peacekeeping force in partnership with UN supervision. And as for stabilizing, its already chaos. The situation literally could not get much worse. The driving force behind the Juntas opening up to the world, which was a play for tourism which failed miserably, included thousands of rural Burmese taken at gunpoint and used as slave labor. Needless to say the farmers were unable to harvest their crops and many died.

I see where you're going but this seems similar to MMAth. Historical experience has shown that invasions such as this tend to not work even when the conditions seem optimal.

[David Koresh]

There are at least two problems I see with intervening in places like Burma.

1. Say we invade and annihilate their military -- then what? We leave? We stay? We rule their people?

2. If we invade will we then be obligated to intervene in "oppressed" countries worldwide? Isn't this called 'policing the world?' What exactly will be the criteria for invading other countries? And who or what body will be the international adjudicator?