[Thaiboxer18]

I haven't read the thread so I apologize if I am repeating anything that has already been said.

My 2 cents: Burma, unlike Iraq, is ripe for invasion (although we can't do it because it is in China's sphere o' influence). Although there are some minority groups there, the population is mostly Buddhist, Aung Sang Suu Kyi is the unanimous choice of the people and of the monks to rule the country, the monks are a very stabilizing force, and the junta has no popular support at all. Further, the entire world would support this military invasion, it would not be a US-only invasion (there would be wide international support), like Kuwait. I have been in Burma a number of times, and it is a terribly poor, broken, and hopeless place. The Saffron Revolution was a signal to the world that the people want a revolution, but just lack the strength to make it happen. Overthrowing the junta would be a humanitarian rescue, like when the Vietnamese overthrew the Khmer Rouge.

some of my friends work for this magazine, it is the authoritative source of people who are actually from Burma and traveling in Burma of the efforts to free the Burmese people from the yoke of the junta:
The Irrawaddy News Magazine [Covering Burma and Southeast Asia]

[wheelkick]

The Great George Washington warned about " foreign entanglements". I sure wish George was with us today.

[wheelkick]

The Great George Washington warned about " foreign entanglements". I sure wish George was with us today. Sorry double punch!

[HdNet]

was this in the movie rambo.

[Sanin]

Originally Posted by Chthon

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.

For the most part you are right and I would generally agree with you, but Burma has a pretty unique situation.

[Mekong Delta]

Originally Posted by Piper

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"?

Just to set the record straight for some ignorant ass Americans, no Nazi ever stepped on Canadian soil in the entire WWII, including the time before U.S. intervened. The furthest the Nazis got was into the St.Lawrence river with their subs to sabotage the shipyards there. U.S. entered the war based on its own interests, so let's not try to play angels here and claim you tried to "save" us out of the goodness of your heart.

As far as Canada goes, we already have our own army, navy and airforce. Fortunately for us, we are not spending billions overseas trying to topple democratically elected governments with our intelligence service, occupy foreign countries or maintaining oversea bases left and right. That allows us to maintain a small military while having more money to spend on social programs that actually benefit the ordinary people.

We would also love to be on our own. Pull our troops out of Afghanistan and let you Americans wipe your own ass. Oh by the way, you mind NOT trying to put your hands on our oil? I'm sure we'll find someone more grateful to buy.

[Mekong Delta]

Originally Posted by Thaiboxer18

I haven't read the thread so I apologize if I am repeating anything that has already been said.

My 2 cents: Burma, unlike Iraq, is ripe for invasion (although we can't do it because it is in China's sphere o' influence). Although there are some minority groups there, the population is mostly Buddhist, Aung Sang Suu Kyi is the unanimous choice of the people and of the monks to rule the country, the monks are a very stabilizing force, and the junta has no popular support at all. Further, the entire world would support this military invasion, it would not be a US-only invasion (there would be wide international support), like Kuwait. I have been in Burma a number of times, and it is a terribly poor, broken, and hopeless place. The Saffron Revolution was a signal to the world that the people want a revolution, but just lack the strength to make it happen. Overthrowing the junta would be a humanitarian rescue, like when the Vietnamese overthrew the Khmer Rouge.

some of my friends work for this magazine, it is the authoritative source of people who are actually from Burma and traveling in Burma of the efforts to free the Burmese people from the yoke of the junta:
The Irrawaddy News Magazine [Covering Burma and Southeast Asia]

Still one word: China

This is the reason why Burma will never be invaded, because of the following:
- The Chinese view the junta as an essential part of their counter-drug effort.
- They will not tolerate a pro-west leader such as Aung-San Suukyi in their backyard.
- China has invested hundreds of millions to build up infrastructure in Northern Burma, to support their oil pipeline project.
- Junta buys a shitload of Chinese military equipment.

Simply put, China is very suspicious of Aung San Suukyi, and the movement to free her often takes shots at China doesn't help to ease the suspicion either. On the other hand, the junta has demonstrate itself to be friendly towards Beijing since 1960's.

[Ham_Roll]

There is a UN resolution that says they must act to prevent genocide and large scale human rights abuse. The question is does Burma's current action come under this wording of the policy

[Mekong Delta]

Originally Posted by Ham_Roll

There is a UN resolution that says they must act to prevent genocide and large scale human rights abuse. The question is does Burma's current action come under this wording of the policy

UNSC Permanent Member veto > Any UN resolution

Read my post above.

[superc0ntra]

One million people dying is not a cause for invasion. Someone tell Bush they have WMD's and Burma will be invaded before the weekend