I’d probably invade Burma
… at this stage, to save lives.
Update
While Jim Jay isn’t convinced, I still think its an option worth thinking about.
… and no, Iain, it doesn’t show the UN is useless, primarily because the UN is not supposed to twist any country’s arms, only provide a common place for discussion, mediation under the proviso of consensus.
LOL
You controversial so-and-so, you…
I’m not sure how serious you are so I’ll refrain from a full throttle rant and simply say “I don’t think that would work”… more detail here
The option of intervention is massively discredited thanks to Bush and logistically it is hugely impractical. Attempts at regime change also has unforseen consequences and without the backing of the Chinese — who have their own issues to deal with — would be highly dangerous. But morally it is the right thing to do. So in principal I agree with you even though it is an empty gesture as I wouldn’t support intervention in practice.
Fuck me.
Have you been drinking from the same well as Oliver Kamm?
At least you have the ‘Decency’
to call it what it is:
invasion as opposed to the mendacious “Liberal Intervention”.
Good link Jim Jay…
No need to invade. Just bomb the hell out of Naypyidaw invoking R2P and make it clear there is no intention to invade and occupy. Burmese public support and even much of the army’s can be guaranteed.
Once the generals get holed up in their bunkers with their command and control centre taken out, the door will be open for international aid teams to go in. Army dissenters will start defecting and Burmese will take care of the rest themselves to achieve badly needed regime change. All they need is a catalyst, an effective spark.
We all share the frustration, Sunny, but plans based on frustration are unlikely to end well. The only flicker of light I can see in this is that the Burmese squaddie-on-the-ground has a family and a home, and may finally sicken and turn on these thugs.
Delivering aid at gun-point? Not really practical. I seriously doubt that Cameron’s big idea of air-dropping aid willy-nilly would work either. Most of it would be lost to the waters and the remainder would go to the fastest and the strongest, not the neediest.
Sunny, I can’t believe a man of your intellectual calibre suggesting such a thing.
Yes, I think a war with China is just what we need to take our minds off the continuing problems in Iraq.
You got Iain Dale’s attention:
The option of intervention is massively discredited thanks to Bush and logistically it is hugely impractical.
Except, El Cidney, old bean, you know as well as I do even if the Goreacle had been in the White House and even if Iraq and Afghanistan had never happened, you and the rest of the usual crowd would *still* be arguing against intervention, using the *same* arguments.
The situation in Burma, just as what happened in Rwanda, just as what happened in Srebenica, heck, what has happened in countless places around the world in the last 50 years where fascist and authoritarian regimes deliberately by action or by neglect kill people in massive quantities can directly be laid at the door of people with attitudes such as yourself.
How many more Srebenicas, Burmas, North Koreas, Congoes, you name it, will it take before you realise that your precious UN and your precious fetishizaton of Westphilian fanaticism simply don’t work? How many more millions of people must die to salve your own liberal mascochism? A liberal masochism which has predictably racist undertones.
Burma is like the North Korea of SE Asia. Their leaders have an isolationist, cynical, and fearful view of the outside world. Typical behavior for parasitic regime for that is solely interested in its self-propogation.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90394727
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/burma601/burma-601.html
Morgoth,
What you are advocating, perhaps with some justice, is a perpetual war. Your the brainiac, there must be a better solution than that!
Try isolation, try diplomacy. Don’t just pull out your toy soldiers!
As long as YOU would Sunny, and not expect some working class teenager from Northumberland to face the bullets on your behalf. Go on then mate, I’ll be right behind you!
Morgoth, nope, you got me wrong.
Were it not for Iraq — I consider Afghanistan a qualified success — I would be more forcefully arguing for intervention.
You see, it’s only after seeing years of inaction, the likes of which resulted in the misery of Rwanda and Bosnia that we can garner enough moral clout and electoral support for intervention in places like Kosovo and Sierra Leone.
The risk is though that all the imperialists come out of the woodwork and slowly gain the upper hand, sticking two fingers up to consensual politics and the UN. And that majority support is lost for a generation. It’s about being pragmatic. I’m not going to waste intellctual energy on a lost cause even if it’s the moral thing to do.
Economies have cycles, as does domestic politics. And so does the politics of international intervention.
It’s you guys on the extremes who see the world in terms of black and white who fuck it up for the rest of us, either undermining eforts at international consensual politics or seeing imperialist motives behind every humanitarian gesture. Wankers the lot of you, left and right.
El Cid,
I like you an’ all, I even agree to an extent with what you are saying. Or at least what Conor Foley has to say on the subject:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/conor_foley/2007/10/a_war_of_words.html
It just seems to me that there ought to be a better way of resolving stuff like this?
oh, the humanitarian excuse. ‘i want to help them’. pathetic.
how predictable. from where did you pick up this anglosaxoid civilising missing brown man’s burden that you can make such a violent and disgusting statement, your wormship?
I vote we send fugstar (Osama Ben Elton) on a fact finding mission to burma. It might make a man of him.
fugstar,
Perhaps if your own ethnic minority were under the cosh, you’d be screaming to the UN?
No?
If “intervention” is the solution for some of you, I’d expect nothing less than you to arrive at a consensus on how many additional deaths caused by “collateral damage” will be acceptable before the mission is offically declared a failure.
What percentage of the 100,000 deaths and the 50,000 missing and the 1 million displaced thus far by the cycloe that will be caused by your bombing escapade be acceptable as suitable intervention collateral?
I think that is a primary pre-condition to “interventionists”.
I notice that Iain Dale isn’t saying military action isn’t acceptable if it’s conducted by a “pan Asian force”, only if it is by the “West”. What exactly is he saying is the difference?
And who is going to the ratify the right of ASEAN military forces can takes up weapons against another member other than “Western” powers? Great way to increase enmity and suspicion against members ASEAN states.
Iain Dale, what a fucking typical Tory plonker.
Perhaps if your own ethnic minority were under the cosh, you’d be screaming to the UN?
douglas, Bangladesh has gone through dozens of such natural disasters in it’s history since becoming a independent “semi-democratic” state. Cyclone Nargis was in fact heading for Bangladesh until it switched course at the last minute. Not once have the diaspora or nationals of Bangladesh asked for a Western or pan-Asian force to come and invade the country to change its venal government, even when the same shown mismanagement on a scale as bad as anything we have see thus far. And why should they? This has lead to stronger polities over time, but cyclones continue to batter the country.
I wish people would learn to leave dysfunctional governments the fuck alone, to be toppled and/or changed by their own people.
I’d be VERY cautiously in favour of an invasion if we knew the Burmese military would immediately collapse like a pack of cards AND that there would be no protracted insurgency afterwards.
Conor Foley gives the interventionist ticket a good kicking here.
As a humanitarian aid worker in dozens of stricken countries, Foley has far more hands-on experience than the “interventionists” on this thread. So I tend to believe and trust what he is saying on this issue much more than most of the keyboard-valedictorians who scream “invade them” at the drop of a hat.
Sid,
Where, where have I said anything here about natural disasters? I am in complete contempt for politicians that play games with aid. That is true. I have said, on another thread, that that is a major issue. If the wee bastards cream off the aid, then they are no better than Saddam in the interregnum. Y’know, building palaces whilst folk starved and died.
I do not agree that strangers - for that is how you would describe folk that care about other folk, despite their notional boundaries - should not have a say. Your idea, which is frankly that the nation state is pre-eminent, is not something I subscribe to at all.
I wish people would not leave dysfunctional dictatorships alone. Though that does not mean bombing their population to kingdom come, the discredited approach of UK and US governments.
I’d agree wholeheartedly that the Iraq debacle has set back positive interventionism a decade at least. That has muddied the waters a great deal.
The arguement pro interventionism has as it’s first criteria, that you aren’t going to cause more harm than good. If that had been addressed, realistically, then we’d have never invaded Iraq. At least, not the second time around.
Anyway, that’s what I think.
Oliver Kamm, who I trust as far as I can throw up, is Britian’s leading semi-professional light on Liberal Interventionism. You people who are advocating him should really look to him for bright ideas on how to proceed with your plan. Although by the looks of it, his output on invading Burma has been a little thin on the ground other than to link to an article in the Times on Sovereignty. Come on Oliver, get your finger out.
Mem>I do not agree that strangers - for that is how you would describe folk that care about other folk, despite their notional boundaries - should not have a say. Your idea, which is frankly that the nation state is pre-eminent, is not something I subscribe to at all.
Douglas, I don’t give a flying fuck about discussions of national soverignty or notional boundaries. I’ll leave those protracted masturbatory discussions to Oliver Kamm and Iain Dale.
My point is simple: Logistically, how do you plan to kill less people than the cyclone has by a campaign of bombing and military intervention?
I do not agree that strangers - for that is how you would describe folk that care about other folk, despite their notional boundaries - should not have a say. Your idea, which is frankly that the nation state is pre-eminent, is not something I subscribe to at all.
Douglas, I don’t give a flying fuck about discussions of national soverignty or notional boundaries. I’ll leave those protracted masturbatory discussions to Oliver Kamm and Iain Dale.
My point is simple: Logistically, how do you plan to kill less people than the cyclone has by a campaign of bombing and military intervention?
This is the style of “intervention” that works: Air drops of food and supplies because it allows relief being directed with pin-point accuracy to the afflicted. No bombing, no arms. And possibly, no chance of an escalation involving the Chinese.
Or we can be a great deal more proactive, and do something that might help the image of international interventionism, so damaged by the Iraq adventure. A more muscular approach might involve, say, air drops of food and other supplies.
Should we do it, and would it work? To the “should we?” question, the answer is almost certainly yes. Admittedly, without prior approval from the Burmese government, we would be invading its airspace, something not to be undertaken lightly. Would the (insufficient) aid that is getting through on the ground be cut off in retaliation? Would foreign planes be shot at by the military? Would the Chinese get drawn in, with the possibility of a quite unpredictable escalation? I will return to these concerns below. But the “should we?” question is answered by reference to the New York declaration in September 2005, marking the 60th anniversary of the United Nations. There it says that the international community, through the UN, “has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity”. This “responsibility to protect”, surely, makes the case unambiguously. The UN, as we know, is notoriously bad at reaching agreement, but the principle stands.
Sid,
Conor Foley is against interventionism as a camouflage for Imperial ambitions, a view that both you and I, I’d hazard, subscribe to. He is not against interventionism where he thinks it is justified on humanitarian grounds.
See here, for instance:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/conor_foley/2008/05/regional_solutions.html
Conor Foley has consistently advocated an international legal regieme, which is what I think we should all be aiming for. In the meantime, he and ( rather trivially) I subscribe to the doctrine of R2P, Responsibility to Protect.
And, yes, I have the highest regard for Mr Foley and his cv. If he says something, I listen.
The link to that article by Karel Vervoort.
B’jesus,
I can’t keep up with you Sid.
At 20 you said this:
Then at 26 you said this:
Which is it?
You either see interventionism as sometimes worthwhile, or you let folk rot.
I’d agree that anything short of war is better than war. So, your solution to the immediate crisis is fine by me. It doesn’t get Burma a decent government, but it is at least a possible solution to bypassing a corrupt and mendacious government. I’d call it interventionism though ….
No Douglas, given the precedent of Iraq, it’s incumbent on people like you and Sunny and Iain Dale who propose to “invade Burma” to categorically define what “Intervention” means. For most people post-Iraq, the word “invade” suggests Regime Change by Military intervention and cluster bombing. Is that what you mean?
I vote we send fugstar (Osama Ben Elton) on a fact finding mission to burma. It might make a man of him.
hahaha!
Nice one but nothing will make men out of adolescent victims.
douglas, before you respond to my comment #31, I just want to say I’m not attacking or putting the blame on you but that the “you” in “people like you” is merely a rhetorical device. That and I love you.
from where did you pick up this anglosaxoid civilising missing brown man’s burden that you can make such a violent and disgusting statement, your wormship?
Clearly, you forget how many lives India saved when they invaded what is now Bangladesh and helped liberate it.
As a humanitarian aid worker in dozens of stricken countries, Foley has far more hands-on experience than the “interventionists” on this thread. So I tend to believe
Foley isn’t interested in actually resolving any problems, he’s just advocating more and more of the same old discredited “let’s talk whilst people die” routine. A routine that in fact means much more money for his own NGOs whilst people die at the hands of dictators and fascists. As long as he gets his shiny new jeeps, the world can go hang itself.
Conor Foley has consistently advocated an international legal regieme, which is what I think we should all be aiming for.
Oh wow, that’ll really show Saddam, Kim’II Jung and the Burmese Junta, eh, an “international legal regime”. I’m surprised Burma doesn’t roll over already when confronted by a quango of Foleycrats.
I wish people would learn to leave dysfunctional governments the fuck alone, to be toppled and/or changed by their own people.
So that’ll be another 100 years of North Koreans dying by the millions then, in Sid World. Re. my earlier point about Westphalian fetishists. Especially those fetishists sitting in a safe comfortable liberal democracy prouncing that tyranny should be accomodated and appeased.
Perhaps Sid could tell us how exactly the Burmese, or the North Koreans should “topple and/or change” their respective regimes?
Morgoth,
when have you ever been interested in the politics of Burma or it’s people prior to the Burmese monks issue of last October, if that? Perhaps you should rely on Oliver Kamm and other “Liberal Interventionists” to do your thinking for you. But other than formulate more abstract bollocks on the doctrine of “Liberal Intervention” he, like you, seems great on the abstract concepts but totally clueless about the issues in the particular.
The problem with UN “proviso of consensus” is that non-democratic abusers of human rights are allowed to guide the “consensus”.
What a steaming pile of uselessness this is.
Sid @ 33,
Fair enough.
Just to be clear about this. Apart from a wobble when I thought the Eustonistas had a point, I have been against Operation Iraqi Freedom. The statistics damn it as the lie it always was. On the other hand, I think we should have finished the job during Gulf War One.
And I’m not in favour of invading Burma.
I love you too. Now, on to Morgoth….
is that non-democratic abusers of human rights are allowed to guide the “consensus”.
Well, the problem with the UN is also that 5 countries have permanent vetoes that make it impossible for the UN to pass anything that any of them object to. Why not complain about that too?
So that’ll be another 100 years of North Koreans dying by the millions then,
A really bad argument. For a start, no one is advocating NK and no one will anytime soon. I’m advocating thinking about the possibility of invading Burma (a joint coalition force, mind you) because of the environmental calamities the country is facing now.
There is a reason why I’m broadly against invading countries just because you don’t like how they’re run Morgoth.
Morgoth,
These bloody women getting the vote…children should be up chimneys…bloody undeserving poor….
It takes time. You do not get a universal legal system any more quickly than we righted the above egregious wrongs. It may well take a hundred years or more. It is, however, not something that you should gainsay as an objective. It - the ICC - has yet to find it’s feet, that I’ll grant you. But what I’ll not grant you is to view it as anything other than a positive.
Sunny - part of me wants to think that your balance is right, the part of me that looks on at TV pictures/media reports etc.
However, time for hardheadedness. ‘We’ (whoever that means) have a duty to offer. We have a duty to make good on those offers should they be take up, that’s all. ‘Liberal intervention’ is a red-herring. To my mind interventions are illiberal by definition and we should all stop pretending otherwise.
‘We’ have no duty to force anyone to take up those offers nor to impose them. Whether the authorities in Burma can live with that is I suppose for them. Sadly.
douglas clark (40) - the law is an ass, international law can be an ass as much as any other law. It is positive right up to the point that someone is on the wrong end of it being an ass. At that point politicians essentially are left with accountability without responsibility. International law in any difficult situation is a mirage that delays the inevitable realpolitik.
‘Liberal intervention’ is a red-herring. To my mind interventions are illiberal by definition and we should all stop pretending otherwise.
So our failure to stop the Rwandan genocide was perfectly ok?
Sunny (42) - Thanks for taking the time to reply.
Certainly not, I just struggle to see any real sense in which an intervention in Rwanda could be described as liberal with any degree of honesty. Militry action whatever the motivation to my mind is by definition pretty illiberal stuff.
All I am saying is that we should just stop looking for euphemisms and perhaps even stop apologising. That is more or less what you got at when you posed the question in the title isn’t it?
That is more or less what you got at when you posed the question in the title isn’t it?
“I’d probably invade Burma” is posed as a question? It looks a statement of intent.
I think a key part of deciding whether something is the right thing to do is not just the moral case against the way things are now (in this case the horrors taking place in Burma) but also whether we are adopting a strategy that actually works.
Some comments have been along the lines that the population will be jubilant and the military will collapse just like that. We have heard this argument before - alas it did not turn out that way, nor is there any particular reason to think it would in this case either.
Wishful thinking does not cut it when you’re talking about military action. It’s not a parlour game debate.
Key logistical problems include who’s forces, what kind of forces, how soon can they get there, are they equipped and trained for the role they are to fulfill, what is the role they are to fulfill, what mandate do they have to use lethal and non-lethal force, to what extent do the miltary forces take up the role normally filled by NGOs (who certainly would not take part in this), what level of cooperation from the Burmese state is expected, is there to be any local assistance…. the list goes on.
Those advocating military action need to address themselves to these questions but i haven’t seen much evidence of that so far.
Humanitarian intervention shouldn’t be conflated or confused with liberal intervention (the later being nothing short of wolf in sheep’s clothing or pretty faced imperialism)…
“Certainly not, I just struggle to see any real sense in which an intervention in Rwanda could be described as liberal with any degree of honesty. Militry action whatever the motivation to my mind is by definition pretty illiberal stuff.”
How so? Liberalism in its broadest sense is placing the rights of individuals as the most important goal. Ho does taking on a illiberal state to allow for liberalism equate to being illiberal?
liberal schmiberal
Jim Jay:
Some comments have been along the lines that the population will be jubilant and the military will collapse just like that. We have heard this argument before - alas it did not turn out that way, nor is there any particular reason to think it would in this case either.
The problem is of course assuming that conditions all over the world are the same. But they’re not. The problem with Burma is more how the Chinese will play along rather than whether it will affect Al-Qaeda, as was the case in Iraq.
If either India or China led a regime-change agenda than the other would get involved because they’d want to ensure it wouldn’t present a security threat.
So America, in coalition with Indian and Chinese forces would possibly be the best way. I’m just thinking out aloud here since, as it is quite obvious, I don’t have the power to invade anyone. Yet.
I’ve discussed liberal intervention plenty of times and have always come to the conclusion that you ‘never say never’. It worked well with Bangladesh and that is a prime example of how it can work.
The stupidity of the people leading Iraq doesn’t mean everyone has the same motives or capabilities.
would you have advocated invading China should they have dealt with the earthquake in another way? and who would join that coalition?
Paul Collier has made some interesting arguments on what G8 countries should do - namely concentrate on limited aid and a healthy doze of military intervention.
Is this intervention or utopianism? War or military action should be a last resort, an act of self defense to protect yourself. A matter of survival.
Adhoc intervention just in the cases where ‘it is possible’ makes nonsense of moral imperatives which are used to justify them and raises doubts about motives and thus we have words like occupation thrown about. Having an opinion and a conscience is ok but that doesn’t really solve the problem on the ground and thats all we have opinions. And there is little point in advocating options like war that have zero costs to us, how many are willing to leave the comfort of their lives to make this sacrifice and effect this change so what’s the point of the principle or the opinion? Am I saying you should not advocate intervention unless there is a personal sacrifice or cost to you. Yes I am because apart from satisfying your personal morality it has no other purpose.
War especially without good cause is a nasty place to put young people barely out of college usually from underprivileged backgrounds and then expect some sort of clinical disciplined consequence with no collateral damage, no soldiers losing it and no attention on the side effects and psychological trauma that combatants face in a war zone. That just dehumanizes individuals who go and provide the legs on the ground. When its fighting to defend the motherland at least there is a reason. If you want to put these guys in harms way there better to a very good reason and something they can believe in too.
If the appetite for intervention nonetheless exists efforts should be put to fund and develop an international body with its own resources for intervention with global consent and consensus. Maybe we can all volunteer for this noble cause. For those who say that will never happen that’s as much a chimera as is intervention in Burma or any other hotspot. Its complex but so is making a case for ad hoc intervention in Burma, the conversation and debate continues but little of impact happens on the ground, at least with a body formed for the purpose there can be a real chance of intervention, because that’s their reason to exist.
In this case, China is not going to consent to an international military intervention, the terrain makes it easy for a rebel force to inflict damage for years without any resolution and you can bet all neighboring countries and ‘interested parties’ will be up to their usual games ’securing their interests’ so what’s the point, is a war going to benefit the people, is a prolonged rebel force fighting in the jungles which is inevitable going to be benefit the people? who does it benefit? If America is involved in any way it will be pretty easy to get an endless supply of volunteers against imperialism. On the other hand China can effect change in Burma and if they are on board things can happen very fast, and an international organization can work better towards this than initiatives from individual and often discredited nation states. But even then you have to accept in some cases like China/Russia and perhaps a few others you just can’t intervene unless there is total collapse of the state.
“But how about Israel? Also a pariah state and terrorises its Palestinian neighbours. Democracy resricted to Jews.
So why not invade Israel?”
How about it? Hmm well I don’t see the Burmese civilian population heading over to Thailand to blow places up nor do I see the IDF running around terrorising its own population or target Palestinians they believe to be non-violent.
Don’t get me wrong, Israel does many things that are deplorabale and disproportinate. But to put them on par with Burma is laughable.
“Is this intervention or utopianism? War or military action should be a last resort, an act of self defense to protect yourself. A matter of survival.”
Liberalism is by its very nature utopian. However it has laudable goals. The trick is take actions that head toward those goals through pragmatism. Ironically the one time Bush and his little covey of minions were “liberal” they were certainly not pragmatic. But then again how do you expect the village idiot from Texas to understand anything about Iraq to make correct decisions pre-invasion ? Man was probably asking for his Steak done medium rare when he said go…
Boo!
Sorry to butt in on a cosy little group discussion. JUST BOMB NAYPYIDAW! One strike while the Chinese have too much on their plate. That’ll start a domino effect. Even the rest of the army wouldn’t mind the generals being specifically targetted. Once they get a clear message the plan is NOT TO INVADE AND OCCUPY, DIY regime change is very likely the next thing to get under way.
Burmese can fight their own battles literally, provided they have the means to defend themselves and fight back. Level the playing field a bit. Bomb the generals and arm the people. See what happens next. The army is by no means monolithic. Nothing ventured nothing gained.
The Chinese are good businessmen. Capitalist China was always going to be a greater threat to the region as well as the West than Communist China ever was despite all the scaremongering and demonising. They’ll be okay so long as they can carry on with business as usual after the change. It’s in their own interest after all in the long run or they’ll be held in contempt by the Burmese nation from here to eternity.
I’ve discussed liberal intervention plenty of times and have always come to the conclusion that you ‘never say never’. It worked well with Bangladesh and that is a prime example of how it can work.
Sunny, I think you need to re-evaluate your understanding of what happened in Bangladesh in 1971.
Because of India’s growing tacit involvement, Pakistan launched a pre-emptive strike Operation Changiz Khan) on India *before* India was fully involved in East Pakistan. Pakistan’s attack was taken as an act of war and marked the start of their own Indo-Pakistan war of 1971. Meanhile on the eastern side, India launched a small deployment into East Pakistan (3 corps). And the Indian forces and the Mukti Bahini overpowered the remaining Pakistani troops.
You may want to re-read the histroy here. Indian involvement was hardly an Intervention in the post-Iraq-2003 use of the term. India was dragged into the war.
Dysfunctional and oppressive governments in Asia have been toppled by their own citizens. It has happened. I can think of at least 2 examples. And if the Burmese Monk uprising of last October already shows, the Burmese people are closer to doing the same in their own country.
Amazingly talking seems to be having an effect:
“Because of India’s growing tacit involvement, Pakistan launched a pre-emptive strike Operation Changiz Khan) on India *before* India was fully involved in East Pakistan.”
Are you implying that we should fund an insurgency in Burma against the regime?
Are you implying that we should fund an insurgency in Burma against the regime?
Yes of course I am. You mean you don’t support Aung San Suu Kyi?
Yes of course I am. You mean you don’t support Aung San Suu Kyi?
An insurgency in this context I mean arming guerillas to overthrow the govt.
Armed revolution has been rural based so far in Burma but a widespread URBAN UPRISING was what happened in 1988. Swords and slingshots were all the people had and the outcome was predictable. Aung San Suu Kyi, nice nonviolent liberal leader as she was and still is, failed to split the army which had already started to show cracks - some air force personnel and police had joined the people. Civil administration had started to break down in several areas including Mandalay the second largest city. The rulers and their families were in hiding. She vehemently denied trying to split the army endorsing that it was founded by her father the national hero Aung San, true but transformed beyond recognition and long been a repressive instrument lording over, enslaving and exploiting the nation. Next she rejected out of hand the former premier U Nu’s offer to join an interim government in a bid to overthrow the generals. The students in particular, mostly in their late teens, were so upset that the grownups couldn’t put together a unified rallying point for the entire nation in general and dissenting officers and troops in particular. It sealed the fate of the uprising. ASSK failed to pull off a Cori Aquino and the rest as they say is history, a continuing nightmare for the people after so much sacrifice including her own.
An insurgency definitely needs arms and funds. Burmese surely are dying to fight back. Because the army has grown so big and well armed though not fed properly in many instances, a significant number can arguably be won over to side with the people. They are Buddhists and have families too with many in the delta. Only senior officers have grown rich and have a stake in perpetuating military rule. There is mutual fear too, not just on the part of the populace controlled at gunpoint, because these guys know that if they don’t hang together they will all hang seperately. But Burma is a tinderbox and a spark such as the cyclone or war preferably an AIRSTRIKE on NAYPYIDAW (a preposterous name meaning royal city, a common noun that historically needed a proper noun in front) should start the fire, INVASION NOT NEEDED.
Nothing short of a properly armed uprising by the people, including part of the army more realistically at this juncture, will bring about any real change. As we speak the whole international community including ASEAN continues to play the generals’ game on their terms.
great comment gus. agree with you entirely.
19,
I hope I wouldnt give in to that temptation, but wronged people do desperate things according to pragmatically shortened horizons. Are their many Myanmarese calling for white military intervention?
Power to ASEAN and regional friends methinks.
I sympathise with the motives behind some of those calling for intervention (although I think this thread demonstrates they do not all come from one single place), but it’s the practicalities I doubt. I completely agree with the “never say never” approach, but where’s the analysis that this extreme course of action would actually be beneficial to the Burmese people?
On the one hand we have “JUST BOMB NAYPYIDAW! … Even the rest of the army wouldn’t mind the generals being specifically targetted. Once they get a clear message the plan is NOT TO INVADE AND OCCUPY, DIY regime change is very likely the next thing to get under way.” Which is, frankly, bonkers.
The idea that a successful popular uprising, under conditions of starvation and catastrophe, is so simple and unproblematic is bizarre. Just bomb the capital and no one will mind? Would that really make it clear that we mean them no harm? If we send in ground troops (which is what would be required for a humanitarian intervention by force) it’s going to be difficult to persuade the populace that the occupying armies are not armies of occupation.
Incidentally, the regions worse hit by the cyclone are also home to the longest running armed insurgency in the world and to think we can achieve in the short term what they’ve failed to achieve in sixty years is a very interesting point of view. Particularly as those insurgent forces are quite possibly worse for wear right now.
There may not be much prospect of a Burmese Al Quaeda but these home grown insurrectionists also have a history of their own ethnic cleansing, rivalries and unpleasant behaviors. I sympathise with them, in the main, but to imagine that if they suddenly took over all we’d see is children dancing in the streets and happy smiling faces is fanciful. Or perhaps our “not really an occupying army” will hang around to make sure the wrong people don’t take control?
My argument is simple. “Something must be done” does not give us carte blanche to do anything we like, no matter how harmful - those putting the case for invasion have not yet demonstrated that it could be done in a successful way.
. And there is little point in advocating options like war that have zero costs to us, how many are willing to leave the comfort of their lives to make this sacrifice and effect this change so what’s the point of the principle or the opinion?
I think that’s a bogus argument - how many would be prepared to have a burmese refugee living in their home, and watch them slowly starve to death over a period of weeks while maintaining a full fridge?
You seem to be making the same mistake as Father Dougal:
Father Ted is demonstrating some plastic toy cows to Dougal.
Father Ted: …OK, one last time. These are small… but the ones out there are far away. Small… far away… ah forget it!
I think that’s a bogus argument - how many would be prepared to have a burmese refugee living in their home, and watch them slowly starve to death over a period of weeks while maintaining a full fridge?
As bogus as the first. Are you suggesting a war will have zero affect on a Burmese refugee crisis? No chance. If bombing is your choice then you’re going to have to come with a watertight plan *before* you start bombing about how you intend to rehabilitate the refugees.
Are you suggesting a war will have zero affect on a Burmese refugee crisis?
That’s a different argument again.
There are two equal and opposing wrong arguments:
1. it’s far way, and they don’t let TV cameras in, so most people don’t care all that much, so nothing should be done
2. Something must be done. This is something, so it must be done.
It would take someone with more knowledge of more knowledge of Burmese politics and history than me to work out a plan that would turn Burma into a less fucked-up place at a cost acceptable to both the locals and whoever was footing the bill.
All I know is that if someone came up with something that sounded semi-plausible, I wouldn’t be out marching on the streets with a ‘hands off Burma’ banner.
All I know is that if someone came up with something that sounded semi-plausible, I wouldn’t be out marching on the streets with a ‘hands off Burma’ banner.
“Semi-plausible” were the decent and muscular reasons for invading Iraq.
Interventionists will have to do better than that this time round.
Jim Jay, I have been reading your comments here and on your blog and I have to say they’re spot on. Good to have someone spouting sense around here.
Yep, I’d also echo Sid’s comment (#69) re Jim Jay.
Interventionists will have to do better than that this time round.
I don’t think ‘interventionists’ is all that useful a category, there is not some distinct identifiable group of people who support all possible wars (or all possible aid donations, all possible sanctions, all possible diplomatic initiatives, …).
There are, in fact, people who quite consistently oppose all wars, or (a different set of people) all foreign involvement, but it’s important to remember that is a fairly fringy position. That doesn’t mean it is wrong, but it does mean the set of all people who don’t fit into it is very diverse, doesn’t fit inside a small box implied by the single word ‘interventionist’. For making generalisations, or assigning blame, it’s pretty much as useless as the words ‘heathen’, ‘gentile’, ‘infidel’, ‘mushrik’, or whatever word Mormons use to mean ‘non-mormon’.
There is a lot of difference between, say:
1. neutralism: give aid in a way that explicitly tries not to disrupt or threaten existing power structures or struggles.
2. adventurism: do what you can where it is possible, no nothing when impossible or excessively risky.
3. hegemonism: first make sure somone (typically the US) has enough power to do whatever is necessary, then make sure they do it.
4. nationalism: my country is great, so if it is doing something, it must be good.
5. imperialism: my country is so great other countries would be better off as part of it
6. neo-liberalism: the free market is the best thing ever, do whaever is necessary to set one up and the generations to come will thank you.
7. mercantilism: the free market is a lie, countries become rich by taking wealth from the poor. So let’s do so.
8. moralism: bad people deserve punishment.
And probably about half a dozen more.
None of those are free of drawbacks, to say the least, but they are not particularly branches of the same thing.
I don’t think ‘interventionists’ is all that useful a category, there is not some distinct identifiable group of people who support all possible wars (or all possible aid donations, all possible sanctions, all possible diplomatic initiatives, …).
Perhaps you haven’t heard of the Decent Left and this guy and his bumf.
I’ve certainly heard of him. I’m just saying:
Oliver Kamm exists, therefore
is an invalid argument, whatever you put between .
Otherwise the existence of George Galloway would have been a valid reason to invade Iraq.
I’ve certainly heard of him. I’m just saying:
Oliver Kamm exists, therefore {something about Burma}
is an invalid argument, whatever you put between { and }.
Otherwise the existence of George Galloway would have been a valid reason to invade Iraq…
You mentioned that there is no “distinct identifiable group of people who support all possible wars” and I told you about Oliver Kamm and the Decents. Although I think the
My intention was not to suggest that Oliver Kamm should be the subject of a sentence that also has the word “Burma” in it. That would be disastrous because of the inevitability of this formula:
Oliver Kamm has a semi-plausible solution for Burma: Invade Burma, regime change the junta and cluster bomb the peasants into accepting democracy.
“cluster bomb the peasants into accepting democracy”
Because as we all know the peasants want a military jaunta ruling them. And that the US-ally axis of evil want to kill the peasants.
Just like the Iraqis. They didn’t “ask” to have the dictatorship removed! Even the vast majority did, but that’s another story!
*majority did want the dictatorship removed
The airstrike option has some merit, but there is something Reaganite about a preference for aided armed insurrection over a more comprehensive solution. Seems reckless and irresponsible to me.
Why get involved directly when you can flood a country with guns. Unleash the slaughter and prolonged instability.
Anyway, what does Jens Lehmann say?
You mentioned that there is no “distinct identifiable group of people who support all possible wars” and I told you about Oliver Kamm and the Decents.
Kamm might well be an exception to what I said - I think he would support any war Chomsky would oppose, and there are not many wars Chomsky wouldn’t be against.
Which only goes to show it’s a good idea to stop reacting against people who are counter-reacting against things other people said in regard to a different situation, and start taking the facts of each case seriously in their own right.
If you want to talk indirectly or metaphorically about situation A, invent an imaginary or metaphorical country to talk about. Don’t co-opt a real-world country, full of real people, to your metaphor. Iraq is not Kosovo, Afghanistan is not Vietnam, Cambodia is not Czechoslovakia, Burma is not East Timor, any number of places are not Israel.
Also: please don’t try to sell your book on sex in 12C Belgium as being of telling relevance to 9/11 and/or Iraq.
The world is a very complex place, and if you try to fit things into a too-simple pattern, bits will keep popping out all over. A doctor with fixed pre-conceived idea about what the problem with patients in general was wouldn’t be very good at their job. Whether they gave you a prescription as you were half way through saying ‘hello’, or refused to give you any drugs whatsoever because ‘patients these days are over-medicated’, is not so much the issue. It’s more that if they they are not paying proper attention to your symptoms, they will be right only by coincidence.
I’ve tried to read most of the comments upthread, but not all.
Lets divide the issues here.
The question should have been about aid. Not one about aid delivered by the US, France and UK.
If neighbouring countries were successfully supplying aid, within their own limitations, then why did the US, UK and France not supply it through those countries?
Am I missing something?
Now, on to the politics. I do not for one minute think that China, let alone Burma, consider USAID to be in their best interest. There is no trust.
I haven’t read Conor Foley on the subject, but recall how the NGOs were being co-opted, against their wishes into the Serbia-Bosnia intervention. And then Iraq. To the point where NGOs are not trusted. They are seen as an extension of western government policy. In fact in the UK it was just that the NGOs probably did not receive support unless they fell in line with govt. policy.
We should worry about the future where the likes of Foley will not be trusted.
Refresh
agree with you - debate should be about aid - not countries.
soru, that’s a great lecture. I suggest you direct it to the “Interventionists” who such as those on this thread who are advocating launching an “invasion” on Burma because their logic says: “Well intervention worked fine in Kosovo/(parts of) Iraq/Afghanistan/Bangladesh” as if we’re talking about fitting an MFI kitchen.
Refresh - I think that’s a useful point. China and India have been supplying aid and aid workers throughout the whole crisis (although I couldn’t tell you in what quantities) so when the western media have reported that no foreign aid has been allowed in they actually meant no Western aid - which is presumably the only aid that counts.
Others - thanks for the kind comments further above
Maidmarian,
You said this:
Maybe. If from that I take it that you are referring to GW Bush and his peachy unimpeachability, I’ll take that on the chin. The failure of the US - which was actually the midwife to the ICC believe it or not - to actually sign up to it is yet another reason to consider the last seven years of a republican administration as a complete utter nightmare.
The ICC has around 139 signatories and 90 ratifications, including amusingly enough both Canada and Mexico.
Don’t you want to see politicians held accountable when they do something mega criminal? I’d have thought that ordinary folk would have seen it as a good thing, something to be supported rather than something to be cynical about.
I accept that it is not going to change the world overnight, however if the US backed it instead of pretending some form of ludicrous exceptionalism, it would stand a chance of making quicker progress.
Aid is politics by another means.
I recall asking Michael Meacher, then shadow minister responsible for the environment, just before the 1997 election how we were going to support developing nations on climate change technologies. And he acknowledged that most of the intellectual property will be held in the West and we will offer it to the rest as a part of the overall Aid program.
And this week we saw in the Guardian, exactly that happening. But Aid isn’t what its supposed to be, those countries receiving assistance as expected to pay it all back with interest. In one form or another.
This is the model, and its there for all to see.
‘UK demands repayment of climate aid to poor nationsDeveloping countries attack plan to offer warming help as loans instead of grants’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/16/climatechange.internationalaidanddevelopment
^ and youd think a bunch of browns would have figured that one out by now.
sid: I can hardly direct a lecture at a group of people that are only really exist as a group in your head, only have one thing in common: they don’t share, or put a particularly high priority on, some moral taboo you hold dear. People who drink aren’t necessarily drunkards - it’s abstainers who actually have something in common.
It looks to me like the vague threat of some future action, floated but not crudely spelt out, together with some concessions on symbolic issues like who delivers the aid, has succeeded in getting the minimum necessary job done.
Maybe you’d prefer, like one of those stupider episodes of Star Trek, to see the locals starve to death to maintain some level of non-interventionist purity. If so, I would check your limbs to see if they are actually made of straw.
I can hardly direct a lecture at a group of people that are only really exist as a group in your head
Except they don’t exist in my head - because a cursory look at some of commentaries in the press, comments on this thread etc will show you that the doctrine of Liberal Intervention is a growth industry.
It was probably only a matter of time before you started breaking it down into simplistic but amusing binaries: I don’t support military action in Burma so I must want the population, where I have relatives, to starve to death. Yeah, you lumbered me there!
I support military intervention in some cases but not in the case of Burma. I noticed that you admitted not knowing much about the regional politics. But this sentence of yours:
“All I know is that if someone came up with something that sounded semi-plausible, I wouldn’t be out marching on the streets with a ‘hands off Burma’ banner.”
presupposes that the only solution for you will be military action, hence why you won’t be on the street protesting it.
aid is… always interested to hear what others have to say on this topic.
‘^ and youd think a bunch of browns would have figured that one out by now.’
Or any sane rational being….
Definitely some truth to that; there is a dark underbelly of aid where its conditional on things like opening up state owned utilities to corporate buy outs etc…
think of it as the indignity of having a former landlord pay for your daughters pole dancing lessons once you got temporarily immobilised by a lightening bolt.
then when you reject his crude, invasive advances, he says you are against women’s education, and his minions think of things like ‘i’d probably invade burma’.
So invade is abit of poor choice of expression.
However, I think 40,000 troops under UN auspices escorting aid might make the Burmese think twice about picking a fight.
How many thousands of Burmese have to die before action is taken? I suspect it is rather alot.
Anyway, this is an academic debate. Invasion is not going to happen because the only nations with the resources are:
1. Bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan - the US and UK
2. France, Germany, Italy and the rest of the EU only have militaries for….well, if anyone knows please tellme
3. Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand - perhaps could but won’t.
4. China - like they give a toss
So its up to gentle persuasion of the Junta to convince them that their own citizens are worth saving……
What a fecked up world!
TCH
but why not acquiece and channel raw resources through the asian countries (trusting the asian countries to be custodians of asia) something the ‘junta’ have already publically stipulated.
Theres only so far that you can call this disaster ’socially produced’ by undemocratic governance, there was a cyclone after all.
There will be learning in the system, especially in the myanmarese red cross and in the communities themselves. The red cross movment is usually beyond the international political game. and remember Myanmar has also just asked to be included in SAARC and they look like they are mimiking a few of China’s moves.
The government there sure does have an ego issue, but so do these international political helpers, bothe the proxies and the nations behind them). They cannot stand to be told that their assistance is not trusted or acceptable, they have become accustomed to living in a lala land where they feed of international disaster philanthropy at times like this.
Fugstar,
And meanwhile in the Cyclone hit area?
I don’t disagree with your third paragraph but it does also mean that many many people will die in the meantime.
Why did you put ‘Junta’ like that?
Funnily enough all the Burmese people I have met and friends have, mostly in Australasia call the country ‘Burma’. My mate in Auckland was extensively lectured that calling Burma ‘Myanmar’ was a sign of support for the oppressive military Junta and not the Burmese people.
1) Thats not really in our hands. individually it depends on where you draw the line of your own responsibility. ‘Responsible’ enough to war fight, regime topple, development aid/saline drip engineer the new regime and then withdraw each and every vested interest?
International norms are strange, perhaps because of the peculrial culture that has written them, but EU countries toying with the idea of the afflicted country being criminal for not allowing their agencies a free rein is OTT.
You can support good work on the ground, on their terms, and thats through asian agencies in asian countries. Dont let necessity warp whats write and wrong. There are still people living in caravans after last years floods in the uk. Its not so dramatic but theres something weird about that.
2) Bullet or Ballot, regimes who hold state power .. hold state power and soveriengty.
People have always died, i hope we all go out in a good way. Asian diplomacy and less EU-US barking could save more. The big powers mask purer, more evil intent with their humanitarian lyrics.
Dont take my use of myanmar as a preference for oppression, or my preference for mumbai as support for the BJP. Its more about objection to colonial nomenclature.
Its more about objection to colonial nomenclature
Still fighting yesterday’s battles eh OBE?
Dont take my use of myanmar as a preference for oppression, or my preference for mumbai as support for the BJP. Its more about objection to colonial nomenclature.
Yeah, simplistic bullshit. Although British rule introduced many inequalities which led to communal tensions which exist to this day, they also modernised the infrastructure, deswamped the delta, introduced paddy fields, brought electricity to Rangoon, improved urban sanitation, built hospitals and redesigned the capital on a grid system.
Myanmar, the creation of the junta have done nothing to improve the lot for the Burmese.
here are still people living in caravans after last years floods in the uk. Its not so dramatic but theres something weird about that.
Not really. My aunty got flooded out in Carlisle and it took over two years for the house to dry out enough to start redecorating. It just takes that long.
On Myanmar, I’ll be more than happy to use the name when it is ratified by a legitimate government.
And to suggest that anyone has remotely suggested that the ‘country is criminal’ rather than that the junta is callously incompetent is way OTT.
It is not about EU countries demanding that ‘their’ agencies be given a ‘free rein’. It is about a thuggish junta refusing to allow effective aid (i.e. aid delivered by people who know what they are doing) because doing so might erode their absolute grip. Unless, of course, in your world-view, agencies such as MSF et al are de facto agents of The Man.
There are excellent reasons why ‘invading’ Burma is a very bad idea (I think Sunny chose the wrong word there) and reading Jimjay’s contributions would be a good place to start. But you seem to be just filtering the reality through your own familiar agenda. OK, we all do that to an extent. You just take it further faster.
strange thing .. guess Mumbai name change was acceptable as a anit-colonial move - but Myanmar wasn’t/isn’t because even though anti-colonial we assoicate it with a military government - and its legitimacy. Not sure where I come out on this - except always thought i was anti-colonial. hmm.
98. Yeah, we lost and its happening again
100. i dont dogmatically believe that any government not running on my idea of model governance is a bastard state. peculiar ideas of legitimacy are not universal.
Its not only western agencies who know what they are doing. Asia as a collective has gone through quite a lot of these things in the past. this unusual political stubbornness presents them with the opening to stand up and do their thing. interesting how their own responses arent so eagerly tracked by our media.
Whether msf is an agent of The Man matters less to me than building up experiences regionally and locally. At a practical level alien invasion can invoke disgust. Remember when the rumour/plan of evangelical kidnapping of acenese children went around indonesia? Even the US military help, diverted from occupation duty in west asia got the message and stood back, redistributed its efforts.
im not filtering, what i do is called squinting and looking for a silver lining and empathising with why a paranoid government wouldnt want the US army corps and friends surveying my delta.
1. Burmese inside Burma don’t give a toss whether the country is called Myanmar or Burma. They are interchangeable in Burmese, the first literary and formal, the other colloquial with the same meaning no matter what the rulers or any politicians try and make it out to be. It has exercised mainly expat dissident groups and outsiders, a luxury Burmese can’t afford and regarded an utter waste of time.
2. They are desperate enough to call for foreign invasion/bombing to get rid of the regime.
http://english.dvb.no/news.php?id=1301
3. Invasion will provoke resistance, and occupation even more likely sooner or later. Depends how the invaders behave and treat the natives, and the West’s record as it stands is far from encouraging. Remember there is no shortage of Burmese nationalists however much they despise the regime.
4. Bombing Naypyidaw is a very attractive option. One precision airstrike is enough. Popularity of this action is guaranteed among the Burmese, the army included. The place is populated only by the top brass, garrison troops, ministry staffs and civil servants compelled to live there under duress. It’s neither a normal city nor family friendly. Even the generals’ wives won’t live there.
How would China react to such a lightning strike with a clear message of specifically targetting the junta with no plan to invade and occupy, but only to aid? Start WWIII? Very unlikely. Protest they will using the strongest language in the UNSC. ASEAN will join in, but beyond that and start hostilities because a member state has been attacked? Remember who they all from China down have as major trading partners.
So why not throw in some container loads of arms as well while you’re about it. This also will be gratefully received.
4. Burma is a tinder box. All they need is a spark. Granted 2.5 million cyclone victims are starving. It’s a big fertile country of 53 million and the public has done a great job looking after their own unlike their rulers. There is fight in them alright. They’ve even tried it before only armed with swords and slingshots. What do you reckon they’d do if the country were flush with AK47s as in Afghanistan or Iraq? Just fire them in the air and ululate?
5. The army is ripe for a split. It’s fear among the rank and file that stops one unit from starting a mutiny, and fear among the senior officers that if they don’t hang together they will all hang seperately as Dr Zarni has paraphrased Benjamin Franklin in a recent interview with the BBC. But many of the troops and their families are suffering.
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/asiapacific/news/article_1406227.php/ANALYSIS_Loyalty_of_Myanmar_troops_doubted_after_cyclone_disaster
6. True civil war has been raging in Burma since 1947 before independence spreading very quickly among both Burmans and minorities. True there has been violent and acrimonious communal strife. But a long and bitter experience fighting the central government in a fragmented unco-ordinated manner, fighting everyone else at the same time in pursuit of their own seperatist goals has taught a very good lesson to most that true national reconciliation can only be realised after the overthrow of the military dictatorship. They’ve already gone through the whole hopeless exhausting and costly process of disunion.
http://www.irrawaddy.org/opinion_story.php?art_id=9071
Anyway, what does Jens Lehmann say?
By all accounts, he wants to cluster-bomb the home of Manuel Alumia.
Anyway, someone disparangly mentioned “liberal intervention” upthread. I give “liberal intervention” a different, and more accurate name: “Killing Fascists”. It is rather revealing that some people oppose this.
oh come on Morgoth. You disparage Conor Foley and people who have real experience of humanitarian crises as opposed to a sandwich course in keyboard sermonising.
After all, you live in Dorset with your mum. The closest you’ve ever got to a “Man-made catastrophe” is a long weekend in CentreParcs.
The closest you’ve ever got to a “Man-made catastrophe” is a long weekend in CentreParcs.
Hey, I keep hearing from some of my more bourgois friends that CentreParcs offer a fun-filled, active, and environmentally friendly family holiday alternative.
After all, you live in Dorset with your mum. The closest you’ve ever got to a “Man-made catastrophe” is a long weekend in CentreParcs.
My mum? WFT? If by “mum” you mean partner and two cats, then, yes, I do live with my “mum”.
Nice to know you’re such a Heinleinologist btw, Sid. He was a good solid right-wing type’ y’know.
“Heinleinologist”? “Heinleinologist”? WTF? If by “Heinleinologist” you mean having a partner and two kids, then yes, I am a “Heinleinologist”.
No, by your sudden insistance that, a la Starship Troopers, that military experience is a prerequisite for suggesting policy.
You don’t even know where Burma is do you?
Morgoth,
I think Dorset needs a bit of Liberal Intervention, if only to free two cats and a mum.
Is that a male mum or a female mum?
Just gathering intelligence.
You don’t even know where Burma is do you?
I know a fuck load more about it than you do, Sid.
Refresh, wtf?
You probably do. So you must know what the Burmese junta’s mass ethno-religious abuse of the last decade was? I know this because I went into Burma when I was working for an human rights NGO at the time.
Indeed, I do, but in 50 years Human Rights NGOs have achieved less than the US Marine Core achieved in three weeks, Sid.
The US Marine Corps? Haha. They were nowhere to be found in the particular mass expulsion I am talking about, Morgoth. Do you know which people I’m talking about?
similar levels of destruction id imagine.
The Karen, Shan and the Rohingya, Sid.
similar levels of destruction id imagine.
Destruction, fug? The only people involved in destruction in Iraq are your co-religionists, in the name of your religion, Fuggy.
In addition to the Mon and the Karenni, well done Morgoth. Given that the Rohingya were expelled because they are muslims and the junta hate muslims as much as you do, you actually have more in common with them than you think.
The capacity of muslim self destruction there is quite high. A trigger for this, and part of the responsibility, lies with the ‘humanitarian’ military intervention of the marines. Im sure better solutions could have been reached, if that were in anyones interest at all.
Missionary style human rights wallahs also cause destruction.
Fugstar, or should I say Osama Ben Elton (!), you are already on record for excusing the rape, looting and land grab of Bangladeshi tribal peoples since it is being perpetrated by Muslims. You are the perennial victim of this that or the other so you can’t see oppression unless it’s by non-Muslims.
Of couse you like Morgoth are in denial about the kind of work humanitarian workers do. Actually, denial is the wrong word: you know it exists but you’re just not able to accept the benefit humanitarian work has offer because of either Islamist tendencies or in the case of Morgoth in sunny Dorset, ignorance about the issues in these regions.
not really. your interpretation of ‘record’ is your own business, though only an imprint of you ostentatious humanrights wallahness and selflove. delightfully cheap of you to muddy waters again with your own mud.
In addition to the Mon and the Karenni, well done Morgoth. Given that the Rohingya were expelled because they are muslims and the junta hate muslims as much as you do, you actually have more in common with them than you think.
Yes Sid, that’s why I wanted Saddam overthrown in 1991, that’s why I supported fervently both the Iraqi Shia, the Kurds, the Bosnians and Kosovars, and now the Albanians. That’s also why I support the Muslim Darfurese, why I want democracy through the Middle-East. Why I want to see Assad’s head on a pike.
My wanting an end to the fascist dictators killing muslims in vast numbers is obviously becuase I hate them, Sid, isn’ tit?
Pillock.
I’m all for fascists being killed but its the nation building afterwards thats the tricky bit - the bit that has proved abit beyond the US and Iraqis so far!
The key difference between a Liberal Foreign Policy Wonk/History Buff (i.e. Me) and a Conservative Foreign Policy Wonk/History Buff (i.e. Morgoth) is that he wants Assads head on a spike….I want him to go back to dentistry…..
Anyways, even if the US wasn’t bogged down in iraq I think actual Marine landings might not help but the mere suggestion might. Shame.
Now only if the Americans had thought that pesky nation building in Iraq through there might be money and marines to help the Burmese….
Yet another reason for GWB to go back to being a drunk coke headed serial failure….. (actually I might make an exception for GWB on the spike-head issue!)
TCH
is that he wants Assads head on a spike….I want him to go back to dentistry…..
Head on a spike is so poetic. The Nicolae Ceauşescu treatment is better and more apt.
And I dispute your “If it wasn’t for Iraq…” assertion. The STWC for example, was formed in the days after 9/11.
M,
“And I dispute your “If it wasn’t for Iraq…” assertion. The STWC for example, was formed in the days after 9/11″
???????
I meant that they, the US, have precious little resources to spare for Burma as they are still in Iraq.
On the contrary, TCM, the US has plenty of resources. The problem is that no matter what they do, the usual brigade will be sniping at them. Look at the tsunami, for example, where the US was able to, within days, launch a massive aid operation that fed and watered and aided vast numbers of people. At the same time, the UN was busy…doing nothing.
And yet, the likes of Clare Short would rather have people starving than admit that the US could do something positive.
Morgoth,
Your polemic, or perhaps masturbatory fantasy here: