babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » Would you support an Int'l invasion of Myanmar to crush the dictatorship?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Would you support an Int'l invasion of Myanmar to crush the dictatorship?
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 26 June 2003 08:15 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
As you all know, there are horrific human rights abuses in Myanmar. Since Iraq was ostensibly attacked for no other reason than to end Saddam's dictatorship and bring "democracy", should Myanmar be next on the list?? I propose sending a petition to Bush and his coalition of the willing demanding an invasion of Myanmar and the arrest of the dictators and the installation of Aung Saang Suu Kyi as the new head of state.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192

posted 26 June 2003 08:39 AM      Profile for Smith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
First we have to write up some bogus documents indicating that Myanmar has (or might have, or might be close to having, or might want to have) The Bomb.
From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 26 June 2003 12:14 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Since Iraq was ostensibly attacked for no other reason than to end Saddam's dictatorship and bring "democracy",

No they weren't. That's the story now.

They were attacked because their WMD were an "imminent threat" to the USA.

There are many countries without oil that could use international pressure to change regimes or end civil wars. Myanmar, Uganda, Congo, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan.....


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 26 June 2003 12:44 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
No they weren't. That's the story now.

They were attacked because their WMD were an "imminent threat" to the USA.



It is astounding how easily propaganda is swallowed and regurgitated.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
drgoodword
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3214

posted 26 June 2003 01:01 PM      Profile for drgoodword   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

No they weren't. That's the story now.

They were attacked because their WMD were an "imminent threat" to the USA.


Furthermore, the WMD rationale is the basis of the "legal" reason for attacking Iraq...that they were supposedly in breach of UN Resolution 1441, to wit, that Iraq's denials of WMD's were false.

This is why Blair is sweating so much over the WMD issue...if absolutely no WMD are found, there could be serious legal repercussions...without WMD, this was clearly and "legally" a war of aggression.

The Bush administration, on the other hand, seems to feel that the only thing they have to worry about is the American electorate, so if the people are happy--and you know how much the Americans love a winner--then legality be damned.


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 26 June 2003 07:35 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
It is astounding how easily propaganda is swallowed and regurgitated.

You got that right. Some folks even think that WMD have been found.

The "Big Lie" is obviously an effective propaganda weapon.

As for sending in the troops....which troops, and who picks the offending countries/regimes?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pimji
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 228

posted 26 June 2003 11:28 PM      Profile for Pimji   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Armed Iraq style invasion? No. Human rights and freedoms are just an after thought in military action. The US already got nailed in South East Asia by a president and his cadre trying to act out their fantasies. They are now repeating the same stupid mistake in the Middle East.

Aung Saang Suu Kyi, for the same reason Sam Rainsy in Cambodia is alive, is for the simple fact that donor countries can use foreign aid as a lever to make governments, legitimate or otherwise, bend to their demands. Western governments who can be voted out don’t want the bad press for supporting brutal dictatorships. Hence the billions spent on advertising by elected governments. They motivation of governments is usually economic or security in nature.

The nieghbours of Burma are none to happy about the levels of speed and heroin being fed to their youth by the Burmese government, who are really just a front for organized crime. People such as Rainsy and Suu Kyi, are more willing to create a legitimate economy based on the welfare of the people therefore are more or less supported by us. Unlike the present rulers who can get what they want by fear, extortion, drug trafficking and prostitution.

So what can be done other than a good ol’ fashioned firebombing?
The Canadian government could pull its thumb out of its ass and have a foreign policy based on our charter of rights and freedoms. People can support or volunteer for an NGO such as Peace Brigades; our unions could create ties to workers in countries with no labour standards, etc. Granted these solutions are slow and don’t give us the great military jack off but progress is always slow and gratification is not realized until we look back to see how the people themselves are doing as opposed to their governments. This als predisposes the fact that a government or its miltary believe they have something to lose unlike the Khmer Rouge or the Nazi's who crossed the line where violent force was the only solution.


Cambodia Journal, bottom left of the page,


From: South of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 27 June 2003 05:01 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

No they weren't. That's the story now.

They were attacked because their WMD were an "imminent threat" to the USA.

There are many countries without oil that could use international pressure to change regimes or end civil wars. Myanmar, Uganda, Congo, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan.....


"The struggle of man against oppression is the struggle of memory against forgetting." - Milan Kundera


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca