Military Intervention in Burma

I was talking to one of my college friends the other election night and we began to discuss the world. I didnt like his center-left views on most things, but I did agree with him on one thing: that military intervention is needed in Burma. Frankly, the only thing the dictatorship in Burma understands is fists and a stell toed boot to the balls.

So, what are the capabilities of Burma's military ? What kind of force would we likely throw at them ? Both ideally(realistically, taking into consideration modern times. Nothing outlandish) and at the present moment ?

 

Sounds like a good job for the UN. Just as soon as they get finished with Africa.

 

The UN dosent invade people anymore. Actually, I dont know what they do anymore. Sure as hell not as much as they could be doing.

 

so for the UN a launch date of making war is 2012. The EU could do it?

 

lets let the burmese handle this one..

 

I believe thats what Bush said in '91...

 

I agree with him there.

 

Yeah, and the shi'ites and kurds got slaughtered.

 

In Burma?

 

No, in Iraq, which is what Bush said "let them handle this one themselves" about, which is what CSP is referring to. That is, if I'm getting this straight.

 

people die people die, cant always save everyone.

 

Well, there are more important matters to worry about now than Burma(just name it)

And besides,the US and the Un can't always have the fate of the world on their shoulders.It isn't fair to demand anything. The US doesn't owe the world a living. If Burma receive any help at all from a foreign state,then they would have received the Grace of a nation.

Aung San Suu Kyi has the popular mandate but cjhooses non-resistance.It sure is a noble way.But at the expense of her own countrymen.

 

HOW BAD ARE THINGS IN burma ,really ,,,is it as terrible as rawanda ,cambodia ,darfur ?...the ija liberated burma in 42 , lets let them handle it ...then we send in general macaurthur ...

 

Well, the people are demonstrating in order to try and gain political freedoms, and are being rather ruthlessly supressed by the military.

Admittedly it is no Rwanda, but people are being killed and many many more are being locked up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p ... 047504.stm

 

That's a rather grim and selfish way of looking at life,
I kno you can't save everyone, but why not try to save as many as possible, because, maybe, just maybe it could make a difference.
You have these "freedoms" and "security" that many of these people don't have.
So at least show some form of compassion towards them.

 

i have compassion for them but it stops well short of american or commonwealth blood and treasure ..no genocide , no troops imo...

 

Put yourself in their position,
And I doubt you'd be saying the same thing.
It's alright to say that when you're in the US or the UK or most Western Countries, but these people are really being oppressed with violence.
Many Western countries like to seem themselves as he defenders of democracy, well at the moment they are doing a great job aren't they :roll:

 

IT is all well for you to say that. But who actually sheds those blood when you order the troops in? If a country always has needs for international aid because its leader doesn't want to come out of their non-violence,how can they expect someone else,who has no ties whatsoever to this country,shed blood for them?

It isn't a grim and selfish way of looking at life.Burma in its current state.
When i was trained as a medic,i learnt to TRIAGE my patients. Burma ,in my opinion,doesn't need a resuscitation yet. How many fronts or resources do you expect a country to contribute when they are already concerned about other more urgent matters?

 

Well, speaking as a member of the country that once had something of a vested interest in Burma...

 

I wouldn't want American troops sent to Burma. Given the climate, I daresay quite a few of them would wind up in the hospital, despite the medical advances that have taken place since WW2.