Reports of Large-Scale Massacres in Burma

[Paul in Qatar]

I hope this is in the right forum, if not Mods please feel free to move.

Here (http://cryptome.org/burma01/burma-kill-01.htm) is a link to disturbing and graphic photos from Burma. Remarkable how information can get out nowadays. Initial reports are sometimes wrong, but point to a large-scale massacre.

These photos are graphic.

[Omegaman]

I've read that the military is confiscating cameras to stop pictures from getting out. Places like this is where our military should be.

[D_Odds]

No oil. The U.S. won't touch it. Sad how far up their asses the heads of our gov't officials are.

That said, the troops would encounter many of the same problems they have in Iraq and they had in Somalia. Sending troops is a no-win situation for everybody. There's got to be a better way.

[jjimm]

Fuck them. These fucking bastards (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3755684.stm).

The good news, should any country have the balls to intervene, is that the generals have installed themselves in their own city, Naypyitaw, built from scratch in the jungle. Would minimise collateral damage if someone decided to start bombing.

[gazpacho]

No oil. The U.S. won't touch it. Sad how far up their asses the heads of our gov't officials are.

That said, the troops would encounter many of the same problems they have in Iraq and they had in Somalia. Sending troops is a no-win situation for everybody. There's got to be a better way.That is not true. Burma has plenty of oil. Their nearest big neighbors have deals for the oil and are not inclined to make waves and upset the the deals.

[kidchameleon]

After the fuckups and screw ups the past few years, I think the US should definately NOT get involved in any new countries, trying to pull back from the ones they are in. And if the US doesn't, no one else will.

[saoirse]

That is not true. Burma has plenty of oil. Their nearest big neighbors have deals for the oil and are not inclined to make waves and upset the the deals.

One neighbor in particular stands out on this score. The PRC has been propping up SLORC for years. In India and Thailand, protests were directed at the Chinese Embassy.

[jjimm]

And if the US doesn't, no one else will.Apart from Vietnamese intervention in Cambodia, Australian intervention in the Solomon Islands and East Timor, French intervention in Côte d'Ivoire, British intervention in Sierra Leone, &c.

[Swampwolf]

While I think that --no. While I KNOW that what's going on in Myanmar is atrocious and should be stopped...

What can we, realistically, do? Go into their country with air attacks followed by ground troops? Ferret out their despotic, murderous leader and assist the local population in bringing him to justice? Help the people establish self-rule and try to import democracy?
Doesn't always work.
I am strongly against the war in Iraq, but at the same time I wish we could do something to help out the Burmese...well, I feel a bit conflicted. At what point does that make me a hypocrite? I just don't know.

But my heart goes out to any peaceful people being massacred.

[D_Odds]

I stand corrected. So it's our lust for oil versus avoiding another 'police action' in China's back yard. Cheney must be boiling mad that he can't add another notch to his belt.

[Marley23]

Fuck them. These fucking bastards (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3755684.stm).

The good news, should any country have the balls to intervene, is that the generals have installed themselves in their own city, Naypyitaw, built from scratch in the jungle. Would minimise collateral damage if someone decided to start bombing.
What a nice bunch: a former postal worker who relies on astrologers, an alcoholic, and the guy who led the massacre of the pro-democracy group.

[jjimm]

I am strongly against the war in Iraq, but at the same time I wish we could do something to help out the Burmese...well, I feel a bit conflicted. At what point does that make me a hypocrite? I just don't know.The situations are markedly different. There has been an election in Burma within living memory in which the overwhelming majority voted for one party and one person. That person is ready to lead a government with democratic ideals. The only potentially warring tribes involved are the Karens, and to a lesser extent the Shan. And they're on the same side as the people currently being massacred. They're not in such a tinderbox area, and they don't have a global spiritual support network to inflame. And the reason for an intervention would be entirely, 100% humanitarian. Genuinely, any invading party would be welcomed (provided they didn't opress, posture, murder and torture the liberated people, as our armies have done).

It's a no-brainer, or would be without China in the mix.

[Elenfair]

What a mess. What a horrible, hopeless mess. It feels like there's so little we can do.

I encourage folks, at times like these, to consider donating to Medecins sans Frontieres...

[Random]

Apart from Vietnamese intervention in Cambodia, Australian intervention in the Solomon Islands and East Timor, French intervention in Côte d'Ivoire, British intervention in Sierra Leone, &c.

Are you suggesting that one or more of these countries has even a 1% chance of intervening in Burma?

If not, what's your point?

kidchameleon did not say, or even imply, the no nation other than the US has ever intervened anywhere. He said the no one is going to intervene in Burma if the U.S. does not, a statement I agree with.

[Evil Captor]

Well, Iraq has demonstrated that we can't occupy a country effectively or easily or at low cost, but we can definitely go in there and depose a despised dictator pretty quickly and easily. Why not invade, overthrow the military, kick their asses, and leave? Let the Burmese sort things out.

[jjimm]

Are you suggesting that one or more of these countries has even a 1% chance of intervening in Burma?

If not, what's your point?

kidchameleon did not say, or even imply, the no nation other than the US has ever intervened anywhere. He said the no one is going to intervene in Burma if the U.S. does not, a statement I agree with.Sorry, I kneejerked, thinking it was the oft-seen "ah me, we are the world's policeman and it is our burden" attitude, whereas there are other, occasionally successful, interventions out there that don't necessarily end up on CNN or Fox. I apologise for misinterpreting kidchameleon's post. And alas, no, I suspect none of the countries I mentioned will help.

ETA: I'm inclined to agree with Evil Captor in this instance.

[devilsknew]

Where is Japan....why haven't they made their stand?
Where is Thailand?
Where is India and Sri Lanka?
Where is Indonesia?
Where is the U.S.?
Where is China?

Please help the peaceful people of Burma.

Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate Bodhi Svaha
Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate Bodhi Svaha
Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate Bodhi Svaha

[A Monkey With a Gun]

Deleted: already been asked and answered.

[ShibbOleth]

Where is Japan....why haven't they made their stand?
Where is Thailand?
Where is India and Sri Lanka?
Where is Indonesia?
Where is the U.S.?
Where is China?

Please help the peaceful people of Burma.

Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate Bodhi Svaha
Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate Bodhi Svaha
Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate Bodhi Svaha

I can think of problems with all of those, unfortunately. Thailand and Burma have a long history (although it's been quite a while) of invading each other. Sri Lanka has it's own problems, and Pakistan might mess with India if they were to move toward Burma. China is hardly a paragon of human rights. Indonesia would make Thailand and Malaysia pretty nervous by going through/over/around them to get there. The United States is spread thin at the moment and that's a long supply chain.

Best would be a U.N. peacekeeping force maybe made of Thai, Malay and Indian troops. But U.N. peacekeeping usually only happens during a hot war and not during peaceful protests. And China would probably block it to keep from setting a precedent.

[yojimbo]

Pressure should be put on China. I believe there is a rather big sporting event coming up there. IMO western nations should start threatening boycotts if the PRC dont sort their little vassel(esque) state out.

[BrainGlutton]

Well, Iraq has demonstrated that we can't occupy a country effectively or easily or at low cost, but we can definitely go in there and depose a despised dictator pretty quickly and easily. Why not invade, overthrow the military, kick their asses, and leave? Let the Burmese sort things out.

Because the bulk of our troops are tied down elsewhere for the foreseeable future.

[Ale]

I can think of problems with all of those, unfortunately. Thailand and Burma have a long history (although it's been quite a while) of invading each other.

The Thai junta steping up to bring down the Burmese junta would be a truly amusing event. Not that they are on the same level of totalitarian savagery by any measure, of course, but its highly unlikely regardless of whatever history there is between both nations.

[Great Dave]

Because the bulk of our troops are tied down elsewhere for the foreseeable future.


Not true. We have 150,000 or so in Iraq, and 25,000 or so in Afghanistan. As of 2005, we had 1.4 million in active duty. I suppose one could argue that we are still "tied down" in Germany and S. Korea, but where there's a will, there's a way.

[Triskadecamus]

The thought that America would even consider forgoing the Olympics over some small nation's dictator's mass murder is unfortunately a fairy tale dream. We might choose a bombing campaign, followed by an invasion, but actually forgoing the profit and hoopla of the Olympics? No, not likely.

Tris

[saoirse]

Best would be a U.N. peacekeeping force maybe made of Thai, Malay and Indian troops. But U.N. peacekeeping usually only happens during a hot war and not during peaceful protests. And China would probably block it to keep from setting a precedent.

China would block any move against Myanmar by the UN. The PRC is really in a win-win situation here. Not only has the junta stifled the democracy movement, they've made themselves international pariahs, so China can dictate prices for the products they purchase. It works as long as the government of the PRC doesn't get any of the stink on them.

[BrainGlutton]

The thought that America would even consider forgoing the Olympics over some small nation's dictator's mass murder is unfortunately a fairy tale dream. We might choose a bombing campaign, followed by an invasion, but actually forgoing the profit and hoopla of the Olympics? No, not likely.

Tris

Didn't the U.S. boycott the Moscow Olympics in 1980, in protest over the Soviet presence in Afghanistan?

[Triskadecamus]

Yeah, but that had a lot more to do with The Soviet Union, than it did to do with Afghanistan.

Tris

[Szlater]

If the three heads of the junta were to suffer a series of "unforeseeable accidents", is there a line of succession laid out, or would military control of the country fall apart?

[Paul in Qatar]

What we need are silent-but-deadly precision-guided bags of rice. Five hundred pounds of starchy death in a burlap sack. A couple of tragic accidents while helping the people of Burma.

[jjimm]

If the three heads of the junta were to suffer a series of "unforeseeable accidents", is there a line of succession laid out, or would military control of the country fall apart?That's always a danger, of course, since those in power now stepped in when others departed. One would always hope that it doesn't go down too far - depends how far down the command chain the mansions have been distributed. :mad:

[smiling bandit]

Where is Japan....why haven't they made their stand?

They did make their stand. (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/09/29/burma.html) And it was for the Japanese. (http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2007/09/letter-from-burma.html) I can't vouch for its reality, but I don't think Wretchard would deliberately make it up. It's possibly a hoax by someone else, but here we have a situation in which no hoax is needed.

Where is Thailand?
Where is India and Sri Lanka?
Where is Indonesia?

Having their own troubles and probably not owning the military force to disrupt a regime which is still strong on its mountain, without big casualties, which they don't care for.

Where is the U.S.?

If we even twitched in Burma's general direction, half the planet would be calling us monsters before we even finished the twitch. A good chunk of our own people would be pulling protest marches and starting conspiracy theories and pretending the Burmese rulers are actually heroes against our imperialist occupation. Iraq is almost irrelvant; this would ahppen even if Iraq never existed.

Where is China?

Making moolah off of Burma. Sorry.

[Lamar Mundane]

There is some disturbing video I just saw on CNN (no killing).

http://www.cnn.com/exchange/blogs/in.the.field/index.html

"Watch the video" link is about halfway down.

[The Scrivener]

It's not that we won't intervene because there's "no oil" involved; it's that China and Russia are opposed to any sanctions or interventions because it suits their geopolitical interests and repressive ideologies. Both countries (but especially China) conduct extensive trade with the Myanmar regime, and both reject further assertions of U.S. power and influence in the region.

As is often the case in human rights disasters, calls for sanctions have been nixed by China and Russia in the U.N. Security Council and the G8, respectively, in the past week (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N26215980.htm). A G8 statement issued a week ago in response to the early displays of violence in the Myanmar govt.'s crackdown refrained from calling for sanctions, in deference to the opposition of the Russian foreign minister to sanctions.

So again, the U.S. & allies are faced with an unpleasant choice, between impotent diplomatic gestures which have no teeth in them, or going the unilateral route of sanctions and/or military intervention. On the plus side, we've got a fielder's choice of U.S. air bases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases) in that part of the world, should we opt for a few strategic air strikes against Naypyidaw...

[Dewey Finn]

Well, Iraq has demonstrated that we can't occupy a country effectively or easily or at low cost, but we can definitely go in there and depose a despised dictator pretty quickly and easily. Why not invade, overthrow the military, kick their asses, and leave? Let the Burmese sort things out.
Under what theory of international law do you suggest that the US invade a sovereign country? I've also heard people (not necessarily you, mind you) suggest that the US invade Iran but, again, how can this be justified?

[DrDeth]

While I think that --no. While I KNOW that what's going on in Myanmar is atrocious and should be stopped...

What can we, realistically, do? Go into their country with air attacks followed by ground troops? Ferret out their despotic, murderous leader and assist the local population in bringing him to justice? Help the people establish self-rule and try to import democracy?
Doesn't always work.
I am strongly against the war in Iraq, but at the same time I wish we could do something to help out the Burmese...well, I feel a bit conflicted. At what point does that make me a hypocrite? I just don't know.

But my heart goes out to any peaceful people being massacred.

You make an excellent point, but it's BURMA. Not Myanmar. Calling Burma Myanmar is giving credance to the junta that is killing those people.

I think we need to at least make a strong politcal gesture. Call for action in the UN or something. I don't know.

[Evil Captor]

If the three heads of the junta were to suffer a series of "unforeseeable accidents", is there a line of succession laid out, or would military control of the country fall apart?

Assassinate military dicatators who seized power in a coup? What kind of nation do you think the US is? We always support guys like that.

[Evil Captor]

Under what theory of international law do you suggest that the US invade a sovereign country? I've also heard people (not necessarily you, mind you) suggest that the US invade Iran but, again, how can this be justified?

Um, under the theory that leaders who massacre their people don't deserve to lead them?

[saoirse]

Um, under the theory that leaders who massacre their people don't deserve to lead them?

You're drifting into GW Bush territory, there.

[marshmallow]

Burma has been a shithole for...well, pretty much forever. It's one of those multi-ethnic, multi-religious places, which means permanent civil war. It really is a way of life. They're also really good at using child soldiers and promoting the sex slave trade. Add in a long history of brutal colonization and various dictatorships and you get current day Burma. The only reason it's even making the news lately is due to the monks. Monks are cool, ya know? Everyone likes 'em. Have any set themselves on fire yet? That's always fun for the whole family.

I'm not really sure what to say about the multiple calls for U.S. intervention in this thread. It's 2007, not 1907. Countries don't intervene in another country's business out of the kindness of their heart. That's called drinking your own Kool-Aid. Besides, Burma isn't even anything special, it's just another worthless tropical hell. Well, worthless to us anyway. The Indians and the Chinese make all sorts of money off it, like others in the thread have pointed out. That's why Burma's leadership is quite safe, as long as they play ball. We are simply in no position to siphon off those sweetheart deals and even if we could it'd be insanely expensive. So, yes, worthless.

Even if you wanted to honestly save the people of Burma because you're such a bleeding heart, you'd just fuck up things even worse. Think Bull, think fragile vases...because we don't know anything about how to effectively rule them. It'd just be another civil war combined with a backlash against our presence and we'd probably set in motion a chain of events which would end up killing more people than just leaving them alone.

Under what theory of international law do you suggest that the US invade a sovereign country? I've also heard people (not necessarily you, mind you) suggest that the US invade Iran but, again, how can this be justified?
You'll find that being born in the middle of the North American continent confers many moral advantages, but it also burdens us with a duty to Spread Freedom and Democracy. It's kinda like the white man's burden, except with a modern day spitshine. Wait...did I say modern?


MR. PRESIDENT, the times call for candor. The Philippines are ours forever, "territory belonging to the United States," as the Constitution calls them. And just beyond the Philippines are China's illimitable markets. We will not retreat from either. We will not repudiate our duty in the archipelago. We will not abandon our opportunity in the Orient. We will not renounce our part in the mission of our race, trustee, under God, of the civilization of the world. And we will move forward to our work, not howling out regrets like slaves whipped to their burdens but with gratitude for a task worthy of our strength and thanksgiving to Almighty God that He has marked us as His chosen people, henceforth to lead in the regeneration of the world.

That was Senator Beveridge. I always love reading politican's speeches back then because they were actually quite honest about a great many things. For example, Teddy Roosevelt might refer to many in this thread as: "the jack fools who seriously think that any group of pirates and head-hunters needs nothing but independence in order that it may be turned forthwith into a dark-hued New England town meeting."

Um, under the theory that leaders who massacre their people don't deserve to lead them?
See? Can't you feel the moral righteousness? William Randolph Hearst would be proud to live today because business is booming.