Because the bulk of our troops are tied down elsewhere for the foreseeable future.
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.
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.
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
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.
Didn’t the U.S. boycott the Moscow Olympics in 1980, in protest over the Soviet presence in Afghanistan?
Yeah, but that had a lot more to do with The Soviet Union, than it did to do with Afghanistan.
Tris
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?
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.
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:
They did make their stand. And it was for the Japanese. 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.
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.
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.
Making moolah off of Burma. Sorry.
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.
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. 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 in that part of the world, should we opt for a few strategic air strikes against Naypyidaw…
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 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.
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.
Um, under the theory that leaders who massacre their people don’t deserve to lead them?
You’re drifting into GW Bush territory, there.
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.
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?
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.”
See? Can’t you feel the moral righteousness? William Randolph Hearst would be proud to live today because business is booming.