But where does that lead? Countries can be isolated economically and embargo set to prevent weapons from entering the country but how do you deal with countries like Rwanda and Darfur? Tibet and Chechneya would fit into that catagory as well. Vietnam had some lessons there.
Burma: Thousands dead in massacre
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
But where does that lead? Countries can be isolated economically and embargo set to prevent weapons from entering the country but how do you deal with countries like Rwanda and Darfur? Tibet and Chechneya would fit into that catagory as well. Vietnam had some lessons there.
You're not kidding.
As for the notion that maybe this story has no basis, all one need is to check wikipedia's analysis of the Daily Mail which is a decidedly right wing newspaper:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail
quote:
```The Daily Mail considers itself to be the voice of Middle England, speaking up for "small-c" conservative values against what it sees as a liberal establishment. It generally takes an anti-European, anti-immigration, anti-sexual-freedoms, Christian, anti-abortion view, and is correspondingly "pro-family", anti-taxation, pro-capitalism and pro-monarchy, as well as advocating stricter punishments for crime. The paper is generally critical of the BBC, which it perceives as being biased to the left. However, it is less supportive of deregulated commercial television than The Sun, and unlike Rupert Murdoch's tabloid it seems to be broadly nostalgic for what it believes the BBC once was.
In the late 1960s the paper went through a phase of being liberal on social issues like corporal punishment, but this proved short-lived and it soon reverted to its traditional right-wing conservative line.
In Richard Littlejohn, who returned in 2005 from The Sun, it has one of the most right-wing columnists in popular British journalism, alongside Peter Hitchens, who joined its sister title the Mail on Sunday in 2001, when his former newspaper, the Daily Express, was purchased by Richard Desmond, the owner of a number of pornographic titles. The editorial stance was highly critical of Tony Blair, when he was still Prime Minister, and endorsed the Conservative Party in the 2005 general election[4] However, in Blair's earlier years as Labour leader and then Prime Minister the paper often wrote positively about him and his reforms of the party. Opponents of Littlejohn have accused the columnist of being preoccupied with homosexuality (which he frequently calls 'poofery') and lying about asylum seekers being 'hosed down in benefits'[5].
On Middle East issues it is generally pro-Israel ... ```
Therefore, it is doubtful that a right wing source would be exaggerating the extent of the unhappy events that have taken place in that troubled land.
Last edited:
Rwanda and Darfur are problems, no doubt. I don't think the standard peace keeping model would work, in fact I think the standard model needs refinement. In order to provide security in these situations you can't hand-cuff the peace keepers, they have to be allowed to make/keep peace, and sometimes that involves more offensive maneuvers rather than policing. If I had the answers, well I'd have passed them on, and maybe have a Nobel prize, lol.
I been around for awhile.
Gopher is an irritating, left-wing nutty. (no offense, Gopher
)Juan is much less irritating, only slightly nutty, and is not consumed by his own lefty rhetoric. (no offense, Juan) He ain't Gopher, and vice-versa.
Tonington isn't either of them.
And I'm the resident right-wing, gun-toting redneck.
So there.
A minor suggestion if you wish to enjoy your visits here:
Get polite.
I been around for awhile.
Gopher is an irritating, left-wing nutty. (no offense, Gopher
Juan is much less irritating, only slightly nutty, and is not consumed by his own lefty rhetoric. (no offense, Juan) He ain't Gopher, and vice-versa.
Tonington isn't either of them.
And I'm the resident right-wing, gun-toting redneck.
So there.
A minor suggestion if you wish to enjoy your visits here:
Get polite.
No kidding.
Goat, you have done the impossible and made me come to the defense of my esteemed leftish collegues. While I can't agree what color the sky is, with most of them, most of the time, you for sure, don't know them.
That being said, the US would still take flak if we went in and started cracking the junta's skulls in Myanmar. Just guessing, I could be wrong...
I am here to say that I feel for them.
I've seen couple videos of protesters being shot at,* as well, the monks becoming captivies..
now THAT'S GOING TOO FAR.
MONKS BECOMING PRISONERS?
Its same, if not ANYTHING, as saying, "Oh...Burma..we oWn you"
and they do. Its just that Sadddam treated Islam better than what Burma government do to its own religion.
Good, continue the fight
I've seen couple videos of protesters being shot at,* as well, the monks becoming captivies..
now THAT'S GOING TOO FAR.
MONKS BECOMING PRISONERS?
Its same, if not ANYTHING, as saying, "Oh...Burma..we oWn you"
and they do. Its just that Sadddam treated Islam better than what Burma government do to its own religion.
Good, continue the fight
Wow!
Both Colpy and thomaska ''defend'' 'lefty gopher'.
Ahem.
But 'lefty'? Dunno about that.
After all, I've endorsed Republican Ron Paul for prez, am the biggest pro-lifer on the planet, condemned Malthusianism which is advocated by extremists from both sides of the political aisle, strongly support Second Amendment rights, and have used Pat Buchanan's links more than anyone else's to support my opposition to Bush's war.
Nonetheless, thanks fellas! Ahem ...
Both Colpy and thomaska ''defend'' 'lefty gopher'.
Ahem.
But 'lefty'? Dunno about that.
After all, I've endorsed Republican Ron Paul for prez, am the biggest pro-lifer on the planet, condemned Malthusianism which is advocated by extremists from both sides of the political aisle, strongly support Second Amendment rights, and have used Pat Buchanan's links more than anyone else's to support my opposition to Bush's war.
Nonetheless, thanks fellas! Ahem ...
Yes Juan, this is a better place for the UN to intervene than Iraq.
I see that as pointless though, since the UN doesn't intervene no matter what. The UN is a place to talk with other nations, it is not any kind of authority or power.
Events like this just highlight it, if only people would stop expecting it to be one. IF you want for the UN to act on something your just saying "I don't want to get involved to help the suffering of others", because the UN will never act, no matter how long you wait.
I see that as pointless though, since the UN doesn't intervene no matter what. The UN is a place to talk with other nations, it is not any kind of authority or power.
Events like this just highlight it, if only people would stop expecting it to be one. IF you want for the UN to act on something your just saying "I don't want to get involved to help the suffering of others", because the UN will never act, no matter how long you wait.
Very true. Recently there was an article in the Financial Times about how the American government had lost influence in the world because of the war in Iraq. Before the war in Iraq, people generally grumbled about the US, but it was mostly quiet and not very widespread. Even when the USA did wrong on the world stage people assumed that the government meant well.
Now, after Iraq, the US government can do no right in the minds of many worldwide. Even when they do something right, and they do, people believe there is a hidden agenda. Something to lament about, obviously.
Back to the subject at hand.
I wonder how many ties China has to Burma.
I have a question....
Who do those who propose the U.N. intervene militarily - send to this massacre?
France? Germany? Poland?
I love the way everyone automatically expects the U.S. to again be the flunkies for another U.N. clustermess of ineffective assignment.
Who do those who propose the U.N. intervene militarily - send to this massacre?
France? Germany? Poland?
I love the way everyone automatically expects the U.S. to again be the flunkies for another U.N. clustermess of ineffective assignment.
Last edited:
In defense of Goat - because I agree with much of what he writes...
There was no need for Juan to write the first uncomplimentary post - calling him an "idiot and writing drivel."
Get your ducks in a row gentlemen.... you expect Goat to slink away chastised or hesitate to speak for himself in defense?
The content of Goat's post made sense - because you don't like the words is no reason to slander his intent or intellect.
[Edit: Apology to Goat - as he probably hates my post too.]
There was no need for Juan to write the first uncomplimentary post - calling him an "idiot and writing drivel."
Get your ducks in a row gentlemen.... you expect Goat to slink away chastised or hesitate to speak for himself in defense?
The content of Goat's post made sense - because you don't like the words is no reason to slander his intent or intellect.
[Edit: Apology to Goat - as he probably hates my post too.]
I have two big problems with the UN and any intervention that it sends out.
- Lack of legitimacy.
- Lack of authority.
Authority: Resolutions and declarations are rarely implemented after being ratified. There should be repercussions for such lack of respect, but there are none. The UN has too few forces and once deployed are generally unable to resort to the use of force. In some cases this has lead to standing by as some tragedies occurred.
Possible fixes: Elections for the first problem. Disarmament of national armies and militias and globalizing forces under UN control for the second, which depends on the legitimacy issue a lot.
What I wrote in defense of Gopher: "You couldn't be any more wrong if you tried. Your post smacks of single minded stupidity....You don't know this poster and you are assuming all kinds of things. Maybe go back and think a bit before you post more of this drivel." I admit Gopher didn't need me to defend him.
Niflmir
Bless you for that post - you are so right.
As I understand it the U.N. was founded to play a world wide role in promotion of peace and cohabitation of all nations, eventually for the prosperity of all - so equality would be gained, thus
if possible removing the possibility and threat of war.
Since that has not worked - mankind continues sabre rattling and individual nations who are prepared
for war by continuing their armament building such as the U.S. (never to be again caught by a Pearl Harbor - yet still caught by a 9/11) and many other nations who utilize military as a defense and protective entity....we have long since been unable to settle our differences through the U.N.
The U.N. is like sending a shepherd with a sling shot out to capture a wild boar. They were never
the right body to place sanctions, send armies, or any of that kind of work.
Until those nations who are able to completely wipe out other nations (those with nuclear capability), are willing to sit down and compromise, looking toward peaceful trade and prosperity, we might as well terminate the very expensive puppet we call the U.N.
I would love to see a month long dialogue of all the nuclear powered nations, televised, translated into every language and dialect of the world, so the people of the world could see and understand what we are being held back from knowing.
Bless you for that post - you are so right.
As I understand it the U.N. was founded to play a world wide role in promotion of peace and cohabitation of all nations, eventually for the prosperity of all - so equality would be gained, thus
if possible removing the possibility and threat of war.
Since that has not worked - mankind continues sabre rattling and individual nations who are prepared
for war by continuing their armament building such as the U.S. (never to be again caught by a Pearl Harbor - yet still caught by a 9/11) and many other nations who utilize military as a defense and protective entity....we have long since been unable to settle our differences through the U.N.
The U.N. is like sending a shepherd with a sling shot out to capture a wild boar. They were never
the right body to place sanctions, send armies, or any of that kind of work.
Until those nations who are able to completely wipe out other nations (those with nuclear capability), are willing to sit down and compromise, looking toward peaceful trade and prosperity, we might as well terminate the very expensive puppet we call the U.N.
I would love to see a month long dialogue of all the nuclear powered nations, televised, translated into every language and dialect of the world, so the people of the world could see and understand what we are being held back from knowing.
Juan you had every right to put a message such as you did up - and those who followed you had the same.
I merely wrote my own opinion - which I also assume I have a right to do.
Let people see it as they may given their own opinions.
If I don't know Goat - perhaps I am seeing his/her message as one with which I agree, because I have no bias towards him/her.
Gotta run and ruin some more lives (joke joke joke)....we're cool Juan I hope...
"clustermess"????
You are absolutely correct, though.
The US will be criticized for doing nothing by exactly the same people that would fall to the floor in a foaming fit should the USA use their military might anywhere for any reason........meanwhile China, who actually has some influence in Burma, escapes serious criticism......
"clustermess"????
You are absolutely correct, though.
The US will be criticized for doing nothing by exactly the same people that would fall to the floor in a foaming fit should the USA use their military might anywhere for any reason........meanwhile China, who actually has some influence in Burma, escapes serious criticism......
I was and am pretty vehemently opposed to the war in Iraq and unilateral wars in general, I suppose I don't have foaming fits though.
One way or another I don't blame anyone in particular for inaction, it is a shame for everyone involved, equally. I think unilateral action should be avoided and legitimate international intervention should not find its last refuge in violence, economic or physical. Reality is... sadder than that.
Juan used to be a mod here and is a well-respected member, Gopher, although slightly rabid when it comes to all things Bush is also a long-term member and has respect also, and tonington is well-agreed to be one of the most level-headed and brilliant posters on the board.
what are you, exactly?