Discussion in 'General Global Topics' started by Gunny, Jun 3, 2008.
more ... U.N.: 1 million cyclone victims still lack aid - Myanmar cyclone - MSNBC.com
France is advocating going in by force with aid. Those nasty French!
Let them. Haven't we been told over and over that such actions are simply never warranted? Oh wait, I forgot, when the left LIKES a war, it is perfectly fine to invade, conquer and kill for just about any reason.
Oh... what a lovely straw man you create. It is so fluffy, so cute, so... ripe for abuse.
Go ahead, explain why we have the right to invade another Country because YOU think the problem is something we should invade over, but we shouldn't invade a Country for other reasons. There is a word for that.
We should invade and fight a war, killing the very people we have come to save, in order to save them?
As REPULSIVE as the situation is, we have no right to force the Government there, by force, to do anything. Iraq we invaded for the purpose of defense. Talk about an elective war, invading Burma because of this would take the cake.
And remind me how France and Europe have been chomping at the bit to invade places like the Sudan where murder and starvation are rampant?
The UN has the "legitimate" right to use military force in this case. France is really testing it's resolve. We're sending our carrier's home because...well, we all know why.
Explain what? The decision to take military action is always determined on a case by case basis, often with varying arguments as to its desirability based on the circumstances. No two situations are identical. Is this really so complicated?
I know this is a crazy scenario, but what if people aren't referring to an invasion? Maybe the problem all along is that you didn't understand that there can be military action short of invasion. I understand it is a difficult concept.
Actually, according to the UN, there is a responsibility to defend threatened populations, such as in the case of genocide or forced starvation. I am not personally advocating any military action, but I think what those who do advocate military action would suggest is something closer to what we did in Kosovo/Serbia than what we did in Iraq. Of course, that interpretation might just hinge on how badly Iraq has turned out.
I am going to ignore the invasion bit again, as it is a silly concept to be so focused on. Perhaps the situation in Burma could be more easily resolved then the situation in Sudan, which has involved government forces, extra-governmental forces, several independent rebel groups in the west, and an independence movement in the south. I know, complexity makes your head hurt, but try to keep up.
LOL, usual leftoid excuse making. So mister military genius, tell us how we FORCE Burma to do what we want? I mean with no threat of military action? Shall we bomb their infrastructure? Ya that will help the situation. Perhaps drop supplies from aircraft flying illegally over their territory? Ya lets remember how well that worked in Afghanistan and we had their permission.
How exactly does one use their military to force another country to do what they want with out invading if said country just ignores your demands?
Well, since you don't understand the difference between military force and invasion, I will try to explain it to you very slowly.
If I were to advocate the use of force in Burma, I would take this into account.
Burma is controlled by a military junta. Basically, a few generals at the top use the military to keep control of the population.
What would frighten these generals? First, one could lay waste to the compounds where they live. Second, one could target the information infrastructure that enables them to spew propaganda to the masses and communicate with the armed forces in the field. Third, one could directly target elements of their military and the military infrastructure that allows them to keep control of the country. These are just some suggestions of things that fall short of invasion, but which do involve military force. Perhaps targeted bombing would force them to allow humanitarian aid in and perhaps it would not, but this is the type of stuff that is being referred to, not full invasion.
Is it really so complicated?
So you WOULD bomb the very Infrastructure that supports most of the population and allows what aid is moving in the country to move. Thanks for clearing that up.
Separate names with a comma.