Burma's revolution....maybe

Burma is ruled by a brutal faceless military dictatorship.

Burma has no oil.

We don't give a schidt about Burma.

caw

They got rice and hot babes. Enough reason for me.

blacbird said:

Burma is ruled by a brutal faceless military dictatorship.

Burma has no oil.

We don't give a schidt about Burma.

caw

Click to expand...

I know. Freeing people from dictators only requires that they have some rich oil fields in their countries. Like Iraq or Iran...

I give a s*** about Burma. Why don't you guys?

Oh wait, you do...keep 'em oppressed so you can use them to make political points, right? Well done.

he's mocking that whole 'democracy for everyone' thing, but in a different way.

robeiae said:

I give a s*** about Burma. Why don't you guys?

Oh wait, you do...keep 'em oppressed so you can use them to make political points, right? Well done.

Click to expand...

Read the bottle again, Rob. It says, "Take one 25mg capsule three times a day," not "three days at a time".

The local police allowed the monks to approach her house, on a street that had been closed to travel for years. There is some speculation that this was possibly an attempt to ascertain how much support she still had from the general populace, which could mean they are thinking of releasing her. It could also merely be one method of identifying anti-government protesters...

robeiae said:

I give a s*** about Burma. Why don't you guys?

Oh wait, you do...keep 'em oppressed so you can use them to make political points, right? Well done.

Click to expand...

This makes no sense.

InfinityGoddess said:

This makes no sense.

Click to expand...

I already told you I was not gonna be helpful, anymore.

What are US interest abroad?

blacbird said:

Burma is ruled by a brutal faceless military dictatorship.

Burma has no oil.

We don't give a schidt about Burma.

caw

Click to expand...

US Interest abroad...
Let's see;
Korea (Protecting Hyundia?),
Vietnam (Securing rice patties?),
Grenada (American Students - a vital resource to the Libs!),
Panama (OK - The Canal),
Bosnia (Protecting Islam?),
Kosovo (What are the resources here? - Already protecting Islam in Bosnia right?),
Somolia (We don't have enough shark infested beaches already?),

Now if I start to mention the 'other' conflicts where we have direct interest into that countries successes we seem to succeed.

Somehow when the vital interest of the US are removed from the fight, so is our ability to do the job right! I would prefer a fight where we DO profit from our involvement. Germany in WWII first leaps to mind. the first Desert Storm comes forward. We had a vital interest in seeing that the invaded country of Kuwait be liberated from Iraqi oppression. The women of Kuwait have never had it better since our 'involvement' into their 'sovereign affairs'. Should all conflicts work out to benefit all the parties involved (except, of course, the agrressor/enemy!) This is not meant as an extensive list of benefits, but it gets the point across.

robeiae said:

I already told you I was not gonna be helpful, anymore.

Click to expand...

We've long known this.

caw

Did you see this, Bravo?

Read it. Excellent stuff.

Bravo said:

okay since you asked, id say that burma is smack in between two emerging powers, india and china, and since they want their energy reserves, they want a stable govt.

the junta is a stable govt for them.

IMO, the difference b/n burma and say the ukraine is that the EU was able to exert pressure and allow a peaceful transition.

india, and esp. china, do not have any desire to do that.

so that's why these protests would fail.

so now, here's another question: would these protests be more effective if there was an armed segment of society attacking the military?

would the junta be more willing to step down?

are protest movements helped by having violent elements?

hmmm..

i'd say in this case, the junta would just commit mass genocide b/c there'd be no one stopping them.

so how do you exert pressure in this case?

Click to expand...

Hire Blackwater. Or let the UN handle it.

In all seriousness, the protest movement needs a scary ally. And if the people were armed, it would definitely make a difference. Do you think Gandhi would succeed in Burma today? I think not.

No one even knows where Burma is, anymore. And changing the name to "Myanmar" was a stroke of genius.

Bravo, I think you're right: China is right there. China doesn't want the attention on Burma.

Also, there is pitiful little information on the region during the last four decades or so.

Well I guess no one knows where Burma is anymore. And this little ditty is especially for that poster who said so:

China braces for prospect of changes in Burma
China is hedging its bets on the political developments in Burma by maintaining unofficial contacts with exiled opposition groups

By DAVID LAGUE


Beijing _ As China publicly calls for stability and reconciliation in Burma, it is also preparing for the possibility that the mounting protests could lead to the downfall of the military junta heading its resource-rich neighbour, regional experts said Wednesday. China is Burma's most important trading partner, investor and strategic ally, and has consistently thwarted attempts to put pressure on Burma's rulers, through sanctions or other measures. . . . . http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/28Sep2007_news19.php

It appears that China may play a reluctant ally to the monks/protesters after all.

Thank you, BoP. That makes my point nicely.

You didn't have a point.

Bird of Prey said:

You didn't have a point.

Click to expand...

robeiae said:

Bravo, I think you're right: China is right there. China doesn't want the attention on Burma.

Click to expand...

Thanks for playing, though.

robeiae said:

Thanks for playing, though.

Click to expand...

Says nothing in response to his question.

"China doesn't want the attention on Burma."

So what?