We just have read another poster who mysteriously looses the ability to correctly read when it is written "no invasion" - although it has been written by me several times now. "No invasion" means: "no invasion". It does not mean: "let's start an invasion". One could even say it means exactly the opposite: not to invade. Because if I would intend an invasion, probablity is oin favour of that I would have said that. But I wrote not to invade, so - any bright conclusions wether I intend an invasion or not? :dead:

I also repeatedly said what the mission objective is in doing like I suggest. It is not meaning something that I have not written, and is not something different than what I actually have written. So: I mean what I actually have written, and do not mean what I have not written.

I admit: this is extremely complex thought matter, and thus may be too difficult to be thoroughly understood. Morning excercise to help blood circulation, and an occasional cup of strong coffe may help, who knows.

No Kurtz there's no "invasion" in the Skybird-Schlieffen plan. Just a few random missile attacks that will undoubtedly miss their targets and hit nearby orphanages, hospitals and religious facilities often enough to give the west yet another public relations black eye.

It's sort of like Bill Clintons idea of bring terrorism to it's knees by blowing up aspirin factories and Chinese Embassies.

Try them, then consider what the out come of knocking out tiers of government would be in a fractured country with oil reserves, evrybody would be along to 'help'

EDIT: hey, I know if you didn't like the way a country 'helped' perhaps you could kill it's president and his wife and children.

Remember to play nice...I consider you close to crossing the line. :ping:

I think your right, I don't see this going anywhere. No more posts from me.

Who are you talking to?

The guy who advocates bombing the families of his enemies or the people who mock him for that position?

I dont accept bombing gangster regimes, that would consist most of the world..
I accept attacking if someone openly or covertly wages war or terrorism against you.
All regimes will fall when people have had enough, the desire for freedom has to come from within. We cant make the whole world like us, enough problems in defending what we have.

Im talking about people getting very close to personal attacks/name calling. I do not judge their opinion...

Well thank you for your opinion.

Humanitarian interventions (some kind of an oxymoron) seem to have fallen out of fashion rather rapidly after the 1990s.
I sometimes think the whole "kill people to feed people" idea had one purpose mainly:
To provide the military forces of the NATO countries with a reason to exist with the main enemy gone. Now the NATO militaries have passed the budgetary dry spell of the 1990s, they can safely do without feeding anyone.
Also, the concept of humanitarian intervention was a tool to do away with the principle of non-intervention in internal affairs of other states. I don't know if that was deliberate or not.

Btw, what did they put in Skybird's drink?

If somebody were to invade Burma I suppose it would take about a month to turn grateful Burmese citizens into resistance fighters against (most likely US) occupation forces. People don't like foreign interventions.

I am tempted to take it personally from now on. Do people poke pencils in their eyes before reading here? Once again, and for the last time, for the long sleepers and slow thinkers out there: it is written down clearly black on white by me in this thread, repeatedly, that I did not talk of "invasion", but exactly the opposite.

I think some people just read a thread title, and leave it to that when replying.

At the bginning of the Iraq war, Cruise missiles were personally aimed at Saddam in an attempt to take him out. After the Balkans war, the man-hunt for the heads responsible for war crimes was open. Bin Laden is being attempted to be killed, if possible.

Valid international law, in the form of the anti-genocide convention of the UN from 1948, do not just allow to take action against it: it is MANDATORY, OBLIGATORY, LEGALLY BINDING to take action that is needed to prevent it. If a mob of criminal gangsters in uniform at the top of the army, cause a mass killing amongst their people by actively preventing aid getting to them, in my book this qualoifies for being called genocide. To stop these gangsters continuing like that, is not just an option for voluntary action - it is a legally binding obligation for all signing states of the UN anti-genocide-convention.

Rwanda. Darfhur. Screbrenica and Balkans. Just a few of the most recent catastrophes where all those civilised, well-meaning humanists miserably failed and just watched while the land turned red with blood. Many hundreds of thousands died of starvation imposed on them, or were slaugthered. The morally superior watchers discussed wether by their own international and UN laws it were crimes happening, or not. People were massacred - the international community had a civilised debate, and in the end shook hands and reassured each other that one was agreeing on not acting, for philosophical concerns. Great. that is true superior level of modern civilisation. but I would not call it that.

You can also become guilty of complicity by not acting, and allowing crimes to take place, too - as guilty as those who actively wish for it, and carry out. Many Western law-codes put refusing to help in case of accident and emergencies under penalty as well. That's how it is in germany, and I am sure Germany is not alone.

You guys talk of ethics and morality. while you do, the tragedy unfolds, but you do not care. Main thing is that your superior morality superficially remains intact, and shining and polished. That is more important then to save probably tens of thousands of lifes and not supporting and not playing by the demands of a man-hating, mass-killing gang of murderers.

You do not want to kill the godfathers of the Junta-Mafia over there, and you do not want to put them under pressure by threatening what is dearest to them. that way, you already have given away all efficient tools to acchieve their falling back and allow access for forign aid. Instead, you hope to pay them monhey and goods, much money and many goods, ending up in the hands of the rgime to support the regime and make sure that it survives some time longer. But bombing Iraq and it's society back into stoneage for far lesser a cause, and for lies and selfish strategies, and by that actively causing the killing of tens of thousands, and bringing hundreds of thousands into misery far worse then it was under Saddam, and killing hu7ndreds if not thousands as side-effect or by mistake and wipe it off the table by calling it collateral damage: that is very much okay for some of you. Ha, if that is not bigot!

Double moral standards - that's all what it is. I do not know if it will become the worst case scenario over there. But I know that during one of the next times during a desaster, another regime will remeber the lesson burma has löectured to the West: and will copy the example, only that this time the price it demands will be even higher. For it has beejn learned that doing so pays off - and one gets away with it. Blackmailing of this kind is a win-win-situation, becasue the West refuses to reply with uncompromised determination.

Spend some money to relief organisations, and have a clean conscience that way. Who cares that currently much of that money spend will end in supporting the junta of criminals committing crimes against humanity, and their own people, and the future mess yoj justg have helped to create - bah, tomorrow is abnother day, the sun will shine anyway, andwhen the next time has arrived - nopbody will remember burma anyway and how one has failed in that: so nobody must feel responsible for having helped giving birth to "next time".

What fantastic sensible, humanistic, moral people we are. False glory blinds our own eyes, and we stumble around in darkness, calling it a parade in celebration of civilisation. But infact we are dancing on many graves of those who died in silence for our ignorrance and bigotry.

In the end it is simple math to me: Two or three dozen generals and colonels and parts of their families being dead, and let's say one hundred villas and private properties of theirs being destroyed - or terns of thousands of children, maybe even several times as many adults in the long run dying of deseases and starvation, and physical weakness. Let ther ebe no doubt that it is not needed to kill half of their army officers: regimes of this kind do not really know loyalty, but every crow wants to get the greatest opiece of the cake. A second line of officers already stands ready to accept foreign aid if that is all price they need to pay in order to take over power from their current superiors. kill a few of those bastards personally and show them tjhat you do not fidle around with a regular wa, but go for them personally, and the surviving ones soon will learn that it is better to live and become rich and the next generation of masters, instead of seeing yourself being targetted by a missile - even if your family stands between you and the bomb.

German Focus magazine: Five motorboats the UN has given to the Burmese authorities so that they could reach to critical regions faster - are being used to hunt down foreigners and journalists instead. Police and military have started to shoot locals who just have talked to foreigners.

http://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/...html?drucken=1

Translation: "Give our government nothing as a gift. They immediately start to use it against their own people."

Yeah, sure - don't touch the generals. That is morally correct.

"Respected readers"?:roll: :rotfl:
Are you a newspaper columnist now? Jesus Christ, don't make me laugh!

Ego ahoy! Aye, thar she blows! Her belly must be at a hundred fathoms! Saint Christopher, it be like a gigantic whale!:arrgh!::rotfl::roll:

If by "superior morality" you mean "brainwashed Jesus-dedicated society that's slowly killing religious freedom and beliefs", then we are out of the game. These people are ahead of us in that field.

And the rest of your post... well, that's a "No ****, Sherlock?" case.

Take note of the context of that sarcastic quote you gave. ;)

BTW, Sherlock, the killing over there already is getting into swing right now - by weapons' force, not just by disease, lacking water, and food.

We did not care for Rwanda, or Darfhur, and many others where hundreds of thousands were killed, for "diplomatic considerations". So we have solid and valuable precedents not to do anything this time as well to stop the killers.

What a relief!

Unbelievable that the Burmese junta still gets dealt with wioth soft gloves on:

After some days ago, when they pleased western politicians and made mockery of them when superficially agreeing on letting aid getting in (aid organisations were sceptical from the start on and said they do not believe it before they see it), the aid workers that got in complain about having been allowed in, yes, but when setting sail to go for an affected region: being send back to their bases and roadblocks and redirected and sent back by military patrols over and over again, and getting trapped and blocked and sent home by each day ever new permissions needed that one day before nobody ever had known of. Now the UN starts complaining about not only help being hindered to reach those in need, but those being in need getting hindered to get to places were inernational aid has been established, how ever limited it may be. the Juta says the country is in good shape, and send people back to their destroyed villages to let them die there.

And today, medias quote US defense minstre Robert Gates comparing to the international aid after the Tsnumani desaster, saying: "With Burma, the situation has been very different - at a cost of tens of thousands of lives. Many other countries besides the United States have also felt hindered in their efforts."

In other words: the junta commits mass murder against it's own population. Aid agencies estimate that less than 30% of the affected population has had seen any help so far.

And what is being done about it?

the international willingness to accept this murderous mafia acting like it wants and accept itS terms for and humiliations of foreign aid, angers me to the bone, and also hits me emotionally, remembering me of some scenes of misery I have seen myself in foreign countries years ago. More than ever I am convinced that these criminal sickos need to be targetted personally, and must be targetted and introduced to personal misery, and that we commit a crime ourselves to just let them get away and not hindering their evil unfolding by killing them. I can't justify the death of tens of thousands of totally innocent with the well being of these gangsters and their families, and I cannot even imagine how that should ever be possible.

Related stories:
http://voanews.com/english/2008-05-31-voa1.cfm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7428916.stm
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNRV110MR8.DTL

Shame on our phlegmatism and lacking determination. We could change the situation, but we chose the comfortable alternative instead and just let it happen, hiding behind some pseudo superior carricature of a philosphy. Shame on us.