Burma has the West over a barrel

[Skybird]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...553889,00.html

It is not good enough just to have good intentions - and allow to do evil in the name of these mentioned intentions. this is an example setting that in the long run creates more bad than good, and encourages to copy the behavior shown by the generals.

I have a much better alternative plan. Hold criminal offenders and murderers personally responsible and make them suffer bitter tragedy and grief themselves. Send some dozens to some hundred Tomahawks for the private homes of the criminals in uniform and kill them and the next generation. Flatten the Junta's military key installation via more robot-bombs, and tell the survivors that every day so and so many key officers' homes and families will be bombed as long as they do not fully open the country for aid organisations and play ball with them and behave nice and honstely towards these help organizations. do not bomb the whole country and civilian installatuions. but try to assassinate the responsi8ble officers and their families, personally. There is a simply reason behind killing the families as well. It is a reasonable assumption that these gangster have educated their offsprings in the same selfish brutal attitude their fathers are living by.

You'd be surprised how fast they would change their policies regarding incoming international aid. If not for the sake of saving their families, then they will do it for the sake of protecting their houses and possessions.

[kurtz]

Originally Posted by Skybird

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...553889,00.html

but try to assassinate the responsi8ble officers and their families, personally. There is a simply reason behind killing the families as well. It is a reasonable assumption that these gangster have educated their offsprings in the same selfish brutal attitude their fathers are living by.

Has somebody hacked your account?

I'm surprised to hear you calling for a, well, Biblical revenge on the perpetrators and thier offspring. Do you reserve this just for multiple murderers, or do single murderers and perhaps thieves deserve this? The logic follows..

[Skybird]

The junta is delaying help, while the world is being warned that now the life of tens of thousands of children is at risk, which qualifies for a description of the junta commiting genocide against their own people. that is the basis from which I start - not a singular act of street crime or murder of passion negotiated at a civilm court in berlin.

I target the gangsters responsible for this lethal mess. and that you react so surprised shows me that my calculation is correct. Because they - like you - also cannot imagine so far to be personally held responsible for their brutality and cold blooded poker game, and they - like you can't imagine as well - also must not fear that they eventually will pay for their crimes with the loss of what is dearest to them: their lives, their villas and possessions, their wifes and offsprings.

Targetting the officer chorps also helps to increase the probability of a threat of revolt within the military, which also would force the junta to change.

and finally, I believe that it is reasonable to assume that gangsters acting as unscrupellous as these gangsters in uniform would raise their offsprings in the same selfish, brutal attitude and inhumane spirit that they live by themselves, so why giving them the opportunity to form the next generation of the tyranny and supression, or even conduct revenge for their fathers being executed for crimes against humanity? It would be stupid to do so.

I am aware that this is a brutal option. But encouraging this example set by the junta, endlessly giving ground to diplomnatic desasters like Screbrenica, Darfhur and now Burma, means that our western nations who are inpossession of the striking power to do what I suggest - instead become guilty of complicity.

Biblical, you said. The only thing being biblical is the perspective of a mass dying of biblical dimensions. If that could be prevented by enforcing access for aid orgnbaiozations via killing more or less milizary afficers and the next egneration ready to uphold the regime, I consider it to be a good deal. Maybe it is not kind, and not nice, and not humane, and all the other things a toothless UN is so heavy about. but it is Realpolitik causing effective results. In case of Burma, we are not about trying to install our economic interests, or our political systems, and make them subjugate to our civilisartion. Burma is not Iraq. It is about preventing genocide, and saving tens and hundreds of thoisuands of people. At Screbrenica, NATO should have cluster-bombed the Serbish forces in the area, no matter what the Un thinks of it. In Darfhur, we should have chased, bombed and killed the Djandjawhid and the Sudanese government. And in Burma, we should threaten to kill the generals themselves and the next generation coming after them.

Good intentions is not enough. You also need realsitic options. Subjugating to the general's demands is creating more of this in the future. Killing them, but saving the country and rescuing the people, is

[Skybird]

And just in case my respected readers are not aware of it, and while we discuss the subtleties of the West's superioir morality, some more people in burma already have died in these two minutes of cholera, or have detoriated in their health level so much that they will not survive in the forseeable future. The rate at which cholera is spreading, is currently increasing in pace.

[Tchocky]

This kind of thing hasn't worked before.

The strange thing about this talk of attacking/invading Burma is that everyone knows that it isn't going to happen.
Therefore, arguing for the use of force is self-righteousness without responsibility. Talking up the consequences of military action before it has happened is always a bad idea, and always misleading. Remember McCain saying US forces will be "welcomed as liberators".
But hey, it's never going to happen, so you get to say "I'm right, but unfortunately no-one listened to me".

Not directed completely at you, SKybird, I've read a lot of calls to invade Burma recently.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

This kind of thing hasn't worked before.

It never has been tried in this way and on this scale before.


I do not talk of "attacking Burma", and not of invasion - I talk of targetted assassination of clearly defined single people and families and/or destruction of their possessions, however that can be acchieved best. Likely that this will cause even more uproar - assassination! Pewh! I'm not the UN, and I never have claimed to be civilised - I do not care for such accusations. I have a priority, and it is clearly defined - enforcing access for aid to the people of Burma being affected by the desaster and being threatened by death in the forseeable future, woitho9ut setting up another example of illustrating how lucrarive it is to blackmail the west and abuse it'S well-meant intentions. The survival and/or personal interests of supporters of the Junta, and loyal officers - is not a priority. Not even close.

And I already said: this does not compare to Iraq, and the lies and intentions behind that Iraq war. It is no invasion, and no desire to change their country, and exploit them economically. Just doctors and aird workers and transport planes delivering food and water and medication and according equipment.

[Schroeder]

I would prefer it if the UN or NATO or whoever is able to do it, would sent some transportplanes to Burma with a fighter/fighterbomber escort. Then they should just fly over Burma and drop off the needed goods (I know that goods alone aren't the only things needed, doctors and specialists who can operate water cleaning devices, for example, are needed as well). But at least something would happen and a least bit of relief could be achieved!!! If the transports should get under attack then the escorts should be able to deal with it.
As long as no one attacks anyone everything would run peacefully. Besides I actually don't think that Burma's military leaders would have the balls to start any fight with NATO/UN/EU/USAF planes. That would be way to dangerous because then Skybird's suggestions might become reality.
In the news they just said that the UN and EU are raising the pressure on Burma. Hell they are raising it??? Why aren't they already at full power? Do they really want do wait until thousands of people have died?

[bradclark1]

Stop delivering supplies. Bombard the place with leaflets saying the junta won't allow help. The world can't be responsible for those that won't accept help but on their terms.

[kurtz]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

Stop delivering supplies. Bombard the place with leaflets saying the junta won't allow help. The world can't be responsible for those that won't accept help but on their terms.

And then what are they supposed to do? Rise up like we got the Kurds to do in Iraq?

Originally Posted by skybird

Burma is not Iraq. It is about preventing genocide

IIRC one reason we went into Iraq was for the attempted Genocide of the Marsh Arabs and Kurds.
I don't know much about modern Burma but in WWII Burma was a quite disparate country with predominantely Xtian Karens in the north/centre budhists East and South and muslims West. If we went piling in there again (remember Britain left after WWII, which I think is why they don't want usback and prefer the Japanese) who's to say we could make it work?

What I meant by Biblical was this punishing to nth generation for all you or I know they could be Grandfathers running the country, then where will you stop killing?

Sometime ago we were discussing waterboarding and I rather flippantly said,"It's okay if they only do it to the baddies", and you quite rightly pulled me up on it, now your openly advocating state terrorism and the slaughter of innocents, on the grounds that they might grow up to be like their parents, which quite honestly sounds like the kind of thing I would say.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by kurtz

IIRC one reason we went into Iraq was for the attempted Genocide of the Marsh Arabs and Kurds.

No, that was not part of the excuse to go there. On the surface, the excuse pretty much was limited to WMD. In reality, the hidden agenda pretty much was about getting certain companies lucrative contracts with the army and inside Iraq's oil business, in key positions, and install a government friendly to these plans of effectively being economically taken over, and establishing a new strategic platform in the region as an option for American foreign policies. Compensation for the rebellion of the people that one had encouraged after 91 and then let down, resulting in tens of thousands being killed, was not part of the excuse.

Burma does not compare to Iraq.

What I meant by Biblical was this punishing to nth generation for all you or I know they could be Grandfathers running the country, then where will you stop killing?

When the generals of today stop playing gambles at the costs of their popüulation and allow aid sent in, unharmed, and without conditions. I am not about regime-chnage, although that would be a nice side-effect, but that is not what it is about. I have defined the goal of this tactic I suggest, and did so precisely and clear. I did not mention "nth generations". Bombing a villa of a general or colonel, should not be prevented becasue his family lives there. and when you cant get the man, try to get his family, yes, I defend that. For it is hard to imagine that he has not raised his opffsprings in the same attitude by which he himself acts in life, and look what a inhumane crime that man is defending, for he earns privileges by doing so. Hurt the man in any way possible, until he gives up his blackmailing of the West and allows help in the country.

Sometime ago we were discussing waterboarding and I rather flippantly said,"It's okay if they only do it to the baddies", and you quite rightly pulled me up on it, now your openly advocating state terrorism and the slaughter of innocents, on the grounds that they might grow up to be like their parents, which quite honestly sounds like the kind of thing I would say.

I have a motto when it comes to figthing, and it is two-sided: try to avoid fighting, but not at all costs, for the costs may be higher than the fight, and when you do fight, never allow anything to come between you and the destruction of your enemy. since I include my own health and life in that formula the conclusion is that you better think twice and three times wether or not the objective you want to acchieve is worth it. Preventing a mass dying of the scale that is about to start, is such an objective for me, and it is of perfectly acceptable moral standard. This is neither conquest nor subjugation nor invasion nor taking-over. It is helping victims from natural desaster - many victims.

What you say essentially is to let the gangsters continue the way they have started, for you refuse to hit them where it really hurts. But I say hit them were they are the weakest and where it hurts them the most, and hit them at this spot, with all power, and strike again and again as long as they do not chnage. Once they have realised that we are determined beyond compromise not to accept their conditions, but to enforce access for help nevertheless, and that they and their next of kin are being turned into the hunted inside their own country, they will come to terms very quickly, I promise you. They will try to avoid naming it a surrender in public and will try to save their faces, which is of no concern for me, but they will play ball. Refusing to accept blackmailing, teaches a lesson. Accepting to be blackmailed, also teaches a lesson. Either the one or the other takes place. Question only is which one you choose.

The access for help must be enforced, and the example of how to successfully blackmail the international community, must be prevented - it was successful in the past so many times, at some time you better start to stop that tradition. In the immediate past years, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, in various hotspots had been killed with the west being passive or even contributijg to the slaughter, all in the name of cynical moral superiority. Judging by the outcome, the West's standards are not really convincing. In fact, they are disgusting, becasue they pay lip-confessions, but refuse to really engage with determination and the force needed to add substance to this hollow talking. But then to claim how civilised one is, and that one has a superior moral, is gisgusting,l and cynical. The lives of tens of thousands of children and hundreds of thousands of adults is at stake. Compared to that, the family idyll of some murderous generals and colonels is of no interest. Strike and hurt them where the pain is worst for them, take from them what is dearest to them: their lives, their possessions, their families, and be uncompromisingly determined to use absolute superior power wherever possible. A solid wall of Tomahawks, used from a distance, seems to be the tool capable to acchieve this, since they lack the capability to strike back in any way. Stop when they do no longer try to blackmail us. Do not stop before they give up their attempts to blackmail us.

If you do not do this and accept their conditions, it is only a question of time when the next country will implement exactly the same tactics. For you allowed this tactic to work successfully.

[kurtz]

No but there are parrallels.

and maybe it was not given as the reason at first when people started to laugh at the WMDs which could be deployed at 40mins notice the genocide reason was trotted out at least in Blighty.

But what you are saying really is that it is okay to break international law and invade soveriegn territory with the express intention of killing individualls without trial. This may be the right thing to do but who are you going to entrust the decision to do what is right to?..the USA?..UN...England?..Skybird?

[Tchocky]

Knock off the top of the army. You're left with the next layer of commanders, who are just thrilled to be in charge. THere's 350,000 soldiers, so this will take a while to knock down to 3 or 4.

The only result is that instead of victims of a natural disaster, they'll be all that plus hostages.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I have a much better alternative plan. Hold criminal offenders and murderers personally responsible and make them suffer bitter tragedy and grief themselves. Send some dozens to some hundred Tomahawks for the private homes of the criminals in uniform and kill them and the next generation. .... but try to assassinate the responsi8ble officers and their families, personally. There is a simply reason behind killing the families as well. It is a reasonable assumption that these gangster have educated their offsprings in the same selfish brutal attitude their fathers are living by.

You'd be surprised how fast they would change their policies regarding incoming international aid. If not for the sake of saving their families, then they will do it for the sake of protecting their houses and possessions.

Did you just finish your Al Qaeda correspondence course or something?

Substitute IED/Suicide Bomber for Tomahawks and this sounds like it came out of a terrorist play book.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by kurtz

No but there are parrallels.

and maybe it was not given as the reason at first when people started to laugh at the WMDs which could be deployed at 40mins notice the genocide reason was trotted out at least in Blighty.

But what you are saying really is that it is okay to break international law and invade soveriegn territory with the express intention of killing individualls without trial. This may be the right thing to do but who are you going to entrust the decision to do what is right to?..the USA?..UN...England?..Skybird?

Why is invasion always mentioned? I said repeatedly now that I have no idea for invasions, and huge wars. the intel services surely know the locations of houses and villas. That translates into GPS coordinates. Send a missile there, and to likely locations where the person in question at the time of the strike is present. Period. No bridge bombing. No power plants destroyed. No divison fighting it out on the map.

If international law allows mass dying taking place for reasons of concerns like you are raising them, then something is wrong with international law. BTW, the UN anti-genocide-charta labels action in case of genocide as mandatory and obligatory - signing states have no other choice by valid international laws then to implement those measures needed to prevent genocide. Which is why so often in case of genocides you see diplomats balancing words and avoiding terms so often in order to avoid such a horrific event being claled genocide - because then their nations would have a binding obligation to do what is needed to prevent genocide. And such investements often are not wanted, especially when it is not about oil or other precious ressources.

Tchocky,
kill a dozen generals and colonels and illustrate that you do not stop at their dorrsteps - and you will have triggered creative thought processes in the braisn of two hundred other generals and colonels. Most likely you do not need to bomb everyone of them. Just help them to get an impression that you are determined to go as far as needed, and they will change. Promised. I said I am not about enforced regime change, so if after the current top being killed, the colonels become generals and take over, it is not really a concern for me as long as these new generals have learned their lesson and allow aid being send in - as the price for themselves being inpower now.

all I want is enforce unlimited access for foreign aid to the affected regions and the population, without the Junta interfering with good transports, and taking its share, and without needing to accept their blackmailing. that is the objective, precise and clearly.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Did you just finish your Al Qaeda correspondence course or something?

Substitute IED/Suicide Bomber for Tomahawks and this sounds like it came out of a terrorist play book.

Enjoy your solid roof over your head, your warm and safe bed, and enjoy your dinner this evening. Mmmmm, smells lovely. Life can be so pleasant, right? nothing beats a fire in the chimney, the company of friends, a glass of red vine, and having a civilised discussion on philosophy and moral standards.