Burma has the West over a barrel

[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.

[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.

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by kurtz

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

It's not about what we get them to do. We/us aren't responsible for them.
Unless we are prepared to take the junta and their supporters (which is probably most of the officer corps) out and replace replace them with a UN backed group it's not our business. If the junta wants to let them die rather than allow aid in then thats up to them. If the UN doesn't do anything then as cold as it sounds "Oh well". All we are doing right now is backing a dictatorship. Thats what we are doing. We are aiding the junta and feeding their machine. Screw being goody two shoes unless you have an iron fist behind it.