Military Policists! Where are your calls to straighten out Burma?

[Taco John]

...er, Myanmar...


The silence about the slaughtering of these monks out marching for freedom is deafening. All of this bloodshed and slaughter, and not a peep out of any of the World Policists here.

What gives?

[Adept Havelock]

Do they have oil or any strategic minerals?

[Taco John]

You mean that world policing isn't about moral imperative!

I'm shocked!

[Adept Havelock]

I'm shocked!

You should stop hanging around Wichita State.

.

[Taco John]

Where's pat? I'd love to know which of his congressmen is getting the earful that we're not fulfilling our moral obligations in Burmyanmar.

[banyon]

FREEDOM IS ON THE MARCH!!

[Bowser]

Do they have oil or any strategic minerals?

WHY DO YOU HATE AMREICA???

[patteeu]

...er, Myanmar...


The silence about the slaughtering of these monks out marching for freedom is deafening. All of this bloodshed and slaughter, and not a peep out of any of the World Policists here.

What gives?

Who are the "World Policists here" from whom you're waiting to hear?

[BucEyedPea]

Where's pat? I'd love to know which of his congressmen is getting the earful that we're not fulfilling our moral obligations in Burmyanmar.
Myanmar is a very good example of a isolationist nation. See how everyone leaves them alone. :p

[patteeu]

Where's pat? I'd love to know which of his congressmen is getting the earful that we're not fulfilling our moral obligations in Burmyanmar.

Hmmm. Surely this thread isn't about me or anyone who shares my worldview. I can't possibly believe that after all our time together you would be so mistaken about my POV. Afterall, I'm not the guy bouncing from one end of the political spectrum (Obama) to the other (Paul) in the course of a single election cycle.

Is there any threat to significant US interests posed by the military regime in Myanmar? Do they have an international reach and have they declared war on us? Is the regime there an obstacle to our success in the GWoT? Are we at all dependent on the free flow of Teak wood? I think the answers to all of these questions are no. Others who support our success in Iraq might disagree, but as for me, I'm not at all interested in military intervention in Myanmar unless my understanding of the facts related to questions like those above changes dramatically.

[Ultra Peanut]

BURMA HAS WMDS SOMEONE TOLD ME

[Taco John]

Who are the "World Policists here" from whom you're waiting to hear?



Well, you of course. You're one of the top world policists here.

[go bowe]

BURMA HAS WMDS SOMEONE TOLD ME
and don't forget the undiscovered oil off the coast of burma...

[Taco John]

Is there any threat to significant US interests posed by the military regime in Myanmar? Do they have an international reach and have they declared war on us? Is the regime there an obstacle to our success in the GWoT? Are we at all dependent on the free flow of Teak wood? I think the answers to all of these questions are no. Others who support our success in Iraq might disagree, but as for me, I'm not at all interested in military intervention in Myanmar unless my understanding of the facts related to questions like those above changes dramatically.



I don't remember Saddaam Hussein declaring war on us. Nor do I recall his regime being an obstacle to our success in anything. We are dependant on the free flow of oil in the middle east, but that doesn't sound like a reason to declare war on a nation that isn't a threat to us.

As far as I can tell, Myanmar and Iraq have a lot in common: they're both pissant little nations who are no threat to the United States. The key difference is that the people in Myanmar are trying to revolt for democracy against a brutal regime, and we sit on our hands, while the people in Iraq didn't so much a protest.

But my goal in this thread has been accomplished. I wanted to see your ethical rationale for intervening in one pissant country, but not the other.

[BucEyedPea]

Wonder how a country with no navy, no missile delivery system, weakened army and destroyed infrasture could be at war with the world's superpower?

No I'm not talkin' about Myanmar, but Iraq.

That war was in the minds of the core original NeoConservatives who sold the idea to their groupies. NC's thrive on conflict.

[Taco John]

Is the regime there an obstacle to our success in the GWoT?



This is an interesting statement, because right now the greatest obstacle to our success in the GWoT is Pakistan.

[Ultra Peanut]

Wonder how a country with no navy, no missile delivery system, weakened army and destroyed infrasture could be at war with the world's superpower?

No I'm not talkin' about Myanmar, but Iraq.

That war was in the minds of the core original NeoConservatives who sold the idea to their groupies. NC's thrive on conflict.We will find the WMDs!

The WMDs don't matter, it was important to get in there and fight terrorism in a place where it was thriving!

[patteeu]

I don't remember Saddaam Hussein declaring war on us. Nor do I recall his regime being an obstacle to our success in anything. We are dependant on the free flow of oil in the middle east, but that doesn't sound like a reason to declare war on a nation that isn't a threat to us.

As far as I can tell, Myanmar and Iraq have a lot in common: they're both pissant little nations who are no threat to the United States. The key difference is that the people in Myanmar are trying to revolt for democracy against a brutal regime, and we sit on our hands, while the people in Iraq didn't so much a protest.

But my goal in this thread has been accomplished. I wanted to see your ethical rationale for intervening in one pissant country, but not the other.

Despite the fact that you've been exposed to it on numerous occasions, I realize that you don't really understand the strategy that's being employed in the GWoT so I guess it shouldn't surprise me as much as it did that you expected me to be gung ho about intervention in Myanmar. You have no sense of national security at all and you have no appreciation for the fact that we are fighting an Islamist insurgency not a Buddhist one or that the insurgency is emanating from the Middle East and not from the jungles of SE Asia. It's pointless to waste time explaining these things to such a dedicated neo-isolationist although whether "dedicated" is a word that can really be used to describe you when it comes to political ideology remains a question in my mind after seeing you bounce around so much over the past several years.

[SNR]

It's not time to nation-build I mean, uh... help out Burma yet. The mainstream media hasn't brainwashed the American public into thinking we need to go there yet.

[patteeu]

Wonder how a country with no navy, no missile delivery system, weakened army and destroyed infrasture could be at war with the world's superpower?

No I'm not talkin' about Myanmar, but Iraq.

That war was in the minds of the core original NeoConservatives who sold the idea to their groupies. NC's thrive on conflict.

The neoconservatives saw the problem with our status-quo approach to the middle east before it manifested itself in NYC, Washington DC, and a field in Pennsylvania on 9/11/01. They deserve a lot of credit for that.

When the US was attacked on that occasion and on several occasions before that, it was by an international organization not a nation. As such, we don't have the luxury of (and shouldn't constrain ourselves to) strictly containing our response within national boundaries and against sovereign governments. Every country in the world understood that when the US finally decided to respond to this insurgency, they had a choice to make. They could cooperate with us or they could become an obstacle to us at their own peril. Unfortunately for Saddam and his regime, they didn't make the right choice in this regard. Too bad for them.

It's obvious that if Saddam was working with al Qaeda he'd be a reasonable target in the GWoT. But even if he wasn't and had no intentions of ever doing so, he was still an ongoing instigator in the conflict between the palestinians and the Israelis, which, like it or not, fair or not, is a key source of our problems with the islamist insurgency.

Given the strategy that's been adopted for the GWoT, forcing regime change in Iraq was a reasonable and consistent step to take, especially given that the decision makers obviously believed that it would end up being easier than it has turned out to be.

[patteeu]

This is an interesting statement, because right now the greatest obstacle to our success in the GWoT is Pakistan.

Pakistan is a challenge, but it's not at all clear to me that it's the greatest one nor is it clear to me that it's not being addressed.

[Taco John]

Despite the fact that you've been exposed to it on numerous occasions, I realize that you don't really understand the strategy that's being employed in the GWoT so I guess it shouldn't surprise me as much as it did that you expected me to be gung ho about intervention in Myanmar. You have no sense of national security at all and you have no appreciation for the fact that we are fighting an Islamist insurgency not a Buddhist one or that the insurgency is emanating from the Middle East and not from the jungles of SE Asia. It's pointless to waste time explaining these things to such a dedicated neo-isolationist although whether "dedicated" is a word that can really be used to describe you when it comes to political ideology remains a question in my mind after seeing you bounce around so much over the past several years.


I haven't bounced at all. I understand that it bothers you that even as a libertarian, I would support Obama over someone like Giuliani. That's because Obama is at least a constitutional scholar, even if I disagree with some of his interpretation. Giuliani, in my estimation, is nothing but a scholar of power and how to acquire it.

It doesn't matter anyways, because Ron Paul entered the race, and Obama is no longer a desirable option for me.

Moving on, if you can demonstrate how the war in Iraq has increased our national security, it would be the first time I've seen it done. I'd love to hear it.

[patteeu]

I haven't bounced at all. I understand that it bothers you that even as a libertarian, I would support Obama over someone like Giuliani. That's because Obama is at least a constitutional scholar, even if I disagree with some of his interpretation. Giuliani, in my estimation, is nothing but a scholar of power and how to acquire it.

It doesn't matter anyways, because Ron Paul entered the race, and Obama is no longer a desirable option for me.

The country is littered with "constitutional scholars" who are teaching young law students that the constitution is a living document that can be used as the basis for societal change that our founding fathers would have never dreamed they were enabling. In fact, it's pretty clear that the majority of "constitutional scholars" today are NOT receptive to the libertarian philosophy so don't kid yourself. Congratulations on leaving Obama though.

Moving on, if you can demonstrate how the war in Iraq has increased our national security, it would be the first time I've seen it done. I'd love to hear it.

None of the foreign fighters flowing to Iraq have come to the US. That alone is a benefit to us.

But the truth is that Iraq is a long term play so, as I told penchief the other day, analysis that is based on an arbitrary finish line of today does not fairly assess the value of our mission in Iraq. Equally as important, whether invading Iraq was the right thing to do or not, now that we are there, leaving would energize and embolden the radical islamist movement in a way that exceeds even their ouster of the Soviets from Afghanistan. You can't explain to me how that would increase our national security.

[Taco John]

Uh Oh Patty... Neocon Christ says that we should start bombing Burma!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100501895.html


At least HE is consistent in his liberal, Wilsonian vision...