It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why doesn't America bring democracy here?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 10:51 AM
link   
I of course refer to the situation in Burma.

Where tens of thousands of UNARMED monks and nuns are marching in colums through the streets, defying the military and being 100& peaceful in their actions.

This is a truly beautiful and at the same time escalating situation, where tensions are being raised on the military side. Yet the civilians are cheering the monks and nuns on.

Why are they marching?

Simply because of the governments god forsaken human rights record enforced by the military government and they want a peaceful democracy.

news.bbc.co.uk...

To quote the BBC:

"The junta, which violently repressed the 1988 protests killing some 3,000 people, finally broke its silence over the mounting protests late on Monday, saying it was ready to "take action" against the monks.

It has repeated the warning in state media, ordering monks not to get involved in politics and accusing them of allowing themselves to be manipulated by the foreign media.

The protests were triggered by the government's decision to double the price of fuel last month, hitting people hard in the impoverished nation."


--

So, my question is. If George Bush is so concerned at overthrowing terrorism and introducing democracy, why doesn't he prepare some defensive manouvres for the monks if the tyrannical Government decides to repeat the incident in 1998 and decide to slaughter the monks.

Surely these brave and peace loving people are the ones who deserve some back up in the face of tyranny?

Or is it just because there's no oil there?

Opinions...



[edit on 25-9-2007 by mr-lizard]




posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Are you ready for war with China?

.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 10:56 AM
link   
They dont even have democracy in USA. People think they do, but in reality, someone else pulls the strings, not the people.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 11:00 AM
link   
If they had oil, I'm sure they'd be next on the list. Unfortunately our troops are already surrounding Iran and Iran has the oil that we want. Though, they're a democratic government, I'm sure that we'll need to overthrow their President (as is already underway) in the name of the "War on Terror".

But, in defense of the other major banking conglomorates around the world, I'm sure they'd just love a war with Burma. We'd have to borrow the money (with interest) once again from the Federal Reserve and fill private bank's pockets with our hard earned cash when we pay out Federal Income Tax.

Don't be surprised when congress pushes for some sort of plan of action towards Burma rather than just sanctions which is what is now proposed by Bush. This would actually be Chase, Rockafeller, Morgan and the likes of which have investments in the Federal Reserve talking ... not Congress.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Gools
 


I'm not, but are you ready for a war with Iran? Who do you think China will stand up for in that scenario?

When you put it like that it seems inevitable.... but, when will America start to regain some karma in defending the unarmed?

Maybe they could help the Tibetan people regain their homeland, like they did with 'Israel'?

Opinions...



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by mr-lizard
 


I was just making the point that you don't go rushing into the backyard of the world's emerging superpower unless you've thought things through.


As for the USA and it's karma defending the unarmed.... puuuhleez! :shk:
.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gools
reply to post by mr-lizard
 


I was just making the point that you don't go rushing into the backyard of the world's emerging superpower unless you've thought things through.


As for the USA and it's karma defending the unarmed.... puuuhleez! :shk:
.


Yep, you're absolutely right... America is too far gone from redemption. They'll just stand back and spread the Democratic propoganda from afar and then act when it's all over.

Shame, that could have been a brave karmic act.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Burma has a lot of energy resources.. but its 'exclusively' being eyed by China and India..

No US jurisdiction here..



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Theres lots of problems with the US doing anything in Burma.
Thailand for one, buys most of its gas from Burma via Total Oil ( a French company)
Then there is China sitting on its North eastern border, if you annoy them just enough they might just decide to take Taiwan back and that could bring about WWIII

Sometimes democracy and freedom comes about by just what is happening in Burma, the way it did in England an Europe.
The people standing up and fighting back against tyranny
Yes people will die, thats the way of the world but sometimes its the only way.
My thoughts are with the Burmese and Karen people.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus3
 


Err I think youll find its 'exclusively tied up to Total Oil (France)Ltd



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 01:24 PM
link   
The Karen people have been fighting a war against the military government since the late 1940s. They are very badly outnumbered and are low on weapons and ammo. Its basically a series of Alamo type last stands against the government forces, WW1 tactics and medical treatment with 1960s and 70s era weapons. According to Wikipedia, as of 2006 is about 4,000 vs 400,000 (Myanmar apparently now has one of the largest armies in the world).



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 08:59 PM
link   
It is situations like this where I support war. If there is mass killings by a brutal government (and these killings aren't fabricated by US media), or we're attacked, those are the only two times I support war.

As long as we're policing the world, why not do some good and go run over the Burmese military and save the people?

Sadly, our government, no matter who is president, will only do it when it suits them interest wise, even though they hide behind the "spreading democracy" and "freeing the people" bull crap excuse.

I would love nothing more than for our military and our government to be in it for other nations like Burma/Myanmar. I mean, I've said many times we need to mind our business and trade and talk with other nations rather than use force, and I stand by that.

However, when situations like this come up, if we were ONLY concerned about the people and their well being, and there was none of this "whats in it for us" or "is there oil there?" BS, then I would fully support going in and running over an oppressive government, then getting out of there and not occupying.

If this administration could find it in their shallow hearts to actually care about human beings, and they sent some Marines into Burma to wipe out that military - or at least intimidate into surrender - and it was purely to help those people, I would completely support it 100%.

Why the hell can't we just help? Like I said, I'm all for minding our domestic issues, but I also wouldn't mind being a foreign force as long as it was ONLY for helping others and overthrowing brutal governments to free the people, then getting out of there and letting them get on with their lives.

It's sickening. I pray for the people of Burma. I hope they can succeed in what they're doing. It's really inspiring what they're doing, and it's sad that we're not doing such things here in the United States.



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 02:29 AM
link   
Why would there be a problem if we just helped overthrow the tyranny and protect the people, but didn't touch the resources, left them to be sold to China and Thailand or however the people of Burma wished?

You do know, we don't have to rape and pillage every time we go into a place with force ... we could actually do good and then leave like a civilized nation would.

That's right, we are the new Germany of the 21st century. WWIII here we come, though it will take one more 'national emergency' to win back the people from fading away from blind faith in a leader ... The only real difference is we don't claim the land as ours, just let our corporations manipulate the resources. Looks much better and you get away with it longer.

Oh well.



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 02:46 AM
link   
It is not that simply.
China, Singapore and Thailand do not only have most contracts there, they are getting everything VERY cheap, hence they are not fond of a new Government there.

Appart from that, China is very wary that her own dissidents might start a revolution again in order to overthrow the communists when they see it works in Burma.

Still. I think not enough has been done. The pressure put on those countries is not enough. The convoy the UN sent is a right joke. Gambari's 2 previous missions failed and there are even rumors he's taking bribes from the Junta.
They (Junta) laugh with the UN. They simply refused to meed the convoy untill now. They've sent some low ranks Officers to talk to Gambari and sent him on trips to premade fake protests and premade Government support manifestations.

Basically they are laughing with the world while killing monks and innocent people because they know none has the balls. None is going to go in without China agreeing with it, and its highly unlikely they will agree.

[edit on 2-10-2007 by Drozla]



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 02:56 AM
link   
okay, so apparently we're looking at 100:1 odds here.

Of course we know the reason for the information blackout - the burmese military can use any method they want in order to stop the revolutionary movement, which would impeed foreign intervention; if we don't know whats going on in there, then it's difficult for any single authority to put themselves in the firing line without fear of "supporting terrorism".



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Copernicus

They dont even have democracy in USA. People think they do, but in reality, someone else pulls the strings, not the people.






posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by mr-lizard
I of course refer to the situation in Burma.

Where tens of thousands of UNARMED monks and nuns are marching in colums through the streets, defying the military and being 100& peaceful in their actions.

This is a truly beautiful and at the same time escalating situation, where tensions are being raised on the military side. Yet the civilians are cheering the monks and nuns on.

Why are they marching?

Simply because of the governments god forsaken human rights record enforced by the military government and they want a peaceful democracy.

news.bbc.co.uk...

To quote the BBC:

"The junta, which violently repressed the 1988 protests killing some 3,000 people, finally broke its silence over the mounting protests late on Monday, saying it was ready to "take action" against the monks.

It has repeated the warning in state media, ordering monks not to get involved in politics and accusing them of allowing themselves to be manipulated by the foreign media.

The protests were triggered by the government's decision to double the price of fuel last month, hitting people hard in the impoverished nation."


--

So, my question is. If George Bush is so concerned at overthrowing terrorism and introducing democracy, why doesn't he prepare some defensive manouvres for the monks if the tyrannical Government decides to repeat the incident in 1998 and decide to slaughter the monks.

Surely these brave and peace loving people are the ones who deserve some back up in the face of tyranny?

Or is it just because there's no oil there?

Opinions...



[edit on 25-9-2007 by mr-lizard]



The invasion of Iraq was started for many reasons, (oil was probably an influencing factor, hardly surprising given how it basically fuels the western economy and we ALL benefit and use it, except those living in tents) ultimately it all could have been prevented if Saddam hadnt hardballed over weapon's inspection.

I get confused by certain views, dammed if America does, damned if they don't.



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Of course, a military invasion may not be what is needed, or even necessary. The CIA front, Freedom House, played an essential part in many of the revolutions in Eastern Europe and central Asia over the last few years, for example. The CIA does have...ample experience of overthrowing governments it dislikes.

I suspect that they are not helping for the reasons cited above; mostly to do with China. Also, it would be quite hard to operate in Burma - the junta only deal with very few companies, who they trust, and subject them to spot checks and ridiculous "taxes" (read: extortion) to line their own pockets. I'm also not sure the CIA has that many ethnic Burmese working for them, which never helps.

On the other hand, its not like Burma is much different than most of what was behind the Iron Curtain. I'm sure if an effort was made, covert intelligence agencies could operate in Burma and help support opposition to the junta.

[edit on 2-10-2007 by Kaliayev]



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   
The duplicity of some members is truly disgusting.

I thought the US should not be the 'world's policeman'........

It's not okay for innocents in Burma to get slaughtered but Iraq under Sadamm was okay?

Over throw the Burma Government and give the resources to another country? You go sacrifice your self for another countries benefit....especially when it's at your country's expense.

Some of you just don't make any sense.......



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 11:57 AM
link   
I think the point was to demonstrate that the US claims to act on morals, but as a country acts in its national interests, invoking those morals purely to take the higher ground. If the USA were to act where its interests were not being affected, in the name of human rights and dignity, then perhaps people would be more willing to believe its leadership actually care about the principles they use to justify their wars.

Or do you truly believe George Bush decided to liberate Iraq because the plight of its population kept him awake at night? I somehow find that scenario unlikely. Even if the USA had the manpower, it would not involve itself in Burma, unless US interests were to be damaged. And that is a shame.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join