Why doesn't America bring democracy here?

We are not taking Democracy to Burma because we are afraid of Red China. Red China already is expanding into our Hemisphere by virtually owning Panama and even San Diego. We have no idea how many PLA have snuck in as "Chinese" Mexicans. Myanmar is toast and soon we will be toast, too.

If the UN 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.

Fixed that for you................

Burma is exactly what the UN was created for.......unfortuantely it is so corrupt and as soon as there a UN casualties....the UN runs away......leaving the US to have to take care of the situation.

It's funny how people keep saying how UN should be doing this or that yet fail to notice that most times the UN are operating with their hands tied behind their backs because of the permanent security council members' veto.

The UN will not work unless this antiquated system of permanent security council seat with veto power is removed. Right now it's just a tool for said members in more ways than one. The veto being the obvious one and the convenient scapegoat, as demonstrated in many threads, being the not so obvious one.

reply to post by mr-lizard


Well why didn't America stand up to China after the Tianamen massacre. Instead Bush Sr., who is known to have thought the democracy protests appalling issued a few meaningless reproaches and then continued to expand business with his Chinese communist buddies. The US government is seriously morally challenged. But don't worry the rest of the world is not much better.

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]

Hmmm...here's my opinion. If you apply situation "A" on country "B" (Iran) who has much more of an impact on the overall global outcome than on country "C" (Burma) who is much smaller, underdeveloped, then the answer is OBVIOUS. Please come on folks.

The whole black and white thing on here kills me. Can some folks see the gray area in the world and understand that EVERY freaking situation cannot be applied exactly the same EVERY freaking time?

Originally posted by princeofpeace

The whole black and white thing on here kills me. Can some folks see the gray area in the world and understand that EVERY freaking situation cannot be applied exactly the same EVERY freaking time?

This coming from you? Wow. Never thought I'd agree with you on something.

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
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.

Iraq wouldn't have happened if Saddam hadn't hardballed the inspectors, end of story.

Using your theory the US should be simultaneously fighting China, Burma,Zimbabwe, Sudan, Saudi Arabia (brutal repressive fascist racist govt), Somalia (and many others)- clearly this isn't possible, do you suggest taking on one at a time, or fighting them all at once, or if we take on one at a time, what happens if a new regime pops up somewhere else etc etc

Originally posted by SevenThunders
reply to post by mr-lizard

 

Well why didn't America stand up to China after the Tianamen massacre. Instead Bush Sr., who is known to have thought the democracy protests appalling issued a few meaningless reproaches and then continued to expand business with his Chinese communist buddies. The US government is seriously morally challenged. But don't worry the rest of the world is not much better.

absoloute relativist tosh, there is no perfection in any country, but the US is much better than most, hence people die trying to reach it, they do not die trying to reach China, Burma etc

Extreme relativism is a terrible affliction and anyone who enjoys the freedom and luxuries we do should be ashamed