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.

 

UN Troops Need To Enter Burma NOW

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2008 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Dammit enough is enough!! The world cannot wait any longer. Why should we wait for the Burmese Junta to say yes to letting in aid. We should send in the UN troops, by parachute if necessary to distribtute aid to the suffering people inside Burma. If there was a justified reason for military intervention then this has to be it. I dont think even the Chinese or Russia would object to a UN led invasion force on the grounds of humanitarian reasons for distribution of aid. If i was head of the UN i would call Burma into my office and give them the ultimatium. Open up the boarders or get invaded by blue helmet troops. I dont think that is unreasonable. Alone i can do nothing, but united we can prevail. So i say to you all now, spread the word, lets get the public pressure going for a UN led task force to go into Burma and sort out the mess before an even greater disaster unfolds. Sod politics just for once and look to your inner selves. What if you were in this situation? We must help our fellow human beings and overcome the selfishness of a minority that is the regime in Burma .

FREE BURMA !!!! FEED BURMA !!!




posted on May, 9 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Wirral Bagpuss
 



Right.

And who is suppose to supply these troops?

And when they decide to use your plan and parachute them in, and the troops are shot at while they drop, or their transports fired on by AAA or SAMs, what will happen theN??



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wirral Bagpuss
Dammit enough is enough!! The world cannot wait any longer. Why should we wait for the Burmese Junta to say yes to letting in aid. We should send in the UN troops, by parachute if necessary to distribtute aid to the suffering people inside Burma. If there was a justified reason for military intervention then this has to be it. I dont think even the Chinese or Russia would object to a UN led invasion force on the grounds of humanitarian reasons for distribution of aid. If i was head of the UN i would call Burma into my office and give them the ultimatium. Open up the boarders or get invaded by blue helmet troops. I dont think that is unreasonable. Alone i can do nothing, but united we can prevail. So i say to you all now, spread the word, lets get the public pressure going for a UN led task force to go into Burma and sort out the mess before an even greater disaster unfolds. Sod politics just for once and look to your inner selves. What if you were in this situation? We must help our fellow human beings and overcome the selfishness of a minority that is the regime in Burma .

FREE BURMA !!!! FEED BURMA !!!



Ah... but you're forgetting that such an action would immediately be seized upon as evidence of neo-Colonialism by the US.
You'd have outraged conspiracy theorists clicking away, claiming that the flooding and hurricanes were in fact engineered by the evil West in order to provide a pretext for such an operation.
Now, they would ask, what would be the motives for such a move? Well, not natural resources. Hmmm... I know - They are planning to build a network of deep underground military bases to link up with those of North Korea (and we all know that George Bush and Kim Jong-Il are actually both illuminati blood-brothers).
Yes, that must be it. Then they'll team up with the NoKo's to build reverse-engineered UFOs to flee the earth in 2012 from planet X!



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   
if i was in a country that refused aid from other countries in a disaster?

i would defect/emmigrate. it's a crappy setup, but who are we to say they must accept our help? if the citizens of burma don't like it they need to change their government or live somewhere else.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   
I think that it's a great idea. Perhaps we can get the oil rich countries to fund this humanitarian mission and supply the troops as well

I'd like to keep the US out of this operation because we haven't been invited.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by an0maly33
if i was in a country that refused aid from other countries in a disaster?

i would defect/emmigrate. it's a crappy setup, but who are we to say they must accept our help? if the citizens of burma don't like it they need to change their government or live somewhere else.



You don't remember Georgie refusing any outside help for new orleans during Katrina? Everything the Junta's are doing is the same thing George did during Katrina, delayed response, refusal of help. Sad thing is America can help itself, this poor country cannot. I understand how the Juntas fear if they let in outsiders they will lose their power, but people need to start understanding human life is more important then power.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by thegdfather
Everything the Junta's are doing is the same thing George did during Katrina

Except that in New Orleans, about 1,000 people died. In Burma the total is approaching 100,000. All together a different story don't you think. The scale of the problem in Burma is 100 times greater than after Katrina in the U.S.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   
UN has tried and now look at what happens:



www.breitbart.com...

UN halts aid to Myanmar after junta seizes supplies

May 9 10:12 AM US/Eastern



YANGON, Myanmar (AP) - Myanmar's junta seized U.N. aid shipments headed for hungry and homeless survivors of last week's devastating cyclone, prompting the world body to suspend further help on Friday.
The U.N. said the aid included 38 tons of high-energy biscuits and arrived in Myanmar on Friday on two flights from Bangladesh and the United Arab Emirates.

"All of the food aid and equipment that we managed to get in has been confiscated," U.N. World Food Program spokesman Paul Risley said. "For the time being, we have no choice but to end further efforts to bring critical needed food aid into Myanmar at this time."

Myanmar's government acknowledged taking control of the shipments and said it plans to distribute the aid "without delay by its own labor to the affected areas."





posted on May, 9 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Hey come on folks think for a moment. The infrastrucure in Burma is now washed away. If the UN can just for once persuade other nations to pull together and agree to send in troops purely for distrbution of aid surely that cannot be a bad thing? As bittersweet as it sounds the UN troops would have to pull out once the aid is distributed in Burma to all those that need it, leaving the repuganant regime in charge again. We are looking at 100,0000 dead here and i think to be brutally frank that is a conservative estimate. Such huge amount of dead and those in need of rescue surely has to transcend politics and we need to look at this in terms of basic human aid.

What hope have we as a planet if we do nothing. Surely bold steps such as taking the initative such as sending UN troops in is at least a start. Sure some people may get killed but as every soldier knows risk is thier business. If i was fit and healthy i would happily take that risk if it meant my efforts saved the lives of others. If i saw someone in mortal danger i would risk my own life to save theirs. It is the human thing to do.

We are one big family at the end of the day. If we do nothing then we are just as guilty as the Burmese Junta in power now.


[edit on 9/5/08 by Wirral Bagpuss]



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wirral Bagpuss
Surely bold steps such as taking the initative such as sending UN troops in is at least a start. Sure some people may get killed but as every soldier knows risk is thier business. If i was fit and healthy i would happily take that risk if it meant my efforts saved the lives of others. If i saw someone in mortal danger i would risk my own life to save theirs. It is the human thing to do.


That's easy for you to say now. You're not a soldier, nor will you be commanding troops that will be in harms way delivering supplies.

And as a US military member, my job isn't humanitarian relief/World Police (as so many here on ATS loves to point out). The US military is there to "defend my country against all enemies, foreign and domestic" (break things and hurt people).

Don't get me wrong; 99.9% of the US military would see the delivering of supplies there as a challenge to overcome and probably a high point in their careers; I know I would.

World opinion, on the other hand, would find a good reason to ridicule the US military for being there, I'm willing to bet.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


I agree. One problem that is currently quite common right now is that every military action taken by the U.S. is perceived as a bad thing. The United States is blamed for just about every problem that exists in this world that involved firearms, and I do agree we deserve some of it as we have supplied militias that are now in power with weapons, but even if the United States was to back action in Burma it would most likely be looked upon negatively by the world. Why? Because the United States is "imperialistic" and trying to build an "empire." Destroying the Junta would allow the U.S. to place a U.S. backed government in place in Burma, and that's a big no no in the international community. I would love to see help go to Burma as much as the next person, but, as jerico65 stated, the U.S. military is not trained to act as police, why do you think the U.S. armed forces are having trouble with Iraq right now? Because they are not trained to babysit, which is what they would be doing after overthrowing the Junta.

Also bear in mind that the U.N. does not have a standing army and requires, literally, troop donations from member states to form a temporary peacekeeping force. In the past U.N. peacekeeping operations haven't been entirely successful, and many times borderline failures. The United States, with the best trained and most efficient armed forces doesn't have the resources right now to take part in an operation in Burma that would require U.S. troops. And I'm pretty sure other nations currently involved in the war in Iraq would not be willing to deploy more troops to overthrow another regime while the international community is still trying to piece together a working government in Iraq.



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 01:24 AM
link   
That's not entirely true. There are units that are trained for humanitarian relief. How do I know this? Because I'm in the unit that's going to be floating outside Burma. Yeah, heard about the Essex strike group? Oorah, that's my unit. We're just waiting for word to go in and help them. We've loaded up with supplies and we're even sending in helos to drop supplies off as much as we can. We're being stopped by their government who basically supresses the whole country. Not much we can do about it. But, I'll tell you, there are a lot of us who are pissed. We were supposed to do an exercise in a neighboring country here only to be pulled to this and now any plans we had for the projected return date have been cancelled...

They have accepted help, but not much. Chances of us getting any ground troops in is most likely slim to none. But, we're doing what we can and what we've trained to do. We are the Dirty-Worst(31st) Marine Expeditionary Unit, and we are the tip of the spear. Something goes sour in our area of responsibility and we're there to help. Don't think that all military isn't trained for this kind of thing, we are.

Oh, and there is hope in Burma. John Rambo is there.



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
I think that it's a great idea. Perhaps we can get the oil rich countries to fund this humanitarian mission and supply the troops as well
I'd like to keep the US out of this operation because we haven't been invited.


Oh, you must mean like invited like the other countries that you're proposing invade the country to distribute aid. This is a case where the UN should not infringe on the sovereignty of another nation, as Burma is not an immediate danger to its neighbors. In fact, I'm not sure the UN should ever infringe on the sovereignty of a nation.
It is correct that the US would somehow be blamed for empire building even if they went in with nothing but emergency supplies. Why would I put troops in harms way in this scenario? That goes for any country, not just the US.
It is terribly unfortunate. The junta leaders should rot in hell, I'd agree, but my expectation is that several of the people proposing UN intervention would be the same people upset about "martial law" or a UN invasion of their own country in the event of a disaster.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 03:27 AM
link   
Well with the latest consignment of UN aid being impounded by the Burmese military surely the time now has come to take more forceable measures for the greater good of the people. We need to take action now or see the death of many more thousands of innocent civilians in Burma.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 03:38 AM
link   
The UN is as powerless as its predecessor -- League of Nations. UN will debate for years before any action. I opt for the US or EU to end the longest recorded Civil War.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 03:56 AM
link   
An article I posted in another similar thread. An interesting article for everyone to read is this:
Bush administration moves to exploit Burma cyclone disaster


These pledges are certainly not intended as selfless humanitarian gestures. The Bush administration has been seeking to undermine the Burmese military regime for years and seized on protests last year by Buddhist monks to slap economic sanctions on the country and its rulers. There is no doubt that the United States would be happy to exploit the current tragedy to get a military foothold in the country.

The NED was involved in training those monks, and now this?


In the case of Burma, the US is interested in countering the influence of China, which has closer ties with the military regime and sees the country as a critical point of access into the Indian Ocean. As far as the Bush administration is concerned, the population of the country is only a bargaining chip in the pursuit of geo-strategic objectives.

US energy giants, including the Chevron oil corporation, also have interests in Burma. While the Bush administration has placed economic sanctions on the country, these have not affected Chevron’s multibillion-dollar investments through its subsidiary Unocal. Human rights groups have accused Chevron of complicity in abuses in Burma intended to protect its pipeline routes.

China & Oil? Enough said here.

Unfortunately for all Americans showing sympathy for the victims in Myanar, the track record of the Bush Admin is just not good. If they did not pulled the "regime-change" trick so often for the past years, then I believe even this terrible junta might volunteerily accept "humanitarian aids"....

EDIT: Even if the intentions of the soldiers and experts of the "Dirty-Worst(31st) Marine Expeditionary Unit" is most benevolent, but I'm sorry to say it will always be seen as an invasion unit instead of "humantarian ading unit". It's the perception that the USA is invading and building your empire all over the world which is the obstacle....

[edit on 11/5/08 by IchiNiSan]



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 06:05 PM
link   
The Burmese people need to stand up and take their own freedom...kinda like we did in 1776. After they've displayed that kind of resolve, they should be further supported in their efforts by the international community.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 02:57 AM
link   
reply to post by CyberSEAL
 


I doubt it's that easy... back in 1776, we had guns and militia. Do the Burmese public have guns? What are they going to do, fight against an army with their knives?



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 04:38 AM
link   
reply to post by k4rupt
 


In a word? Yes. If they want their freedom, or to at least get rid of this particular bunch of wackjobs then yes, they need to dig out the knives and the clubs, or whatever else, and do the deed. In the end, they are the only ones who can. The rest of the world can help, but we can't do it for them.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 04:48 AM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 


No offence seagull, but any sign of an armed uprising and the Junta will probably employ similar methods to those used on the native Americans when the European explorers first landed in the new world.

That in itself is a clear example of what happens when a group of people armed with sticks and stones goes up against a heavily armed opposition.

If they trained for it, if they had a true leadership, then maybe they might be able to acheive something - but right now they're disorganised and unable to get it into their heads that their government isn't helping.

You want to know why?

Every single day for them is a fight for survival.



new topics




 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join