• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

What crimes would justify the invasion of Burma?


patslatt

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
13,693
The military junta in Burma controls a disciplined army of youths brainwashed since they were inducted into the army at very young ages. So there is little chance of a military coup. The regime is happy to keep its people poor in order to maintain its iron grip and exploit the country's mineral wealth for the benefit of the military leaders.

What crimes will the military have to commit that would shock the UN enough for it to encourage an invasion of Burma? A programme of mass extermination based on ethnic identity?

The UN is only a talking shop. Why Ireland puts so much faith in it is beyond me. It's only useful as a symbol of international cooperation. The Democracies should form their own UN.
 

Breadan O'Connor

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
1,242
patslatt said:
What crimes will the military have to commit that would shock the UN enough for it to encourage an invasion of Burma? A programme of mass extermination based on ethnic identity? .
Because Burma is a major supplier of raw materials to China, any "democratic" invasion of Burma would provoke a Chinese reaction.

America maintains forces in the Middle East to ensure it's oil supplies, and China would likely take military action to protect it's raw material supplies also.
 

joel

Well-known member
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
810
Breadan O'Connor said:
patslatt said:
What crimes will the military have to commit that would shock the UN enough for it to encourage an invasion of Burma? A programme of mass extermination based on ethnic identity? .
Because Burma is a major supplier of raw materials to China, any "democratic" invasion of Burma would provoke a Chinese reaction.

America maintains forces in the Middle East to ensure it's oil supplies, and China would likely take military action to protect it's raw material supplies also.

I often wonder if there is an agenda for the reporting of Burma and Zimbabwe. I mean, the BBC are heavily involved.....
 

Thac0man

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
6,482
Twitter
twit taa woo
Breadan O'Connor said:
Because Burma is a major supplier of raw materials to China, any "democratic" invasion of Burma would provoke a Chinese reaction.

America maintains forces in the Middle East to ensure it's oil supplies, and China would likely take military action to protect it's raw material supplies also.
China would not take Military action, it is incapable of making meaningful or forceful military intervention over distance and the Burmese Junta would not welcome it.

As for provoking protest from China anyway? China would have to stand in line. In the current climate no crime, no matter how hideous or rank, warrents the invasion of a soverign nation. Just because a nation is not a democracy does not matter any more.

Since Iraq, victims of injustice the world over are portrayed readily as aggressors or even deserving of persecution, so all pervasive is the pacifist message.
 

A_man_about_a_dog

Active member
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
181
Frankly, no crime warrants the invasion of a sovereign state. Sovereignty trumps all other principles in international relations, the US/UK coalition just happened to conveniently forget this when they stormed into Iraq.

Unless Burma decided to launch overt military operations against another sovereign state there is no justification for an invasion. And even an overt military incursion into another state is still shady grounds depending on who instigates the following invasion.

Essentially, the only way that change can be brought about in Burma is through pressure from the international community in the form of various embargoes, sanctions and aid based incentives. Or the only other option is of a popular revolt, something that I don't see happening any time soon in a country which has a large portion of the population effectively brain-washed.
 

seabhcan

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
14,327
joel said:
I often wonder if there is an agenda for the reporting of Burma and Zimbabwe. I mean, the BBC are heavily involved.....
Hmmm... I have no doubt Zimb and Burma are nasty places. I don't think the western Medja are particularly biased in reporting that - however, there are dozens of equally nasty places that are totally unreported.

Zimb is no worse than the CAR, but the CAR has French troops protecting supplies of uranium. Burma is no worse than Uzbekistan, but the Uzbek president is a solid allay in the War on Terror.

Whats unique about Zimb and Burma is that the are nasty places with an independent streak. That is intolerable to the western medja.
 

badinage

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
776
patslatt said:
The UN is only a talking shop. Why Ireland puts so much faith in it is beyond me. It's only useful as a symbol of international cooperation.
Ireland puts faith in it because the basic alternative is to turn to the old Imperial powers to sort out problems, and as Ireland was occupied by the UK, that's politically unacceptable.
 

Jozer

Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2006
Messages
57
They would need to fall out with China, and be floating on oil.
 

FutureTaoiseach

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
7,992
Website
greatdearleader.blogspot.com
None apart from genocide. Iraq should have woken people up to the problems that come with trying to export democracy to countries of a different culture with little experience of democracy. It is not for the West to dictate to the Third World how they should govern themselves. My views on this sort of thing have changed radically over the years because of the situation in Iraq.
 

Conor the Bold

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
3,360
A_man_about_a_dog said:
Frankly, no crime warrants the invasion of a sovereign state. Sovereignty trumps all other principles in international relations, the US/UK coalition just happened to conveniently forget this when they stormed into Iraq.

Unless Burma decided to launch overt military operations against another sovereign state there is no justification for an invasion. And even an overt military incursion into another state is still shady grounds depending on who instigates the following invasion.

Essentially, the only way that change can be brought about in Burma is through pressure from the international community in the form of various embargoes, sanctions and aid based incentives. Or the only other option is of a popular revolt, something that I don't see happening any time soon in a country which has a large portion of the population effectively brain-washed.
So you don't think prevention of Genocide warrants the invasion of a soveriegn state?
 

Conor the Bold

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
3,360
Catalpa said:
Burma's 'Crime' is the same as that of Zimbabwe, Iraq, Serbia etc

It tells the West to f.cuk off and mind its own business...
Right... :roll:
 

A_man_about_a_dog

Active member
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
181
Conor the Bold said:
[quote="A_man_about_a_dog":25drx4kw]Frankly, no crime warrants the invasion of a sovereign state. Sovereignty trumps all other principles in international relations, the US/UK coalition just happened to conveniently forget this when they stormed into Iraq.

Unless Burma decided to launch overt military operations against another sovereign state there is no justification for an invasion. And even an overt military incursion into another state is still shady grounds depending on who instigates the following invasion.

Essentially, the only way that change can be brought about in Burma is through pressure from the international community in the form of various embargoes, sanctions and aid based incentives. Or the only other option is of a popular revolt, something that I don't see happening any time soon in a country which has a large portion of the population effectively brain-washed.
So you don't think prevention of Genocide warrants the invasion of a soveriegn state?[/quote:25drx4kw]

Depends on the context and whether or not genocide has occured. If the state in which genocide is occuring has already lost its sovereign rights then by all means, intervention should occur. If however the genocide is being carried out by a group against whom the sovereign government are acting effectively, then no, intervention is not warranted.

So, if a country is in a situation whereby there is no centralised, sovereign power with a monopoly over the use of force, then yes an invasion could occur given the fact that sovereignty has already been broken. However, if there is a sovereign centralised power who control the monopoly over the legitimate use of force, then no, an invasion would be a direct breach of international norms and would undermine the sovereignty of another state. Something which is not done in our modern state system.
 

Conor the Bold

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
3,360
A_man_about_a_dog said:
Depends on the context and whether or not genocide has occured.
Does it? This sounds like quite a catergorical statement.

Frankly, no crime warrants the invasion of a sovereign state.
So what is it to be? It's either one thing or the other, frankly.

If the state in which genocide is occuring has already lost its sovereign rights then by all means, intervention should occur.
Ok...

If however the genocide is being carried out by a group against whom the sovereign government are acting effectively, then no, intervention is not warranted.
So what about the soveriegn 'government' was conducting genocide or ethnic cleansing? Indeed a government which has siezed power? BTW, isn't that a contradiction in terms? If the Genocide is being carried out by a group which the sovereign government is acting effectively, how is there a genocide happening? Who defines what 'effectively' incidently?

However, if there is a sovereign centralised power who control the monopoly over the legitimate use of force, then no, an invasion would be a direct breach of international norms and would undermine the sovereignty of another state. Something which is not done in our modern state system.
Right...'International norms'. :roll:. Who incidently decides what the legitimate use of force is? Sorry, this all all sounding rather wishy washy from yourself. So basically if a government decides to exterminate large groups of what it considers undesirables in its soveriegn terroritory, this would not warant a intervention?
 

A_man_about_a_dog

Active member
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
181
Conor the Bold said:
[quote="A_man_about_a_dog":2u530eyq]

Depends on the context and whether or not genocide has occured.
Does it? This sounds like quite a catergorical statement.[/quote:2u530eyq]

Define both genocide and the times at which you would suggest that intervention is warranted. I suggest that you don't bother going and looking for a definition for genocide as there are conflicting views upon what number of deaths exactly constitutes the act of genocide.

Conor the Bold said:
Frankly, no crime warrants the invasion of a sovereign state.
So what is it to be? It's either one thing or the other, frankly.
Ideally, no intervention at all should take place. However, in situations where sovereignty has already been broken, be it through the actions of rogue groups or through the actions of a government which is acting in a manner not conducive to the maintenance of sovereignty, intervention may be warranted.



Conor the Bold said:
So what about the soveriegn 'government' was conducting genocide or ethnic cleansing? Indeed a government which has siezed power?
See my reply above about a government engaging in genocide.

Conor the Bold said:
BTW, isn't that a contradiction in terms? If the Genocide is being carried out by a group which the sovereign government is acting effectively, how is there a genocide happening? Who defines what 'effectively' incidently?
I'm afraid that I don't really understand what your trying to ask here, your style of writing is a tad confusing at best. Clarify your questions and definitions and I'll do my best to respond.

Conor the Bold said:
Right...'International norms'. :roll:. Who incidently decides what the legitimate use of force is? Sorry, this all all sounding rather wishy washy from yourself. So basically if a government decides to exterminate large groups of what it considers undesirables in its soveriegn terroritory, this would not warant a intervention?
The only reason a government would act in that manner is if they had lost the effective sovereignty over such a group. Owing to such events happening then an intervention could be warranted.
 

junketman

Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2008
Messages
66
patslatt said:
The military junta in Burma controls a disciplined army of youths brainwashed since they were inducted into the army at very young ages. So there is little chance of a military coup. The regime is happy to keep its people poor in order to maintain its iron grip and exploit the country's mineral wealth for the benefit of the military leaders.

What crimes will the military have to commit that would shock the UN enough for it to encourage an invasion of Burma? A programme of mass extermination based on ethnic identity?

The UN is only a talking shop. Why Ireland puts so much faith in it is beyond me. It's only useful as a symbol of international cooperation. The Democracies should form their own UN.
Morally there are situations where we should invade, yes. Anyone who argues that in the case of a genocide, that we shouldnt invade that is not a moral argument.

Anyone who argues that we shouldnt invade another country because then some day someone might invade our country, again that is not a moral argument, but one of self interest, and upholding self interest is not a moral pretext for anything.

If someone is beating up a defenceless person down the road, morally the right thing to do is intervene and protect the defenceless person.

Let's be clear the current Burmese government are a bumch of thugs and criminals who murdered 3000 people in 1988 to hold onto power and many thousand since mostly innocent unarmed men women and children. In that situation there is certainly a moral argument for overthrowing them.
 

junketman

Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2008
Messages
66
patslatt said:
The military junta in Burma controls a disciplined army of youths brainwashed since they were inducted into the army at very young ages. So there is little chance of a military coup. The regime is happy to keep its people poor in order to maintain its iron grip and exploit the country's mineral wealth for the benefit of the military leaders.

What crimes will the military have to commit that would shock the UN enough for it to encourage an invasion of Burma? A programme of mass extermination based on ethnic identity?

The UN is only a talking shop. Why Ireland puts so much faith in it is beyond me. It's only useful as a symbol of international cooperation. The Democracies should form their own UN.
Morally there are situations where we should invade, yes. Anyone who argues that in the case of a genocide, that we shouldnt invade that is not a moral argument.

Anyone who argues that we shouldnt invade another country because then some day someone might invade our country, again that is not a moral argument, but one of self interest, and upholding self interest is not a moral pretext for anything.

If someone is beating up a defenceless person down the road, morally the right thing to do is intervene and protect the defenceless person.

Let's be clear the current Burmese government are a bumch of thugs and criminals who murdered 3000 people in 1988 to hold onto power and many thousand since mostly innocent unarmed men women and children. In that situation there is certainly a moral argument for overthrowing them whether it upsets the Chinese government autocrats or not.
 

cleareyed2

New member
Joined
Aug 11, 2007
Messages
1
Very difficult to see the Irish Defence forces leading this one. Perhaps the debate about invading Burma should take place in those countries expected to organise and lead it. I don't expect it to be a long debate.
 
Top