I also dissagree with the name MYANMAR that is why I was sarcastic.. Look at all we lost when those jebonies started called Burma MYANMAR!!!

We do not have Burma Shave anymore. Movies such as Burma Road ! Commandoes Over Burma !! Operation Burma !!
U Thant who was the UN honco once could not exist since he was from Burma.

__________________
"I was born at night, but it was not last night night"

Look at all the BURMANESE lost when those "jebonies" started to call it MYANMAR.

__________________

"You are just stuck in a box."

--Zaro

See my piece in the thread "USA to make airdrops of aid inside Myanmar w/out permission" which counteracts all this nonsense written in this thread

this is something the Euros can deal with.

they too are human activists afterall

__________________

Join Bush Country - PoliticalForum.com's Largest Member Community

Music That Suburban Teenagers Listen

Quitters Never Win.
They Walk The Plank On A Sinking Ship!

That has to be the dumbest thing I've read today! If Bush wanted to deal with terrorist he would have sent 150,000 troops to Afghanistan not Iraq.

__________________
In the land of the blind, the man with one eye is the king
- Nas

Right, because terrorists are very moral, disciplined soldiers that only exist and only fight in Afghanistan. LOL

__________________
Qur'an:8:39 Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.
Qur'an:8:67 It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughter in the land.
Qur'an 8:12 I will terrorize the unbelievers...Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.
Qur'an 9:5 Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.

The Burmese tyrants are understandbly reluctant to allow US aid into their country because they know only too well that the aid will probably be subject to economic pre-conditions further down the line. Burma is rich in natural resources and the Burmese junta are well aware that the natural disaster which has befallen their country will provide the potential opportunity for yet another US-led invasion and subsequent economic liberalisation (code for plunder) of their countries resources.

The writer and activist Naomi Klein has documented in detail the impacts of natural disasters in third world countries and the West's response to them, in her book "Disaster Capitalism". She argues that natural disasters provide an ideal opportunity for Western governments to re-configure the economies of third world countries through the implementation of neo-liberal economic policies and/or invasion. Since the disaster in Burma, we have been bombarded with a constant stream of anti- Burmese government propaganda in relation to the alleged prevention of Western aid being allowed to reach the people of that stricken country.

Compare and contrast this with the events that followed Katrina where Bush refused practical help from both Iran and Cuba for political and ideological reasons. The Burmese junta are now being criticised by the West for the same reasons that Bush was NOT criticised. The media remains absolutely silent in regards to this blatant piece of Western hypocrisy. Equally, we are hard pressed to read or hear anything in our media about the humanitarian crisis currently occuring in Ethiopia because we are more interested in her enemy who the US is backing with weapons and tanks. That enemy is Sudan, whose capital Darfur, the media readily reports on, and celebrities like George Clooney endorse.

Could this Western pre-occupation with Darfur and Burma have anything to do with the fact that both are rich in natural resources? I need say little more in this respect, suffice to mention that our Western governments are not primarily concerned (and never have been) about the various humanitarian crisis in the world unless we can get a quick buck in return. Media coverage of resource rich Burma has reached saturation point as the likely pre-requisite for future invasion and subsequent control of their resources. Watch this space.

Barely a week has passed since my last post and already it would appear that I have been proved correct. The 17th May edition of the Guardian reported that the West are appearing reluctant to give unconditional financial aid to natural disaster hit third world nations following the trajedies that have befallen Myanmar and China. As I alluded in my last post, aid will come in the form of IMF and World Bank loans which will be granted on the condition that the Burmeses regime, for instance, introduce 'structural adjustment' (rebranded as Poverty Reduction) programmes.

This means that in order to stave off the impacts of the disaster, the Burmese junta will effectively be coerced into accepting these conditions, thus opening up the country for Western foreign direct investment (euphemism for plundering its natural resources). If this approach fails, then food and other supplies are likely to literally be dropped on the country, despite the fact that "barely a fifth of aid dropped in such a way reaches the people who most need it."

(see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008...nenargis.burma).

This will then be the prelude to a possible invasion under the usual pretext of 'humanitarian intervention'.

Myanmar has oil?



Can't? Won't! They are tired of being used in the Bush Corporate War.


Don't forget the codpiece!

Oh NOW we should invade because Time says so... that's just dumb

After a huge ass hurricane just hit the country, Time is calling for military intervention to save people... yeah that's probably the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

THis is not to say I am against a military intervention, but you are basically asking for trouble by invading a country that lost tons of infrastructure, has a huge refugee crisis, has rebel groups in the more dense jungles of Burma and not to mention you have to give aid to people while you are invading. By the way, I haven't even mentioned the elephant in the room that is standing by helping out the Myanmar government.

It's as if Time magazine has a brain the size of a walnut. Not only do they not realize that a civil war has engulfed the country for 60 years, but the United States has basically ignored Burma's situation and the cries of the people for humanitarian intervention for as long as I can remember because China is our friend and we don't want to upset China.

If anything, the United States should have intervened a year ago when they brutally killed rebelling Buddhist monks, or they should have interevened 18 years ago when the democratically held elections that brought in Aung San Suu Kyi as PM and were rejected by the military junta. Or they could have interevened at almost any point in the long history of protests and repressions that has plauged Myanmar for the last 50 years.

But no, now that Myanmar is finallythe vast history in the hot-seat of the media, we want to invade to save lives. Ignore of Burmese struggles for independence that met deaf ears as they cried out for foreign help in overthrowing their government. No, now is the time to do it.

Time, you fail once again at reporting.

__________________
Signature: