Is it Time to Invade Burma?

[Teacher Mark 53]

The disaster in Burma presents the world with perhaps its most serious humanitarian crisis since the 2004 Asian tsunami. By most reliable estimates, close to 100,000 people are dead. Delays in delivering relief to the victims, the inaccessibility of the stricken areas and the poor state of Burma's infrastructure and health systems mean that number is sure to rise. With as many as 1 million people still at risk, it is conceivable that the death toll will, within days, approach that of the entire number of civilians killed in the genocide in Darfur.

So what is the world doing about it? Not much. The military regime that runs Burma initially signaled it would accept outside relief, but has imposed so many conditions on those who would actually deliver it that barely a trickle has made it through. Aid workers have been held at airports. UN food shipments have been seized. US naval ships packed with food and medicine idle in the Gulf of Thailand, waiting for an all-clear that may never come.

Burma's rulers have relented slightly, agreeing Friday to let in supplies and perhaps even some foreign relief workers. The government says it will allow a US C-130 transport plane to land inside Burma Monday. But it's hard to imagine a regime this insular and paranoid accepting robust aid from the US military, let alone agreeing to the presence of US Marines on Burmese soil — as Thailand and Indonesia did after the tsunami. The trouble is that the Burmese haven't shown the ability or willingness to deploy the kind of assets needed to deal with a calamity of this scale — and the longer Burma resists offers of help, the more likely it is that the disaster will devolve beyond anyone's control. "We're in 2008, not 1908," says Jan Egeland, the former U.N. emergency relief coordinator. "A lot is at stake here. If we let them get away with murder we may set a very dangerous precedent."

That's why it's time to consider a more serious option: invading Burma. Some observers, including former USAID director Andrew Natsios, have called on the US to unilaterally begin air drops to the Burmese people regardless of what the junta says. The Bush Administration has so far rejected the idea — "I can't imagine us going in without the permission of the Myanmar government," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday — but it's not without precedent: as Natsios pointed out to the Wall Street Journal, the US has facilitated the delivery of humanitarian aid without the host government's consent in places like Bosnia and Sudan.

A coercive humanitarian intervention would be complicated and costly. During the 2004 tsunami, some 24 US ships and 16,000 troops were deployed in countries across the region; the mission cost the U.S. $5 million a day. Ultimately, the US pledged nearly $900 million to tsunami relief. (By contrast, it has offered just $3.25 million to Burma.) But the risks would be greater this time: the Burmese government's xenophobia and insecurity make them prone to view US troops — or worse, foreign relief workers — as hostile forces. (Remember Black Hawk Down?) Even if the U.S. and its allies made clear that their actions were strictly for humanitarian purposes, it's unlikely the junta would believe them. "You have to think it through — do you want to secure an area of the country by military force? What kinds of potential security risks would that create?" says Egelend. "I can't imagine any humanitarian organization wanting to shoot their way in with food."

So what other options exist? Retired General William Nash of the Council on Foreign Relations says the US should first pressure China to use its influence over the junta to get them to open up and then supply support to the Thai and Indonesian militaries to carry out relief missions. "We can pay for it — we can provide repair parts to the Indonesians so they can get their Air Force up. We can lend the them two C-130s and let them paint the Indonesian flag on them," Nash says. "We have to get the stuff to people who can deliver it and who the Burmese government will accept, even if takes an extra day or two and even if it's not as efficient as the good old US military." Egeland advocates that the UN Security Council take punitive steps short of war, such as freezing the regime's assets and issuing warrants for the arrest of individual junta members if they were to leave the country. Similar measures succeeded in getting the government of Ivory Coast to let in foreign relief teams in 2002, Egelend says.

And if that fails? "It's important for the rulers to know the world has other options," Egeland says. "If there were, say, the threat of a cholera epidemic that could claim hundreds of thousands of lives and the government was incapable of preventing it, then maybe yes — you would intervene unilaterally." But by then, it could be too late. The cold truth is that states rarely undertake military action unless their national interests are at stake; and the world has yet to reach a consensus about when, and under what circumstances, coercive interventions in the name of averting humanitarian disasters are permissible. As the response to the 2004 tsunami proved, the world's capacity for mercy is limitless. But we still haven't figured out when to give war a chance.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8...00.html?cnn=yes

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

... supply support to the Thai and Indonesian militaries to carry out relief missions. "We can pay for it — we can provide repair parts to the Indonesians so they can get their Air Force up. We can lend the them two C-130s and let them paint the Indonesian flag on them," Nash says. "We have to get the stuff to people who can deliver it and who the Burmese government will accept, even if takes an extra day or two and even if it's not as efficient as the good old US military."

We can pay for it?

I didn't realize we were swimming in that kind of cash.

[Teacher Mark 53]

... supply support to the Thai and Indonesian militaries to carry out relief missions. "We can pay for it — we can provide repair parts to the Indonesians so they can get their Air Force up. We can lend the them two C-130s and let them paint the Indonesian flag on them," Nash says. "We have to get the stuff to people who can deliver it and who the Burmese government will accept, even if takes an extra day or two and even if it's not as efficient as the good old US military."

We can pay for it?

I didn't realize we were swimming in that kind of cash.

I propose we only spend 8 Billion in Iraq this month instead of 16. We'll then divert the other 8 to Burmese airdrops (along with a couple of well placed bunker busters for the Generals).

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I propose we end our involvement in Iraq altogether and help Burma's neighbors rid Burma of insidious Chinese influence (under the guise of helping cyclone victims) once and for all.

[rclouse 0]

There's no oil there, so no.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

No, but.....

China mulls oil pipelines in Myanmar, Thailand

By Phar Kim Beng

Booming China, with its voracious appetite for oil and urgent need for oil security, is considering a China-Myanmar oil pipeline and one through Thailand.

...

The proposal ... seeks to reduce China's dependence on oil in Middle East. In addition, China is aware that the US, India, even Japan, are exerting undue weight on the Strait of Malacca. Currently, 60% of China's oil imports are transmitted through the Malacca Strait. Should it ever be blocked, China would suffer enormously.

...

The proposal suggested that China should build an oil pipeline from Myanmar's western deep-water port of Sittwe across the country to the city of Kunming, the capital of Yunnan province in southwest China.

[jundp 191]

Should we invade? No I don't think so.

But I think that Burma's dictatorship letting a week go by without letting aid and relief in is utter #######.

Invading won't help these people at all, though. Considering the UN's relief efforts were confiscated by the military leaders of Burma...what do we as outsiders do? Can we do anything?

[Saddle Bronc 124]

There's no oil there, so no.

False--this is why both China and India are vying to establish close ties, Burma has lots of oil and gas.

[Niels Bohr 72]

The US Government pledged 3.25 million dollars to help Burma. The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation donated 3 million dollars in aid to Burma.

[Sinergy 3]

We are still paying for Bushy's war, and we cant even afford to help ppl in need in our own country. No WE cant pay for it. organizations, as the Bill and Melinda foundation are doing a good part, and we put in some. Other countries around the world need to pitch in alot too, we are NOT the only country on the planet, and we are broke anyway.

as far as invading...why? there is no reason to invade, thats why we are in the mess we are now in Iraq. Lets not INVADE countries, but try to help.

Edited May 12, 2008 by Sinergy

[Teacher Mark 53]

The US Government pledged 3.25 million dollars to help Burma. The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation donated 3 million dollars in aid to Burma.

Wow, 3.25 Million! I hope it doesn't break us.

[Teacher Mark 53]

We are still paying for Bushy's war, and we cant even afford to help ppl in need in our own country. No WE cant pay for it. organizations, as the Bill and Melinda foundation are doing a good part, and we put in some. Other countries around the world need to pitch in alot too, we are NOT the only country on the planet, and we are broke anyway.

as far as invading...why? there is no reason to invade, thats why we are in the mess we are now in Iraq. Lets not INVADE countries, but try to help.

Ever actually been to a third world country? Our poor have opportunity and advantages that most of the world can only dream of.

Like I said before, 8 billion in aid and a few well placed bunker busters.

[Sinergy 3]

We are still paying for Bushy's war, and we cant even afford to help ppl in need in our own country. No WE cant pay for it. organizations, as the Bill and Melinda foundation are doing a good part, and we put in some. Other countries around the world need to pitch in alot too, we are NOT the only country on the planet, and we are broke anyway.

as far as invading...why? there is no reason to invade, thats why we are in the mess we are now in Iraq. Lets not INVADE countries, but try to help.

Ever actually been to a third world country? Our poor have opportunity and advantages that most of the world can only dream of.

Like I said before, 8 billion in aid and a few well placed bunker busters.

Been to many 3rd world countries, thanks, and i still stand by my statement, and we are not the only country who should be relied on to give aid. Nor do we have any right invading.

8 billion in aid?? I can think of other ways to spend half of that. Our country is so far in debt, i guess to some ppl it doesnt matter another 8 billion or more.

Oh BTW, incase you missed it, since it affected the US, 66 tornados touched down over the weekend, 20 deaths i last heard and lots of ppl without homes or business's now.

Edited May 12, 2008 by Sinergy

[Niels Bohr 72]

Cambodia gave out 50,000 in aid. They can't do anymore or the country will go bankrupt.

Australia - 25 millions dollars

Japan - 1.79 million dollars

Germany - 775,000 dollars

The US relies on these countries for cheap labor.

Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand, Laos, India

Without them, the US will have no choice but to hire US workers at the mills. This will raise the wage for the US laborers, and decrease US consumption.

Edited May 12, 2008 by consolemaster

[Sinergy 3]

Cambodia gave out 50,000 in aid. They can't do anymore or the country will go bankrupt.

Australia - 25 millions dollars

Japan - 1.79 million dollars

Germany - 775,000 dollars

And thats good amounts, why are we expected to do 8 billion when we dont even HAVE 8 billion!!!!!!

Dont get me wrong, im all about helping other countries, but we are broke, we are funding a war thats going nowhere, and it just seems like the more money we spend the harder its going to be to bring taxes down.

i have my views on spending in this country, and if we have 8 billion dollars to give away to another country, then we could spend it more than one way. The prob is we dont even have the 8 billion, wonder where our gov is going to borrow this from.