Korean Job Discussion Forums

[mrgiles]

although i'm against a military intervention, it is interesting to see which governments make the list as ripe for that terrifying euphemism, "regime change," and which don't. yet another reason why the yank invasions of afghanistan and iraq are despicable. btw that puppet kharzai's government might not be as bad as the one it replaced, but it's still not a particularly nice one.

[Kuros]

[chris_J2]

The Russians invaded Afghanistan first.

"Initially Soviet deployment of the 40th Army in Afghanistan began on August 7, 1978. The final troop withdrawal began on May 15, 1988, and ended on February 15, 1989." Almost 14,000 Russian soldiers died.

"The 1989 to 1992 phase of the civil war in Afghanistan began after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, leaving the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan to fend for itself against the Mujahideen. After several years of fighting, the government fell in 1992."

"The 1992 to 1996 phase of the Civil war in Afghanistan began with the capture of Kabul by the Mujahideen groups, and involved different factions of the Mujahideen turning on one another, until finally in 1996, the Taliban captured Kabul." (source: Wikipedia)

As everyone knows, the Taliban supported Osama Bin Laden, & the terrorist attacks on the WTC / USA in 2001. The US responded in October 2001.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)

It is unfair to blame the US, for the current complex mess in Afghanistan. Many individual nations, & the UN, support the war in Afghanistan.

Iraq is another matter, altogether. That war is the folly of GWB, who was too eager to replace one problem, with another. Countries like Canada & NZ, wisely decided to stay out of it.

[mises]

[mises]

The Red Cross is saying that up to 128,000 people may have died. This is surely one of the greatest human catastrophes in a long, long while and if the government continues to prohibit aid, could surpass the boxing day tsunami in the number of dead.

I do not support invasion, but perhaps the UN (okok, USA) could just drop thousands of tons of aid?

[Sincinnatislink]

[bookemdanno]

I never cease to be amazed by the breadth of historical ignorance and wishful thinking on this forum. But I console myself by remembering that few of the posters here are teaching history (rinky dink introductory culture classes don't count, fellas).

mrgiles drooled out:

[bookemdanno]

Who's talking about regime change in Myanmar? While I'd dearly love to see it (and so would the real Burmese leader under house arrest), the issue is whether to go in full force and provide emergency aid.

If we can't even summon up the resolve in the U.N. do circumvent one of the worst natural disasters of the past hundred years, then what use is the Security Council?

Time to grow some chest hair, fellas.

[nicholas_chiasson]

All governments rule by consent of the people. Those who do not consent are dead in a totalitarian regime. If enough people die, you have no people to rule. The Mongol's Vast Empire collapsed mostly cause a system of depopulation ruins your economy. Burma has been on shakey economic grounds for ages. If the west actually exercised a little military force the whole thing collapses. Would it better? I don't know. Unlike Iraq, there are few self described experts on SE Asian socio-politics.

[chris_J2]

[Grab the Chickens Levi]

[Julius]

[bucheon bum]

The difference between Burma and Cambodia is this: the latter was at peace and prosperous. Due to a number of outside factors, civil war broke out. In the case of the former, there was no domestic peace from the time the Brits left up until a few years ago. I also believe Cambodia is more homogeneous than Burma.

That being said, maybe a democratically-elected gov't in Burma would allow more autonomy to minority groups, thereby minimizing the potential for internal conflict. All pure speculation obviously.

[chris_J2]

From US Campaign for Burma:

"Our emails over the past few days have increasingly stressed the extreme humanitarian crisis that faces millions of Burmese right now. The crisis is urgent and dire, and the waiting can no longer continue without costing lives. If we wait for the approval of the Burmese regime we will have to start shipping in coffins instead of food supplies.

Congressional leaders, Rep. Peter King (R) and Rep. Joseph Crowley (D), are organizing a letter to President Bush urging him to "work with the British, French, German, Danish and other supportive and regional governments to immediately intervene in the Irrawaddy Delta region of Burma to provide urgent life-saving humanitarian aid to the survivors of Cyclone Nargis."

Call your member of the U.S. House of Representative today and urge them to sign this letter to President Bush. It is really easy to do, instructions are below. Calling is the MOST effective way to get your Representative on your side quickly (call today - deadline is close of business today).

Call-in information:

1)Go to www.house.gov to find your Representative and contact information. Find the number for the DC office

2)Ask to speak to the person who handles Foreign Affairs

3)Ask the staffer to have your Representative sign onto the King-Crowley letter to President Bush - "Help the Burmese People Now".

4) Explain the urgency of the situation in Burma

5) Tell them why you care

6) Tell them in order to sign on to the letter they need to contact Adam Paulson in Rep. Peter King's (if Republican) or Greg Sheiowitz in Rep. Crowley's (if Democrat) office by the end of the day Thursday May 15th

An Overview of the Situation: It is now 11 days since the cyclone hit and nations are still talking and waiting for the Burmese regime to allow aid into the country and reach the most vulnerable population. While the waiting happens, 220,000 people are still missing and aid agencies report that 1.5 to 2 million people are likely to die from disease and starvation if aid does not get in immediately.

The Burmese regime is cutting of the Irrawaddy Delta and not allowing aid agencies to distribute supplies. It is extremely troubling that, according to a World Food Program spokesperson, the trickle of international aid allowed to enter the country and reach the most vulnerable population amounts to less than 20% of the aid needed to stave off death from starvation and disease for more than 1.5 million people.

Reliable reports also confirm regime officials have been both selling international aid supplies in local markets and keeping the high-quality international food aid for themselves while dolling out low quality and, in certain cases, rotten food to survivors of the cyclone. International aid agencies operating in Burma warn that only 10% of the logistical staff needed to cope with the millions struggling to survive had arrived in the country 10 days after Cyclone Nargis struck

Food, shelter, water, and aid workers to help distribute aid are not getting in. The time for waiting is over."

Obviously, the above is only applicable to Americans.

[bookemdanno]

Great follow-up article, Chris_J2, mahalo:

I have a question for everyone here:

Would it really bother you if the UN Security Council or some members thereof used this as a pretext to rout the Burmese military junta?

Basic humanitarian obligations trump issues of political legitimacy and the "Prime Directive" in my book any day.

I wouldn't be troubled. The duly elected president should be Aung San Su Kyi anyhow.

But the real reason they don't want foreigners in is they don't want to lose face and leverage with their own people. They know some reporters will plant ideas in their heads and incite matters. It's all about saving their own necks. The military has become the privileged class of Myanmar, which is sad. After 66 years of rule, though, it's hardly surprising.