[spacebandit]

There are no words for my contempt for our country and the so called "free world"

We are told we invaded Iraq to save its people from a murderious regime - that was lies, the invasion was for oil supply and gas pipelines and a now stragic airbase for the United States - its called the Whole Of Iraq Military Airport

Thousands were murdered in Burma by a murderous regime in 1988

The "free world" did nothing

The same regime has now murdered thousands more

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...icle_id=484903

We do nothing - and why, well I would suggest because Russia and China have first dibs on Burma's natural resources - nothing for us to go there for then.

oh
and becasue we still sell arms and planes to the Burmese junta

The western governments, including and especially ours and the United States are a disgrace to civilised society.

We are now no more than a fascist totalitarian regime, tarted up in the dress of false democracy - invading other countries at will, though on the coat-tails of a fundamentalist US administration - and allowing freedoms to be squashed around the world by bloody murder, and instead of standing up for the people who want freedom, who beg us to help them, instead we ignore them spy on our own - just like Stalinist Russia, and Mao's China - but without the gulags [yet].

How did "Great Britain" sink so low since 1945 ?

[Shaun]

The last time I checked, we weren't under a fascist totalitarian regime at all. And invading countries of our own free will? We're still in Iraq and Afghanistan...but those are the only two I can think of (correct me if I'm wrong )

As for the war in Iraq, saying the invasion was for oil and supplies is just about as unfounded as the claims of Weapons of Mass Destruction were - there's no denying that, under Saddam Hussein, people were tortured and killed, and he committed genocide against the Kurds.

Your post also confuses me - you criticise us for stopping one dictatorship killing its citizens, but reckon that we should do the same with another?

I'm all for intervention in Burma, however, and this situation really is getting out of hand.

[spacebandit]

Originally posted by Shaun
The last time I checked, we weren't under a fascist totalitarian regime at all. And invading countries of our own free will? We're still in Iraq and Afghanistan...but those are the only two I can think of (correct me if I'm wrong )

As for the war in Iraq, saying the invasion was for oil and supplies is just about as unfounded as the claims of Weapons of Mass Destruction were - there's no denying that, under Saddam Hussein, people were tortured and killed, and he committed genocide against the Kurds.

Your post also confuses me - you criticise us for stopping one dictatorship killing its citizens, but reckon that we should do the same with another?

I'm all for intervention in Burma, however, and this situation really is getting out of hand.

We invaded Iraq we were old becasue of WMD
Lie
That the changed to we invaded to save the people from a murderer
Lie [and also an attack to enforce regime change is illegal under international law ]

But the truth is easy to discover

Upon invasion what were the first facilities seized by US and British Troops ?

Oil Infrastructure

No rebuilding hospitals, no repairing hospitals, no rebuilding schools, no school restoration, no medical supplies, no water restotartion - No, only the oil pipelines and pumping stations were secured.

Arms dumps were left to be looted whilst the real reason for invasion was safeguarded

No doubt you will argue that the oil was necessery for the future of Iraq, so it could pay its bills.

In that case why were oil contracts handed out in the form of No-Bid Contracts to Haliburton and the Carlyle Group amongst others, these companies, by a law imposed on the new Iraqi Government, with a complete lack of imagination called, The New Oil Law

My post asked a pretty clear question :
Given the reasons we are now told where the actual reasons for invading Iraq, saving its people etc, why do we not intervene likewise in Burma.

I even answered it

We intervened in Iraq because of oil
Wheras Burmas natural resources go exclusively to Russia and China - as therefore are out of our grasp

or to be even more precise, in these days of dwindling oil supplies Iraq's energy reserves are an incredibly rich prize. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, "Iraq contains 112 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, the second largest in the world (behind Saudi Arabia), along with roughly 220 billion barrels of probable and possible resources. Iraq's true potential may be far greater than this, however, as the country is relatively unexplored due to years of war and sanctions." For perspective, the Saudis have 260 billion barrels of proven reserves.

Iraqi oil is close to the surface and easy to extract, making it all the more profitable. James Paul, executive director of the Global Policy Forum, points out that oil companies "can produce a barrel of Iraqi oil for less than $1.50 and possibly as little as $1, including all exploration, oil field development and production costs." Contrast that with other areas where oil is considered cheap to produce at $5 per barrel or the North Sea, where production costs are $12 to $16 per barrel

The saudis have 260billion barrels of reserves, but the more you extract the more expensive it is to continue extracting, oil is extracted on a bell curve principle, and we are currently on the downside, after peak oil and at the current rate of usage Saudi will be dry in 20 years.

that is why we invaded


the same question could be asked of North Korea - why don't we invade there, they fit the same criteria as Iraq, psychopathic madman in charge, subjugation of his people and more importantly NO natural resources, so why don't we invade, simple North Korea is Nuclear capable. So we talk to them. Bullies of the world don't pick on the little kids who can hit back

We claim to champion democracy, yet we only "help and assist" a people when we can get a benefit.

yes we are currently only In Iraq and Afghanistan, are two not enough for you ?

We invade two countries who posed absolutely NO threat to us

We invaded becasue we were told they did, why were we told that ? - because to invade a country that does not pose an immediate risk is against British law.

yet I do not see the dear leader, Chairman Blair, in the dock.

Why not - we are currently hunting the remainder of the serbian leaders for their invasion, we have just seen Saddam executed for his "crimes"

I parenthesise Saddams crimes, as his "crimes" were not crimes when he was our friend and the friend of the US, and we were both busy supplying him with the means to build his WMD.

Ah yes, he had oil money to spend.

My question is simple, in 50 years we have gone from champions of freedom to the new thugs of the block [behind americas coat-tails], and all the while our government is listening to our phone calls, reading our texts, encouraging neighbours to spy on neighbours, family member to spy on family member, and invading countires under spurious reasons, later proven to be false.

That sounds exactly like cold war era Russia to me.

and in the meantime our politicians talk

our people are happy in ignorance

and In Burma people wanting the very things that we are giving away are slaughtered,

while we watch it censored for our western sensibilities on TV,

our politicians make pontificating noises and the partisan media makes sure we concentrate on the important things like z-list celebrity ballroom dancing and glossing over our freedoms being taken away.

All quiet of the far eastern front

[Kate..]

hate it!

[Sticks]

As this thread is about Burma and not Iraq, I will try and be brief on the Iraq stuff

If this was just about securing oil supplies, we would just have sent in businessmen in suits to cut deals, and give Saddam a hand is lifting sanctions. A lot less messier than military action. Maybe an invite for Saddam and co to visit Hollywood, the Super Bowl or Wimbledon. More flies are caught with honey than vinegar.

WMD's - Saddam did use them at Halabjah (Sorry forgot that was a CIA weapons test)

Saddam did his very best on making us think he had them, probably thinking we would not attack if he had them, being so afraid of Vietnam. No wonder people said he had them.

He most likely did have them, but the programs were subcontracted out to say Syria, who quietly scurried them away when everything kicked off.

On to Burma


Those Monks were given quite clear warnings not to get involved, so anything that happened to them, they brought it on themselves and I have no sympathy for them.

[Red Moon]

Why the west won't act.

Oil versus monks - Farrukh Saleem

The military junta is determined to unleash another bloodbath. A million Filipinos had responded to Archbishop Jaime Cardinal Sin's call. To be certain, Burmese revere their monks more than Filipinos revere the Catholic Church. Can the monks bring about democracy for Burma?

America is hungry for Iraq's oil. Burma is all about oil too. China and India are hungry for Burma's oil. America loved the Iraqi dictator for as long as the dictator was in America's economic interest. China and India love the Burmese military junta because the junta has promised them oil (and gas).

Imagine, the day that 20,000 maroon-robed monks marched the streets of Rangoon, the day that the Burmese military shot at the unarmed rally with live bullets was also the day that the Indian Oil Minister Murli Deora was in Rangoon. In Rangoon signing oil and gas exploration contracts between ONGC and the Burmese military junta. China's interest in the survival of the military junta is two-fold: there's oil, plus Burma is China's gateway to the Indian Ocean.

In 1962, Burma was a country whose citizens had one of the highest standards of living in the whole region. Then the general took over. Those were the years when generals in Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam had also seized political power in their respective countries. The Burmese military junta went a step ahead - in addition to political power they seized economic power as well. In Indonesia, General Sukarno was brought down by General Suharto who himself was thrown out by "people power". Thailand has had three Field Marshals, five Generals, seventeen constitutions and nine civilian governments over the past 50 years.

Burma is the only country where military rule has never been interrupted since the generals first took over in 1962. Reason: the military junta's absolute monopoly over Burma's economy. There are 49 million Burmese of whom 400,000 are soldiers.

In 1948, upon gaining independence, Burma was the wealthiest country in the region. Burma had the Burmah Oil Company, a major shareholder in British Petroleum. Burma produced 75 percent of the global supply of teak, the tropical hardwood, and was the world's largest exporter of oil.

In 1962, the soldiers nationalised every single industry outside of agriculture. The soldiers now control oil, forestry, heavy industry, energy, gems, and rice trade. After 45 years of complete military control, Burma no longer has an economy. Burma has no infrastructure, very few roads are paved and 97 percent of total food grain production is rice. Inflation is rampant; the UN has designated Burma as the "least developed country" and Transparency International has ranked Burma as the "most corrupt" country on the face of the planet.

On 8 August 1988, the "8888 Uprising" brought students out on the streets. The military fired into the crowds and killed thousands. A month of brutal repression brought the uprising to its knees. Nineteen years after 8888, Buddhist monks have now come out protesting. Monks are protesting against high prices and rampant inflation.

No outsider has any leverage over Burma'mies are hungry for oil, hungry for Burma's oil. In 1986, the Roman Catholic Church in the Philippines led the People Power Revolution that brought down Ferdinand Marcos. Can Buddhist monks do the same in Burma?

The military junta is determined to unleash another bloodbath. A million Filipinos had responded to Archbishop Jaime Cardinal Sin's call. To be certain, Burmese revere their monks more than Filipinos revere the Catholic Church. Can the monks bring about democracy for Burma? For now, its monks versus oil.

Source: Daily Times

[Sunny_01]

Originally posted by Sticks
As this thread is about Burma and not Iraq, I will try and be brief on the Iraq stuff

If this was just about securing oil supplies, we would just have sent in businessmen in suits to cut deals, and give Saddam a hand is lifting sanctions. A lot less messier than military action. Maybe an invite for Saddam and co to visit Hollywood, the Super Bowl or Wimbledon. More flies are caught with honey than vinegar.

WMD's - Saddam did use them at Halabjah (Sorry forgot that was a CIA weapons test)

Saddam did his very best on making us think he had them, probably thinking we would not attack if he had them, being so afraid of Vietnam. No wonder people said he had them.

He most likely did have them, but the programs were subcontracted out to say Syria, who quietly scurried them away when everything kicked off.

On to Burma


Those Monks were given quite clear warnings not to get involved, so anything that happened to them, they brought it on themselves and I have no sympathy for them.

I cant believe you said that Sticks, so because they were told not to stand up against a violent, oppressive, dictatorship and did they got what they deserve.

I have every sympathy and admiration for them, to be prepared to make a stand against the brutal regime is something we should admire and not disregard.

I think this kind of situation is EXACTLY the kind o thing our country should be trying to prevent world wide rather than being nancys about things and only attacking where Georgie boy goes. Where is the back bone of our country, why do we still provide arms to this regime, the whole thing is a mess.

[Sticks]

It is a matter of law and order

No government can allow an anarchic challenge to law and order. We saw this in Tienanmen Square, where the Chinese government had to use tanks to restore law and order. In fact the late sir Edward Heath said they handled that very well.

The Monks were ordered not to break the law engage in illegal protest action. They did and they suffer the consequences.

Rioting never works

[bananarama]

Originally posted by Sticks
It is a matter of law and order

No government can allow an anarchic challenge to law and order. We saw this in Tienanmen Square, where the Chinese government had to use tanks to restore law and order. In fact the late sir Edward Heath said they handled that very well.

The Monks were ordered not to break the law engage in illegal protest action. They did and they suffer the consequences.

Rioting never works

Strange logic!!! How can anyone break free of dictatorships if they don't break the laws of dictatorships. Laws that are intended to keep them under strict control.

However did the women of this country get the vote. Law abiding at all times were they!!!!

[Sunny_01]

Originally posted by bananarama

Strange logic!!! How can anyone break free of dictatorships if they don't break the laws of dictatorships. Laws that are intended to keep them under strict control.

However did the women of this country get the vote. Law abiding at all times were they!!!!

Well said, if everyone in this world sat back and did not protest against dictatorship where would we be!

I really feel for the people of this country and respect them for standing up for what they believe is right!