International Politics Thread

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

Balschoiw, East Timor serves as an example on how external forces can indeed successfully force a regime change, therefore the same could be done with Birma, IF there was real interest in it. The US could probably take over that place easier than they did in Iraq, WITH the correct notion this time that the people actually DO want peace and democracy, unlike the people of Iraq. And in the case of escalation in the Taiwan issue, I think that would be limited to a China-US war, since nobody else has made any promise of defending that island against chinese hostility, AFAIK, so I don't think it'll turn into WW3 necessarily, because I don't think that the other NATO members, which have much more limited navies than the U.S., will send theirs to the slaughter scenario...

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Balschoiw, East Timor serves as an example on how external forces can indeed successfully force a regime change, therefore the same could be done with Birma, IF there was real interest in it.

No, I guess you have missed the basics here.

Myanmar: 676.600 km²

East Timor: 15.000 km²

Cough.

Quote[/b] ]The US could probably take over that place easier than they did in Iraq

No. While Iraq was already down on it´s knees military - wise the military in Myanmar is pretty lively and well woven into the civil population. The are no parallels between Iraq and Myanmar in any way. Best you can think of is some kind of Vietnam scenario and from what we know the US failed there aswell. Apart from that the US do not have any capabilities to lead any additional war of that caliber today.

Quote[/b] ] WITH the correct notion this time that the people actually DO want peace and democracy, unlike the people of Iraq

Haha, good one. As if they are happy to be slaughtered by all participants in this hunt for the WMD´s.

Just keep this bullshit out of here as you will end up with your pants nailed to the ceiling if you keep spreading such nonsense. The iraqui people didn´t invite US Sam to free them, they were bombed to bits and are still shot by gungho freaks from all sides.

Quote[/b] ]And in the case of escalation in the Taiwan issue, I think that would be limited to a China-US war, since nobody else has made any promise of defending that island against chinese hostility, AFAIK, so I don't think it'll turn into WW3 necessarily, because I don't think that the other NATO members, which have much more limited navies than the U.S., will send theirs to the slaughter scenario...

It´s about interests and you seem to forget that the USA are a part of NATO and if they get attacked in a "Defend Taiwan" scenario there will be NATO support if asked for.

Google up some info on the building tensions. This is nothig locally limited, it´s a serious issue that seems to be getting out of hands. If you check latest chinese remarks on the issue and the taiwanese movement to get a single seat at the UN you may get the bigger picture. Taiwan today is a very powerfull province of china and they will never let them get away freely. On the other hand we have the rest of the world who largely depend on taiwanese products and the US who uparmoured the country.

You get the idea what will happen if the ball starts rolling.

[Black Sphere 0]

On the other hand we have the rest of the world who largely depend on taiwanese products ...

Get out of here.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Get out of here.

Anything usefull to say, or just having a mainbrain collapse ?

[Black Sphere 0]

None of it.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

Quote[/b] ] WITH the correct notion this time that the people actually DO want peace and democracy, unlike the people of Iraq

Haha, good one. As if they are happy to be slaughtered by all participants in this hunt for the WMD´s.

Just keep this bullshit out of here as you will end up with your pants nailed to the ceiling if you keep spreading such nonsense. The iraqui people didn´t invite US Sam to free them, they were bombed to bits and are still shot by gungho freaks from all sides.

Correction: They are shooting themselves up, it's not just some "freaks" from outside. Yes, there is infighting in Iraq, wake up and smell the coffee. I doubt that there'd be infighting in Birma if it were liberated from it's dictatorial regime. Problem is (and I must say it's not a problem, in this war-stricken world it's rather a miracle) the birmanese people are a peaceful people. They make peaceful demonstrations lead by buddish (spelling?) monks, and get brutalized for it, if not straight out killed. That's why they can't pull off a proper revolution, not against the armed forces.

[hoz 0]

Black Sphere

If you don't have anything useful to add to the conversation at hand, then don't post.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ] That's why they can't pull off a proper revolution, not against the armed forces.

No ?

You know this man and what he achieved with non-violent protest ?

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

Quote[/b] ] That's why they can't pull off a proper revolution, not against the armed forces.

No ?

You know this man and what he achieved with non-violent protest ?

[omg]http://www.mohandasgandhi.com/ghandi.jpg[/omg]

Yep, and I bet the people holding power positions learned the lesson, that's why there were things like Tiananmen and the current waves of repression in Birma, Ghandi's stunt was a one-time show, guaranteed not to work anymore. I bet my hat on it.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ] That's why they can't pull off a proper revolution, not against the armed forces.

No ?

You know this man and what he achieved with non-violent protest ?

- "To Every Briton" (1940)

"If we had the atom bomb, we would have used it against the British."

- Speech (16 June 1947) as the official date for Indian independence approached (15 August 1947) , as quoted in Mahatma Gandhi : The Last Phase (1958) by Pyarelal, p. 326

I'll pass. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/icon_rolleyes.gif' alt='icon_rolleyes.gif'>

[Black Sphere 0]

Balschoiw, you have thousands of ghandi's in Myanmar, and for you is easy to be smart and 'enlightened' from safety and cosines of your home somewhere in Germany.

As [ZG]BUZZARD said Ghandi's stunt was a one-time show, and on top of it he had luck to deal with *akhm* highly cultured opponent, not with some frantic millitary junta.

Those poor people in Myanmar need international help - an action, not some UN declaration.

[W0lle 1042]

theavonlady

Please do not quote images.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Balschoiw, you have thousands of ghandi's in Myanmar, and for you is easy to be smart and 'enlightened' from safety and cosines of your home somewhere in Germany.

No, but I judge situations by facts, not wishfull thinking.

Myanmar is 676.600 square kilometers wide, terrain ranging from swamps to high hills. There is simply NO WAY to interfere on a military level without a combined force of at least 1.000.000 men under arms for an unknown period of time.

Myanmar has approximately 400.000 soldiers in it´s service and they are coordinated quite well, They dominate civil life and they are woven into the civil structures. You punish the military, the people will suffer even harder.

Along with this China is already in the country and is running a military installation there. Western interference in this region will cause serious problems with china aswell along with the russians who are the top-dealer for their arms.

Do you really believe China would accept a large occupational army in it´s neighbouring country that it´s allied with ?

That´s a bit naive.

if there is any pressure that can be applied to the military it has to come from it´s allies, in this case from china and russia.

The movement has to come from the people within.

Quote[/b] ]Two quotes from Gandhi:

*snip*

Who cares ?

Should we dig up some quotes from your beloved leaders ?

Quote[/b] ]Those poor people in Myanmar need international help - an action, not some UN declaration.

So what are your suggestions ? Reasonable ones pls, not some science fiction comparison with a country that is 45 times smaller and totally different in society, culture, military and politics.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

The US stands up against China with regards to Taiwan, so there's no reason they couldn't intervene in Birma as well, Balschoiw... Because we all know that China isn't going to move a finger to help the people of Birma, are you really willing to leave them to suffer? I refuse to accept that, in a world where the US is still toted as being the world's nr 1 super power. Whoever has the power has the responsibility, and I think it would be good PR for the US to take an active, effective stance in helping out the people of Birma get rid of it's oppressive dictatorial regime, no matter what China or Russia may think - they went into Iraq against the rest of the world's wishes, they could just as well move in Birma, heck, even with an international force, against the will of just 2 countries...

[Necromancer- 0]

BUZZARD @ Oct. 09 2007,20:25)]no matter what China or Russia may think - they went into Iraq against the rest of the world's wishes, they could just as well move in Birma, heck, even with an international force, against the will of just 2 countries...

They won't, because it is not the right time for the US to do so, because war is expensive. The US is NOT going to increase the already tremendously high national debt.

Heck.. I didn't even expect China telling the crazy military junta to stand down their military. In fact I wouldn't be amazed if China decides to remove the Junta himself, more succesful than the US did a jungle war in Vietnam 45 years ago, because China doesn't have a "free media" to tell the Chinese population "how many of our boys are being cannon foddered". Even if the media tells so, the Chinese people wouldn't care. Even if the Chinese people would care, the government won't, because it is a dictatorship.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]Two quotes from Gandhi:

*snip*

Who cares ?

Should we dig up some quotes from your beloved leaders ?

Try engaging brain before typing. Nice to see you haven't changed.

G'nite.

[Necromancer- 0]

Disregarding the flaming...

Balschoiw, Avon Lady.. and actually everyone else..

The fact that we learn things from the past, does NOT mean you can solve a current/future problem (somewhat) similar with a past problem with the same solution from the past!

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

Disregarding the flaming...

Balschoiw, Avon Lady.. and actually everyone else..

The fact that we learn things from the past, does NOT mean you can solve a current/future problem (somewhat) similar with a past problem with the same solution from the past!

Sounds interesting, but the thing is, the problems aren't new, they just come from different directions with different combinations of problematics, but the solution to them cannot be new, due to the end-effects the problem presents.

Henceforth, in the Birma situation, one could only solve the problem in 3 ways:

1. Revolution.

2. Diplomacy.

3. Intervention.

As I stated before, due to the docile nature of the people of Birma, a revolution against the military junta is out of the question. Diplomacy, I'm afraid, will also be not strong enough to force a regime change. QED, the only realistic option left is an Intervention of military nature by, for instance the UN, and force a regime change.

[scary 0]

It´s about interests and you seem to forget that the USA are a part of NATO and if they get attacked in a "Defend Taiwan" scenario there will be NATO support if asked for.

Not unless Taiwan was shipped some way north it wouldn't.

NATO's remit covers an area from the eastern border of Russia/some of the former USSR across the North Atlantic to the west coast of Russia. The US would probably expect some assistance from allied nations, but it would have nothing to do with NATO. When Argentina invaded the Falklands there was no NATO support for the UK because it was outside of the NATO zone.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Not unless Taiwan was shipped some way north it wouldn't.

NATO's remit covers an area from the eastern border of Russia/some of the former USSR across the North Atlantic to the west coast of Russia. The US would probably expect some assistance from allied nations, but it would have nothing to do with NATO. When Argentina invaded the Falklands there was no NATO support for the UK because it was outside of the NATO zone.

NATO forces are already operating outside their remit. Invoking Article 5 right after 9/11 and operating under the umbrella of an UN mandate there is no problem at all for NATO forces to operate outside their usual remit.

Quote[/b] ]Try engaging brain before typing. Nice to see you haven't changed.

Ghandi is a symbol for non-violent resistance that actually removed an oppressing government.

That´s why I posted him in here just to demonstrate that it does work.

If you are looking for more recent examples take Belarus.

I am engaging my brain and I´m not trying to make a living of nitpicking about something that isn´t even related to the the issue at hand. That´s your turn, as it has always been.

Quote[/b] ]As I stated before, due to the docile nature of the people of Birma, a revolution against the military junta is out of the question.

That´s what they actually do. Taking protests to the streets in large numbers is already a part of revolution.

Quote[/b] ]Diplomacy, I'm afraid, will also be not strong enough to force a regime change.

If there is a tool to change something in that country, it´s diplomacy.

Quote[/b] ]QED, the only realistic option left is an Intervention of military nature by, for instance the UN, and force a regime change.

This is simply nonsense, because:

1. There will never be an UN decision to send in military forces (China and Russia will veto as they already softened the UN condemnation of violent acts against civillians in Myanmar)

2. There are no military capabilities of intervening in Myanmar as a lot of forces with significant capabilities are bound in Afghanistan and other hotspots already

3. There is no concept at all on how to interfere in that country with that huge landmass and varieties in terrain and landscape

4. China is having a military base there already and is planning to build a submarine installation in the country

5. Russia is in strong support for Myanmar despite the oppressing regime, as it´s the number 1 weapon dealer for them directly followed by China

6. China will never accept the presence of armed military western forces at their borders and at their installations in Myanmar.

I actually wonder if you read my replies. It´s all in there. You just can´t pull a magic rabbit from your hat if your hat is empty and has holes.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

Ok Balschoiw, point taken, according to you, the situation is hopeless (unless Buddha works a miracle and makes diplomacy work this time, because I don't think that the demonstrations will force a regime change, there have been protests in the past which had equally no results).

As for Taiwan, I seriously doubt anybody else will jump after the US at defending it. Taiwan doesn't produce one thing that either Japan or South Korea couldn't do just as well. So if Taiwan goes down, one man's loss will be another man's gain, the market will shift and find new suppliers, you can believe that. But it definitely won't pull the whole world into WW3.

[scary 0]

Quote[/b] ]  

Not unless Taiwan was shipped some way north it wouldn't.

NATO's remit covers an area from the eastern border of Russia/some of the former USSR across the North Atlantic to the west coast of Russia. The US would probably expect some assistance from allied nations, but it would have nothing to do with NATO. When Argentina invaded the Falklands there was no NATO support for the UK because it was outside of the NATO zone.

NATO forces are already operating outside their remit. Invoking Article 5 right after 9/11 and operating under the umbrella of an UN mandate there is no problem at all for NATO forces to operate outside their usual remit.

Apples and Oranges. 11th September occured in the NATO zone and Afghanistan is in the NATO zone. The US military being engaged whilst operating around Taiwan would be of no relevence to NATO. The most likely source of assistance would be ANZUS with possible assistance from some NATO nations but not under the NATO umbrella - for NATO to get involved would require the threat to be taken to the US/Europe. NATO has never operated outside its zone and is unlikely to ever do so.

It's a moot point anyway as the US doesn't have the capability of conducting such a large scale operation presently and has proved to be inadequate at jungle warfare at the best of times.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Castro resigns

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/02/19/castro/index.html

Quote[/b] ]HAVANA, Cuba (CNN) -- Fidel Castro announced his resignation as president of Cuba and commander-in-chief of Cuba's military on Tuesday, according to a letter published in the state-run newspaper, Granma.

Fidel Castro, shown in an undated file photo, took power in Cuba in 1959 and reigned with an iron hand.

1 of 2 Castro, 81, temporarily handed power to his younger brother Raul Castro in July 2006 after undergoing intestinal surgery. He hasn't been seen in public since his surgery, but he has appeared in numerous videos and photos in state media.

The announcement of Castro's resignation appeared just before 3 a.m. on the Web site of the state-run newspaper.

The news is likely to send shock waves across the island and through the tens of thousands of Cuban exiles who have sought refugee in the United States.

In December 2007, a Cuban television news anchor read a letter reportedly written by Fidel Castro promising he would not "cling to office" or be an impediment to rising young leaders.

Castro took power in Cuba in 1959 and has ruled the island nation ever since, governing the first communist nation in the Western Hemisphere.

Fidel Castro captured the world's attention and imagination at 32 when the bearded revolutionary led a band of guerillas that overthrew a corrupt dictatorship -- and then became an irritating thorn in Washington's paw by embracing communism and cozying up to the Soviet Union.

For the next 47 years, Castro reigned in Havana with an iron hand, outlasting nine American presidents and defying a punishing U.S. economic embargo designed to dislodge him.

Raul Castro is generally seen as more pragmatic and less inclined to deliver the kind of long-winded speeches for which his brother is famous.

Ordinary Cubans have wondered whether a permanent change in power in Cuba will lead to lower food prices, higher salaries and more freedom to travel.

Wonder what Tovarish would say about this.

[Spokesperson 0]

Your quotation of the article isn't very good. But it's another propaganda article from a private-run newspaper. Even though I appreciate that they admit the Bay of Pigs invasion was CIA backed.

The Cuban economy is a lot better than that of its market-oriented neighbours.

[ralphwiggum 6]

The Cuban economy is a lot better than that of its market-oriented neighbours.

Prove it. I'm betting that US is better than Cuba, and so is Mexico and other nations.