Myanmar

[dowie]

In any case, imagine if Bangladesh took a firm military stance. Really, they should be willing to go the distance to protect other Muslims but of course things don't work like that.

That's the ridiculous thing, there are countries in the region that are basically doing nothing, I mean these people are right on their doorstep and the claim from Burma is that the people they are getting rid of are supposedly from Bangladesh (I guess technically they were originally but that was back in colonial times and not recent illegal immigration as they tend to claim).

Indonesia and Malaysia, both muslim majority nations, have basically stuck two fingers up at them and refused to take refugees.

 

[Dis86]

Sad part of reality nowadays .

Sadly it's going the way that the world just doesn't give a crap and Muslim countries can just merrily tear themselves apart. They're not willing to help one another, why should anyone else help them?

 

[Raz]

That's the ridiculous thing, there are countries in the region that are basically doing nothing, I mean these people are right on their doorstep and the claim from Burma is that the people they are getting rid of are supposedly from Bangladesh (I guess technically they were originally but that was back in colonial times and not recent illegal immigration as they tend to claim).

Indonesia and Malaysia, both muslim majority nations, have basically stuck two fingers up at them and refused to take refugees.

Perhaps it's due to the relative moral high ground of the West that there should be some form of intervention. I'd like to think that if it did then it would stop some of the Islamist-inspired terrorism but I doubt it would.

Not sure why others compare it (intervention) to Iraq or Afghanistan since they really weren't wars of liberation or protecting civilians, and they really did make a mess of things. How long do we leave things before they really get out of hand? Back to the levels of the Rwandan Genocide?

 

[dowie]

Perhaps it's due to the relative moral high ground of the West that there should be some form of intervention. I'd like to think that if it did then it would stop some of the Islamist-inspired terrorism but I doubt it would.

Not sure why others compare it (intervention) to Iraq or Afghanistan since they really weren't wars of liberation or protecting civilians, and they really did make a mess of things. How long do we leave things before they really get out of hand? Back to the levels of the Rwandan Genocide?

well Iraq the first time was, the second time was a bit of a farce that really shouldn't have happened if they'd pushed on first time around

yeah I think the west should perhaps intervene in a similar way to say protecting the Kurds in Northern Iraq after GW1, though we also need the support of neighbouring countries... unless we want to run the whole thing from a US aircraft carrier

while Iraq and Afghanistan aren't so compatible Libya perhaps is an intervention where intervention to prevent mass civilian casualties lead to regime change and hasn't exactly gone swimmingly, this is already a poor part of the world with neighbouring countries who insist they can't take refugees... escalating things with military action could cause even more problems

 

[Raz]

well Iraq the first time was, the second time was a bit of a farce that really shouldn't have happened if they'd pushed on first time around

yeah I think the west should perhaps intervene in a similar way to say protecting the Kurds in Northern Iraq after GW1, though we also need the support of neighbouring countries... unless we want to run the whole thing from a US aircraft carrier

while Iraq and Afghanistan aren't so compatible Libya perhaps is an intervention where intervention to prevent mass civilian casualties lead to regime change and hasn't exactly gone swimmingly, this is already a poor part of the world with neighbouring countries who insist they can't take refugees... escalating things with military action could cause even more problems

We'll have to agree to disagree on GW1 - I agree on the rest but don't think it would be like Libya as such as we wouldn't necessarily be looking for a regime change but potentially a 'keep yourselves in line' intervention. Of course, that does mean that if we forced Myanmar to cease their oppression through military means there's a good chance that once we leave they'll be even more hostile towards the Royhinga. If we maintain a presence to keep them in line then there's potential issues in future. Of course, taking that kind of action to force a sovereign nation to abide by international law around human rights might keep others in line too...

 

[B&W]

Pakistan should threaten to nuke them.

Who will back them up? No one is supporting the government of Myanmar on this issue.

 

[Amp34]

That's exactly what is being proposed here - destablising Myanmar by force in order to put someone co-operative in power. With far less support within the country for regime change than existed in the other countries it's been tried in.

Assigning motives comes down mainly to whether or not the speaker agrees with the action - if they agree they say the motive for destablising the country and putting someone co-operative in power is for the good of the country and if they disagree they say the motive is selfish political/economic reasons.



Invading Myanmar and seizing total control of it by force would require a lot of bombing or at least a million soldiers and the will and ability to have many of them die solely to avoid the use of bombs. Which will, of course, be used on them by the Myanmar military resisting the invasion. Assuming it could be done at all, even if there was the political will to do so.

Military intervention doesn’t have to mean regime change. I don’t think anyone has the appetite for that after our recent history, and I’m not sure it can be justified as a first resort either.

Military intervention could also include more peacekeeping bases missions and targeted strikes, in conjunction with economic and political pressure.

A UN instigated mission may be one possible option that would help this situation, without destabilizing the entire country. Unfortunately the US certainly isn’t going to take the lead at the moment, China is pretty non (overtly) confrontational and Russia is unlikely to be interested in it. That leaves the UK and France to try and organize something. Do either of us have enough clout to do so at the moment?

There would need to be a major international push to force the hands of the Myanmar military, and then quite possibly a boots on the ground phase to make sure things are adhered. Myanmar just isn’t politically important enough for this unfortunately.

 

[Amp34]

Of course not. It's one way traffic. Western country intervenes in Muslim country - terror attacks abound.

There’s intervening to save lives and calm situations and what we’ve been doing in the Middle East in recent decades. That latter was largely due to our own political motivations and not any feeling for the local population.

 

[Raz]

Pakistan should threaten to nuke them.

Who will back them up? No one is supporting the government of Myanmar on this issue.

And risk taking their focus off India?

No one is supporting Myanmar but neither are the Rohingya that significant in the grand scheme of things unfortunately. In comparison the West's efforts to support or help the Yazidis was as much political as it was humanitarian.

 

[B&W]

And risk taking their focus off India?

No one is supporting Myanmar but neither are the Rohingya that significant in the grand scheme of things unfortunately. In comparison the West's efforts to support or help the Yazidis was as much political as it was humanitarian.

Well until Muslim countries start sticking up for each other and Muslims in plight expect this extremism to continue. Expect vultures to feed on the corpses as Muslim kills Muslim.

India wont do ****, MAD. No point sending terrorists to Burma either, it will make it worse. Best to use overwhelming force.

 

[LOAM]

Its sad but western governments, or indeed any governments dont really care for humanitarian issues unless they can use the humanitarian angle to maintain or gain assets or advantages. The only people who do humanitarian work are charities and religious groups but even they seem to do so with some form of agenda.

 

[Freddie1980]

The fact intervention has previously failed on a number of occasions doesn’t mean it can’t work if done properly.

Kosovo springs to mind.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

That's exactly what is being proposed here - destablising Myanmar by force in order to put someone co-operative in power. With far less support within the country for regime change than existed in the other countries it's been tried in.

But there simply is no reason to. The times we have done that before was either to weaken the eastern blocs influence in the area or to gain access to land with good military/economic value.

What reason do we have to change the government over there now apart from humanitarian reasons, as i don't think humanitarian reasons have really come into it.

We destabilized and supported powers in the middle east due to location and resource control, then did it again as their relationship with us went from co-operative to abrasive. The US destabilized most of South America and replaced with anti-socialist dictators to battle the eastern blocs influence. UK and US defended racist powers in Africa for the sake of politics, rather than risk a regime change with someone unfavorable. Khmer Rouge was defended and supported by powers such as the US.

The short of it is, countries play with other peoples governing, only when it benefits them.