Why not invade Burma? by chrisisall

Chrisisall, HOW DOUBLE DARE YOU. You have forgotten about JOHN PAUL JONES the man who stop the 500 years of rule by the Royal Navy of Britannica.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 2:58 AM

Citizen please, England did not need America's help. Battle of Britain won the war HOLY HA HA. Is that why my grandmother and mother were running down the streets to bomb shelters in Liverpool after the skies were cleared. Yeh my grandfather loved the beach at Dunkirk.. And the French Navy blockaded the Royal Navy from resupplying Yorktown. The war was tied in the North GW owned the country and cities were held by the Brits. When they came down to Dixie is when it was over for them. They won at Charleston and Camden from then on the Scotch-Irish of the south held them at Cowpens, Kingsmountain, Guildford Courthouse, and trapped the mighty British Army at Yorktown. They were beaten even when they had won. Worn out I would say from the Overmountain men of the Smokies and Blue Ridge. Then Andy Jackson in 1812 took care of them with the help of the Cherokees down in Na Orleans. Yeh Yeh ya'll burn our capital. We were in the middle of remodeling anyhoo.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 4:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Historically, our military plans in South Asia have gone so well!

I think it would be a mistake to confuse Burma with Vietnam. Burma is far more likely to resemble the Phillipines in the long run. In the short run Burma is so undeveloped and damaged that it would take well to Colonization, just as it did in the 1800s. Done right we could make them as stable and developed as many other nations in the region.

Quote:

And why would we need any new air and naval bases in the area to support our operations in the Gulf? Isn't that one already over?

You confusing "operations in the Gulf" with the recent Gulf conflicts. I note for the record that America has had a military presence in the Gulf since our WW2 occupation of Persia. Examination of a map will show you that Diego Garcia is not a suitable support base...its very, very far to the south and far away from shipping lanes, making it perfect as a base for prepositioned equipment and long range bombers, but not suitable to support a naval task force in the Gulf, Red Sea, or northern India Ocean.

A base in Burma would sit astride major shipping lanes leading to and from the Gulf to the Pacific Rim. It would serve to suppress the very serious pirate problem in the area and give support to Naval and Air units deploying from the Western United States into the region.

Quote:

And what exactly are you planning on doing with China, militarily speaking, that would involve us needing bases in the area?

I would note that the US is planning to fight China should China decide to invade Taiwan.

Recently there are reports of new Chinese bases:
http://www.centralchronicle.com/20080520/2005302.htm

These bases are a step in China's long range plan to build a Navy capable of contesting control of the South China sea.

In the event of war we cannot rely on Japanese support, especially given the China's nuclear arsenal. Should Japan and the Phillipines balk at war we would be forced to support our operations in a Taiwan conflict from bases much further away. Our Aircraft carriers would be within the range of China's land based aviation and without land based fighter support of their own. That would place us at a disadvantage that may not be made up for by our technological superiority.

Seas in the region are shallow. While American submarines are masters of the deep, diesel subs are most effective in shallow waters, and China has some that are as good as any out there today. And they have a LOT more that are anywhere from ok to crap. American subs would lose their best advantages...speed, manuaverability, and quiet advantages. All it would take would be one good sub attack to sink and American carrier and suddenly we're stuck fighting this war with unescorted long range bombers and a few half blind subs with one hand behind their backs.

Quote:

They realize they have problems, but they don't necessarily want outside intervention in those problems; they'd prefer to handle them themselves, possibly with our support, but not our direct intervention.

Wow, your speaking on behalf of Burma. Hell, I can do that. Food, water, shelter, medicine, safety from the crazy guys with the guns who keep taking their food, water, shelter, and medicine...give them that and they wont give a damn what flag you fly over their heads.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 4:11 AM

FLETCH2

Quote:
Originally posted by PirateCat:
For citizen, HOW DARE YOU. It is you sir who puts vinegar on his freedom fries.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

He knows what to do when the chips are down.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 4:33 AM

Ah an attempt at subtle humor, its just that kind of attitude that won the cold war. This is no place for that.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 4:39 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
give them that and they wont give a damn what flag you fly over their heads.

Wanna bet? Wanna bet with YOUR LIFE for once, instead of betting the lives of thousands of your countrymen who are braver and better than you?

The Brits gave us Colonials food, water, and shelter over our heads - why then did we care what flag they flew over our heads?

You seem to have this batshit notion that other people don't have or deserve the right of self-determination that you SWEAR we have by birth. And once again you're trying to justify inflicting democracy on a nation from the barrel of a gun. Tell me again how you're any better than their current crop of oppressors...

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 4:45 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Food, water, shelter, medicine, safety from the crazy guys with the guns who keep taking their food, water, shelter, and medicine...give them that and they wont give a damn what flag you fly over their heads.

This is true, IMO also.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 5:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
The Brits gave us Colonials food, water, and shelter over our heads - why then did we care what flag they flew over our heads?

I note for the record that Americans were largely self sufficient and until the absue of British taxation authority they were largely loyal to the Crown.

A family whose home is destroyed, with no food, no job, no prospects and with children to support would be grateful for help. Once basic survival is assured THEN and only then do they consider larger question of philosophy and govt. Thats why govts like the one in Burma persist. They used armed violence to strictly control the necessities of life and life itself giving the people no real opportunity to make a choice.

By its very nature one cannot impose Democracy from the barrel of a gun...Democracy in Burma would mean removing the gun from their heads.

I note for the record that I am not one who has EVER proposed the invasion of Burma. That role was undertaken by liberals around the world seeking to solve a massive humanitarian crisis. I merely acknowledge that there are legitimate strategic advantages to such an undertaking. In this regard one can draw a distinction with failed humanitarian-based military actions such as Somalia and Rwanda, both of which were colossal failures.

Burma has approx 55 million people making it approximately the same as California and Florida put together. No point here...just stating a fact.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 6:12 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by PirateCat:
For citizen, HOW DARE YOU. It is you sir who puts vinegar on his freedom fries.

I don't eat Fries, freedom or otherwise, Frenchy.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 6:21 AM

America gets the blame if we go in were oppressors if we stay out were cowards. Lets help em we did in Somalia we just stayed to long.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 7:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by PirateCat:
America gets the blame if we go in were oppressors if we stay out were cowards. Lets help em we did in Somalia we just stayed to long.

Our mistake in Somalia was we thought too small. We should have sent 150,000 (plus an international contingent of 50,000...mostly Muslims, who in 1991 were largely on our side) men with tanks and attack helicopters for a long term rebuilding project that included a permanant Naval base on the Horn of Africa.

Apparently the idea of a US base in Somalia is catching on.

http://www.somalipress.com/20080416159/somali-news/somalia-us-warships
-hailed-for-naval-base.html

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 8:36 AM

KWICKO

Yeah, I never really did understand what the hell went on (and went wrong) in Somalia. How the hell did a bunch of low-rent warlords armed with nothing more... well, "Technical" is the term that comes to mind (

)... technical than a couple Toyota Hilux pickups with gun mounts manage to run our boys out of the country? I never could figure that one out...

I actually like your idea of a Muslim contingent. Sure would make it a lot easier to sell it to at least SOME of the Muslim world if we included them in the plans in the future...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 5:26 AM

Mike, if you ask the troops on the ground what went wrong, they all start cussing the same guy.

Which'd be Steele, at the time a Captain.
(one of my buddies actually got physically pitched out of a club by his sycophants after asking then Lt Col Steele to sign his copy of Blackhawk down as a snide joke, lol !)

I am not so sure it was wholly Steeles fault, but damned if imma argue it with anyone who WAS there, you understand.

The big problem was really that most of the locals didn't like us, and our own behavior didn't win us any real support from them, without which, you just can NOT support an engagement on that scale because they act as a supportive militia, supply line, and kind of halfass intel and insurgency as well.

You wanna pull something like that off, you NEED the locals, and you need em in your pocket solid, hands down.

Add to that the idiotic myth of american superiority and invincibility, and you're begging for a disaster - stuff like not bringing your armor (Steele, again) and hovering over a hostile neighborhood for several minutes at a time, which is just ASKING for an RPG up the ass, which is exactly what happened to that particular Blackhawk....

It was a combination of complete arrogance and stupidity among the command staff, of the exact same kind which put us up to the ass in Iraq and Afghanistan, and which would guarantee an unmitigated disaster if we tried any "humanitarian" intervention now given our well known history of subversions, coups, propped up dictator scum, and recent abandonment of even the pretense of better moral behavior given renditions and gitmo.

As corrupt as the UN may be, there's less fear that they'd overthrow your government and prop up some dickhead like the Shah to run your country into the ground for the benefit of american corporations, and are they really all that more corrupt than KBR and Helliburton ?

If we REALLY wanna help these people, simple.

Fuck all the diplomatic bullshit, right off, just do this.

Create a lightweight package of food and water with it's own parachute, and tape a small pistol like the FP-45 Liberator to the bottom along with a small american flag and a note in native language.
"From your good friends the americans!"
(No propaganda, just keep it simple)

Then load up some C-5 and C-130s to the brim with them, assign a fighter escort to make sure no one bothers them, and airdrop the things all over the worst affected regions with other useful supplies on seperate pallets.

Do that a couple times, imho a better use of tax monies than "foreign aid" to assholes like a certain country that shall not be named.

And then LEAVE IT ALONE.

They're not *that* stupid, believe me, they'll get the idea, and quickly.

Then when the NEW government takes power, make a deal with them and finish the job.

-Frem
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 10:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Create a lightweight package of food and water with it's own parachute, and tape a small pistol like the FP-45 Liberator to the bottom along with a small american flag and a note in native language.
"From your good friends the americans!"
(No propaganda, just keep it simple)

Then load up some C-5 and C-130s to the brim with them, assign a fighter escort to make sure no one bothers them, and airdrop the things all over the worst affected regions with other useful supplies on seperate pallets.

Can't say I disagree with that...although we should vary the weapons load and include assault rifles, grenades, and light anti-tank weapons. We could even include some reliable radios, talk to them and then send them some 'instructors'.

While such measures would not work everywhere, historically they did work in Burma in World War Two. Large numbers of Burmese were conscripted to fight for the Japs and did poorly. Large numbers joined US and British special forces and did very well. Not to mention regular British units like the Bhurma Rifles that fought with distinction to liberate their homeland.

Culturally the Bhurmese would be very well suited to support and prosper from substantial western intervention or even some kind of pseudo-colonization (which would involve them being an autonomous territory for a time like Liberia or the Phillipines).

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 4:38 PM

Well, the key point of that strategy is self-determination.

In essence we'd be saying...
"You want em out, YOU throw em out, here, we'll even help a little, but you gotta do it yourselves."

Sure, there would be some diplomatic whinging no doubt, but we would have the defense of not having explicitly done anything but provide food, water and a means of self defense to the population, and if they wanted to pitch the bums out, hey, it's their country, let em run it how they like.

In the end it would be THEIR decision, and that would make whatever came of it a hell of a lot more stable than anything we could prop up, especially if we actively supported it once it was in place.

It's not so much that we play the game that bothers me, it's that the folks we have currently moving the pieces are so damned bloody awful at it!

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 4:45 PM

KWICKO

Frem: Thanks for the history lesson. That helps a bit. For some odd reason, I was just tuned out of the news when all that was going down. I remember troops coming into Somalia, then shots of "technicals" roaming around towns, and then... nothing. We were gone, outta there. And then some movie came out which I never saw...

I like the way you're thinking with the "care packages", too. Give 'em food and first aid, and a gun to protect it with. Simple. Effective. Warlords are effective when dealing with an unarmed populace, but push a person far enough, and then give him a gun, and suddenly there's a whole lot fewer warlords in the world.

It's just enough of a Crazy Eddie solution to work! ;)

And it MIGHT just be effective in Burma as well.

One thing to remember, though - once the shooting dies down and a government starts to coalesce, you might not necessarily like where it's headed. But if they're headed in the wrong direction, there's always more care packages to drop...

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 6:17 PM

Exactly.

Although even if we don't see completely eye to eye with the new regime, we can definately parley on past kindness and lucrative trade deals, open the rest of the diplomacy toolbox which has been rusting away as the petty little cowboys stand on it and scream useless threats.

As for getting us out of Somalia, well...

Ok, it's a fact, I despised Clinton and his smiling liars clan from the moment he took office, he was a treacherous double dealing slimerag and a notoriously effective liar, and we SHOULD have sent his snake oil ass to the UN as our rep, woulda been a good use for him, but given the alternatives, well....

Anyhows, one thing I have never called that sumbitch, is STUPID, that much, he never was.

He knew damn well we'd screwed it beyond recovery in Somalia, and Mogadishu was just the icing on the cake, so he wisely decided to cut our losses and get the hell out before we were mired up to our ass in a country fulla folk that hated our guts.

Bastard didn't bother with a bunch of bullshit rhetoric neither, just cut the orders and called em back, no sense throwing good after bad on a situation that was clearly untenable, so why waste our men and resources on a situation we ain't gonna change ?

Man was a scumbag, an adulterous lech, a liar and a crook... but he was never, ever... STUPID.

All things considered, given no better options than we currently have, and excluding Ron Paul, yes, I would vote for him even knowing what he is.

But his wife can go to hell, she's as much a nutter as Tipper Gore, and deep in the pockets of Big Pharma, and I don't want her anywhere near the reins of power, not cause she's a woman, to be honest I would prefer a female president for once, but cause Billary is just plain nuts, and her plans are something even PN would sneer at.

If they ever alter things so the Governator could run, that also opens the field for Jennifer Granholm, who would eat poor Arnie alive in any debate forum you could name.

Anyhows, Clinton might have done a lot of crap I did not approve of in his presidency, but yanking us out of Somalia before we got mousetrapped in there was one of the few things he did that I was 100% on board with.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 6:33 PM