In Iraq protests almost never happened, in this country they protest for freedom and we let them die. Its a shame that real freedom fighters are ignored by larger powers.
2007-09-27 10:19:47 · 17 answers · asked by scorch_22 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Civic Participation
Are you willing to go there and fight yourself?
Or is it not that important?
2007-09-28 05:14:18 · answer #1 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A generation ago, the US tried to help Viet Nam, which claimed it was being invaded by the "Communist Chinese", which was their word for the "Forces of Evil" that destroy things.
The US doesn't want to get involved with another fight with the "Forces of Evil" which may or may not come from China.
Albania, for example, is one of the most obnoxious communist enemies in the world, and might jet into any country to confiscate some supplies, take out a factory where they were making things the Albanians wanted to distribute (even into the Ukraine), demolish something with their "demolition crews", run a puppet government or city council by witchcraft, or run a "homeless shelter" where they cremate people or take them for forced labor in Albania.
Demonstrations are often an effective way to protest. We hope that the oppressive government will take into account the population of priests and monks that want to protest. They have "thought control", travel restrictions, and free speech limitations, but that is true in any country.
In China there is fierce competition for a priest centificate, awarded for contribution to medicine or law. Priests are supposed to take a vow of abstinence.
The govt of Burma is doing what it does on purpose so the ladies that come to China to convince the priests they have "finally found someone who loves them" and then get their priest certificate for their husbands back in White Russia or Brest/Poland area will not be attracted to the area.
2007-09-29 10:28:34 · answer #2 · answered by Chatty82 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
America doesn't have unlimitted resources, and, diplomatic means /are/ being used even as we speak.
But, no matter what the US does, it can be certain that the result will be vehement resentment and hatred directed against it. If it tries to deal with such an issue, it's "following it's imperialistic agenda and forcing it's way of life on other cultures" if it sits out a crisis, it's "shirking it's responsibilities and doesn't care."
2007-09-27 11:30:04 · answer #3 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Cause we're trying to spread freedom in Iraq. Can't do it all at once.
Now ask yourself. Many countries in this world have protests. Now why wouldn't Iraq? Maybe cause they're not able to without hostility?
2007-09-27 10:24:44 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
We only have enough men and materiel to get involved where there is an overriding national security interest. Plus , to invade, or employ sanctions , involves relations with other nations and whether we want to offend them.
If they formed a U.N.-II consisting of democratic nations only, they could exert tremendous diplomatic and economic pressure on aggressor nations without ever firing a shot. The current U.N. doesn't work because it contains dictator nations that do not want to move against one of their own.
2007-09-29 07:59:41 · answer #5 · answered by anteater 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Burma is not in the US realm of influence. If the US were to interfere, China would be a bit put out. The US does not want to upset its largest and deadliest trading partner.
Also, probably more importantly, there are no economic reasons for the US to interfere.
2007-09-27 10:25:05 · answer #6 · answered by AlexAtlanta 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I kind of wondered the same thing.
Isn't one of the main excuses given for invading Iraq (after the WMD claim turned out to be false), getting rid of the horrible dictator Sadam?
We better get in there and free the oppressed Myanmarians!
2007-09-27 10:23:53 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well, it certainly would be nice if we chose our wars based on human compassion rather than a strategic games of controlling land and resources. Alas, wars are always fought over land and resources...despite whatever justification may be invoked in the name of religion or justice.
2007-09-28 07:02:40 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's because China is going to say "No No" to Bush. China has a HUGE interest in Burma and it's natural resources already, so it won't let the US invade it.. China may intervene militarily.
2007-09-28 09:11:44 · answer #9 · answered by Think Richly™ 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The US has very little influence in that realm, By influence, what I really mean in leverage. In order for the US to accomplish anything it would need to lean on China and considering their Human Rights record, not likely for any change
2007-09-27 10:28:56 · answer #10 · answered by Kraig P 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
One job at a time please.
Fact is, we can't do EVERYTHING at once. Not enough resources, so we have to set priorities.
Besides, if we did, LIBERALS would protest loud and strong!
(and accuse Bush of fighting an unnecessary war.)
2007-09-27 10:38:12 · answer #11 · answered by Philip H 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋