There was no hesitation in invading Iraq and they even found excuses like "weapons of mass destruction" that subsequently turned out to be false. Now that the Burmese people desperately need the help of the West they will get nothing except a few words of support.
It looks as if there may be a repeat of East Germany in 1953, Hungary in 1956 and Czeckoslovakia in 1968--i.e. the West will stand idly by while people's dreams of freedom are brutally crushed.
And they say it's not all about oil...
2007-09-27 22:36:49 · 14 answers · asked by 2kool4u 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Why do people assume that someone is a "liberal" --just because the person can spell and write grammatically?
2007-09-28 02:08:11 · update #1
Those who possess the power to help cannot be made to by those who do not possess such power.
2007-09-27 23:47:02 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Part of the problem has been that India was happy for Burma's government to supress rebels along their joint border, while China on Burmas northern border is happy to support a fellow communist government.
How come 'the west' is always blamed for not solving other regions' problems, then we get called selfish imperialists as soon as we step forward to do so?
Historically, Burma was briefly well-governed as part of the British Empire, then the Japanese Army conquered it in WW2 and Britain gave Burma back to its natives after quitting India in 1947.
Burma calls itself 'Mynymnya' or similar nowadays, but that is too long a word for newspaper headlines.
2007-09-28 06:10:29 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
kicking the Sheet out of a Lone Wolf Like Saddam is a bit different than Jumping on One of Chinas Children! You see China quickly running to control Burma but on the inverse if they ran into Canada you would see the USA blast them!
2007-09-28 06:13:13 · answer #3 · answered by ThorGirl 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Obviously there are many countries that could use a change of government. I think it's insane for someone to look over the events of the invasion of Iraq and deny that we are there for oil. In short, I couldn't agree with you more.
http://www.cronus.com/oil/
2007-09-28 05:44:22 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do a little research and then say it's about oil. We get a tiny percentage of our oil from Iraq. I see, and agree with your point, with the exception of the whole war for oil business. It's a convenient reason for Bush bashers to use, it's just not supported in fact. There are plenty of other bad reasons we got into this situation, but oil is not one of them. It's really all about a political agenda.
2007-09-28 05:55:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
absolutey not. it isnt about oil genius...its about survival...al qaeda is not in burma and frankly ive about had it with the grandstanding and posturing of the pelosi/reid regime. when you buy the dogma and diatribe of the liberals you get skewed explanations and reasoning like what you have. the FACT is conservatives have been cleaning up the clinton mess for eight years now brought about by clinton ignoring the very real and deadly threat. whoever came up with the oil argument must have been brilliant as it seems all you liberals have bought it hook, line and sinker.
2007-09-28 06:00:52 · answer #6 · answered by koalatcomics 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Greetings. it is not about the oil only. we have invaded other countries for many other reasons. like Yugoslavia to prevent the Yugoslavians from ejecting the illegal Albanian immigrants from Kosovo where they were doing the refining of the Opium from Afghanistan into heroine and other opium byproducts. Yugoslavians were trying to shut down the drug factories so U.S. and U.N. stepped in to stop this insanity and guarantee the production was not cut off. We are still there protecting the Albanians right to run drug factories in other countries illegally. Heroine from Afghanistan is over 90% of the drug sold on the streets here. so not always about oil. can be about drugs, minerals like nickel, uranium, gold. or simply because our pentagon (the mystic sign of evil) needs to invade someone to protect us from so they can stay in business. Do not expect the U.S. to send aid. If they do there will be a huge price tag hidden in the deal that will sell your country and people into bondage forever. the American way, profit at all costs, especially to anyone else.
2007-09-28 05:58:11 · answer #7 · answered by Rich M 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
macaroni is correct
You people complain about the Liberation of Iraq and yet have the nerve to demand we fix the Burma problem?
You sir, are the only "hypocrite" here
2007-09-28 06:04:46 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
You dumb ***. We played 13 years of diplomatic tag team before we went into Iraq. Just because you have the brain of a gnat, it doesn't mean that we do. Call the UN.
2007-09-28 05:56:30 · answer #9 · answered by macaroni 4 · 5⤊ 0⤋
I find people who scream "war crimes"and "occupiers" and rant about the "illegality"of interfering in other affairs,who then have the AUDACITY to suggest we interfere ANYWHERE to be the most hypocritical of all
2007-09-28 06:26:44 · answer #10 · answered by nobodinoze 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋