Right?
2007-10-02 15:32:14 · 11 answers · asked by G 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I was in the army *****
2007-10-02 16:07:35 · update #1
No. This is the purview of the United Nations Security Council. Myanmar has been under a brutal Junta for years now. Let them and other members of NATO or the EU get involved first, for once.
Force the UN to honor their charter on human rights both there and in Darfur.
Yes, I know that is a foolish desire, considering their record in recent decades.
Personally, I am in no mood to give the international community yet another reason to dislike the US for being "The World's Policeman".
Though it seems we are the only ones that put our money where our mouth is . . .
2007-10-02 15:43:02 · answer #1 · answered by ZepherGeist 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Until Dubya tried to get the issue of Iraq onto a back burner, 99% of Americans never knew of a Myanmar problem, they did not even know it was not Burma anymore. Are you really that simple minded to think this all started last week? Why did you not want intervention 10 years ago? Invading countries on a whim is not a responsible solution, and don't forget, those soldiers of the Myanmar army are citizens also, so maybe you need to stop and look at both sides of what is really going on. Is the news station I'm watching giving me the full story? Are these protesters just a small minority and most people like the government? What are they protesting about? How does this affect neighboring countries?
2007-10-02 15:47:13 · answer #2 · answered by Michael G 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
the U. S.. Democratic status. became the source of the debate at Valley Forge. The founding fathers have been democratic. the human beings who needed a republic extraordinarily much starved the full American military out to tutor their factor. Then it became set up as a democracy for the human beings and Thomas Jefferson ended up conversing plenty approximately it. Then those losers stated as the puratins got here in, representing the republic (massive companies). They fought for extraordinarily much one hundred years to opposite the form and all of the equivalent rights stuff. Now you spot it, they nonetheless attempt to make it a nazi or king james state. yet maximum of what they have executed is public. because of the fact of their joker mentality, now many extensive financial industry based entities have greater capability then human beings and actual contradict what united states of america stands for. united states of america is meant to be a democracy, yet because of the corrupt idiots who took unrestrained movements. some issues like the federal government. even although they're a company. As a ruling physique. it somewhat is basically a mish mash of stable human beings and grimy people who help corporation over human beings.
2016-12-14 06:10:16 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wrong let the UN step up to the plate for a change.
Every Country is dumpin ungodly amounts of money into a organization that has yet to do anything but write relolutions and have meeting on what they would do, yet act on none of them.
Actions speak louder than words its about time for the UN to stop being vocal and act for once. But if they acted and things didnt go as planned then they might have to accept the critisism that the US has been getting for backing their Iraq resolutions.
2007-10-02 15:40:21 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Why? has Burma just joined the United States??
2007-10-02 19:45:11 · answer #5 · answered by conranger1 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What combat units? The ONLY reason Bush is bringing any home is because he ran out of troops to replace them. Meanwhile, we are shorthanded in Afghanistan.
2007-10-02 15:44:10 · answer #6 · answered by bob h 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Right after we get done with Darfur (of which there can be no comparison in the amount of carnage). If it bothers you so much, stop hugging trees and join the military. If not, stop trying to decide our foreign policy.
2007-10-02 15:42:16 · answer #7 · answered by Marco R 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Right! But straight afterwards, I'd like to see intervention in Zimbabwe too.
2007-10-02 15:40:00 · answer #8 · answered by Gotta have more explosions! 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
JUAN,
WRONG, Wromg, Wrong.
HE** no! We can't meet current recruiting goals and we don't have enough troops to support all the mission in Iraq and Afganistan.
2007-10-02 16:43:36 · answer #9 · answered by Robert W 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
John....haven't you over looked Darfur where thousands are homeless, people starving , women being raped , and the list
goes on and on. Why not send troops there first since they were in line for relief first ?
So to answer your question......Wrong.
2007-10-02 15:56:05 · answer #10 · answered by woodster 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋