Burma: It Can't Wait

[zegh8578]

I wouldn't say it's lack of motivation, more like the lack of resources. The only reason the Libyan uprising happened was because Middle Eastern nations are literally laden with firearms, with so many civilians owning them. Look at the Taliban, most of them are simple farmers, yet they're supplied with AK-47s, IEDs, RPGs, machine guns, etc. You can't expect a civilian population to fight against a military if there's no resources to do it.

 

exactamundo

as much as people wish for it - you just cannot solve physical problems with a "positive you-can-do-it attitude", its just not possible.

you need the hardware, if you want a complete result. its a long, long chain of what needs to be done, and even more contrary to statements about motivation: the burmese ARE motivated, in fact, motivation is one thing they DO have plenty of.

[Vagrant0]

I wouldn't say it's lack of motivation, more like the lack of resources. The only reason the Libyan uprising happened was because Middle Eastern nations are literally laden with firearms, with so many civilians owning them. Look at the Taliban, most of them are simple farmers, yet they're supplied with AK-47s, IEDs, RPGs, machine guns, etc. You can't expect a civilian population to fight against a military if there's no resources to do it.

 

exactamundo

as much as people wish for it - you just cannot solve physical problems with a "positive you-can-do-it attitude", its just not possible.

you need the hardware, if you want a complete result. its a long, long chain of what needs to be done, and even more contrary to statements about motivation: the burmese ARE motivated, in fact, motivation is one thing they DO have plenty of.

Actually, no. Libya happened because the dictator lost control of power in the region and was ill equipped to put down a resistance before it could build any momentum. It's not necessarily a lack of motivation in the common sense, but more a desire to not be executed or spend the rest of your life in some hole. Resistance in Libya was able to organize and gather support outside local control due to the younger generation having more access to technological means of communication to spread their cause. It was able to decentralize itself, coordinate and act faster than the local government was able to respond which led to the instability. Burma is still by and large a 3rd world nation with access to similar technology far outside the hands of the people. Likewise, any native resistance would be stamped out (probably in the sake of someone getting rewarded) so there would not be much chance of a native destabilizing force.

 

Never forget that most people are greedy and self-serving, especially when under oppression, so even if they dislike a government for its actions, they will still jump at the chance to report acts of disloyalty or defend that government against threats. If this wasn't the case, places like this wouldn't be able to have such a large military.

[zegh8578]

^

we're more or less saying the same thing...

[Arthmoor]

Resources are absolutely not an issue. We could supply them with enough weapons to last them for 10 civil wars. Which is precisely what we did in South Vietnam. The people there simply never had enough of their own will to want to keep up the fight. That's why, despite having assloads of our stuff when we left, they lost hardcore. It wasn't because the Chinese overran them, it was purely because they just didn't have it in them to defend their own freedom. I'm sorry if that's not the answer you were looking for. The truth is rarely as compassionate as you might want.

 

Neither did we until 1776 btw. This isn't about some ridiculous argument about condescending attitudes or making people eat grass. We had the resources AND the advantage here in the 1700s. Even then, when the Revolution actually started only about 30% of the population was actually willing to fight, despite most of them hating everything the British were doing to us. We very nearly lost that war because of it.

 

We learned our lesson in blood. Vietnam changed our policy toward Southeast Asia as a whole. We are not going to be going back there for Burma or anyone else unless we're convinced they have the will to stand up for their own freedom.

Edited December 29, 2011 by Arthmoor

[McclaudEagle]

And who exactly would supply these weapons? Supplying weapons to the civilians would be considered an act of war, and that's not something anyone wants. Would the USA do it? No, China doesn't want US involvement. Unless you intend to have the Mafia supply them, resources will be a problem. Besides, the sad fact is that most of our so called "being hero" is just an excuse to obtain the oil, which is why no one is interested in helping nations without oil. Almost immediately after Libya was taken by the rebels, all nations involved in helping them secure the country entered a bidding war over who gets what oil.

[Vagrant0]

And who exactly would supply these weapons? Supplying weapons to the civilians would be considered an act of war, and that's not something anyone wants. Would the USA do it?

Stop right there... Panama, and a handful of other Latin American countries... Nuff said.

 

 

Supplying weapons to unstable countries in the name of "freedom" was a mainstay of US foreign policy starting in the 50's and up through the 90's.

[Arthmoor]

Yep, to that all I can say is the CIA. They'll do it, and make it look like Russia did it if they want. We could deflect any evidence of involvement in that if we were of a mind to, but the sad reality is those people simply do not want it badly enough for that to work.

 

Libya got what they wanted because Libyans pushed for it. Not because US warships were parked in the Mediterranean giving them air cover.

[Deleted1744345User]

The USA needs to stop meddling in other countries problems and let them solve their problems themselves. No good can be done here because the USA will still be hated even if we achieve a victory. The only thing the USA needs to concern itself with are direct threats like Iran, though at times the government will try to distort non-threats into direct ones.

[JimboUK]

Just throwing weapons at the Burmese people and leaving them to get on with it will no doubt lead to the slaughter of many and a humiliating defeat for the people. Rifles are no good against planes and tanks, it would need the military to stand aside and that doesn't look likely. The Libyan uprising would have been crushed had NATO not got involved, just prior to NATOs involvement Gaddafi's tanks were rolling towards Benghazi, had that fallen there would have been a massacre and the uprising would have been over.

[zegh8578]

Just throwing weapons at the Burmese people and leaving them to get on with it will no doubt lead to the slaughter of many and a humiliating defeat for the people. Rifles are no good against planes and tanks, it would need the military to stand aside and that doesn't look likely. The Libyan uprising would have been crushed had NATO not got involved, just prior to NATOs involvement Gaddafi's tanks were rolling towards Benghazi, had that fallen there would have been a massacre and the uprising would have been over.

 

you have a point, but dont forget also, that many a fall-pit of military dictatorships is that the more your ordering your troops to slaughter your own people, the more your troops will end up defecting to the other side

 

in the case of burma, i doubt those troops loyalty go very far beyond simply getting a nice paycheck. they allready did that "troop-shuffling" they do, when soldiers came to fire upon protesters. shuffling as in, they won't use local troops, cus local troops are very unwilling to start shooting inside their own home town.

the same type of shuffling was also done during the famous tiananmen square protests.

 

its not easy to run a dictatorship :D