Why not invade Burma?
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Sunday, March 29, 2026 18:27
VIEWED: 6407
PAGE 3 of 8
Quote:*winces*
Originally posted by citizen:
Hey, least we never needed the French to win a war for us.
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Needed the French? LMAO - does anyone really believe that the colonies won their freedom as a result of French assistance? The French may have sped things up a bit, but that's it. We'd have beaten the Brits eventually on our own. The logistics of the whole thing would have just worn the Brits down. Too bad it had to come to war at all.
Burma is a side show because that region of the globe is not critical to global economics.
Stabilization of the global economy is why the U.S. is involved so deeply in the Middle East region of the globe. You all knew that ... right?
Although the situation in Iraq is pretty rough now, things there are certainly improving ... they can only get better, hmmmm.
Give things in Iraq a few years - it'll all shake out for the best.
As for the UN ... just stay away, please.
Let's be Bad Guys...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Come on now, sure there's no Oil, but shit loads of rice!
I note for the record that there is oil. The former Burma Oil Company was a major producer but in the decades since the end of colonialism Burma's oil and rubber exports have dropped dramtically due to the lack of infrastructure and more easily accessable supplies from the Middle East (oil) and South America (rubber).
Invading Burma and restoring those industries would be worthwhile.
Also Naval and Air Force bases in Burma would support ongoing operation in the Gulf as well as be perfectly placed to support operations against China.
A strong military force in the region would also suppress the local pirates that plague the narrow shipping lanes in the region.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But...this country's government cares deeply about people...
Originally posted by HavocMan:
Burma is a side show because that region of the globe is not critical to global economics.
Quote:Tell that to the dead (sorry, nix that), husband-less & parent-less peeps over there. If you can manage one every couple hours it would only take a year.
Give things in Iraq a few years - it'll all shake out for the best.
*sigh*Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I take that as a go-ahead.
Originally posted by Hero:
Invading Burma and restoring those industries would be worthwhile.
I will alert the usual suspects.
Gung-Ho Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Tell that to the dead (sorry, nix that), husband-less & parent-less peeps over there. If you can manage one every couple hours it would only take a year.
Originally posted by HavocMan:
Give things in Iraq a few years - it'll all shake out for the best.
Saddam would have plunged the region into complete chaos & war ... again and AGAIN. How many died in the Iran/Iraq war? How many Iraqi citizens were murderd at his hands over the past few decades? How many Israeli citizens did he murder indirectly by paying off the families of Palestinian terrorists? The guy had to go.
With us so heavily involved in the region, these things have come to an end. So, while the loss of life during OIL/OIF - any life - is tragic, in the long run the US has done, and will continue to do, the right thing over there ... to the best of our ability. We ain't perfect, but we are wayyyyy better 'n most.
Besides - who else is gonna handle the job at this point? The UN?
Let's be Bad Guys...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Uhuh. The British of course didn't need the Americans in World War Two. They'd already beaten the Nazi War Machine at the Battle of Britain, and Hitler had turned his eyes toward Russia. Eventually Russia would have worn down the Nazis, and British and Commonwealth troops would still have reached a point of being able to invade France. It would have just taken longer.
Originally posted by HavocMan:
Needed the French? LMAO - does anyone really believe that the colonies won their freedom as a result of French assistance? The French may have sped things up a bit, but that's it. We'd have beaten the Brits eventually on our own. The logistics of the whole thing would have just worn the Brits down. Too bad it had to come to war at all.
Quote:Improving? Really?
Although the situation in Iraq is pretty rough now, things there are certainly improving ... they can only get better, hmmmm.
Quote:Make that a few decades.
Give things in Iraq a few years - it'll all shake out for the best.
Quote:Funnily enough, I gather that's what the Iraqis are saying about the US.
As for the UN ... just stay away, please.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Hey, least we never needed the French to win a war for us.
Ouch. Truth hurts. :)
Good call, since not many Americans seem to remember that...
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This would be the Iraq that could barely feed its own people, and was being bombed with impunity by UN forces, that same Iraq yeah?
Originally posted by HavocMan:
Saddam would have plunged the region into complete chaos & war ... again and AGAIN.
Quote:This would be the war America supported, both materially and politically I take it.
How many died in the Iran/Iraq war?
Quote:If you break it down, a lot less than are now dying as the result of the US led invasion.
How many Iraqi citizens were murderd at his hands over the past few decades?
Quote:If you screw your eyes up real tight and look the other way...
With us so heavily involved in the region, these things have come to an end.
Quote:The UN was handling it, but now? The US sure as hell isn't doing much of a job.
Besides - who else is gonna handle the job at this point? The UN?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HavocMan:
Needed the French? LMAO - does anyone really believe that the colonies won their freedom as a result of French assistance? The French may have sped things up a bit, but that's it. We'd have beaten the Brits eventually on our own. The logistics of the whole thing would have just worn the Brits down. Too bad it had to come to war at all.
Burma is a side show because that region of the globe is not critical to global economics.
Stabilization of the global economy is why the U.S. is involved so deeply in the Middle East region of the globe. You all knew that ... right?
Although the situation in Iraq is pretty rough now, things there are certainly improving ... they can only get better, hmmmm.
Give things in Iraq a few years - it'll all shake out for the best.
As for the UN ... just stay away, please.
Let's be Bad Guys...
1) Yes, we absolutely needed the French. Without the influx of French weapons and money, our revolution would have collapsed at a critical time. The "French Connection", as it were, was so crucial and so major that it led directly to the collapse of the French monarchy within 15 years.
2) That region of the globe isn't critical to global economics? Try telling that to China, Hong Kong, the Phillipines, Viet Nam, et al. I think that region of the globe just *MIGHT* be a little important to global economics...
3) Stabilization of the global economy... Oh yeah, THAT'S why we invaded Iraq. I'd forgotten that, until you reminded me. I clearly remember when Bush stood before the nation and said that Saddam had WMD, and that those would destabilize the global economy, and that he was a murderous monster who must be stopped before he destabilized the global economy, or about how the War On Terror was really the War To Stabilize The Global Economy...
4) Things can only get better in Iraq, huh? Guess that puts to lie Cheney's claim about how "swimmingly" things are going there NOW, right? And yes, he did use the word "swimmingly".
To say that things can only get better implies that you think things are horribly wrong there right now, which means you think we've utterly fucked the place up with our invasion and occupation, right?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME