Burma and International Law

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by AndyPipkin, May 18, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. They should stay out of it until Junta say come in, Anything else is not only asking for trouble (including deaths of American military) but also setting a bad precedent for future operations.
  2. Meanwhile 100,000 people starve to death or die of cholera.
  3. Unlucky for them, Or do you think American servicemen should risk their lives for them?
  4. Probably a lot less risky for them than Iraq or Afghanistan I should imagine. Or even just hanging arouns South-Central LA.
  5. Ah yes, the idealist approach to international relations versus the realist approach: I have my brain in knots over this sort of scenario on a regular basis.

    The realist part of my brain says I'd rather that ignoring internationally recognised sovereign territories and the rights of the governments therein to act as they choose does NOT become a norm; the idealist part of my brain says I want all of the offered governmental and NGO aid taken up PDQ and for the unfortunates caught up in the tragedy to be helped. As usual, it's a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't.
  6. Still risky though, Therfore people could die for something thats A: Nothing to do with them and B:probably won't be thanked for it anyway.
    Not worth it really.
  7. Your own people won't die if you don't.
  8. Give them 48 hours warning, then go in. This has gone on long enough. You would need a carrier to provide defensive air cover, but that would be it. You could be in and out in six to eight weeks once emergency aid had been delivered, with forces extracted the same way they came in.
  9. Of course it would be that easy, The Taliban don't have any air cover and they're not doing to badly, What makes you think the Burmese won't be any different?
    Pull out after 6 to 8 weeks and let the Junta resume power? I can see that going down well with the general public.
  10. True, but it's a similar moral argument to whether to get involved in countries where genocide is in practice. The whole of the 'free' world went into moral overdrive post-WWII when it was revealed how many people were killed by the Nazi regime, however, to date 'we' have done very little to prevent mass loss of life. Something that should be a simple moral decision is hideously clouded by the massive implications to the global status quo should treaties, borders and norms be ignored.
  11. Regime change isn't the task at hand, aid delivery is.
  12. I actually think that aid should be stopped (mostly). It almost always means that a government will misuse it to prop themselves up.
  13. While I agree its a shame these things happen, Thats what happens when let countries rule themselves the only way to prevent it would be to take the country over and that would lead back to the British empire problems,
    I do disagree with your moral overdrive comment When you think back over the mass deaths caused by China, Russia, Cambodia etc The way the arabs states used to be (still are in some cases) and the right-wing death squads of south America, While the free countries might have voiced a few concerns they still did/do business with them, Morals always give way to money.
  14. You think that the Burmese Junta will just stand by and do nothing if another country enters without permission?