Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

After pressuring telecom firms, Myanmar's junta bans executives from leaving

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 55 posts

Re: After pressuring telecom firms, Myanmar's junta bans executives from leaving

#31

Post by nanis »

andy_ppp wrote: post #22
eunos wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After Libyan and Syrian civil war do people think that 3rd party involvement is a good thing?

It depends, I think Syria was a half hearted involvement, I think Bosnia we did actually do some good. Anyone know why Russia and China can’t be involved/lead a UN peacekeeping effort? Why block it, dictatorships good is their only thinking?

In Bosnia, the Clinton administration and the EU provided cover for the Serbs while pretending to do something. This provided a cause around which Jihad movements could coalesce (along with Chechnya) leading to both the "Jihad travel networks" and improvements in international resource flows to sponsor those. Later, during the Kosovo conflict, the Clinton administration bombed civilians in Belgrade and blew up passenger trains, trying to assert U.S. initiative which they had ceded to the Serbs and their patron Russia.

Re: After pressuring telecom firms, Myanmar's junta bans executives from leaving

#32

Post by test_epsilon »

andy_ppp wrote: post #22
eunos wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After Libyan and Syrian civil war do people think that 3rd party involvement is a good thing?

It depends, I think Syria was a half hearted involvement, I think Bosnia we did actually do some good. Anyone know why Russia and China can’t be involved/lead a UN peacekeeping effort? Why block it, dictatorships good is their only thinking?

Syria was a half-hearted involvement? So sponsoring insurgencies to destabilize a sovereign country would have been good if only the government was also toppled? Iraq? The whole ISIS genocide rape torture destruction and blood letting thing was slightly inconvenient but I'm sure the people of these places will thank the enlightened noble Europeans and Americans for their gracious aid.

I would suggest not continuing to fall for it. It's not that war and intervention can't ever do "some" good. It's that the people behind wars and interventions are never interested in actually helping people. It's purely for money and power.

Re: After pressuring telecom firms, Myanmar's junta bans executives from leaving

#33

Post by baybal2 »

mschuster91 wrote: post #19
dharma1 wrote: post #11

The world needs to act on Myanmar’s military coup - democratically elected leaders need to be restored and mass scale human rights abuses stopped, or it will descend into a failed state with tens of millions affected. It looks like Russia (and China) are vetoing any UN action. What are the alternatives?

> It looks like Russia (and China) are vetoing any UN action. What are the alternatives? There are no alternatives, that is part of the problem. The UN was primarily created to prevent all-out war between the US and Russia... young people like me expect it to be more than that though. In the past, as a result the US and various European nations have gone off on their own to engage in various conflicts, both in milita…

> There are no alternatives, that is part of the problem. The UN was primarily created to prevent all-out war between the US and Russia...

Please don't pervert the history. This wasn't the case. The UN was created as a reaction to the horror of WWII and the failure of the League of Nations.

It was to become a League of Democracies, an iron fist against the next Nazi Germany wannabe, a guarantor of the "Never Again."

It was the US who go the idea to get USSR into it, pretty much sabotaging it on the day 1.

> There are no alternatives

The alternative is here, and it's the resolution 377 action.

Re: After pressuring telecom firms, Myanmar's junta bans executives from leaving

#34

Post by sudosysgen »

ChemSpider wrote: post #23
eunos wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After Libyan and Syrian civil war do people think that 3rd party involvement is a good thing?

There are signs and rumors that a 3rd party (here: China) is already involved, at least in the sense of "Go ahead, we will not do anything". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Myanmar_relation... Libya and Syria: Same here, some 3rd parties are involved anyway. The question is if "the West" (I guess this is what you refer to) should/must/must not get involved as well.

China was opposed to the military junta and preferred the previous government.

Their recent diplomatic stance isn't about involvement, it's them calculating that involvement isn't worth it and signaling to the junta that they shouldn't be afraid of involvement.

Re: After pressuring telecom firms, Myanmar's junta bans executives from leaving

#35

Post by rjsw »

dharma1 wrote: post #11

The world needs to act on Myanmar’s military coup - democratically elected leaders need to be restored and mass scale human rights abuses stopped, or it will descend into a failed state with tens of millions affected. It looks like Russia (and China) are vetoing any UN action. What are the alternatives?

I feel that Vietnam should get more credit than it did for invading Cambodia to depose the Khmer Rouge.

Re: After pressuring telecom firms, Myanmar's junta bans executives from leaving

#36

Post by zozbot234 »

baybal2 wrote: post #33
mschuster91 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It looks like Russia (and China) are vetoing any UN action. What are the alternatives? There are no alternatives, that is part of the problem. The UN was primarily created to prevent all-out war between the US and Russia... young people like me expect it to be more than that though. In the past, as a result the US and various European nations have gone off on their own to engage in various conflicts, both in milita…

> There are no alternatives, that is part of the problem. The UN was primarily created to prevent all-out war between the US and Russia... Please don't pervert the history. This wasn't the case. The UN was created as a reaction to the horror of WWII and the failure of the League of Nations. It was to become a League of Democracies, an iron fist against the next Nazi Germany wannabe, a guarantor of the "Never Again."…

This is not a Nazi Germany wannabe, it's just a garden variety tinpot dictatorship. There are a lot like it in the world, and we've figured out that outside intervention is not a good idea in such cases. It's the responsibility of a country's own people to pursue free government for themselves, assuming that they care to. Reap what you sow, and all that.

Re: After pressuring telecom firms, Myanmar's junta bans executives from leaving

#37

Post by mschuster91 »

baybal2 wrote: post #33
mschuster91 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It looks like Russia (and China) are vetoing any UN action. What are the alternatives? There are no alternatives, that is part of the problem. The UN was primarily created to prevent all-out war between the US and Russia... young people like me expect it to be more than that though. In the past, as a result the US and various European nations have gone off on their own to engage in various conflicts, both in milita…

> There are no alternatives, that is part of the problem. The UN was primarily created to prevent all-out war between the US and Russia... Please don't pervert the history. This wasn't the case. The UN was created as a reaction to the horror of WWII and the failure of the League of Nations. It was to become a League of Democracies, an iron fist against the next Nazi Germany wannabe, a guarantor of the "Never Again."…

> It was to become a League of Democracies, an iron fist against the next Nazi Germany wannabe, a guarantor of the "Never Again."

That is what both you and I hope that the UN would have been, but unfortunately not much based in reality.

> It was the US who go the idea to get USSR into it, pretty much sabotaging it on the day 1.

Without Soviet cooperation, the purpose of the UN would have been moot from day 1.

Re: After pressuring telecom firms, Myanmar's junta bans executives from leaving

#38

Post by mschuster91 »

zozbot234 wrote: post #36
baybal2 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are no alternatives, that is part of the problem. The UN was primarily created to prevent all-out war between the US and Russia... Please don't pervert the history. This wasn't the case. The UN was created as a reaction to the horror of WWII and the failure of the League of Nations. It was to become a League of Democracies, an iron fist against the next Nazi Germany wannabe, a guarantor of the "Never Again."…

This is not a Nazi Germany wannabe, it's just a garden variety tinpot dictatorship. There are a lot like it in the world, and we've figured out that outside intervention is not a good idea in such cases. It's the responsibility of a country's own people to pursue free government for themselves, assuming that they care to. Reap what you sow, and all that.

> It's the responsibility of a country's own people to pursue free government for themselves, assuming that they care to. Reap what you sow, and all that.

This isn't possible often enough. There are countless dictatorships that use any means necessary to ensure their survival, from starving their populations (North Korea) to murdering or beating them up on the streets (Tiananmen massacre, Arab Spring revolutions) or silencing any opposition (Hongkong, Belarus).

Most freedom movements need some form of support from the outside, be it arms, money, logistic or ideologic support.

Re: After pressuring telecom firms, Myanmar's junta bans executives from leaving

#39

Post by ridiculous_leke »

baybal2 wrote: post #13
dharma1 wrote: post #11

The world needs to act on Myanmar’s military coup - democratically elected leaders need to be restored and mass scale human rights abuses stopped, or it will descend into a failed state with tens of millions affected. It looks like Russia (and China) are vetoing any UN action. What are the alternatives?

1. Pull more countries under resolution 377, to put more pressure on Burma around the security council 2. India pulls 1971 on Burmese junta, if Modi's Achand Bharat brouhaha is worth anything 3. International intervention under resolution 377 4. Surgical strike on the junta leadership without broad UN involvement by somebody brave enough

> India pulls 1971 on Burmese junta, if Modi's Achand Bharat brouhaha is worth anything

Don't expect anything unless thousands of refugees start pouring in India.

Re: After pressuring telecom firms, Myanmar's junta bans executives from leaving

#40

Post by redis_mlc »

nanis wrote: post #31
andy_ppp wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends, I think Syria was a half hearted involvement, I think Bosnia we did actually do some good. Anyone know why Russia and China can’t be involved/lead a UN peacekeeping effort? Why block it, dictatorships good is their only thinking?

In Bosnia, the Clinton administration and the EU provided cover for the Serbs while pretending to do something. This provided a cause around which Jihad movements could coalesce (along with Chechnya) leading to both the "Jihad travel networks" and improvements in international resource flows to sponsor those. Later, during the Kosovo conflict, the Clinton administration bombed civilians in Belgrade and blew up passen…

You know, the Balkans are in Europe, not North America. So why did Clinton have to get involved at all?

Oh, because the UN and European member soldiers are afraid of casualties. Silly me.

So don't criticize Clinton or the US.

Post reply on HN