Then we could bring some "Democracy" to people who actually want it and need our help. :rolleyes:

http://cache.boston.com/resize/bonzai-fba/AP_Photo/2007/09/25/1190702614_4547/410w.jpg

Then we could bring some "Democracy" to people who actually want it and need our help. :rolleyes:

http://cache.boston.com/resize/bonzai-fba/AP_Photo/2007/09/25/1190702614_4547/410w.jpgSome people are saying that the riot control troops there got training in a cross-cultural exchange with Florida cops. I mean, they did warn them before openning fire.:cool:

Was there supposed to be a link somewhere in there?

Sorry.... thats the UNs job.... Where are those peace keepers? HELLO NATO?

Some people are saying that the riot control troops there got training in a cross-cultural exchange with Florida cops. I mean, they did warn them before openning fire.:cool:

My discussions regarding the kid in FL got me thinking. Technically the protestors were violating the direct orders of the authorities and they were warned before the troops fired. I wonder if anyone here would defend the actions of the government troops in Myanmar?

.

My discussions regarding the kid in FL got me thinking. Technically the protestors were violating the direct orders of the authorities and they were warned before the troops fired. I wonder if anyone here would defend the actions of the government troops in Myanmar?

.

come on now Dharmas... thats apples and oranges...

Was there supposed to be a link somewhere in there?

No.

come on now Dharmas... thats apples and oranges...

Whats the difference?

Sorry.... thats the UNs job.... Where are those peace keepers? HELLO NATO?

FYI... The U.N. and NATO.... not the same thing.

:thumbs:

Whats the difference?

People dying.

People dying.

Only a few.
How does that make any difference as to whether the police have acted responsibly?

The protesters were disruptive and acting up and they were warned by the authorities to clear the streets. Don't they deserve it if the police use force on them to make them comply?

Only a few.
How does that make any difference as to whether the police have acted responsibly?

Because I can envision no circumstances under which you could kill an unarmed peaceful protester and be acting "responsibly".

This of course is assumimg that the monks who were killed were unarmed, and were protesting peacefully. :)

Because I can envision no circumstances under which you could kill an unarmed peaceful protester and be acting "responsibly".

This of course is assumimg that the monks who were killed were unarmed, and were protesting peacefully. :)

So as I understand your position, the use of force is justified only so long as it does not kill someone who is "peaceful".

Correct?

This of course is assumimg that the monks who were killed were unarmed, and were protesting peacefully. :)Not monks today. The monks were unable to march, due to government "lockdown," so average Joes took up the cause and were fired on.

thats apples and oranges...Both fruit. To me this is a matter of degree, not an all together differant animal.

Both fruit. To me this is a matter of degree, not an all together differant animal.

I agree.

Well said.
.

So as I understand your position, the use of force is justified only so long as it does not kill someone who is "peaceful".

Correct?

No. There are many ways the use of force could be unjustified even if no one is killed. :)

No. There are many ways the use of force could be unjustified even if no one is killed. :)

Such as?

:thumbs:
DB

Not monks today. The monks were unable to march, due to government "lockdown," so average Joes took up the cause and were fired on.

No doubt the troops found it a bit easier to fire on people who weren't wearing red robes. Sad situation.

Such as?

:thumbs:
DB

:thumbs:

I think the question here is whether or not it is justifiable for a government to use force against its citizens for any reason. Tough question.

I think it's justifiable for a government to use force against its citizens to maintain order, as long as the primary benefactor of that order are the citizens themselves. When enough citizens are subjected to that force such that there is no net benefit to the general population, or that benefit is outweighed by the human costs, then I would say the use of force is unjustified.

Both fruit. To me this is a matter of degree, not an all together differant animal.
I agree but we cannot be arguing that a rich college kids tantrum is equal to the protesting over there...

I think the question here is whether or not it is justifiable for a government to use force against its citizens for any reason. Tough question.

Instead of generalizing it as any citizen for any reason I think it is more appropriate in these situations to say protestors.


I think it's justifiable for a government to use force against its citizens to maintain order, as long as the primary benefactor of that order are the citizens themselves. When enough citizens are subjected to that force such that there is no net benefit to the general population, or that benefit is outweighed by the human costs, then I would say the use of force is unjustified.

IMO, I don't think the number of people is eally relevent. I think it was just as wrong for the Chinese military to run over the one protestor in Tienamen Square as it is for the Myanmar troops to shoot these monks.

I think that the primary issues that make this such a tough question is how you define "order" and how you weigh the cost/benefit for the citizens.


.

I agree but we cannot be arguing that a rich college kids tantrum is equal to the protesting over there...

How do you know he was "rich"?

No doubt the troops found it a bit easier to fire on people who weren't wearing red robes. Sad situation.They brought troops in from outside the city so they'd have less difficulty firing on the crowds.

I agree but we cannot be arguing that a rich college kids tantrum is equal to the protesting over there...I'd buy that. But the point I'm interested in examining is the response by those with all the power. That's the comparison between police overreaction, in Florida or anywhere, and troops firing into crowds.

I'd buy that. But the point I'm interested in examining is the response by those with all the power. That's the comparison between police overreaction, in Florida or anywhere, and troops firing into crowds.

China told them to knock it off,before it even reached the violence mark. China is the self proclaimed bad ass in that region and with it eye on Taiwan this would be a great time for China to flex its muscles.... You know all China has to do is go in there and say "BOO" and let their imprisoned free.... This isnt Iraq... there was a self sustaining gov. in place not long ago... they just got stiff armed out of power..... This isnt a 30 plus years of oppression Iraq we are talking about... This could be another Kuwait only china having the job of being the watchdogs... or if they are lucky turning it over to the UN to get them back on their feet.

This isnt Iraq... there was a self sustaining gov. in place not long ago... they just got stiff armed out of power..... This isnt a 30 plus years of oppression Iraq we are talking about...

You don't think the people of Burma are oppressed???

You don't think the people of Burma are oppressed???

they are but there are people there that were still part of that former structure... a quick sweep of their current problems and we are talking about a whole differant level of re-building. There former leader is still in the country on house arrest since this whole mess started. We are talking about getting the enemy element out of there and a small nudge in the right direction.... There are sitting on a huge profitable export. Natural gas is not as glory and duty free billions as oil.... and energy hungry china is right next door... besides countries prosper on much much less.

I think its the duty of all right thinking people to be appalled by what they see going on in Burma.
A military junta,whose leaders live like kings,surrounded by they're own personal army,protecting them from the masses who struggle of eat enough everyday,the reaction of the monks,who are the consciousness of the Burmese people,have decided to protest peacefully for freedom and democracy,I say go for it,but youll be on your own,I dont see any western help for them,just the odd word of support,its a bad reflection on us all.

I think its the duty of all right thinking people to be appalled by what they see going on in Burma.
A military junta,whose leaders live like kings,surrounded by they're own personal army,protecting them from the masses who struggle of eat enough everyday,the reaction of the monks,who are the consciousness of the Burmese people,have decided to protest peacefully for freedom and democracy,I say go for it,but youll be on your own,I dont see any western help for them,just the odd word of support,its a bad reflection on us all.

Well Said Paul.

We (the US) could easily take down that oppressive military junta and free those good, peaceful people and bring them the Democracy they are crying out for... but alas they have no resources we want to exploit so they will get no help from us.

:(

Burma doesn't have oil, that's correct; but it does have massive natural gas resources...

In recent years, massive natural gas deposits have been discovered along Burma's western coastline. Potentially the largest natural gas reserves in Southeast Asia, these deposits could earn the junta up to $US 3 billion annually. --Burma's Resources: For Whose Benefit? (http://www.perc.ca/PEN/2005-07-08/s-interpares2.html)

As does Iran...

The world's second largest natural gas field is the South Pars Gas Field in Iranian waters in the Persian Gulf. --Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas)

Hmmm.... isn't that interesting!

Does the US need natural gas?

Just about everyone in the United States uses natural gas. Natural gas ranks number three in energy use, right after petroleum and coal. Twenty-three percent of the energy we use in the United States comes from natural gas.

Why yes, it does. How badly does the US need natural gas?

Forget about terrorists. Don't give another thought to SARS. The single greatest threat to the U.S. right now comes from a critical shortage of natural gas. The impending crisis will affect all consumers directly in the pocket book, and it may well mean that some people won't survive next winter. The problem is not with wells or pumps. The problem is that North America is running out and there is no replacement supply. --Natural Gas Crisis (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/062303_nat_gas_crisis.html)

BINGO!

There we go! We have our excuse to go "liberate" the people of Burma!

.

If you guys need natural gas,eat more onion and beans.

FYI... The U.N. and NATO.... not the same thing.

:thumbs:

no kidding why the hell did you think i addressed them seperatly.... come on DB.. bring your "A" game,not your "B" game