US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC :
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | View comments | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
News ::
A Call for the Invasion of Burma (english)
11 Mar 2003
Modified: 10:01:47 PM
When oh when will the suffering people of Burma be saved from their tyrannical rulers? A call for someone, out of the sheer goodness of their hearts, to spend a few hundred billion bucks to save those poor suffering people...
You know everytime some one speaks up for the removal of Saddam by Bush I can't help but wonder why no one is calling out for the removal of the tyrants of Burma. Its a terrible place, just one of many tyrannical regimes on the planet, and I think its likely to be the case in times to come, because no one is calling out for an invasion of Burma. Sure it would cost a fortune, and Burma has no real oil that I know of, but since the Americans are now spending vast fortunes to save countries from tyrants out of the sheer goodness of their hearts I thought I would once again mention the need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to save the people of Burma from tyranny

Now as for removing tyrants, you might notice that in Burma, tyrants though they are, they do not kill Su Kyi who is the main dissident leader in the country with growing public support, probably to win an election, assuming they ever had one. You see, even tyrants must pay attention to public opinion, and tyrants also lie all the time and spread propaganda, for the same reason. Power is an illusion.

Now consider Ceacescu of Romania. Powerful tyrant. Very Saddam like. Terrible dictator. Wound up overthrown and then shot on television. Then there was the collapse of the Soviet Union. How did it happen? Are dictators infallible? No, and once their public support crumbles to a sufficient degree they meet their downfall. No dictator can stay in power once this certain level of public consent is lost, and once that happens even the most 'invincible' seeming tyrant states collapse in ruins.

There are those who spread the myth that the only way to remove a dictator is by means of war, and history demonstrates that this is false. One of the advantage of allowing a nation to depose its own tyrants, is that, while it takes longer, and is a much more gradual process, many tens or hundreds of thousands of little kids will still be alive, whereas after being 'saved' by the Americans, they will not. This crappola about 'there being no other way to get rid of a dictator' than by use of outside military force is simply a pile of bullshit, and even an examination of the most recent history of the planet demonstrates that this is the case.

As for Iraq becoming a 'democracy' that seems unlikely, and it seems much more likely that in order to keep this feuding artificially constructed state together it will require an iron fist (Kurds in the north rebelling, Shi'ites in the south rebelling). There is a reason the Northern powers have always established and supported dictatorships in the Middle East, since each country there is deliberately carved up in the same way, a few of the Kurds in this country, a little of this and a little of that, the purpose being at the time the carving was done, was to create weakened states full of internal strife, which is exactly what resulted. Consequently such strife filled and divided artificial 'nations' like Iraq, with long held simmering feuds and resentments, will not be governed democratically. The Americans have made this abundantly clear in insisting that there will no, definitely NO KURDISH STATE in the north, and no Shi'ite state in the south, which means that eventually Iraq will be ruled by SADDAM Part Two. In the interim the country will be ruled by an American General, for the simple reason that to do otherwise and allow 'democracy' would lead to a Kurdish state in the North, 'iraq' in the middle, and some Shi'ite state in the south, and, democracy be damned, the Americans have already decided that isn't going to happen.

Some back ground history

First, note that the dictatorship calls the country Myanmar, but its still Burma to me, and to Su Kyi.

Since I first wrote the above someone has pointed out to me that Burma does have oil and gas with a Unicol built pipeline, etc., but is ruled by the right sons of bitches who haven't pissed off the Americans like Saddam has, so they can stay. Imagine that. Here I thought the main export of the tyrants was dope, but I guess they have diversified from drugs into oil. Which leads one to ask why Columbia gets nailed with the excuse being that it is 'a war on drugs' and meanwhile those tyrants in Burma are exporting huge quantities of dope no problem... Well, go figure right. They also get armed to the teeth with weapons of medium destruction, being the good customers that they are (they always pay their bills on time), making the ruthless pricks of the world that much harder to get rid of, by the way, and something else to consider when discussing 'getting rid of tyrants'. If you don't arm them to teeth, it would help, now wouldn't it...

As for the artificial nature of mideast 'states' this should be a well known historical fact. Last year Jack Straw, in the British government commented on the problems that this previous colonialist policy has left the modern world to deal with...

British Empire blamed for modern conflicts
The UK Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, has blamed Britain's imperial past for many of the modern political problems, including the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Kashmir dispute.

"A lot of the problems we are having to deal with now - I have to deal with now - are a consequence of our colonial past," he said.

" The Balfour declaration... again, an interesting history for us, but not an honourable one "
Jack Straw

In an interview with a British magazine, the New Statesman, Mr Straw spoke of quite serious mistakes made, especially during the last decades of the empire.

He said the Balfour Declaration of 1917 - in which Britain pledged support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine - and the contradictory assurances given to Palestinians, were not entirely honourable.

Mr Straw blamed many territorial disputes on the illogical borders created by colonial powers.

He mentioned Iraq, the region which was governed by Britain under the mandate of the League of Nations after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I.

"The odd lines for Iraq's borders were drawn by Brits," he said.

One page that deals with this process is found here, followed by a few quotes...

In fact, the British had recognized the importance of the region's oil wealth as early as 1916 when the British secretly signed the 1916 Sykes-Pikot Agreement with France which called for the division of the Ottoman Empire into a patchwork of states that would be ruled by the British and French. The secret agreement was exposed when the Soviet government retrieved a copy in 1921, but a year earlier, the oil factor had been officially recognized in the 1920 San Remo Treaty. In 1928, the Red Line Agreement was signed, which described the sharing of the oil wealth of former Ottoman territories by the British and French colonial governments, and how percentages of future oil production were to be allocated to British, French and American oil companies.

The desire to control the region's oil wealth led to the creation of artificial states such as Kuwait, and states with mixed Kurdish and Arab populations such as in Syria and Iraq. The arbitrary creation of borders and the installation of unpopular pro-colonial leaders served the purpose of dividing the local populations and ensuring the establishment of impotent client-regimes whose administrations were subservient to colonial interests.

In 1945, when Britain was still a major colonial power, US and British coordination and cooperation were highlighted in the following memo: “Our petroleum policy towards the United Kingdom is predicated on a mutual recognition of a very extensive joint interest and upon control, at least for the moment, of the great bulk of the free petroleum resources of the world... US-UK agreement upon the broad, forward-looking pattern for the development and utilisation of petroleum resources under the control of nationals of the two countries is of the highest strategic and commercial importance.” (See: Memorandum by the Acting Chief of the Petroleum Division, 1 June 1945, FRUS, 1945, Vol. VIII, p. 54)

Two years later, the British government expressly noted that the Middle East was “a vital prize for any power interested in world influence or domination”, since control of the world’s oil reserves also meant control of the world economy. (See: Introductory paper on the Middle East by the UK, undated [1947], FRUS, 1947, Vol. V, p. 569.)

Another page on the same subject

British Member of Parliament George Galloway says that a plan for the division of the Middle East is circulating in the corridors of power on both sides of the Atlantic. In a recent interview, Galloway asserted that ministers and eminent figures in the British government are deliberating the partition of the Middle East, harking back to the colonial map-making in the first quarter of the 20th century that established the modern nation-states of the region.

You can also find info in any history book...

A book from Amazon

Yemen's modern history is unique and deserves to be better understood. While the borders of most Middle East states were defined by colonial powers after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, a single Yemeni state was not formed until 1990. In fact, much of Yemen's twentieth-century history was taken up constructing such a state, forged after years of civil war. The book is augmented by illustrations, maps and a detailed chronology.

P.S. Interesting place this Boston Indy site...half the posts are by either one very busy hawk or a bunch of hawks...I suggest that instead of calling for the deaths of teenagers in iraq or the killing of the Iraqi kids, or signing petitions etc. you should just head off and 'die for your country', or even better, move both yourself and your kids to
Baghdad and get some first hand experience in being in a wrecked ruined third world country about to be given the walk over by the most powerful force on earth (they're just that much of a threat) This will also give you all a first hand experience of what it is like to have your baby blown to kingdom come when the American Military Industrial complex rains down hiroshima on Baghdad, and you can also get a real education in cognitive disonance when you watch the American media ignore all that destruction (gotta keep up that myth of 'precision bombing' - just ignore that 'shock and awe' story that was leaked from the Pentagon)
See also:
Add a quick comment
Your name Your email


Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.


Burma baby Burma (english)
11 Mar 2003

Is BURMA building weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION?

You must be from the un_think generation..

wherefore I will not waste my diatribe on your missives.
Birds of a feather? (english)
11 Mar 2003

After Iraq... maybe congress will listen.

But as the funny guy before me said..

what the heck are they doing to destroy my mother earth
with nukes? Nada.. Where the others have a more Hitler
like stance, they want to jihad agaist all of earth and
put it under the rule of Radical Muslims.. look what they
are doing in England.
Your RIGHT (english)
11 Mar 2003

You are RIGHT -- but only in part. It is about oil..
taking the resources out of Mr. Husains hands and puting
it back into the Iraq peoples. He wants to destroy with
it's income.. hopefully who ever gets in will build Iraq with the income and share the wealth with the people of
Iraq. They could have a very nice life style.

Burma.. whats the diff.. if we went in to implament
a democracy.. you'd still scream and holler, it's just
an issue the left can grab on to and use as a recruiting tool to dupe people into joining a commie led group..
and for the "revolution" where you plan to "what?" spill
the blood of those who oppose you.........hmmmmmmmm
sounds like war to me.

I read your manifesto's among other things...

Hey How is Eric Mann? and the weather underground doing
by the way? long time no talk to Eric. I assume he
still doesn't have a life.

I know most who were part of his cambridge ma. collective..
you remember don't cha?