Myanmar: How many more children have to die ?

[Social Media]

 

When its helicopter gunships and fighter jets rained fire and bombs on a village celebration last Tuesday, Myanmar’s military junta insisted it was targeting “terrorists.”

But among those killed that day – in what was the deadliest attack by junta forces on civilians since it seized power two years ago – were dozens of women and children, the youngest just six months old.

CNN spoke with half a dozen eyewitnesses and survivors who said those targeted in Pazigyi Village, part of a self-governed district in the central Sagaing region, were unarmed civilians enjoying a community celebration.

The April 11 attack killed 186 villagers, among them 40 under the age of 18, according to Aung Myo Min, human rights minister for the National Unity Government (NUG), Myanmar’s shadow administration of ousted lawmakers.

Families had come from surrounding villages to Pazigyi to enjoy breakfast at the event, a social gathering for the opening of a public administration hall. About 300 people had gathered, one eyewitness said. Children were eating rice and playing. People were drinking tea and chatting.

[thaibeachlovers]

Significant to me that while the west is pouring billions into a European war, they apparently give no support to the unfortunate people that oppose a vile regime.

Even a few anti air missiles of the sort they gave the Afghans against the Russians would help.

Is it because they are Asian that they get no assistance?

[heybruce]

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Significant to me that while the west is pouring billions into a European war, they apparently give no support to the unfortunate people that oppose a vile regime.

Even a few anti air missiles of the sort they gave the Afghans against the Russians would help.

Is it because they are Asian that they get no assistance?

More likely the problem is that the West isn't convince the opposing parties can ally themselves into a viable alternative to the dictatorship, the countries surrounding Myanmar don't want to get involved or are autocracies themselves, and China is so opposed to a successful revolution leading to a democracy in Myanmar that it would use any sign of western involvement as an excuse to support the dictatorship in any way necessary to prevent that from happening.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 4/22/2023 at 12:43 PM, heybruce said:

More likely the problem is that the West isn't convince the opposing parties can ally themselves into a viable alternative to the dictatorship, the countries surrounding Myanmar don't want to get involved or are autocracies themselves, and China is so opposed to a successful revolution leading to a democracy in Myanmar that it would use any sign of western involvement as an excuse to support the dictatorship in any way necessary to prevent that from happening.

So the west prefers to close it's eyes and allow it to happen while doing nothing to assist, same time as pouring billions into a war in which Europeans are involved.

Why is it right in Europe and wrong in Asia?

 

Shame on the west.

[jak2002003]

14 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

So the west prefers to close it's eyes and allow it to happen while doing nothing to assist, same time as pouring billions into a war in which Europeans are involved.

Why is it right in Europe and wrong in Asia?

 

Shame on the west.

The previous poster just explained why to you. 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

4 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

The previous poster just explained why to you. 

 

 

That's no excuse for doing nothing.

[Mac Mickmanus]

On 4/22/2023 at 7:31 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

 

Even a few anti air missiles of the sort they gave the Afghans against the Russians would help.

 

And those Afghans who we armed   were the Mujahedeen led by a nice chap called Osama Bin Laden .

   

[jak2002003]

10 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

That's no excuse for doing nothing.

It's not an excuse.  

 

It's the reason. 

 

It's clearly immoral and wrong, but what can we do about that?

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

5 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

It's not an excuse.  

 

It's the reason. 

 

It's clearly immoral and wrong, but what can we do about that?

 

 

Ourselves- sod all.

 

Just shows what a bunch of hypocrites western governments are when they go on about freedom from tyranny.

[heybruce]

55 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

So the west prefers to close it's eyes and allow it to happen while doing nothing to assist, same time as pouring billions into a war in which Europeans are involved.

Why is it right in Europe and wrong in Asia?

 

Shame on the west.

The biggest difference is that there is a credible, intact, popular government in Ukraine the west can support.  Myanmar lacks that.

[Mac Mickmanus]

59 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

So the west prefers to close it's eyes and allow it to happen while doing nothing to assist, same time as pouring billions into a war in which Europeans are involved.

Why is it right in Europe and wrong in Asia?

 

Shame on the west.

Ukraine is right on Europes doorstep and Russian expansion effects Europe .

    That isnt the case with Myanmar 

[heybruce]

37 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

That's no excuse for doing nothing.

What do you suggest the west do in Myanmar?

 

19 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Ourselves- sod all.

 

Just shows what a bunch of hypocrites western governments are when they go on about freedom from tyranny.

It shows that the west has learned that in the absence of a credible alternative government it is best to stay uninvolved. 

 

Or do you think the west should ship arms to all the different rebel armies and see who emerges the winner in the bloody chaos that follows?

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, heybruce said:

The biggest difference is that there is a credible, intact, popular government in Ukraine the west can support.  Myanmar lacks that.

Shouldn't stop them supplying ground to air missiles to stop the junta's airforce bombing them with impunity.

I'm not asking for the west to regime change, just give the opposition a chance to survive.

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Ukraine is right on Europes doorstep and Russian expansion effects Europe .

    That isnt the case with Myanmar 

Didn't make a difference with Vietnam, did it?

Going by what you wrote, it's far away from America, so why are they involved?

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, heybruce said:

What do you suggest the west do in Myanmar?

 

It shows that the west has learned that in the absence of a credible alternative government it is best to stay uninvolved. 

 

Or do you think the west should ship arms to all the different rebel armies and see who emerges the winner in the bloody chaos that follows?

IMO they should do what they did in Afghanistan and give them the weapons they need to protect themselves. That doesn't include offensive weapons like tanks or F16s.

[tonbridgebrit]

On 4/22/2023 at 8:31 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

Significant to me that while the west is pouring billions into a European war, they apparently give no support to the unfortunate people that oppose a vile regime.

Even a few anti air missiles of the sort they gave the Afghans against the Russians would help.

Is it because they are Asian that they get no assistance?

You have to bear in mind that the West gets involved in wars for several reasons.  And, spreading freedom and democracy is not actually one of the main reasons. It's never the case that the one and only reason was spreading freedom and democracy.

Why prop up Ukraine ?  Simple, Russia is attacking Ukraine, and supplying Ukraine with weapons is in-directly fighting against Russia. It's the same as a proxy war, and proxy wars constantly happened between the USA and Russia during the Cold War, and today as well.

Afghanistan ?  Again, Russia was in Afghanistan. Washington's attitude was "if you're fighting against Russia, we'ill give you weapons, we don't care who you are".  Hence, weapons for 'Islamic fundamentalists' .

We can carry on, Syria.  The Syrian government was heavily backed by Russia.  The rebellion or uprising happened in big way, Washington backed the rebels. We do realise who the rebels, or who some of the rebels, actually were, don't we ?


And now we see Myanmar. Myanmar is not the same as Syria or Afghanistan (Afghanistan in the 1980s) .  The Myanmar regime is not heavily backed by Russia or China.  If Russia or China was involved in backing the Myanmar regime, and if a genuine rebellion (as in a rebellion that is big enough) was happening, then, then Washington would back the rebels.

And it doesn't matter if the rebels are united or not. It doesn't matter if the rebels can form a credible government afterwards.
Bit like Syria and Libya. And by the way, in the 1980s, backing the anti-Russia rebels in Afghanistan, who was the credible government waiting to be in power, once the rebellion was successful ?  Yes, a bunch of so-called Islamic Fundamentalists.    ????

[thaibeachlovers]

44 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

You have to bear in mind that the West gets involved in wars for several reasons.  And, spreading freedom and democracy is not actually one of the main reasons. It's never the case that the one and only reason was spreading freedom and democracy.

Why prop up Ukraine ?  Simple, Russia is attacking Ukraine, and supplying Ukraine with weapons is in-directly fighting against Russia. It's the same as a proxy war, and proxy wars constantly happened between the USA and Russia during the Cold War, and today as well.

Afghanistan ?  Again, Russia was in Afghanistan. Washington's attitude was "if you're fighting against Russia, we'ill give you weapons, we don't care who you are".  Hence, weapons for 'Islamic fundamentalists' .

We can carry on, Syria.  The Syrian government was heavily backed by Russia.  The rebellion or uprising happened in big way, Washington backed the rebels. We do realise who the rebels, or who some of the rebels, actually were, don't we ?


And now we see Myanmar. Myanmar is not the same as Syria or Afghanistan (Afghanistan in the 1980s) .  The Myanmar regime is not heavily backed by Russia or China.  If Russia or China was involved in backing the Myanmar regime, and if a genuine rebellion (as in a rebellion that is big enough) was happening, then, then Washington would back the rebels.

And it doesn't matter if the rebels are united or not. It doesn't matter if the rebels can form a credible government afterwards.
Bit like Syria and Libya. And by the way, in the 1980s, backing the anti-Russia rebels in Afghanistan, who was the credible government waiting to be in power, once the rebellion was successful ?  Yes, a bunch of so-called Islamic Fundamentalists.    ????

I'm not asking that the west get involved in the situation more than supplying weapons to protect themselves. They don't even have to do so openly, as was done with the Contras.

[thaibeachlovers]

21 minutes ago, Sticky Rice Balls said:

USA-How many more kids have to die......Making America Great Again!!!  one kid at a time..or quicker with an AK-15

Topic isn't the US.

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Shouldn't stop them supplying ground to air missiles to stop the junta's airforce bombing them with impunity.

I'm not asking for the west to regime change, just give the opposition a chance to survive.

How do you propose getting these weapons to Myanmar?  Who in Myanmar should the west deal with?  What do you think China will do when it learns the west is supplying anti-government armed groups in Myanmar?  Remember, China is fine with a corrupt, transactional military government in Myanmar.  China wouldn't like to share a long border with a successful democracy.

 

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO they should do what they did in Afghanistan and give them the weapons they need to protect themselves. That doesn't include offensive weapons like tanks or F16s.

And how did Afghanistan turn out?

[GroveHillWanderer]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm not asking that the west get involved in the situation more than supplying weapons to protect themselves. They don't even have to do so openly, as was done with the Contras.

Explain to us the logistics of how and to whom the West would deliver anti-aircraft weapons that could be used to protect disparate groups of villagers scattered throughout the entire country of Myanmar.

[tonbridgebrit]

4 hours ago, heybruce said:

How do you propose getting these weapons to Myanmar?  Who in Myanmar should the west deal with?  What do you think China will do when it learns the west is supplying anti-government armed groups in Myanmar?  Remember, China is fine with a corrupt, transactional military government in Myanmar.  China wouldn't like to share a long border with a successful democracy.

 

And how did Afghanistan turn out?

"What do you think China will do when it learns the west is supplying anti-government armed groups in Myanmar?  "
Simple, Beijing will respond by pouring military and non-military aid to the regime in Myanmar. And once the fighting is over, Beijing will feel that Myanmar owes China a debt. Yes, China has been attempting to get contracts for infra-structure projects in Myanmar for years. Bit like China building a railway line in Thailand and Laos.

"Remember, China is fine with a corrupt, transactional military government in Myanmar. "   This comment's hypocrisy is laughable.   ????
I don't sit here and say to you, to get properly informed. I simply say that, the US government has had no problems dealing with (being allied to, or regarding whatever countrty as a client state, trade deals, etc) regimes that were not democratic (corrupt, dictatorships, lack of human rights, lack of freedom of media, etc, etc) for decades now.  Hence, your silly hypocrisy.


And as for Afghanistan, are we talking Afghanistan Part One, or Afghanistan Part Two ?
Part One. Russia backed a government in Kabul, and had it's own soldiers in Afghanistan. Washington responded by arming the 'rebels'.  Rebels fought for a decade, rebels then took over the country. Yes, be careful when you back certain people, guys you support might be more dangerous than Russia itself. Would it have been better to let Russia take Afghanistan ?
Part Two. USA had to go to Afghanistan because of 9/11, yes.  But, two decades of war and presence of US soldiers. End up with Taliban back in charge, back to square one. How many billions of dollars of tax-payers money was spent ? It was a lot. And do most people in Afghanistan really hate the Taliban ?

The important point is this. Myanmar is not backed by Russia, or China. Hence, no need to kick out Russia or China in Myanmar. As far as Washington is concerned, let the regime in Myanmar do it's stuff. No need to spend even a tiny bit of money on arms, and giving it to the rebels.

[heybruce]

57 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

"What do you think China will do when it learns the west is supplying anti-government armed groups in Myanmar?  "
Simple, Beijing will respond by pouring military and non-military aid to the regime in Myanmar. And once the fighting is over, Beijing will feel that Myanmar owes China a debt. Yes, China has been attempting to get contracts for infra-structure projects in Myanmar for years. Bit like China building a railway line in Thailand and Laos.

"Remember, China is fine with a corrupt, transactional military government in Myanmar. "   This comment's hypocrisy is laughable.   ????
I don't sit here and say to you, to get properly informed. I simply say that, the US government has had no problems dealing with (being allied to, or regarding whatever countrty as a client state, trade deals, etc) regimes that were not democratic (corrupt, dictatorships, lack of human rights, lack of freedom of media, etc, etc) for decades now.  Hence, your silly hypocrisy.


And as for Afghanistan, are we talking Afghanistan Part One, or Afghanistan Part Two ?
Part One. Russia backed a government in Kabul, and had it's own soldiers in Afghanistan. Washington responded by arming the 'rebels'.  Rebels fought for a decade, rebels then took over the country. Yes, be careful when you back certain people, guys you support might be more dangerous than Russia itself. Would it have been better to let Russia take Afghanistan ?
Part Two. USA had to go to Afghanistan because of 9/11, yes.  But, two decades of war and presence of US soldiers. End up with Taliban back in charge, back to square one. How many billions of dollars of tax-payers money was spent ? It was a lot. And do most people in Afghanistan really hate the Taliban ?

The important point is this. Myanmar is not backed by Russia, or China. Hence, no need to kick out Russia or China in Myanmar. As far as Washington is concerned, let the regime in Myanmar do it's stuff. No need to spend even a tiny bit of money on arms, and giving it to the rebels.

I agree with your first paragraph, that was one of the points of my post.

 

Your second paragraph assumes too much about my post.  I never stated that the US or any other government does not enter into transactional relations with undemocratic countries.

 

I think you can pick any part of Afghanistan's history and conclude that the country has been largely ungovernable.  Until the Bamar majority and the ethnic minorities can agree on a workable system of government Myanmar may also prove to be ungovernable.  That is why arming one side without having a realistic end-game in mind is foolish.

[Berkshire]

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm not asking that the west get involved in the situation more than supplying weapons to protect themselves. They don't even have to do so openly, as was done with the Contras.

While I agree with your sentiments, there's not much that an outsider can do.  It's basically a civil war....although rather one-sided.  Just look at Sudan.  Those people are blowing each other's brains out and foreign countries just want to get their people out.  Not quite like Ukraine where Russia invaded a sovereign country.  I do believe that the leadership of Myanmar are just pure evil.  Their government shouldn't even be recognized by other governments....but what are you going to do. 

[billd766]

On 4/23/2023 at 10:52 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

So the west prefers to close it's eyes and allow it to happen while doing nothing to assist, same time as pouring billions into a war in which Europeans are involved.

Why is it right in Europe and wrong in Asia?

 

Shame on the west.

Why shame on the west?

 

The shame is on ASEAN who sit and do nothing but talk whilst Myanmar indiscriminately kills its own men women and children.

 

The Tatmadaw only understand violence whilst the rest of ASEAN abhor. it.

 

IMHO the only way to fix the problem is for a combined ASEAN force to invade Myanmar, destroy the Tatmadaw and publicly execute ALL the Tatmadaw leadership down to major or captain level.

 

This won't happen of course as there are too many ASEAN countries in a similar position.

 

 

On 4/23/2023 at 11:12 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

That's no excuse for doing nothing.

It is an ASEAN problem and not a western problem.

 

Myanmar has the Bay of Bengal and the Andaman Sea as its coastline. It is bounded by Bangladesh, Thailand, Laos and China.

 

Only Bangladesh may help the west, and there is no 100% guarantee of that. There is no other way for the west to enter Myanmar.

 

In addition Myanmar is supported by both Russia and China, and there is no way that they would allow any western support to the Myanmar "rebels".

 

 

 

 

[simon43]

On 4/23/2023 at 11:50 AM, heybruce said:

The biggest difference is that there is a credible, intact, popular government in Ukraine the west can support.  Myanmar lacks that.

There is a credible and popular government in Myanmar.  It is the NLD, voted into power by the vast majority of the voters, thrown out of power by the military junta and now operating as the National Unity Government (NUG).  Did you know that according to independent sources, the junta control no more than 17% of the country?

 

We certainly won't see any intervention by western countries.  The power that can remove the illegal junta is China, who has strong interests in Myanmar.  IMHO, the NUG should warn China that unless it ceases its support for the junta, it will see its oil pipelines regularly blown up.  Only the 'people' can protect those pipelines from damage, not the junta.

 

 

[heybruce]

37 minutes ago, simon43 said:

There is a credible and popular government in Myanmar.  It is the NLD, voted into power by the vast majority of the voters, thrown out of power by the military junta and now operating as the National Unity Government (NUG).  Did you know that according to independent sources, the junta control no more than 17% of the country?

 

We certainly won't see any intervention by western countries.  The power that can remove the illegal junta is China, who has strong interests in Myanmar.  IMHO, the NUG should warn China that unless it ceases its support for the junta, it will see its oil pipelines regularly blown up.  Only the 'people' can protect those pipelines from damage, not the junta.

I posted: "there is a credible, intact, popular government in Ukraine the west can support.  Myanmar lacks that."

 

The NLD is popular, but it's stretch to say it is credible or intact.  It was in power only while the Tatmadaw tolerated it, and it was never fully in control of the country.  In hindsight the failure of the NLD to do more to accommodate the ethnic groups and incorporate them into the government was a serious mistake.

 

I am not unsympathetic, I have friends from Myanmar.  I would love to see the NUG reach an agreement and form an alliance with the major ethnic states and armies for coordinated military action against the dictatorship.  I don't think this can happen unless they also agree on some form of post-conflict government that accommodates the key concerns of the ethnic groups. 

 

If such agreements can be reached I would be an enthusiastic supporter of aid of any sort that would end the military dictatorship and give Myanmar back to the Myanmar people.  Until there is such a credible alliance against the dictatorship I think any military aid would just be adding fuel to the fire.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 4/24/2023 at 1:11 PM, GroveHillWanderer said:

Explain to us the logistics of how and to whom the West would deliver anti-aircraft weapons that could be used to protect disparate groups of villagers scattered throughout the entire country of Myanmar.

They already know how to do that from when they supplied anti air missiles to villagers in Afghanistan.

 

BTW it's not the "entire country of Burma" but the areas of the separatist tribes just across the river from Thailand.

[thaibeachlovers]

18 hours ago, billd766 said:

In addition Myanmar is supported by both Russia and China, and there is no way that they would allow any western support to the Myanmar "rebels".

Hmmmm.

The west ( America ) supported the Afghan rebels and Russia couldn't stop that.

Why is Burma any different?

They could if they really wanted to, but obviously they don't.

[thaibeachlovers]

19 hours ago, Berkshire said:

While I agree with your sentiments, there's not much that an outsider can do.  It's basically a civil war....although rather one-sided.  Just look at Sudan.  Those people are blowing each other's brains out and foreign countries just want to get their people out.  Not quite like Ukraine where Russia invaded a sovereign country.  I do believe that the leadership of Myanmar are just pure evil.  Their government shouldn't even be recognized by other governments....but what are you going to do. 

The hill tribes would disagree that they are part of Burma, given they have been fighting against the Burmese government for a very long time, so IMO not a civil war.

[heybruce]

17 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Hmmmm.

The west ( America ) supported the Afghan rebels and Russia couldn't stop that.

Why is Burma any different?

They could if they really wanted to, but obviously they don't.

Do you want Myanmar to be like Afghanistan?