Thread: Prayers to Burma

Bubba, I'll get back to the topic. But have to say that at no point I tried to imply the operations in Europe were a walk in the park for the allies. As you said that would be ignoring the death toll for the whole operation from Normandy to Paris, and the campaign that followed towards Berlin. Not to mention the planning and coordination it took in an operation that it's to this day the biggest example of military cooperation between several countries.

What I was contesting however was the idea Germany would have won the war if USA hadn't participated in Europe (or to simplify, if Overlord hasn't happened or had failed). It's my belief the Soviet Union would have reached as far as Paris for the reasons I brushed on.

I too am a passionate about WWII. I study about the subject from as many sources as possible and as much as I can, for no reason other than I too feel this was a unique time in human history where exceptionally people emerged and took their place in history books and the collective mind of mankind - on all sides of the conflict. Nowhere in what was said did I at any time sought to remove value or importance from any of the participants.

Originally Posted by abachler

You can thank the American attitude that the whole world doesnt speak German or Japanese. You may hate us now, but you thank us that you have that freedom. But of course the european mentaility has always been, what have you done for me lately. For a civilization [sic] that has such a logn history, europeans sure are short sighted.

English only seems "better" because we're used to it. If either German or Japanese was the global language, you'd say the same about those languages. It's all about what you're used to.

America has a large army and sometimes helps out other countries with their army, but it would be foolish to assume that an army makes a country good. America simply is a large country and then of course has a large army. But that doesn't mean it's better than any other place. When America fights against what they call terrorists, Europe fights against pollution and GMOs, and supports green energy and organic farming, while USA rejects any treaties related to decreasing pollution, for marketing reasons I suppose.

Original topic. There is not much to discuss about Burma. It's all wrong over there. There is much discussion about it but I'm afraid there will be no good solution to that problem. Kurdistan, Tibet and Chechnya are basically in the same situation, only that their problem is a little different - they don't have their own country. Though the situation is the same - everything is wrong, but noone can do anything about it.

English only seems "better" because we're used to it. If either German or Japanese was the global language, you'd say the same about those languages. It's all about what you're used to.

The language there was used to imply that all of us would be under the rule of the Germans or the Japanese.

Back to Burma...

I believe the situation is in an impasse until the results from the referendum are known, considered legit and the military junta proves to follow through with the decision, in case it results in democratic elections in the near future.

Myanmar is actually a very good example how Europe can it too be demagogic. In the interest of maintaining good commercial relationships with China, many European countries keep vetoing a sanctions package on Myanmar. All it takes is for one country to say no, for the whole process to not take place. It's shameful that my own country, for instance, advertises respect for human rights but has repeatedly vetoed, along with others.

Myanmar is at a specially weak position as most of its income is through foreign investment (of which a large chunk is European). A ban on investments and commercial sanctions would weaken the regime even further. At the expense of the population, granted. But the Burmese would applaud, I'm pretty sure.

Some anti-sanctions advocates argue China has the capability to replace any of the European foreign investments, basically rendering any measure ineffective. I'm not so sure this is the case, since this is not the best time for China to add yet another file to its already thick dossier on human rights infringement and totalitarian regimes support. But more important, it would serve as a stance; Europe would send the message it does not support the regime and seeks to have it overthrown.

It's possible however that the recent changes in Europe voting process will allow for sanctions to be approved. It will no longer be necessary a consensus across the board. Meanwhile, any country could have unilaterally imposed sanctions on Burma. To my knowledge no European country did, whereas USA has a sanction package in-place for well over 10 years, if i'm not mistaken.

Originally Posted by maxorator

English only seems "better" because we're used to it. If either German or Japanese was the global language, you'd say the same about those languages. It's all about what you're used to.

Actually that statement has nothing to do with the actual language being spoken, rather to do withteh reasons why those languages would be spoken.

Europe fights against pollution and GMOs, and supports green energy and organic farming, while USA rejects any treaties related to decreasing pollution, for marketing reasons I suppose.

It has more to do with remaining a sovereign nation; and europes idea is for the US to make all the sacrifices. Maybe when europe gets its population under control they can stop talking out both sides of their mouth. A continent smaller than 1/3 the US with more than twice the population of the US doesnt have any room to talk about living in harmony with nature.

I thought people like you had all died in Waco, Texas.

Originally Posted by abachler

It has more to do with remaining a sovereign nation; and europes idea is for the US to make all the sacrifices. Maybe when europe gets its population under control they can stop talking out both sides of their mouth. A continent smaller than 1/3 the US with more than twice the population of the US doesnt have any room to talk about living in harmony with nature.

Under control? You mean like tracking control chips which are in US passports? And sacrifices - yes, the number of soldiers who die in Iraq or Afghanistan is really high. But that has nothing to do with Europe and it wasn't our idea to send anyone there.

And you said continent smaller than 1/3 of the US? I live on Eurasia, which is actually more than 2 times larger than North America (5.5 times larger than the US). And how does the population have anything to do with it? And even if you're not that good at geography and meant to compare the US with Europe, then you're wrong. Europe is larger than the US.

Really, "population under control" - what are you trying to say? Population in Europe is not growing much like it is in Africa or like it was in Asia. For example, the population in Estonia is decreasing and that's one important problem here.

Originally Posted by maxorator

Europe is larger than the US.

Originally Posted by wikipedia

Europe Area - 3,930,000 sq mi
Europe Population - 712,000,000

United States Area - 3,794,066 sq mi
United States Population - 304,057,000(2008 estimate) or 281,421,906 (2000 census)

Yes, I mispoke about the area, but you still have twice the population density, so blow it out your pie hole.

Theres no tracking control chip in my passport, you must be mistaken. Or perhaps you mean the biometric smart chip, which isnt in mine either. Those are required by most civilized countries now, and even some in europe. To bad I got my passport 6 months before it went into effect.

Originally Posted by abachler

Yes, I mispoke about the area, but you still have twice the population density, so blow it out your pie hole.

People have lived in Europe for thousands of years. This is the place where hundreds of nations have existed for a long time. This is not a colony, it's the main land. We didn't have the choice to simply select how many shipfuls of people we bring here.

Originally Posted by abachler

Theres no tracking control chip in my passport, you must be mistaken. Or perhaps you mean the biometric smart chip, which isnt in mine either. Those are required by most civilized countries now, and even some in europe.

Yeah, I'm talking about the new passports, maybe you don't have one yet. Though, around here, only a digital image of the person's face and fingerprint pattern is planned to put into the passport in the future.

How come is a tracking chip civilized? Some time ago tracking chip was only seen in horror movies. Now it is reality... in the US...

Originally Posted by citizen

Do you have a source on that?

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,12...1/article.html
Notice the "starting in early 2006"...

Originally Posted by abachler

People have lived in north america for ~15,000 years.

The ones which were killed or put to reservations by the colonists?

Gosh! I can't believe this has derailed so much and I'm still part of it.
Anyways, it's not the size or the population. But polution per population:

http://www.carbonplanet.com/country_emissions