Slashdot Mirror
Satellite Images Used to Monitor Burmese Junta
BurmesePython writes "Human rights groups are using high-resolution satellites images to reveal the activities of Burma's junta as it gets tough with pro-democracy protesters. Apparently 'it should be easy to spot groups of monks because of their distinctive maroon robes'. Like previous efforts to use satellites to monitor the humanitarian crisis in Darfur, the hope is it will prod the UN and other international actors into putting pressure on the Burmese rulers."
What was maroon
Shows as red
In the street
Monks lie dead
- Myanmar Shave
Don't you just love it when technology developed for governments for their "reasons", whatever they may be, are then used to make the World a better place?
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
Anyone know who these human rights groups are, and how they got access to such satellite imaging? Are these groups funded by the UN? Or are they just reporting to the UN on images they somehow got? If the groups are legit, the UN will at least let them plead their cases.
Let the Wookie Win!
It would be nice to see the satellite pictures in question.
But so far all the articles I've seen on this either have no pictures or other pictures (such as the smuggled cellphone images of the marching monks).
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
It's just not right that governments should be under such scrutiny by citizens. It's like they can't do anything without being monitored anymore. Imagine you just were trying to do your job of restoring order and punishing disruptive monks, with Little Brother looking over your shoulder. This slide into an accountable society is terrifying.
In Burma we don't have pro-democracy protesters like in your country, I don't know who told you that.
Why is it that the Americans generally think that the UN is pointless? Because they heard it said on fox or cnn? What exactly is your rationale for thinking that the world would be better off and not worse off without the UN?
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
I'm sure it does all sorts of things, but when you watch it rendered impotent because a Security Council member is good friends with a pack of murderous military rulers, it's hard not to be just a tad cynical about its abilities.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
How about we think the UN is useless because they haven't done a fucking thing to stop the genocide in Darfur, to name one of many world crises.
The UN to murdering governments, "Stop, or we'll stay 'stop' again."
-- Will program for bandwidth
Yes. And toothpaste doesn't cure cancer, so we should ditch it and teeth brushing altogether?
thanks for reminding me.
I feel sorry for anyone who thought that was a reasonable analogy.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
UN does not have an army. It only has the power that the nations that make it up allow it to have, primarily the security council members. If the USA wanted to send the military into Sudan to stop the genocide nobody was stopping it. If the USA wanted to submit a resolution to the UN to form an international force to go in, nobody was stopping it either.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
My rationale is that the UN may serve a valuable purpose by giving world leaders a context in which to debate their differences "peacefully", rather than on the field of battle.
On the other hand, nations big and small, regional powers to global superpowers, have long established that they can and will do whatever they please within their sphere of influence, regardless of what transpires at the UN.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
I'm terrified... I mean, UN sanctions could restrict the flow of English Top 40 CDs and name-brand clothing. That's fearsome.
I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
the UN needs to step up or pull the plug
sure we all want the Burmese leaders to be accountable, we want everyone to be accountable, unless it US
like when nicaragua brought charges against the us to the UN security comission
and SOMEHOW the US was able to veto their own charges
the UN is nothing but a bandaid, that keeps falling off
back in the day we didnt have no old school
Dropping weapons is one thing. Just because they're armed doesn't mean they represent an effective fighting force to take on the Burmese Army. It's a nice thought, but one which would probably only produce far more casualties, mainly on the civilian side of things.
The real solution to this is for Beijing to get off its ass and threaten to pull its support for the Junta and to publicly announce that it will abstain from all Security Council votes regarding the country.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Yeah, but every time we do, you Europeans scream like schoolgirls.'
-- Will program for bandwidth
Yes that is exactly what should happen. We should say "Fuck russia and China's vetoes" and go in there and fuck up their regime Iraq style. Sorry about the swearing but how could you think the UN could do anything with all that in-fighting?!? Oppressors of the world unite it veto doing anything on Burma.
Then again why should we care right? They're not Muslim so it's ok.
Look at Thailand's ex prime minister there is an arrest warrant out on him for stealing hundreds of millions of tax payers money and he is suspected of funding multiple bombings in Bangkok. He is a terrorist but the UK welcomes him with open arms and lets him buy a football club with Thailand's tax payers money. DOUBLE STANDARDS.
Yeah, because the UN's warnings to Saddam were just about to work. Only one more was needed. Get real. Oh, and in case you missed it in the news, the people doing most of the killing are Islamofascist from other middle-eastern countries.
-- Will program for bandwidth
I suppose China could dump all those American dollars, and you would have to call back your armies from everywhere because, well, the US would be broke and completely dipping into a major recession.
I think it's time that Americans started boning up on their history of 4th century Rome. There's some lessons there about overextension and debased currency that some might find educational.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It could be that the US tends to ignore what the UN says anyways. Not like they were right about Iraq or anything. And not like the US actively sanctions another nation ignoring numerous resolutions to return land acquired by force. The UN is useless because the US has shown that if you are powerful enough, you can ignore the rules.
That's exactly what is confusing me. Usually the argument is that the UN doesn't do anything and allows dictators to do whatever they want, and countries to pay no attention to it, and wars to go on, and genocides to happen etc. So the answer is that there should be a bigger, more powerful UN that will invade countries when they misbehave (Sudan, Burma....) and depose countries' leaders (Saddam, Milosevic etc....) and get involved in policing work and catching war criminals inside sovereign countries (Bosnia, Serbia) against their wishes etc etc. Is this not basically an argument for a world government? I'm not saying its a bad thing, just that people who submit this argument would often say they are highly opposed to a world government (for example having powers to interfere in the internal affairs of the US).
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
When was the last time Europe refused to back military intervention? How's that working out for you?
Tomorrow, I may eat another house plant
I doubt I am alone in hoping for a revolution that reinstates the proper, democratically elected government in Burma.
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
I'm English not American and I don't want terrorists/murderers running around free in my country just because they're rich.
We should send all Burma's diplomats packing as they have no respect for human life.
Well, if the US isn't to blame for deaths in iraq, why is the UN to blame for deaths in Darfur?
/sets up soap box
... Which is WHY the world needs a new stateless naval and military/policing force made of individuals released from their nations' "sovereignty" so that these uniformed volunteers cannot be commanded to invade some country at the behest of their own home countries.
//steps down from soap box...
OK, FINALLY, a Slashdot topic to which I can bluntly state (some of) my political stance:
Basically, the maritime police force *I* envision would "deprecate all power-projecting nations' flag-waving navies into nothing more than own-shore coastal patrol units", thereby neutering/spaying or restraining other nations.
I assume the US, Japan, and South Korea, as well as the UK, Australia and some others wont' like it, but tough. 200 years from now we have to have arrived at improvement, and I see one way, one potential way.
Suppose Chinas growing wealth is diverted to funding the construction of STATELESS (read: non-nation-owned) policing ships that pack enough punch to SINK ANY US or other vessel that DARES to sink a stateless, multi-nationally-crewed policing vessel, and then after 25 years of service, these ships are turned over to the last captains home nation. If such an entity could gain favor, it would put the US Coast Guard in charge of US border security and have the USN and similar navies looking toward (but not forward to) retirement or deprecation.
The idea is that NO EXISTING warships are eligible to be in this program. Only new, monk or rabbi or priest-blessed/etc ships constructed for the SOLE PURPOSED of being maritime police to reduce the legitimacy of claims standing-navy nations now have and use as excuses to deliver a punch to people they don't like.
Moreover, such an entity/organization would stand a better chance at demolishing regimes of massive, global waste and redundancy.
Primary missions of the entity would be:
- rescue at-sea storm victims
- rescue victims of piracy or terrorism at sea or near sea
- rescue land-based earthquake/tsunami/flood victims
- use fresh-water over-production capacity of these ships to deliver potable water to lessen water wars
- locate, apprehend and bring to justice any seafaring scofflaws/criminals
- force the surfacing of submarines lurking along coasts where they don't belong, collecting datum, and distributing that tracking data globally to ensure the obsolescence of bad-ass-wannabe subs
- other missions as arrived upon that don't involve: sinking ships, killing crews en-masse, waving national flags, propping up corrupt regimes...
And, these ships I design won't carry nukes, nor will they carry any intercontinental weaponry, just only what it takes to take out retribution against incursion faction ships of nations that can't seem to get it in their heads that if the coast is not theirs, they shouldn't be prowling or lurking or setting down lying in wait.
Humanity needs to move forward. Sure, a lot of national pride might be globally blunted, but humanity deserves better. And, if anything, it *MIGHT* help reduce terrorism aimed at specific countries.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
It's ironic that the "UN is useless" meme is strongest in USA, which stops the UN (Security Council) from doing anything that would interfere with US economic interests when those interests involve murderous rulers friendly to those US economic interests.
Or ignores the UN when USA wants to take part in an illegal invasion. Then whines that the UN isn't doing enough to clean up the mess that USA has made of Iraq.
Kinda like USA sitting out years of WWI and also sitting on its collective hands for > 2 years of WWII. Hitler not a murderous enough bastard for Americans?
Excuse me whilst I gag on "Yer with us our yer with the terrrrrrrsts" as I think back on that.
Why is it that the Americans generally think that the UN is pointless?
Oh, maybe because of little things like Libya being on the UN human rights commission?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
If US sends force into Sudan without UN Security Council's approval, it would become an invasion just like the war on Iraq. If US proposes to send a coalition force into Sudan in the UN Security Council, China and perhaps Russia will surely reject it.
I get your point. But my point is that at least there is a human rights commission. What would be achieved if you did away with it? If you are having a forum where all countries participate then you have to take the bad as well as the good and do the best you can.
BTW, given what's going on in Iraq, USA is not exactly in a position to say who should be on what commission. How about a "Commission for not illegally invading countries who do not present even a slightest threat to you and turning them into wastelands"? Would US get to be on it?
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
I'm not sure if you're serious, or if this is just the best Star Trek joke I've seen on Slashdot in a long time.
Yes, even though the world bank says he actually reduced corruption in the country more than what had previously been done. But I guess he reduced other peoples corruption and added his own. And bombings? Who suspects that? I mean, apart from the people behind the recent military coup of a democratically elected president?
I'm sorry, but you just seem to be someone who has completely swallowed the propaganda of anti-democrats. If you want to live like that, fine, I don't care. I just want you to know that from a bystanders point of view, you appear quite insane. If many people in Thailand shares your views, it would be very bad if the UK sent him back; he might very well be killed by a bunch of lunatics!
at least there is a human rights commission
So what? There are elections in Cuba. Both are examples of form over substance.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
As another commenter points out, the UN in and of itself has zero power. It has no army, no police, no way of enforcing its will at all. The only power it gets is from member nations.
But if the only real power involved is the power of member nations, why don't the member nations just act and cut out the UN "middleman"? This is, after all, historically the way international action has been carried out. European governments trying to cope with Napoleon, the Kaiser, Hitler or (going further back) the Mongol or Ottoman invaders didn't feel a need to create a standing bureaucracy to validate by inscribing (in five official languages) on parchment what they'd already collectively decided to do. They just acted, forming governing councils and agreements as and where they were needed -- and not otherwise.
So why don't we do that nowadays? If Darfur (or Burma) is an international outrage, and most every reasonable person agrees on what should be done, what's to stop the four or five biggest countries from just forming an ad hoc Stop The Burma Slaughter task force, assigning it 25,000 troops and a naval task force, and punching the Go button?
Nothing, really. Except that this silly imaginary "world government" called the UN exists, and because it exists the major countries are off the hook. If you ask why doesn't somebody DO something, everyone can point to the UN as the agency that should be doing the doing.
In short, the UN pretty clearly now exists as a substitute for coordinated, effective international action. It's like how, in Congress or a university, if you want to just quietly kill a proposal for action, you refer it to a committee for a report. The UN exists so that big nations can ignore sticky problems by referring them to the UN for a report...or a vote on "sanctions"...whatever. You can look like you're doing something with actually, well, doing something.
Since Americans have always tended to favor action over talk, they tend to take a dim view of an institution which effectively and efficiently functions to replace action with talk. That's not what the UN is supposed to do, of course, but that's what it actually does. Yet another illustration of the Law of Unintended Consequences: there'd be much more effective international humanitarian action if the UN did not exist.
>Suppose Chinas growing wealth is diverted to funding the construction of STATELESS (read: non-nation-owned) policing ships
It's pirates you mean then is it Matey? We's not needin' no stinking Letters of Marque, we's the Free Company. ARRRR!!
Of course according to FSM Church doctrine, this would take care of global warming.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
That's where you're spot on though. All these fools who don't see how overextending ourselves in two expensive and unwinnable (militarily) conflicts isn't eroding our national security need to get off fox news and go read some history. Islamofascism (whatever that is) might be a threat, but hardly on the scale of cold-war USSR, modern-day china, north korea... or more importantly our domestic education, health-care, social security, and sundry economic problems, to say nothing of global climate change, which threatens to be a bigger threat than all of the above.
I think that too many people want to see us recapture our WW2 era success, but without any of the domestic sacrifice that that conflict required of the average citizen.
This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
OK, I guess this is now the definition of a civil war. Let's hope the new government, if one comes to pass, is better than the old one.
Yes, I'll accept that it is fanciful, even far-fetched. But, if followed through with, it'll put out of business certain activities. Of course, it'll give rise to others, but since the UN has shown it has not jewels for certain policing roles, a whole new entity not under UN or US control probably is in high order.
And, to clarify, it's not that CHINA would "rule the world", threaten Japan, and send the USA into tail-spin by or after kicking it out of Korea (by aiding a reunification along a MUCH faster timetable than the one that currently benefits USA, Japan, & SK's militaries, governments and maybe some of the wealthier, connected types), it's that China would simply JUMPSTART these new hulls, then bring together the global shipyards to have a piece of the construction pie.
Nations wishing to cling on to their now-deprecated "men of war" (men of war, often referred to as "she", affectionately... sheesh, talk about gender-crisis militaries, particularly the US' in which untold uniformed personnel loyal to their country have suffered more than ANY damage the caused to their respective services... but that's a digression...) can sit on the sidelines and be monitored 24x7. Any act of blocking constant monitoring would be tantamount to acting like a Darrel Gatesean stealth police force, which the world definitely does not need.
China's "peaceful rise" as China calls it is not going to cause WW III. Western nations are all to eager and greedy enough to ship work orders there for the cheap labor, but bellyache when up comes the question of what national sovereignty means in a monetarily connected world. Cross-ownership of land, infrastructure and political personnel means nobody WANTS to destroy assets abroad. So, it's time to fast track the ruthless, unabashed, honest teardown of the smoke and mirrors.
The world needs less bullshit warmongering, and needs a nation strong enough (and motivated enough to regain her stature among seafarers... hey, Chinese sailors sailed without suffering scurvy, something the "west" couldn't do back then, around 1420's. The Chinese mapped the continent, and left landmarks, never (abroad) hijacked nations from the locals, and build sea-compatible clock, and were able to accurately ( or to within some 20 miles or so) retrace their steps to any point on the GLOBE, something the Portuguese tried and failed at when facing that challenge. The Chinese ALSO knew how to do this by knowing how to shoot the Northern star and by extrapolating data from observations of various non-North Star-like celestial bodies to compensate.
Sure, China has an ugly, brutal, unshakable past, even present (considering labor laxities, but many are being addressed) set of issues. But, let no one dare say the US or the West are clear, cleaner, or holier than...
The real maritime bitch for the West will be watching China directly or indirectly (via stateless, non-war-seeking proxies) challenge the West to the point that it makes sense and is politically correct to create stateless, internationally-crewed maritime police forces to supplant or deprecate the feckless elements part of the UN as we know it.
And, yes, I am a fan of ST, BSG, and other shows. I AM a former USN sailor, and the USN and FBI for YEARS have known about me and my hobby. I declined an offer/suggestion of the MPA (Main Propulsion Assistant) of my second ship when he suggested I let him write me orders for the Navy drafting school. I didn't want to learn REAL navy/contractor/shipyard secrets or trade secrets that would threaten my hobby. While my shipmates on my first ship played D&D & ST RPGs, I drew my subs and ships.
The world needs MY ships, not existing nations' ships. The illusions and bullshit have to come to their logical conclusions if taxpayers are to start recovering THEIR money.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
www.otanashide.com
http://www.blogger.com/profile/25828027
http://community.webshots.com/user/daetaku
http://community.webshots.com/user/daetaku/profile
www.dreadyacht.com
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Yeah, because the UN's warnings to Saddam were just about to work. Only one more was needed. Get real. Oh, and in case you missed it in the news, the people doing most of the killing are Islamofascist from other middle-eastern countries.
Im glad we got in there and (while simultaneosly taking control of most of Iraq's major oil fields with lightning speed, like a lightning war) were able to confiscate all his "Weapons of Mass Destruction." It is kinda peculiar though, all those "Islamofascists from other middle-eastern countries" were not there to begin with. Alternatively if they were, they were not doing things to secular Saddam and his secular dictatorship. </sarcasm except for the taking oil fields part>
Here's a news flash for you. Hussein didn't have WMDs. He was contained. It wasn't very nice for the IRaqi people, but then again neither is having an utterly corrupt and incompetent security force, a laughably inept government, and Iran about to turn the south into a puppet regime.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I guess there's still one active feed into Burma.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Where's Burma? Isn't that next to Siam?
Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all. -- Thomas J. Kopp
Perhaps you could detail some of its accomplishments. Other, I mean, then giving rights-abusing monsters yet another platform to spout anti-Western crapola.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
That's what they thought during the French Revolution: "Just a bunch of peasants pissed off at the high price of bread."
"kill the criminals"- you mean peaceful marchers deserve to be gunned down by their own government?
Captcha: "discuss"
Just airdrop a couple hundred thousand AK-47s, ammo, and green robes and see just how long the junta lasts.
Have you ever tried arming people? Without detailed instruction, they're probably not going to have any real idea what to do. How to load, fire, unload, and clean their rifles, for instance. In an all-out genocide, it might concievably be of some value to at least give the victims a remote chance to fight back, but short of that point, it's only going to incite crackdowns by the government.
The US is trillions of dollars in debt. By any sensible measure it is already "broke". Personally I prefer the term "bankrupt".
How we know is more important than what we know.
It does make the UN useless wrt. the US, but how does that make it useless for the rest of the world?
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
The UN is required by charter to intervene in ongoing genocides. Unfortunately, none of the UN members actually do anything about it. The UN isn't a bad thing so much as it is pointless--as an institution it accomplishes nothing, although as a forum it is useful.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
This is not a 'pro-democratic' protest.
People are protesting against drastic increase in petrol prices - from 28 cents per litre to 38.
Nothing more.
You know, the same thing could've been said about the Boston Tea Party over the price of stamps. Sometimes it's just the straw that breaks that camel's back that turns discontent over economic matters into full-blown revolution.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Actually the French Revolution didn't start out because the people wanted more rights, but becuase peasants were hungry.
I don't think there are all so many examples of revolutions started with full stomach, if you don't count rebellions against foreign oppressors.
Burma's the name that the last democratic regime in the country called it. Myanmar's what the military junta renamed it in 1989. Burmese opposition groups still call it Burma because they don't recognize the legitimacy of the military regime.
You can read more about it here. Personally, I use Burma. Let a legitimate regime change the English name one ever comes around.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
"We are the strongest nation in the world today. I do not believe we should ever apply that economic, political, or military power unilaterally. If we had followed that rule in Vietnam, we wouldn't have been there! None of our allies supported us; not Japan, not Germany, not Britain or France. If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
Robert McNamara, United States Secretary of Defense, 1961-1968.
But you see that is not the problem with the UN but with the nation state system. Who gets to decide which country is a good citizen (USA in your opinion? Most people on this planet would disagree) and which one is a "rights-abusing monster"?
Here are the alternatives for ya, feel free to add your own:
1. A nation state is supreme, there are no meaningful international bodies: this creates a "might is right" situation that existed for most of the history, resulting in hell of a lot of killing. A situation that UN was created to correct in the first place.
2. There is a body above the nation state that has power to tell the nation state what to do (aka World Government): Listen Burma you better clean up your act or we will invade! OR Listen USA, we the UN have decided that your death penalty and gun laws are barbaric and we order you to change them!
3. An international forum where the sovereign states, good and bad, can come together and work on things in a peaceful way. Perhaps occasionally get the interests of sufficient number of them aligned to the point of doing something useful. This is pretty much what we have today. Not perfect, but what's your alternative?
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
The UN doesn't exist to stop massacres in Africa and Asia (or Europe/America/Australia), or to stop dictators from killing their people. It exists to try and stop the big powers from getting into another huge war, by providing a diplomatic channel which hopefully won't be closed in protest to whatever it was this week. The rest is just feel good crap that is just there for show.
It doesn't matter if the guys with the big guns mess with the little countries. Or the little countries mess with each other. As long the big guns don't get used on each other all is well. Of course as with all bureaucracies it does a whole lot more, but that's all unimportant side issues.
The world hasn't been turned into a nuclear wasteland so so far so good for the UN.
"WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind..." the rest is minor nuisance stuff (stuff like genocide in Africa, human rights abuses by everyone, etc) that simply doesn't matter in comparison with turning the planet into radioactive frozen ball.
Actually, just off the top of my head, I can think of two allies that supported us and sent troops to Vietnam-- Australia and South Korea.
...exactly in the spirit of the Liberator pistol
Then make a second drop after burma/myanmar into rhodesia/zimbabwe.
'bout the same as it did back in 'Nam when Europe and the UN both had our backs. Funny how some things just don't seem to make any difference...
Burma was a British colony. Let the Brits and the Commonwealth take care of the problem by themselves for once. I look forward to watching Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe thugs forces liberating Rangoon under the Union Jack.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
I feel sorry for anyone who thought that was a reasonable analogy. Of course it wasn't a reasonable analogy. There wasn't a single car in it!
P.P.S. I'm doing Science and I'm still alive.
You didn't look hard enough. Burma does have oil and natural gas. And the Chinese, Australia, Canada and the UK are involved. http://english.people.com.cn/200701/16/eng20070116_341829.html http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/company/cns43800.htm
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
The more pressure we can put on the UN to do something, the better.
...but you've mistaken me for someone who gives a shit.
Sincerely,
UN
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
No, they can't just dump all the dollars. Couple problems with that:
1) Most of those funds are in the form for treasury securities (T-Bills/T-notes/T-bonds). Those are promissory notes issued by the US government. Basically it says "We agree to pay you this much money by this date." Fair enough, but the value is only because the government honours that agreement. So far, US securities are one of the safest things you can buy. They have always made good and have plenty of systems in place to make sure that keeps happening. However, they could if they wanted just not honour the notes issued to China. All of a sudden that wealth is gone. China can't sell the notes if the US has made it clear they are worthless, they can't redeem them, the wealth just goes away. This would, of course, have severe consequences to the US government in terms of the ability to issue more note sin the future since people wouldn't trust them as much, but it can be done.
2) China's economy is very dependant on it continuing to grow and the money continuing to come in. A big part of that is that America continues to be willing to buy their goods. Well, if America's economy got fucked up, and if it was well known that the cause was the Chinese, that would all go away. Not only does a depression put people in to a mode where they spend little money especially on non-essentials (which is largely what China produces) but there would be extensive boycotts, and perhaps even governmental sanction, against Chinese products. That happens, all of a sudden China has factories without work, people without jobs, an upcoming middle class facing the return to what is quite literally peasantry. Revolutions have started over that, and they know it.
3) China's dollar is pegged to the US dollar. For the US dollar to rapidly change is for their dollar to rapidly change, unless they un peg it, in which case it will also rapidly change. Strong and weak currencies are relative things and there is no one that is better than the other, each has advantages and disadvantages. However rapid change is problematic as your economy isn't ready for the new dynamic. Rapidly changing the US dollar would not do them well, regardless of how they chose to manage the yuan.
The problem is you cannot look at international economies in the same way you look at something like a personal economy. China and the US dont' have a worker - boss relationship. It is a customer - distributor relationship at the closest, but still different since each controls their own currency, each has real military force such that nobody else can come in and force them to do something different and so on. It's not a case of them holding the stick and the US being in trouble, it is a case of something like economic mutually assured destruction. Yes, they have the theoretical potential to hurt the US economy, however doing so would have severe consequences to them and as such isn't a real possibility.
It is difficult to understand fully since the globalized economy we have today is very new, and since on that scale things don't follow the same rules as the small scales we personally work on. Many people fail to understand this and thus misunderstand the intricacies of the situation.
All empires fall. So let Darwin take the wheel, sit back, and enjoy the ride (or start digging a fallout shelter like me).
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
I don't think you understood my answer. Let me say it in simpler words: Your point is that the UN doesn't do any good, or ok, a specific part of UN, the human rights commission (which by the way doesn't even exist any more). Is that right, that was your point?
My answer is that it is not enough to criticize something, you have to provide an alternative. What is your alternative?
Or let me put it in even simpler terms: (Why is it that I can never get a clear answer to this simple question from UN bashers) Would you give UN more power or less?
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
If that's really what they were. Just a forum for the nations, especially the nations with the bib bombs, to get together and talk things over. Diplomacy is very useful and I think an international venue for that is really useful. However the UN doesn't seem to be that. It seems to want to play at world government and fail. That's the problem here. The UN passes stupid resolutions that it won't do anything about, trys to mandate things it can't, bitches about people not giving it enough recognition (like in the tsunami crisis wanting American soldiers helping out to wear UN blue rather than their national uniforms) and so on. Also the organization is a massive money waster on so many fronts. Have you ever been to a headquarters? If not you should. Pure opulence is the only way to describe it.
I'd be totally fine with a standing international forum that was all about trying to get countries together to work out differences. However the UN as it is now is very broken. It thinks it is a world government and wants to be, but isn't at all effectual at that. Either we need a real world government, or we need an organization that understands that it isn't. Either way, the UN should be thrown out and replaced with something better.
If there's one thing bad 70's TV taught me, it's that a pissed off Buddhist monk is NOT to be trifled with. The Burmese military doesn't know what it's in for.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Perhaps the Europeans remember that during both World Wars the USA was, shall we say, a little tardy in showing up? This may cause them to become anxious because the USA, being a young and inexperienced Republic, tends to shoot dictators first and ask the UN for permission later!
It's all history, man. -anon
I suggest you brush up on France and other European colonial powers in Vietnam, and you might have a clue about their stance.
Let's get one thing straight. I never said the UN didn't do any good (you may have me confused with many other people here). But I do think that states that are as blatantly violating human rights as, say, Syria or Zimbabwe have no business on any human rights council. The mere fact that such states could find their way on it discredits one facet of the UN, as a primary advocate body for human rights in dignity on the international stage.
It fails on many counts, and most importantly on its basic structural arrangement which has, for the most part, allowed dominant states to render it completely useless. The Soviets and the Americans pretty much paralyzed it during the Cold War, and now China and Russia are doing it.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Even with basic weapons training, swords (or in this case guns) do not an army make. If you are going to go head to head against a trained, disciplined military force, you need to be a trained disciplined military force yourself. Look at how a few hundred British soldiers were able to take on a rebel "army" in Sierra Leone.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"We should say "Fuck russia and China's vetoes" and go in there and fuck up their regime Iraq style."
So let me get this straight, you want to attack a country on China's border? I wonder what exactly you would do if China landed troops in Mexico.....or perhaps the Russians in Cuba?
--The above comment assumes you are American, if you are Thai then go for it--
I reserve the write to mangle english.
They are claiming that Jimmy Carter is making things worse in the middle east by at least trying to find a peaceful solution. Most may agree that the true failure here is created by the Bush family.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
cry. This stuff sucks.
sig sig sig siggy sig
For the moment a total blockade against Burma, appropriation of all assets belonging to the Burmese leaders combined with a boycott of the coming Olympic games in China to prove a point is probably the best thing to do.
Too many people thinks that the use of weapons are the best way to resolve a conflict - it may work, but the counterpart may end up dead and his followers may see him as a martyr and be more resilient in their cause. We don't need another Iraq/Vietnam/Afghanistan(soviet).
The use of a veto in the UN seems to be misplaced in this case and there is no reason to keep the ability to place a veto anymore.
The dripping water will eventually hollow the stone.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
It's more expensive, but it's possible to send images.
That's what the Palestinians have been saying for decades. But would the USA agree to drop the veto system? It has used its veto more than the four other permanent members combined since the end of the cold war.
I think you underestimate the brutality of this regime.
most of the heroin that comes into Australia is Burmese origin. The Karen rebels try to interrupt the supply, so as to weaken the Juntas trade, but the Junta retalliate by kidnapping Karen children and have them walk in front of the soldiers as human minesweepers.
"Laugh while you can a-monkey boy!" - Dr Emilio Lizardo
But put what kind of pressure? All they've talked about so far is sanctions, but what good will that do?
Sanctions won't hurt the Burmese government, they will still sell their natural gas and buy weapons on the black market. It won't be the government that suffers, it will be the ordinary people on the street who are already suffering.
The Burmese government is not above forcing people to work for free, or allowing people to starve
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
No, doing something is not better than doing nothing. They are perfectly equal. Its the results that matter, only the results. Doing something to help someone might make you feel better, but not doing something to help that someone might actually be better for him.
Various sources talk about 18 villages that have "disappeared" on these Satellite images and 30 new ones around a Military Base as "proof" for forced relocations.
How can this be proof of anything? Just a reminder, Myanmar has a population of a little less than 50 million people. The only pictures I've seen (here and here) show villages of maybe five houses in the middle of a wood, so these 18 villages could've simply been abandoned. Sources speak of burnt down ruins... but is it really that far fetched to assume there might be accidental fires involved? After all Myanmar population is said to live a quite backward style of living (and that being the Military Regimes fault).
If the pictures that are public are the best evidence they have then I'd be highly critical of using them as a base for any kind of punishment (the fact aside that sanctions won't hurt anyone than the population).
Commodore64_love: I don't comprehend people who're so frightened of death that they'll bankrupt themselves to stay alive
I'm not really in the mood to argue who can and can't do what in terms of China and the USA and economic competition but... seriously? you think number 1 is in the cards? really? even remotely in the scope of possibility?
If the USA decided to stop honouring ANY of it's securities it would be a greater economic disaster than if China decided to dump all it's USD assets. You're talking about effectively telling the world economic markets that every USD asset is worthless and 100% untrustworthy, trading in US issued securities would stop instantly and would really only start again when the US government either went so far into the shitter that the rest of the world forgave its debt (and that's what those securities are, debt owed by the US) or the US gov't decided to start honouring its securities again.
The US accounts are in seemingly permanent deficit to just about everybody in the world, it's only though the continued demand for USD (even now - mostly to buy oil with) that it's economy is ok. Dollars are the major export of the unitied states (the US is certainly not manufacturing much for export) which allow all that import of shiny Chinese manufactured trinkets.
l4h
Yeah, making them effectively worthless, and dropping a lot of the value that is propping up the Yuan. Oh but they could make it all back on their industrial strength.... except as you pointed out, they just plunged their largest consumer market into recession.
They could simply peg the Yuan against the Euro and call it a day. It would hurt them badly, but they've been through worse in a recent era and they have a system in place to control the situation if an economic crisis did occur (Remember the Cultural Revolution?)
The US on the other hand would be left with little money or factories to restart their economy and due to the political corruption we face, I doubt we would be able recover as quickly.
That said... China has one thing the US doesn't have, and that is patience. Its current form of manifest destiny does itself as a world power and to have a military more powerful military (and more high tech) than the US plus a space program to boot. But they don't see a need to destroy their economy in an arms race and have planned to match it with their growth. For example by 2050 their goal is to have a bigger navy and more aircraft carriers than the US. As they have been all of history, they are very inward looking and don't see the need to expand except say the Taiwan issue so unless they are provoked they would never overtly do something against us.
However... Attacking Iran (which is one of their major foreign oil suppliers) would most likely be a catalyst for such a thing.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
1) Most of those funds are in the form for treasury securities (T-Bills/T-notes/T-bonds). Those are promissory notes issued by the US government. Basically it says "We agree to pay you this much money by this date." Fair enough, but the value is only because the government honours that agreement. So far, US securities are one of the safest things you can buy. They have always made good and have plenty of systems in place to make sure that keeps happening. However, they could if they wanted just not honour the notes issued to China. All of a sudden that wealth is gone. China can't sell the notes if the US has made it clear they are worthless, they can't redeem them, the wealth just goes away. This would, of course, have severe consequences to the US government in terms of the ability to issue more note sin the future since people wouldn't trust them as much, but it can be done.
If the US did such a thing then China would see that as an act of War. At that moment in time people under a nationalist sentiment would most likley volunteer to work in the factories for basically free and everyone else join the military. That said I would really doubt China would up and revoke its current debt because it would rather have economic stability and most Chinese believe they can beat the US on the economic front rather a pure military one.
Even if the US did collapse economically, their are other people to sell products to like Europe, Russia, India, and South America. It wouldn't be pleasant for China but they would survive. They have after all lived through things like the Cultural Revolution.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
They might, but that doesn't really do them any good. The US and China, you might notice, are separated by a vast expanse of water. The US has an extremely large and capable navy, in particular attack subs that can sink troop transports, China does not. A large amount of soldiers and tanks sounds impressive, but for that to do any good you must be able to get them to the field of battle. That's hard when you are talking about the country who has the largest navy, most projection of forces, and best surveillance.
That leaves nuclear as the only viable option of attack. Here again you have a MAD situation. Yes, China could launch missiles at the US. However if they did, their entire country would be destroyed in response. Us policy on the matter is quite clear and the capabilities are unquestionable.
I am not as sure as you seem to be that they wouldn't do it.
It has to do a lot with pride, which they have lots of.. And it's not like they have to worry about being re-elected, you know.
Some grandparent made some(not quite new, but still interesting) comments about the similarities between (the) late empire of Rome and the US.
I have some of my own:
* I mean, towards the end, the romans started marrying horses...The POTUS is going for a cowboy image...
* They had a lot of problems with poisoning coming from pipes leaking lead into the water..The US is even worse off, i hear that in some parts, it is flying through the air..
Baboons are cute.
The US and China, you might notice, are separated by a vast expanse of water.
Oh, I really doubt China would invade the USA unless really provoked. However, Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan are there most likley targets all withing fighter/short missile range of Chinese soil. Not to mention China does border Afghanistan.
If push really came to shove, Russia might have allied with China and the focal point would be controlling the Bering Strait to cross over into Alaska.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
That would be because the UN doesn't do everything that the USA wants it to.
Clearly it must be pointless.
Sanctions only work against governments that give a rat's ass about their citizens. The elite never feel a thing, unless you ferret-out and deliberately target just those resources available only to the elite.
The ruling class of the 'People's Republic' of North Korea didn't even blink when most of their populace were starving; it was only when it became difficult to get access to luxury items for their personal use that they came back to the negotiating table.
.
Regards;
This is politics.slashdot.org, not apple.slashdot.org, so BMW's don't enter into the discussion at ALL.
I suppose China could dump all those American dollars
The US is a critical trading partner of China. China would shitcan their own economy by playing those sorts of games.
(bombing small European countries in the mid-90s etc.) greatly contributed to 9/11,
You know, you're probably right. When the US got involved in the conflict in the balkans and began bombing the Christian Serbs in defense of the Islamic people of the region, it probably just plain PISSED OFF people like Osama Bin Laden.
. . . for this sort of thing.
In any army, just like in any populace, you have the good, the bad, and the ugly. Distill-out the baddest of the bad, concentrate them into a single military unit ruled with an iron hand, and you have a Sondergruppe, or 'special group,' which you use for those jobs the regular army Joes would flat-out rebel over if ordered to do.
Sondergruppen have been around for quite awhile; they ran the death camps for the Nazis, cleaned-up Tiananmen Square for the Red Chinese, and are now deployed in Rangoon. The fact that the 66th, a regular army unit, is involved at all is an indicator that the Sondergruppen may be stretched too thin to handle the problem by themselves. A horrible idea, to supplement Sondergruppen with normal troops; regulars would sooner gun them down than have anything to do with that sort.
If they are, however, and if this military rebellion spreads, we could soon be looking at a full-blown civil war in Burma.
P.S.: Unless they're sophisticated enough to employ troposcatter or other techniques to mask their transmission site, any ham that keyed-up would either be incredibly stupid, or incredibly brave. Either way, they wouldn't live long if the junta took a dislike to them.
.
Regards;
I take it you didn't bother to research the capabilities and limitations of spysats before you started your rant?
If you wish to make a valid point in the future, may I suggest you at least try to have at least a passing familiarity with the topic? And by that, I mean more than just sitting in a theater, watching some silly piece of Hollywood tripe.
.
Regards;
There was plenty of the same thing happening in Cambodia not-all that long ago, and not-all that far away, either.
They may be indeed be jumping to conclusions, but after the monstrosities of the Khmer Rouge http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/Khymer+Rouge, perhaps they're a bit jumpy.
.
Regards;
Think Somalia. Just before the old despot fell, he opened the armories to any yahoo who came shuffling in and parroted the right slogans.
Flooding Burma with uncontrolled military hardware would very likely produce the same result.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE3DE163DF93AA35751C1A964958260&n=Top%2FReference%2FTimes%20Topics%2FSubjects%2FF%2FFirearms
Regards;
In this case it's Russia and China, but more often that not it is the US. Since 1980 the US has used the Veto more times than any other country. Even the threat of Veto (known as the silent Veto) is enough to kill off proposals. Nobody would even bother trying to officially reprimand Saudi Arabia for being oppressive etc, because the US would just Veto it. It was the use of silent Vetoes by the US and France that made the UN completely impotent over Rwanda, yet the UN gets the blame rather than the individual countries responsible. The structure of the Security council is the complete antithesis of democracy. You have 5 permanent members i.e. dictators that can Veto the opinion of the entire world.
I am wondering why human rights groups do not use UAV's to try and monitor abuses. They are small and could be launched anonymously from bordering countries.
They could even be inexpensive enough to not bother with recovery. This could make it more difficult for authorities to trace the aircraft back to the launch site or originating country.
Strangely, I value detailed analysis and facts over sensationalism and boogeymen.
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/77
Please note that there have been presidential-level national security briefings echoing this exact sentiment from the dirty-hippy-fest also known as the U.S. Intelligence community,
This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
"Then again why should we care right? They're not Muslim so it's ok" Sorry, I think you forgot to ask one small question. How much oil does Burma have exactly? Now, why should the US care again? "Look at Thailand's ex prime minister there is an arrest warrant out on him for stealing hundreds of millions of tax payers money and he is suspected of funding multiple bombings in Bangkok" Er, yeah, but again. How much crude oil does Thailand have? You see the pattern now? Or do you really still think Iraq was about freedom, democracy or reducing terrorism?
Actually, this will happen.
One need to be careful of dismissing sovereignty with even the slightest prejudice. Sovereighty is the reason people can write things critical of other regimes and be protected from those regimes. If not, thugs from overseas could just waltz into the lands of such authors and dispatch the same. For every author critical of some policy somewhere there is at least one thug looking to silence the same.
Once the world police had accomplished that mission, there will be a need for a new enemy. Human behavior can be changed but not human nature. Who will that new enemy be? More likely than not it will be Christians and Jews. When their sacred things are caricatured, there are no bloody protests or war cries in the streets. These are the people that gave mankind a wound on the body called circumcision and a wound on the the soul called conscience. Conscience is a tax on any economy and such is counterproductive in a prospering global society. Only when these are eliminated shall there be world peace. [wink-wink]
Xenophobia is the what the politically correct call the natural instinct of self-preservation.
Submission as evidence constitutes plaintiff and/or prosecutorial misconduct.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Well... If they are taking pictures for the 'public' to keep up on the ongoings, where are the pictures? Or is this some way for these satellite image companies to advertise the service?
Jeruvy
So, what would you prefer, cutters & cruisers christened by wives of heads of departments of countries that INVITE or exacerbate the need for "combatants" as jobs-creation programs and ever-continual shift of wealth to just a FEW countries and individuals?
Sheesh. The only reason I'm coming off as "whackier than a pissed fruitbat" is because currently people REFUSE to opt for massive changes in the status quo. I'm not suggesting revolution, but attitude and mindset change.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Hmmm, Anti-Christ?
Well, that seems to me we should all just throw in the towel and let Christianity take over. Then, Hell will continue to have a legitimate existence. After all, life must be BORING in heaven: My queen to your king, level 3, God... Or, maybe being sent down as a guardian angel is the last meaningful purpose of heaven?
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"