Welcome to PatsFans.com

Thousands of monks massacred in Burma, dumped in Jungle

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by maverick4, Oct 1, 2007.

  1. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    If this administration truly cared about freedom and democracy, it would be using all its resources to help Burma (now called Myanmar) pull off a revolution and regime change. However, it doesn't have oil so we could care less, proving that 'spreading freedom' is only an empty slogan:
    -----

    "Thousands of protesters are dead and the bodies of hundreds of executed monks have been dumped in the jungle, a former intelligence officer for Burma's ruling junta has revealed.

    The most senior official to defect so far, Hla Win, said: "Many more people have been killed in recent days than you've heard about. The bodies can be counted in several thousand."

    Mr Win, who spoke out as a Swedish diplomat predicted that the revolt has failed, said he fled when he was ordered to take part in a massacre of holy men. He has now reached the border with Thailand. "

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=484903
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2007
  2. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0



    Yeah, and a generation ago all the "peace lovers" screamed and demonstrated, smoked dope and had sex on the Capitol lawn, all in the name of "get out of Vietnam/SE Asia". Tricky Dick was "paranoid", you see.

    So we did.

    Then we found out the communists had taken one third of the population out of Phnom Penh, Cambodia, and killed them all with axes. Didn't even use bullets. Just hacked them to death.

    How the "Killing Fields" were done. See the movie, at least.

    But, oh how John Kerry, Frank Church, and Ronald Dellums and the blunt-smoking liberal-lefties screamed about our boys in 'nam!!!! You should have been there.



    //
  3. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,001
    Likes Received:
    107
    Ratings:
    +186 / 6 / -23


    Is this the voice of experience, or just blowing smoke again if I remember correctly you did not serve in Viet Nam.. I remember something completely different, that was a war that was fought by politicians inside of the beltway, a war that was tremendously unpopular.. a war that had very high death rates for our young men.. a war that had no sign of ever ending.. a war that cost us astronomically.. since then we have watched genocides all over the world with blinders on. Say what you will about SE asia and our withdrawal from it, but we are not responsible for that, if we were we are responsible for the genocide in other countries such as Rwanda...
  4. bmf31c

    bmf31c Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    571
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I may need history lesson, but Vietnam didn't have genocide going on did it? I'm asking seriously as I truly have never read anything along that lines. I understand what happened in Cambodia, but didn't think that really applied to Vietnam.

    We (the world) stepped in against ethnic cleansing when it happened in Europe but are still sitting on the sidelines while Africa consumes itself.

    Are we again standing on the sidelines because we don't want to hurt the feelings of the Chinese? They got over Hong Kong, they own Panama, they'll let diplomacy work. It's disheartening to see this. Men of God, peacefully protesting, murdered. Where is the UN?
  5. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0



    Cambodia had a total national policy of cultural purging of anyone whom the communists thought was even a potential threat: those who were educated beyond elementary school, professionals like doctors or dentists, even people who wore eye-glasses -- all were rounded up and sent to the jungles for summary execution. At least one-third of the population of Cambodia was destroyed, executed, in this way. Shades of Nazi Germany. This was done after the Khmer Rouge (communists) seized control of Cambodia. This is what the "Killing Fields" account is all about.

    Vietnam was different. There were two nations set up after WWII, much like the two Koreas: North and South Vietnam. This partition took place, also like Korea, under the agreement made between Franklin Roosevelt and Josef Stalin.

    Before this partitioning of Vietnam, that nation was called "Indochina", a territory governed by the French government as a colony of France. After WWII, the French allowed this partioning because they themselves were weakened due to their occupation by Nazi Germany; the Vichy government was in no position to argue about Vietnam/Indochina. So the Soviet took the north and the south was left with some residual French colonial business interests, such as the Michelin rubber industry (rubber tree plantations were a big part of the Indochina economy), with a skeleton military force.

    The North first drove out the French, decided at Diem Biem Phu. The U.S. went in to try to hold South Vietnam from the advancing communist north, but found itself isolated in the U.N. and around the world. Nobody knew what to do about the growing world communist movement backed by the Soviet Union and China. So the U.S. sent in our military to try to defeat the menace, a force that was totally and openly supported by the Soviet Union.

    Now, to get specific with your question: the communists used whatever methods they could to gain dominance over the South. They went into villages, found the local tribal chief or respected elder, took him out in the square and beheaded him in front of all the people. Often times the communists would first take the chief's wife and daughters and rape them in front of everybody, then cut their bellies open, and let them bleed to death. They announced that anybody who opposed them would meet a similar fate. If they could do this to the village chief, what could any lesser individual hope to do? Not much.

    This local level terrorism, coupled with selected use of conventional military force against south Vietnam's and the U.S. conventional forces, eventually wore down any palpable opposition to Ho Chi Minh and his Soviet-backed communist forces.



    //
  6. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,094
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +333 / 1 / -9

    There AE good wars and there are bad wars:

    1 The good wars are the ones the democrats want us involved in.

    2 The bad wars are the ones the republicans want us involved in

    Thats how the Left Wing sees it.

    LET THE UN HANDLE THE MONK SITUATION AMERICA IS BUSY RIGHT NOW.
  7. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,001
    Likes Received:
    107
    Ratings:
    +186 / 6 / -23

    My response had to do with Foggie talking about how we should not have left viet nam, if we didn't we could have prevented the slaughter in Cambodia.. some how we are responsible for this.. there is a trend in what we get involved with Europeans and Mideast Oil... we do not want to become involved in the "dark continent" or with the "yellow people".
  8. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0




    There's also the wars the Dems start us in -- like Vietnam and Korea -- then want to bail on when the going gets tough. When the Repubs come in to finish the job, the Dems are there obstructing the way, screaming bloody murder over "our dead". If the Dems were so concerned about "our dead" in wars, why do they go into wars in the first place? Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton (Serbia, the aspirin and baby formula factories in some unknown places, good but temporary cover for Monica's dress, though). Jimmy Cutter didn't like wars, so he just let the Soviets, their Cuban clients, and the Chinese take some 14 nations in his 4-year watch (like a lame "watch-dog", Jimmy watched 'em go in and take what ever they wanted). Oh, and then there was the U.S. embassy in Tehran that Jimmy let slip away.

    Other than that -- and selling critical national security high-tech to China and Soviet Russia -- the Dems make great presidents.



    //
  9. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,094
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +333 / 1 / -9

    When the democrats are running the country is there THIS much talk in Washington about "OIL" I don't seem to remember the Crucifiction Of Oil during the Sexy Clinton Years:confused:

    Where was Haliburton during the nineties, I know they have been around for awhile and I know Cheney was involved with them but why didn't we hear about them, maybe we should be "bombing haliburton" what is this obsession the democrat haters have with Haliburton and Oil.

    If some of you Democrat Haters don't like "OIL" DON'T USE IT.
    :bricks:
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2007
  10. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Viet Nam was started and escalated by Democrats. A Republican got us out.
  11. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    The "UN" is sitting in the White House. They have been impotent without the consent of the US no matter what the members wanted to do. Someone else will have to take this fight up...maybe the Australians or South Africans. The Chinese will do nothing for the same reason the US will do nothing.
  12. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,816
    Likes Received:
    144
    Ratings:
    +305 / 4 / -2

    If they went in and did that you'd be the first person to scream and moan about it.
  13. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,816
    Likes Received:
    144
    Ratings:
    +305 / 4 / -2

    The UN? :rofl:
  14. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,816
    Likes Received:
    144
    Ratings:
    +305 / 4 / -2

    The UN doesn't do anything without the US footing 3/4 of the bill. That goes for costs, logistics, soldiers, organization, logistics, etc. THe UN is the biggest waste of a well intentioned idea in the history of mankind. How are they doing in Lebanon? They aren't even patrolling the border with Isreal cuz it's too dangerous. Where are they in Darfur after they concluded it would only take 30,000 or so troops to stop the genocide? They're sitting in a cafe in NYC piling up parking tickets they'll never pay. Burma? Forget it. They didn't even want to get involved in Kosovo which was right in their own back yard. How'd they do their by the way? Great if you think trading innocent civilian lives in a deal to ensure your peacekeepers are not attacked is good policy.
  15. bmf31c

    bmf31c Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    571
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    GJA, Thanks for the response. I understand it better now. I was familiar with Cambodia as I did a country study for a college class. I've read many books regarding Vietnam, but never really put it in the context of genocide.

    I don't know if your familiar with the trilogy of books from John Del Vecchio, The 13th Valley, For the Sake of all Living Things and Carry Me Home. They are all powerful books regarding Vietnam, Cambodia and the aftermath, very good reading.

    wistah, RW, it is a shame that a entity with the money that the UN has sits on it's hands.
  16. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,816
    Likes Received:
    144
    Ratings:
    +305 / 4 / -2

    The UN is a corrupt, socialist run, useless organization.
  17. bmf31c

    bmf31c Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    571
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    How do you really feel about it? :D

    I agree, why do we cow tail and support it?
  18. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,094
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +333 / 1 / -9

    They should be thrown out of America, most of them Hate America, Koffi Annan was a little smirking sneaky looking weasel THIEF so was his stinking son.
    :bricks:
  19. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,816
    Likes Received:
    144
    Ratings:
    +305 / 4 / -2

    My disdain for the UN is because of how useful I think it could be. I think the idea of a United Nations is necessary & terrific. Think of all the good an entity like that could do. Help the hungry, stop genocide, prevent wars, broker peace. Help develop poorer nations, etc. Instead, it's a typical Euro trash, socialist run, government type agency, that hires cousins, is plagued with corruption, and does NOTHING worthwhile. It's a pension plan for morons. Think Massport, Fema, the MBTA, the MDC, Mass Highway, & the Italian Postal service rolled into one, and on steroids.

    Why we support it is because we're forced to. If we left it to die, we'd be the even more eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil US of A. Also, if we left, it would be even more useless than it already is. Personally I'd kick off our soil, or reduce our financial committment to it. It's truly disgustingly corrupt. If we get 40 cents on the dollar from the US goverment, we might get a 10 cent return from the UN. Again though, I believe in it's existence, but like our own government, I very much dislike what it's become.
  20. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    Not true. I am for isolationism in general, however when a people show that they want democracy and are being slaughtered, they deserve more support compared to just randomly going into a country on false pretenses.

    We are only in Iraq for oil and for AIPAC; the Iraqis never tried to overthrow Saddam because they realized taking him out would result in ethnic bloodshed. This situation in Myanmar is totally different.

    Americans need to stop the bullcrap of saying they want to 'spread freedom and democracy', because we invade ME countries that don't even want us there, and ignore people getting slaughtered because there isn't oil there.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>