If China overthrew the Burma government in the name of establishing a democratic government...

[greatcalgarian]

China, the dragon that keeps breathing new life into the absurdly corrupt and incompetent cabal of generals running the place, is apparently too hungry for energy to say no to the natural gas piped in from neighbouring Burma.

China has traditionally opposed notions of interference in the internal affairs of any country, however loathsome the regime.

BBC NEWS | Americas | Washington diary: Bush on Burma

US invaded Iraq on the pretext of removing Sadam (no more WMD now), but the actual reason is the control of oil there,

and, what would say if the same motive is used and China invaded Burma, threw the whole country into a mess, on the pretext of removing the dictatorial regime, but acutal reason is for the control of gas there, would you support China's action?

This is hypothetical, as China way of working around to get the gas is to negotiate with the regime to try to make it change without actual physically exerting muscles and invading an independent country and overthrew the legitimate government.

 

[rojse]

China cannot claim to be installing democracy, because they are a totalitarian reigeme.

 

[Buttercup]

I think it would be pretty obvious what China's motive was concerning an invasion.

I don't see the correlation between Iraq (I opposed the war from the start)and a hypothetical invasion by the Chinese of Burma.

 

[Yerda]

US invaded Iraq on the pretext of removing Sadam (no more WMD now), but the actual reason is the control of oil there,

and, what would say if the same motive is used and China invaded Burma, threw the whole country into a mess, on the pretext of removing the dictatorial regime, but acutal reason is for the control of gas there, would you support China's action?

Of course not.

Why do you ask such a strange question?

 

[yossarian22]

but the actual reason is the control of oil there,

Do people actually believe this? The point of invading Iraq was not oil-we can get that from dozens of other areas-but to create a pro-US western government in the Middle East.
Also, I doubt China would set up an actual democratic government. Maybe something similar to the farces that were the Soviet elections

 

[greatcalgarian]

Do people actually believe this? The point of invading Iraq was not oil-we can get that from dozens of other areas-but to create a pro-US western government in the Middle East.
Also, I doubt China would set up an actual democratic government. Maybe something similar to the farces that were the Soviet elections

So you believe the reasons invasion of Iraq were:

(1) There was WMD, dangerous to the rest of the world
(2) Sadam Hussein was a bad dictator, and must be removed by the world police the USA
(3) America must teach everyone else democracy, and the only way is to invade Iraq and establish democracy with the guns pointing at the citizens of Iraq?

 

[greatcalgarian]

I think it would be pretty obvious what China's motive was concerning an invasion.

I don't see the correlation between Iraq (I opposed the war from the start)and a hypothetical invasion by the Chinese of Burma.

China will not invade Burma. This is a hypothetical situation, where I say that for oil or gas, we can invade a country on the pretext of setting up a democratic government, or liberating the people there from a military regime and so on.

So what is wrong with this analogy?

(1) US has oil interest in Iraq. Iraq is turning to URO $, contracts are up for renewal, and Iraq is considering awarding contract to Russia, France, Germany and China, and exclude UK and US. So US and UK invaded Iraq to overthrow the legal government, and now control all oil interest there. The contracts to be signed between Iraq and Russia and others gone down the drain. The invasion reasons were given as (a) dictarial regime (b) to introduce democracy there.

(2) China has gas interest in Burma. US and UK are instigating unrest there to overthrow the military regime to defeat the China from getting more gas. To protect China existing and future interest of gas in Burma, China invaded Burma to overthrow the military regime and installed another puppet regime that answer only to China (same as the current Iraq government). The invasion reasons were given as (a) dictatorial regime (b) to introduce democracy there.

 

[greatcalgarian]

Of course not.

Why do you ask such a strange question?

This is the same excuse US use to invade Iraq, so why China cannot use the same excuse to invade Burma?

 

[greatcalgarian]

China cannot claim to be installing democracy, because they are a totalitarian reigeme.

So only a democractic government like US can install democracy by destroying a whole country and in the end we still do not see any democractic government in Iraq?

 

[Mathematician]

Anyone who thinks we wouldn't stifle reform if it challenged our oil supply in say Saudi Arabia need only refer to 1978. All beasts have the same face.

 

[greatcalgarian]

Anyone who thinks we wouldn't stifle reform if it challenged our oil supply in say Saudi Arabia need only refer to 1978. All beasts have the same face.

1978??

 

[Mathematician]

1978??

The rumblings of the Iranian Revolution.

 

[greatcalgarian]

The rumblings of the Iranian Revolution.

Thanks.

 

[mcteethinator]

Do people actually believe this? The point of invading Iraq was not oil-we can get that from dozens of other areas-but to create a pro-US western government in the Middle East.

Yes, to control the oil supply. It isn't actual to get oil, as you say they can get that anywhere.

 

[mingmty]

Do people actually believe this? The point of invading Iraq was not oil-we can get that from dozens of other areas-but to create a pro-US western government in the Middle East.
Also, I doubt China would set up an actual democratic government. Maybe something similar to the farces that were the Soviet elections

:no:

Do you actually believe this? pro-US government? Don't make me laugh.

The United States government has been overthrowing democratically elected governments in the middle east for more than 50 years; and after destroying democracy they put a dictator in charge that will bring hell to the people under him but also will comply with US requests. A pro-US goverment is no needed when there is only one guy in power and is under US control... For say, 20 years, like the last Iranian dictator.

Want to read more about it? Read it here, it was written by your fellow Americans, so count out the "they hate us because of our freedom" argument, the middle east hates the US because the US has been screwing them for a long, long time.

What we need is to stop this nonsense, stop the war and the hatred, behave like if all the people from all the world were our brothers. Stop spreading blood in the middle east, leave Iraq and Iran.

Don't get my wrong, I like the US and its citizens, have many friends there and fly often; but the current government, and the foreign policies of the powerful elite, make me sick. For the sake of your country, the Middle East, peace, and the sanity of the world, consider voting for Ron Paul this elections; search for his debates in YouTube and listen carefully, this guy wants to bring prosperity and peace to the people of the US instead of making the powerful more powerful. An advice from someone who has nothing to do with US elections so there is no bias.

 

[Yerda]

This is the same excuse US use to invade Iraq, so why China cannot use the same excuse to invade Burma?

If the entire world behaved like the USA we'd [in my best Irish accent] oil bee foct.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

China has only ever invaded countries it claimed belonged to it. I have never heard it claim that about Burma.
If it ever does watch out.....
If China seriously turns its attention to Burma... watch out Burma...

 

[yossarian22]

Yes, to control the oil supply. It isn't actual to get oil, as you say they can get that anywhere.

Controlling Iraq would not give us control over the oil supply, or much influence over it. It would give us a pro-western government which would sell us oil cheaply, if you want to stick to a strictly oil view. It also increases our power base there. The only way control over Iraq would give us control over the oil supply would be to prepare for an eventual invasion of Iran and the control of the Persian Gulf.

 

[yossarian22]

:no:
The United States government has been overthrowing democratically elected governments in the middle east for more than 50 years;

Yep. Under the banner of fighting Communism

and after destroying democracy they put a dictator in charge that will bring hell to the people under him but also will comply with US requests.

All in the Cold War.
But in case you did not notice, most of the governments of the Middle East dislike us right now.

A pro-US goverment is no needed when there is only one guy in power and is under US control... For say, 20 years, like the last Iranian dictator.

Eh what? Are you confusing pro-US with democratic?

What was wanted in Iraq was a pro-US western democracy (although a dictatorship would have worked as well) to increase our influence in the area. It failed utterly of course.

 

[greatcalgarian]

Controlling Iraq would not give us control over the oil supply, or much influence over it. It would give us a pro-western government which would sell us oil cheaply, if you want to stick to a strictly oil view. It also increases our power base there. The only way control over Iraq would give us control over the oil supply would be to prepare for an eventual invasion of Iran and the control of the Persian Gulf.

That is the next step planned by the neo con. Invade Iran and final control of everything there.