4 ms·

Sure, and then how long do we leave troops there for? another 20 years and then we leave and everything goes back to the way it was? Conceptually I am all for t

Sure, and then how long do we leave troops there for? another 20 years and then we leave and everything goes back to the way it was? Conceptually I am all for the overthrow of despots and tyrants but the reality is we cannot keep sending the youth of America to various spots around the world to fight and die. America has a myriad of issues at home including spiraling inflation and we can ill afford to print more US dollars to fund an occupation in Asia. Not to mention China would not respond well to US forces occupying a country on their border; it would likely become a proxy war in the same way Vietnam did; might even prompt them to invade Taiwan forcing America to fight a war on 2 fronts. Ideas that seem straight forward in concept often turn into bloody quagmires when exposed to the realities of global politics.

baybal2 5y ago
> Sure, and then how long do we leave troops there for? another 20 years and then we leave and everything goes back to the way it was? 1 option. Just destroy fixed assets, and most armour. US can do it in a few months of logistical preparations, and 1 week high intensity campaign. 2 option. Yes, but now build proper military hardpoint bases, and a proper government
- wonderwonder 5y ago
  During both of your options, how do you think China reacts to a massive US military invasion literally on its border? Option 1, likely results in the government of Myanmar suddenly possessing dozens of previously unknown SAM batteries that just appeared as well as tens of thousands of troops that just materialized overnight wearing brand new Myanmar uniforms. The US loses thousands of troops and hundreds of billions in hardware. Likely evolves into a full on war with China where hundreds of thousands of people die. Option 2 results in a full on war with China where hundreds of thousands of people die. In both these options, China is just driving resources across the border. The us has a logistical nightmare where it has to move troops and resources halfway across the world.
  - baybal2 5y ago
    > During both of your options, how do you think China reacts to a massive US military invasion literally on its border? Very nasty, it will scare them beyond all heavens. And this is why you do it. You make enemies afraid of you, so they don't attack you, and your allies. > The us has a logistical nightmare where it has to move troops and resources halfway across the world. 1. US has just got a nuclear ally in Asia. A rather untrusting ally for now. Dispell its doubts with show of determination. 2. US military logistics ability is bigger than the rest of the world's militaries combined.
    - wonderwonder 5y ago
      Sorry friend, I was willing to engage with you in good natured debate but if you think that China's response will be cowering in fear then you are very much not versed in what's going on in the world, especially regarding China's capabilities and government. China is a military power very close to the US in capability. China commands and enforces absolute loyalty from its citizens, and is more than happy to turn to genocide to do so. They would have the advantage logistically as the conflict is taking place right outside their doorstep. The US appetite for war would probably fade very quickly once deaths start pouring in while the Chinese would just be forced to trudge on. A war with China does not stay in China, China is very capable of hitting the US mainland. China has a surplus of young men, the US does not. What you think would be China just cowering in fear would quickly devolve into WWIII.
      - baybal2 5y ago
        > China is a military power very close to the US in capability. False, Chinese military is numerically inferior to America, with nearly 4-fold disadvantage in combat aircraft, and already surrounded by US allies, and military assets. Ultimately, China don't have enough nuclear weapons to destroy enough US military bases to prevent effective retaliation.
        wonderwonder 5y ago
        Again, you are not paying attention to logistics. America has to get its military aircraft to China and then once there China has an overwhelming array of surface to air missiles it can deploy from its own territory. The fact that you had to say "China don't have enough nuclear weapons to destroy enough US military bases to prevent effective retaliation" proves the reason the US will not invade Myanmar. We are not going to get into a nuclear conflict over the conditions in another country, especially a conflict where we are seen as the aggressor. China has an estimated 300+ nuclear warheads; potentially more, and missiles that are more than capable of delivering them anywhere in the US mainland. My point is that China will not cower in fear and do nothing if the US invades Myanmar, the fact that you think they will is mind boggling.
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  The genocide has popular support. They don't need any weapons at all to carry out this genocide since it's the peoples wish. If you think setting up puppet government is a path to success you haven't been paying attention to the last 80 years of us history.
- wayoutthere 5y ago
  The amount of hubris involved here is staggering — and exactly why the neocons failed at their goals of reshaping the Middle East. Our idea of a “proper government” may not align with the local population. This was certainly the case in Afghanistan; while yes, the Taliban are bad dudes with really regressive ideas about women, the country largely does support the Taliban for reasons that are missed by outside observers. This is inconvenient for the US, but as a key bottleneck on the Silk Road, Afghanistan has essentially always been at war and some version of the Taliban have always defended the country. Their history is romanticized locally. We didn’t really grok that when we went in; and we were absolutely shocked when the locals basically said “you guys will leave eventually and we will have to deal with the Taliban, so we can’t piss them off because we need them for the next invasion”. Whatever “proper government” we build will be made up of the unsavory characters we leave behind when we exit.
  - baybal2 5y ago
    > the country largely does support the Taliban. It did not support Taliban. It has done so after 2 decades of Karzai, Ghani, and complete incompetence of US at building a political system, and the government from scam artists, and then doing god knows what with them. Just like in Iraq.
    - wonderwonder 5y ago
      If we did such a bad job in Afghanistan and Iraq why do you think the US would do a better job in Myanmar?
    - wayoutthere 5y ago
      We tried to find other people. Anyone with internal support was either too religious or too communist for our tastes, so we picked Karzai and his friends in the opium trade over anyone with actual ideological support (Karzai had tepid support from the opium farmers since he was their buyer, which was good enough for the US government). If you think things would be any different in Myanmar — home of the golden triangle — you haven’t been paying attention to the lessons of the last 20 years.
- dekhn 5y ago
  seems like we've tried this a number of times since WWII and haven't really managed to ever pull it off in the long run. Never get involved in a land war in Asia.

baybal2 5y ago

> Sure, and then how long do we leave troops there for? another 20 years and then we leave and everything goes back to the way it was? 1 option. Just destroy fixed assets, and most armour. US can do it in a few months of logistical preparations, and 1 week high intensity campaign. 2 option. Yes, but now build proper military hardpoint bases, and a proper government

wonderwonder 5y ago
During both of your options, how do you think China reacts to a massive US military invasion literally on its border? Option 1, likely results in the government of Myanmar suddenly possessing dozens of previously unknown SAM batteries that just appeared as well as tens of thousands of troops that just materialized overnight wearing brand new Myanmar uniforms. The US loses thousands of troops and hundreds of billions in hardware. Likely evolves into a full on war with China where hundreds of thousands of people die. Option 2 results in a full on war with China where hundreds of thousands of people die. In both these options, China is just driving resources across the border. The us has a logistical nightmare where it has to move troops and resources halfway across the world.
- baybal2 5y ago
  > During both of your options, how do you think China reacts to a massive US military invasion literally on its border? Very nasty, it will scare them beyond all heavens. And this is why you do it. You make enemies afraid of you, so they don't attack you, and your allies. > The us has a logistical nightmare where it has to move troops and resources halfway across the world. 1. US has just got a nuclear ally in Asia. A rather untrusting ally for now. Dispell its doubts with show of determination. 2. US military logistics ability is bigger than the rest of the world's militaries combined.
  - wonderwonder 5y ago
    Sorry friend, I was willing to engage with you in good natured debate but if you think that China's response will be cowering in fear then you are very much not versed in what's going on in the world, especially regarding China's capabilities and government. China is a military power very close to the US in capability. China commands and enforces absolute loyalty from its citizens, and is more than happy to turn to genocide to do so. They would have the advantage logistically as the conflict is taking place right outside their doorstep. The US appetite for war would probably fade very quickly once deaths start pouring in while the Chinese would just be forced to trudge on. A war with China does not stay in China, China is very capable of hitting the US mainland. China has a surplus of young men, the US does not. What you think would be China just cowering in fear would quickly devolve into WWIII.
    - baybal2 5y ago
      > China is a military power very close to the US in capability. False, Chinese military is numerically inferior to America, with nearly 4-fold disadvantage in combat aircraft, and already surrounded by US allies, and military assets. Ultimately, China don't have enough nuclear weapons to destroy enough US military bases to prevent effective retaliation.
      - wonderwonder 5y ago
        Again, you are not paying attention to logistics. America has to get its military aircraft to China and then once there China has an overwhelming array of surface to air missiles it can deploy from its own territory. The fact that you had to say "China don't have enough nuclear weapons to destroy enough US military bases to prevent effective retaliation" proves the reason the US will not invade Myanmar. We are not going to get into a nuclear conflict over the conditions in another country, especially a conflict where we are seen as the aggressor. China has an estimated 300+ nuclear warheads; potentially more, and missiles that are more than capable of delivering them anywhere in the US mainland. My point is that China will not cower in fear and do nothing if the US invades Myanmar, the fact that you think they will is mind boggling.
colinmhayes 5y ago
The genocide has popular support. They don't need any weapons at all to carry out this genocide since it's the peoples wish. If you think setting up puppet government is a path to success you haven't been paying attention to the last 80 years of us history.
wayoutthere 5y ago
The amount of hubris involved here is staggering — and exactly why the neocons failed at their goals of reshaping the Middle East. Our idea of a “proper government” may not align with the local population. This was certainly the case in Afghanistan; while yes, the Taliban are bad dudes with really regressive ideas about women, the country largely does support the Taliban for reasons that are missed by outside observers. This is inconvenient for the US, but as a key bottleneck on the Silk Road, Afghanistan has essentially always been at war and some version of the Taliban have always defended the country. Their history is romanticized locally. We didn’t really grok that when we went in; and we were absolutely shocked when the locals basically said “you guys will leave eventually and we will have to deal with the Taliban, so we can’t piss them off because we need them for the next invasion”. Whatever “proper government” we build will be made up of the unsavory characters we leave behind when we exit.
- baybal2 5y ago
  > the country largely does support the Taliban. It did not support Taliban. It has done so after 2 decades of Karzai, Ghani, and complete incompetence of US at building a political system, and the government from scam artists, and then doing god knows what with them. Just like in Iraq.
  - wonderwonder 5y ago
    If we did such a bad job in Afghanistan and Iraq why do you think the US would do a better job in Myanmar?
  - wayoutthere 5y ago
    We tried to find other people. Anyone with internal support was either too religious or too communist for our tastes, so we picked Karzai and his friends in the opium trade over anyone with actual ideological support (Karzai had tepid support from the opium farmers since he was their buyer, which was good enough for the US government). If you think things would be any different in Myanmar — home of the golden triangle — you haven’t been paying attention to the lessons of the last 20 years.
dekhn 5y ago
seems like we've tried this a number of times since WWII and haven't really managed to ever pull it off in the long run. Never get involved in a land war in Asia.