Just watched the Channel 4 programme on the military junta’s rule of Burma and the inhumane treatment of the ordinary people.
Genocide, rape, murder , slave labour, people forced from their homes?
and all with weapons supplied by us, with western business heavily involved in oil and timber production .
By: Hurrifan - 4th October 2006 at 20:29
“not in my world it isnt,…..Who decided on the name change?”
I do believe us Brits decided on the name change when we colonised the place. We changed it to Burma.
Pink gin? Good lord no, Bombat sapphire old boy. If you would rather have london dry do check up on your Hogarth.
The Name Burma covered areas incorporated by the British into the country at the time of occupation in addition to the original Myanmar or Bama .
The name ” Myanmar ” is not really representative of the present population of Burma .
Bombat Sapphire?…dont drink as a rule myself ..only when medical needs come into it … 😀 Genuine Austrian Snaps is a great sleep inducer though 🙂
By: Wessex Fan - 4th October 2006 at 20:15
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”
The question I sometimes find myself asking is who are the good guys?
By: Hurrifan - 4th October 2006 at 20:05
Of course it doesn’t just mean the USA. But I’m not speaking for the rest of the lot, am I? 😀
ahhh sure wasnt i forgetting that europe was being disowned by President SOC !!! :diablo:
By: Hurrifan - 4th October 2006 at 20:01
OH NO…THE US GOVERNMENT DOESN’T RECOGNISE THE NAME…THAT OBVIOUSLY MEANS IT CAN’T BE THE REAL NAME THEN!!!
Some people make me laugh…we sit here moaning about the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan then say “Why don’t they do something about MYANMAR???”
” something ” doesnt mean invasion , occupation and war….Who even mentioned invasion?
Why would the Western or for that matter other Asian governments WANT to interfere with a government that looks after big business soo well?
The people didnt have any say in the name it was decided by the tyrannical military junta who decided on the change …the same junta that has moved the capital spending billions that could help the starving and oppressed.
The non acceptance of the name by the US government doesnt really have much relevance..what would be useful would be trade sanctions .
By: SOC - 4th October 2006 at 00:26
The ” Western world ” doesn’t just mean he US of A !!!…
Of course it doesn’t just mean the USA. But I’m not speaking for the rest of the lot, am I? 😀
By: Snapper - 4th October 2006 at 00:01
“not in my world it isnt,…..Who decided on the name change?”
I do believe us Brits decided on the name change when we colonised the place. We changed it to Burma.
Pink gin? Good lord no, Bombat sapphire old boy. If you would rather have london dry do check up on your Hogarth.
By: worthyone - 3rd October 2006 at 23:46
not in my world it isnt,…..Who decided on the name change?
your friendly neighbourhood junta..without any sort of approval from the people or their legislator….
Even the US governement doesnt reecognise the new name !!
OH NO…THE US GOVERNMENT DOESN’T RECOGNISE THE NAME…THAT OBVIOUSLY MEANS IT CAN’T BE THE REAL NAME THEN!!!
Some people make me laugh…we sit here moaning about the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan then say “Why don’t they do something about MYANMAR???”
By: Hurrifan - 3rd October 2006 at 23:31
Yes, we should never have let them have their country back. You can’t even rely on the electricity supply to keep your fridge going nowadays – totally messes up the Gin and Tonic when the ice cubes won’t stay frozen.
gin? pink or otherwise? :diablo:
By: Hurrifan - 3rd October 2006 at 23:30
PS – it’s Myanmar, not Burma.
not in my world it isnt,…..Who decided on the name change?
your friendly neighbourhood junta..without any sort of approval from the people or their legislator….
Even the US governement doesnt reecognise the new name !!
By: Hurrifan - 3rd October 2006 at 23:26
Teak. What about the teak?
Was getting to that……….
By: Snapper - 3rd October 2006 at 23:21
Teak. What about the teak?
By: Hurrifan - 3rd October 2006 at 23:19
Well, this is a problem on the other side of the ocean, so I’m sure the U.S. has no right to get involved and disrupt these people’s lives or the workings of the government just because there’s an oil interest and the people are being repressed by a brutal dictatorship.
Exactly!!! but oh dear ..wait a moment….
looks like its too late SOC……
American Express , Lexmark , Caterpillar , Leo Burnett company , Conoco , General Motors , Ingersoll-Rand ……
and HEY guess what ???? The ” Western world ” doesn’t just mean he US of A !!!…
Air France , Lufthansa , Michelin , Quantas ,Lamborghini Tractors , Lonely planet quides , Rolls Royce , Maersk Sealand , MAN AG ,GlaxoSmithKline ….
and our Eastern brethren arnt snowy white either;
All Nippon , LG , UTD Bank of India , Hitachi , Daewoo , Cathy Pacific , Hyundai , Matsuoka Co…….
looks like the influence of the all important Dollar/Euro /profit margin has already reached there …so why would the US and its buddies NEED to interfere…the Western world already owns the oil …and it has the military in its back pocket ….
and slave labour to lay the roads and build the pipelines!!!!
By: Snapper - 3rd October 2006 at 22:43
PS – it’s Myanmar, not Burma.
By: Snapper - 3rd October 2006 at 22:42
Yes, we should never have let them have their country back. You can’t even rely on the electricity supply to keep your fridge going nowadays – totally messes up the Gin and Tonic when the ice cubes won’t stay frozen.
By: SOC - 3rd October 2006 at 02:26
Well, this is a problem on the other side of the ocean, so I’m sure the U.S. has no right to get involved and disrupt these people’s lives or the workings of the government just because there’s an oil interest and the people are being repressed by a brutal dictatorship.
Sign In
October 2, 2006 at 11:13 pm