Burma is suffering under an oppressive military regime and their human rights are being violated. The Burmese want democracy badly.

So, why isn't Bush invading to help? Oh right, no oil.

__________________
"Ah, good taste! What a dreadful thing! Taste is the enemy of creativeness."

Pablo Picasso (1881–1973)

I agree, it's important to fight for oil, since our entire technology and culture is based on it, but it would certainly be nice to help just to promote our core philosophy. The capitalists who run our government need a marketing class.

Don't forget a class in ethics. I doubt if oil is more important than the price of human life. Society, oil, and human life should be put into perspective and the value of each should be judged before policies are carried out.

No one is taking unilateral action because the current government in Burma has the protection of the Chinese government. And no one wants to pick a fight with China.

(Definitely not saying this is right, btw, just that it is a fact of life).

__________________
---Shosh

What's wrong with that explanation? Not being sarcastic, but it is perfectly sensible. If any invasion is to be done of any where, wouldn't you expect that it would be in our self-interest? Oddly, money from oil would be the last reason for invading Iraq; we're losing money. We could have simply lifted sanctions if we wanted that oil. I think the calculation was made (incorrectly) that it would help us in other ways.

Lots of people are suffering under oppressive regimes. The US obviously can't help all or even most. So wouldn't attention be limited where US interests are most keen? Who would do it any other way? Also, as another poster pointed out, invading Myanmar could touch off a world war involving China. It's not Iraq or Afghanistan.

Can you imagine the effects on Western culture if it went without oil, or if oil became ten times more expensive? We don't have a "third world" living situation, because of our technology.

Or perhaps if we didn't have to depend on (mostly foreign) oil as much as we do. We would have to use our "technology" to develop alternative/renewable energy source so we wouldn't care if the Sunnis and the Shia blow the sh*t out of each other.

Jizzay, what you're saying is the reasons the Bush administration gave for the invasion of Iraq (human rights, WMDs, imminent threat, etc.) were total bullshit. It really was about oil afterall. I guess we all fell for the old curveball.

__________________
"Ah, good taste! What a dreadful thing! Taste is the enemy of creativeness."

Pablo Picasso (1881–1973)

I can imagine hardship, but what we have now is something close to a painless situation, or at least one where the pain of our oil based economy is reduced. Our government has worked hard to cushion the effects of this war on the public. Ethically, if we have a war the public in general should have some privation, otherwise it's too easy to make war. What is the true cost of oil when the loss of life is included? Which is to add the lives of US soldiers & the lives of Iraqis. This may seem odd but insurance companies create figures like this. If this were part of the equation of the cost of oil yes our lives would be less comfortable, but our comfort now is at the expense of other people's life, liberty, and their pursuit of happiness.

test