Trump Kills HIV Research

[Moses]

The West really didn't like Gaddafi - he was friends with Moscow, controlled oil in Libya and, in general, didn't kiss the feet of the West. And in Libya they organized a hunt for him.

Now Libya is "flourishing". The UN-recognized government of Libya controls only 5% of the country's territory, the rest of the territory is controlled by those whom you politely call "militia". Moreover, there are more of these "militia" than letters in the word "democracy" - from national ones like the Tuaregs to religious ones like ISIS. The country is destroyed, the economy is destroyed, but the West pretends that everything is fine in Libya now.

You destroyed the country under the guise of "democratic change".

And now you are trying to do the same with Myanmar. And you don't care about the country, the main thing for you is that China does not get stronger.

And the talking heads on your TVs are broadcasting that Myanmar will soon be "liberated", that there will be democracy there. Well, look at the "democracy" in Libya. Look at the "democracy" in Syria, where secular law will be replaced by Sharia law.

[PeterRS]

1 hour ago, Moses said:

You destroyed the country under the guise of "democratic change".

And now you are trying to do the same with Myanmar. And you don't care about the country

More arrant nonsense! Earlier in the thread @Moses stated in response to a comment by @readerthat "when you have no arguments, you helplessly switching to me and Russia." Well now @Moses has done just that - switched! Since he knows he can not win any argument about Myanmar, suddenly he brings Libya into the discussion when it has not appeared before. 

And what has Libya to do with Myanmar? Precisely nothing! I say again - PRECISELY  NOTHING!

The histories of the two countries could not be more different. The peoples of the two countries are totally different. The governments of the two countries are and have been totally different. 

Do you know how many different ethnic groups there are in Myanmar? Do you know how many there are in Libya? Obviously not. So let me enlighten you. In Libya the Arab/Berber population accounts for roughly 97% of the entire country. Since there was so much intermarriage between the two groups, it is impossible to separate them.

Now I ask: how many different ethnic groups are there in Myanmar? Most would probably assume that as China's population is 26 times larger than Myanmar's, it would have considerably more different ethnic groups than Myanmar. China actually has 56 major ethnic groups. Myanmar, on the other hand, has 135.

So how does that have any relevance to Libya? Nothing! The west is not "destroying" Myanmar, as you claim. Successive military juntas have been doing that for nearly eight decades.

Britain provided aid to the new independent democratic Burma until the military coup in 1962. Along with many world governments it ceased assistance until democracy was fully restored. It is an end to Russian-style dictatorship and a return to democracy that the state militias are now fighting for.

PS: I notice you changed your post and added a new last paragraph after reading my post. Afraid to make a new post?

[Moses]

1 hour ago, PeterRS said:

PS: I notice you changed your post and added a new last paragraph after reading my post. Afraid to make a new post?

I didn't. Whole my post was posted and edited before your posting. 

1 hour ago, PeterRS said:

And what has Libya to do with Myanmar? Precisely nothing! I say again - PRECISELY  NOTHING!

WRONG!

Libya, Syria, Myanmar have a very important common feature - in all these countries the West supplied weapons and financed the "militia" movement. Behind all these armed conflicts are the dirty hands of the West and the games of the West with local elites.

[vinapu]

10 hours ago, Moses said:

Do you mean "France, Germany, Britain, Italy and the rest of the "free world" don't want to be "great power"?

It's free world, not 'free world". When you will be able  to say openly that  your president is leading country in wrong direction or even is outright idiot , whether you are right or not, without fear of retribution then you will understand sweet taste of freedom. 

[vinapu]

9 hours ago, PeterRS said:

 So in one short visit to one tiny part of that huge country, you saw what was happening in the country as a whole?

very valid point , not only in this discussion but in general.  When people are talking about countries they visited they tend to extrapolate what they saw and experience in places they visited  to  a whole country. 

Shiny new subways in capitals  have nothing in common with rickety 50 years old carriages taking people to the market in deep provinces and palatial condo buildings  often are just stone throw  from slums. So one's view may entirely depend on which side of river  friends he is visiting live.

[vinapu]

9 hours ago, Moses said:

The West really didn't like Gaddafi -

he did not die of HIV , just to steer this topic back to an original subject. 

 

[floridarob]

5 hours ago, vinapu said:

When people are talking about countries they visited they tend to extrapolate what they saw and experience in places they visited  to  a whole country. 

Mexico or Brasil sexual experiences 😏

[PeterRS]

16 hours ago, Moses said:

I didn't. Whole my post was posted and edited before your posting. 

WRONG!

Libya, Syria, Myanmar have a very important common feature - in all these countries the West supplied weapons and financed the "militia" movement. Behind all these armed conflicts are the dirty hands of the West and the games of the West with local elites.

And you get it wrong again! Since the 1962 coup, the west has not financed anti-junta forces. The problem was - there was no single or even group of local militias with anything like the possibility of overturning the government. And so the major "weapon" used by the west in Myanmar has been sanctions. At least until after the 2021 coup it has not financed local militias.

There has been just one exception. Local militias in the small Kayin State, home to the Karin peoples, were provided with some helicopters and small arms to prevent what was thought might become an alliance between China and Burma and avoid the possibility of communism crossing the border into Thailand.

In fact, it is a severe blemish on the west in general that the only time it even suggested assistance was during the brief period when Aung San Suu Kyi led the country. But this seeingly frail, brave beacon of democracy turned out to be a fallen angel. She is now distrusted by most Burmese - and loathed by quite  few.

To use the title of a 1970s movie which had nothing to do with the country, Myanmar is the land that time forgot. After WWII it was the first British colony to gain independence. Even after the assassination of General Aung and six of his cabinet, its first 15 years were relatively peaceful and productive. Around it, the huge continent of Asia was going up in flames. Wars and insurgencies in India (and as a result also in newly created Pakistan), China, Korea, Malaya, Vietnam, Indonesia, Laos, Cambodia and ultimately East Pakistan/Bangladesh drew worldwide attention, whereas no one in the west bothered about Burma.

[Moses]

3 minutes ago, PeterRS said:

And you get it wrong again!

No. You.

ChatGPT:

 

Exactly because Myanmar is 4th biggest country, each neighborhood tries to use situation and feeding rebels - China from North, India from West, Thailand from East. And from each of these countries also pesky NGO under brand USAID trying make dirty business. 

[PeterRS]

17 hours ago, Moses said:

Libya, Syria, Myanmar have a very important common feature - in all these countries the West supplied weapons and financed the "militia" movement. Behind all these armed conflicts are the dirty hands of the West and the games of the West with local elites.

That is what you wrote yesterday. The WEST!

Today you completely contradict yourself. You just wrote this -

"4. Western Countries (U.S., UK, EU Nations) - Western nations have imposed sanctions on the junta and provided non lethal-aid to pro-democracy groups, but there is no confirmed direct military support to the rebels."

Which is it? The West supplied weapons - or the West supplied no direct military support? I suggest you get your facts straight!