Burma : Send in the Bombers
Nick Cohen is surely right that we should send in the bombers to Burma. All the pious hand-wringing is worthless in the face of Burmese intransigence. The West has the military capability to arrange airdrops of medical supplies and food. We did something similar when the Communists tried to starve Western Berlin. Perhaps the Luftwaffe and the airforces of some of the less robust European states could take the lead for once, since they seem less willing to take risks in the Middle East.
Not an ideal solution admittedly, but it is surely better than sitting impotently around the UN security council. Kouchner, the French Foreign Minister once hired a ship to rescue boat people fleeing the Communists in Vietnam. Go on Kouchner, give the Armée de l'Air something to do...
UPDATE : Reading between the lines Dave supports sending in "unilateral aid". In the comments a co-conspirator reminds us of Operation Manna, the World War II effort using Lancaster Bombers to bombard the starving Netherlands with 6850 tonnes of food during one week in May 1945.
Not an ideal solution admittedly, but it is surely better than sitting impotently around the UN security council. Kouchner, the French Foreign Minister once hired a ship to rescue boat people fleeing the Communists in Vietnam. Go on Kouchner, give the Armée de l'Air something to do...
UPDATE : Reading between the lines Dave supports sending in "unilateral aid". In the comments a co-conspirator reminds us of Operation Manna, the World War II effort using Lancaster Bombers to bombard the starving Netherlands with 6850 tonnes of food during one week in May 1945.
67 comments:
well said that man. stop fucking about and get in and help the people
tell those survived people that instead of robbing others in the city, go and kill those juntas and cut their heads off..
I thought we had gotten out of the empire business..why should we think the world is just waiting for Whitehall interference ?
Why is Burma our problem ? China and India are far bigger military powers with more aircraft and it is their responsibility. I don't know why a country that flies 37 year old Hercules flying bombs should offer anything but self-abasement at its abject impotence and wilful contempt for its own people.
Its been done before and works, ‘Operation Mana’ over German occupied Netherlands near the end of WW2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Manna
There is a stunning interview in the BBC archives of a clearly wealthy Dutch businessman describing how he was a small boy when this happened, he and another small boy came across a burst container, they knew the were not meant to touch it but they were starving. Literally. They had heard of ice cream, never tasted it, and this was the most wonderful, beautiful thing they had ever eaten, this spilt food straight off the earth. By this point in the interview he was in tears, he said they later found out that what they were eating was not ice cream but powdered eggs.
Burma is our problem for at least 2 reasons. Firstly, it's a moral problem. ‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’ and all that. And yes I know that we can't do everything for everyone but that's no excuse to do nothing either. Secondly, if we do nothing it sends all the wrong signals to other despots the world over, some of whom MAY be a more direct problem to us in the future. It's really about time the world stopped tolerating this sort of shite Government.
Why send in bombers? Have they got oil?
But, but, but, they haven't got any oil so why should we care ...?
I would not put it past the Burmese government to shoot down incoming flights. They have plenty of Chinese and Russian fighter aircraft.
Sadly I fear some might be happy to 'feed the Junta the rope'.
The big different between Operation Manna and this was that by that point of 1945 the RAF and USAAF had air supremacy and controlled the skies. Even with three USN carriers in the region, establishing air supremacy over Burma would not happen without a lot of shooting. How would China would react to the USN shooting up its client state's air force?
Op Sea Angel, a US led amphibious operation in 1991 to provide aid to Bangladesh – the biggest aid operation of its kind - provides the method. The Berlin Airlift provides the justification. Brown has written a book about courage, now is the time to show it by calling for a US led intervention. We could even send a carrier if there is one spare.
Naypyidaw is where the Burmese Junta live.
"The Indian journalist, Siddharth Varadarajan, who visited Naypyidaw in January 2007, described the vastness of the new capital as "the ultimate insurance against regime change, a masterpiece of urban planning designed to defeat any putative ‘colour revolution’ – not by tanks and water cannons, but by geometry and cartography".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naypyidaw
So, not a place to defend from full blown military intervention then?
Cohen and his gang are more interested in conspicuous displays of concern'n'compassion than in actually helping people. The gesture is all. When they actually get a chance to put their "ideals" into action -- Iraq, Rhodesia, South Africa -- their objects of concern end up considerably worse off.
Sounds good in theory BUT
In order to make accurate drops, they would have to fly at around a 1000 feet and have teams on the ground talking them onto the drop zones and providing them with wind speed and direction.
It is time Western Leaders/NGO's stopped being so arrogant in thinking they are the only people able to distribute aid. Why can't they freely give all their supplies to the Burmese authorities and let them distribute it? So what that the generals get all the credit at least the people get fed, watered, sheltered and treated.
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi the democratically elected leader of the Burmese people is being held against her will by the military in Burma.
Burma is virtually a Chinese province that is fighting a civil war against minorities and has committed acts against its citizens far worse than those to make the leaders eligible for deportation to the Hague.
A few years ago I travelled to Burma to informally assess the food situation and met with many of the military leaders.
They exhibited all the joy of characters locked in a Harold Pinter play.
They have not killed their president nor have they released her. I discussed the situation with our ambassador at the time who briefed that Burma is between a rock (USA wanted rock-fast sanctions) and Europe (wanted Iran-style appeasement).
In my view China is key. If the military thaw, their relationship with the West would be problematic as it would be with China.
If the allegations are true that Burmese passports in the names of dead Burmese are issued to Chinese nationals , that if true would indicate the degree of involvement.
The country is disarmingly, time-locked - hardly any modern social infrastructure or investment - and would be totally ravaged by natural disasters.
In spite of everything the Burmese people are resilient and intelligent.
In my view the prognosis is bad as the country will be torn and further pulled about by the new Asian cold war.
Burma would be my candidate for the country most Orwellian today.
"UPDATE : Reading between the lines Dave supports sending in "unilateral aid". In the comments a co-conspirator reminds us of Operation Manna, the World War II effort using Lancaster Bombers to bombard the starving Netherlands with 6850 tonnes of food during one week in May 1945."
I had a Dutch colleague who can remember standing in fields watching the food packages dropping from Lancasters. How is it that we can be SO supine about the Burmas and Zimbabwes of this world, yet corrupt the very being of our country by going into Iraq?
Totally off topic - and utterly on topic, Frank Field has just put the boot into Brown big time on R4 news. Titbits here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7395545.stm
Whoa! Operation Sea Angel was conducted at the invitation of, and with the co-operation of, the Bangladeshi authorities. Totally different from an operation opposed by the military of the country in question, and one likely to incur the wrath of the nearest superpower, China, which in every case I can think of, has always shown that it puts the right of sovereign governments to rule ahead of the welfare of the ruled.
What you are proposing is not like Sea Angel at all. Leaving aside whether or not we or the US have the military means to take on yet another shooting war at the moment, does anyone seriously thing that the US public, with a general election coming, would stand for such a thing?
The big difference between Berlin and Burma is that Burma is a soveriegn state, Berlin was part of Allied controlled Germany.
If we want to send aid into Burma send it in through one of the countries that Burma is letting help.
As many Burmese physicians have emigrated abroad, only Yangon (Rangoon) and Mandalay have any sizable number of physicians left.) The well-to-do go to private clinics or hospitals like Pun Hlaing International Hospital and Bahosi Medical Clinic.
The rich and the TOP MILITARY BRASS routinely go abroad (usually Bangkok or Singapore) for treatment. Arrest the military when they are out of the country and close down all air travel and freeze banking facilities for the rich, most of whom will be supporting the State Peace and Development Council. The Chinese have too much on their plates with the Olympics to protest about interfering in the internal affairs of other countries.
These are the culprits:
* Chairman, Senior-General Than Shwe, Commander-in-Chief of Defence Services
* Vice-Chairman, Vice Senior General Maung Aye, Deputy Commander-in-Chief of Defence Services, Commander-in-Chief (Army)
* General Thura Shwe Mann, Joint Chief of Staff of the Army, Navy and Air Force
* General Thein Sein, Prime Minister,
* Lieutenant-General Thiha Thura, Tin Aung Myint Oo, First Secretary of SPDC, Quartermaster General
* Lieutenant-General Ye Myint, Chief of Bureau of Special Operation - 1 (Kachin, Chin, Sagaing, Magawe, Mandalay)
* Lieutenant-General Kyaw Win, Chief of Bureau of Special Operation - 2 (Shan, Kayah)
* Lieutenant-General Khin Maung Than, Chief of Bureau of Special Operation - 3 (Pegu, Rangoon, Irrawaddy, Arakan)
* Lieutenant-General Maung Bo, Chief of Bureau of Special Operation - 4 (Karen, Mon, Tenasserim)
* Lieutenant-General Aung Htwe, Chief of Armed Forces Training
* Lieutenant-General Tin Aye, Chief of Military Ordance
Brown has been roasted on the Beeb this morning by Frank Field and Alan Johnson, with Byers and Prescott's quotes also being used to put the boot in.
A heavy defeat at Crewe and Nantwich will see sulking Gordo forced to resign. No doubt about it. The man has become a despised laughing stock amongst his own party, the public, and even among former sycophants at the Beeb and Sky.
Nice idea Guido and certainly a sentiment many would support.
However, it is likely that the supplies would fall into the hands of the military who could with force of arms if necessary force the people to hand it over on pain of death. No doubt some of it would then be sold back on to the black market.
A horrible situation but not one that is easily resolvable without the cooperation of the Generals.
As others have said, the Burmese military may even choose to sshoot down any bombers that entered their airspace - as indeed any country under international law is allowed to do.
We could even see the UN being asked by China to pass resolutions against the aid delivering countries for an unprovoked violation of soverign airspace.
What this, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Kenya, Congo, Darfu and you name them, does is show the total incompentence of the United Nations. They are as bad as The League of Nations which did not prevent the world wars!
If Brown wanted to gain some credence back home he should be flying to New York and convene a special meeting of the Security Council and propose that they tell Burma to open up fully to all aid or else the world will take over.But do not, as at yalta when we gave most of Europe to Russia, give it to China.
If that fails, Brown should then speak to Nato. If he was seen flying around TRYING to do something, instead of hiding in his bunker biting his nails,his stock could rise...somewhat.
While Brits are popping into Tesco in Thailand, over the border people are starving to death or dying from disease.
In my view, the West should look to India to assert its strategic interest in mastery of the Bay of Bengal and seek to assist Burma out of its latest self-inflicted chapter of 'How to turn a disaster into a catastrophe'.
India has the means to deliver the aid, the scale to stand up to Chinese intransigence, and as Asia's largest democracy, the moral imperative to do something.
A previous blogger is right - China will hesitate, as it should, to antagonise the West.
The construction of refurbished and new naval facilities in Henai raises the issue of regional stability. India should act.
Rex: 8.38: Why send in bombers? Have they got oil?
yes - it goes to china....do we see a pattern here?
Sold the aids back on the black market?
They're richer far more than you can imagine.
Much as I despair of the UN,this may be an occasion when we would need their authority to do anything.China could veto a Security Council resolution but I wonder whether they want to try to defend the indefensible with the Olympics a few weeks away.Just a thought.
After over 60 years of hard-won peace for Europe, could this be 'Payback Time'? Let Europe do for Burma what the Allies did for Europe. NOW.
Burma has large natural gas reserves, and multinational oil corporations want to cash in. Chevron Corporation is currently the largest U.S. investor in Burma, with a partnership stake in the multi-billion-dollar Yadana gas pipeline project.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was a member of the Chevron Board of Directors for 10 years before Bush was elected
link
Guido don't believe all you hear from the BBC/UN/NWO. the charities overstate all aid situations to drum up bussiness and to feel important.
At least Burma just had a referendum on their constitution unlike the UK and the EU yet you had fuck all to say about that!
our democracy is an illusion, our media corrupt and the Tories no different.
Burma does have oil - after all Burmah Oil was named after the country. Chins wants oil and will not tolerate interference in its sphere of influence.
When people in Britain decide to spend 30-40% GDP on Defence as in 1944 they can take a shot at playing global power, but on 3% GDP with a clapped out military machine Britain is more laughing stock than power...btw the German military has equally clapped out helicopters and cannibalised aircraft.
The role Britain can play is as an EU member offering free vacations to friendly despots in return for sweet promises just as with Mugabe or Castro or the Tehran regime
In order to make accurate drops, they would have to fly at around a 1000 feet and have teams on the ground talking them onto the drop zones and providing them with wind speed and direction.
True dat, but how accurate do they need to be? All that's needed is that the people get to them before the military. It wouldn't be that hard to operate a scatter-gun system, similar to cluster-bombing but with food / medical supplier. A nice cluster bomb, if you will.
It is time Western Leaders/NGO's stopped being so arrogant in thinking they are the only people able to distribute aid. Why can't they freely give all their supplies to the Burmese authorities and let them distribute it?
because they won't. They rule through outright oppression and brutality. This is not about them 'getting the credit' it is about them using basic lifeline supplies to blackmail their own population further, especially as they have a 'democratic' constitutional referendum coming up forced by the rioting a few months ago, which will - if the people vote 'the right way' dissolve democracy,such as it is, in Burma for good. And since when was wanting to help people despite their despotic leaders 'arrogant'?
Send in the transport planes surely? Why bomb them when we can help them? Bombing them in a box of frogs. And let China know what we're doing first - the Burmese great whinge seems to be men on the ground so don't initially put men on the ground.
Brown will not do anything to offend China.
After Inviting the Beijing Olympic flame and its chinese Goons onto the steps of 10 Downing street he is refusing to meet the Dalai Lama there. Instead Gordon has insisted that the meeting take place in Lambeth Palace.
Gordon is a spineless CUNT.
He's also having another re-launch today, which already looks like a hangfire thanks to Alan Johnson and Frank Field.
Fair sentiment - and on a moral basis this is required in Zimbabwe.
However, what amuses me is America's take on Burma. After Hurricane Katrina in 2005 I am sure New Orleans residents have some idea of what the Burmese are going through.
Oil....Zimbabwe does not have oil ..
Annonymous at 10H15 says it all:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was a member of the Chevron Board of Directors for 10 years before Bush was elected.
Dick, I would love to be sending in transport planes - everyonewould like to do that. The problem is that none of them would come back/, unless you first took out the opposing air force.
One of the reasons they don't allow people in is that they don't want outsiders to see what's going on. A paranoid, inward-looking military state like this, which sees enemies under every rock, would be more than likely to shoot first an incoming "spy planes" as they would put it, and ask question later.
Apologies in advance ... I know that the situation in Burma is no laughing matter, but I think we need some levity to stay sane.
And JessTheDog provides just that:-
JessTheDog said...
"Brown has written a book about courage, now is the time to show it by calling for a US led intervention. We could even send a carrier if there is one spare."
Brown showing courage by telling the US what to do.
The UK having a carrier to spare.
I am laughing too much to decide which is the least likely - it's a tough call.
Labels: Snowballs. Hell.
The media coverage of the Burma situation, drummed up by self-serving NGOs and vacuous politicians, both desperately seeking to demonstrate some vague kind of moral purpose, has been patronising in the extreme. The Burmese apparently can't even bury their own dead without the guidance of some earnest twat with a degree in Development Studies driving around in a white Landrover. This is a no doubt a terrible disaster, compounded by Burma's chronic under-development and sclerotic government, but it should not be the excuse for more neo-imperialistic "humanitarian" interventions. Haven't the "liberal" and neo-conservative war-mongering liars (yes, that includes you Koucher) done enough damage in Iraq and the Balkans without sparking conflict in South East Asia?
You lot are such sheep!
1. No one has actually asked the Burmese if they want help.
2. The amount of media airtime that all this guessing about no. of deaths etc is a great way of reducing airtime for stuff that really matters to the people of the UK. (remember them? they pay most of the co-conspirators wages!)
3. Finally, it isn't very Libertarian to just go march in to another country just because we have a hunch that the people are being mistreated - or following on from the success of using that tactic in Iraq, has it become national policy?
Looking forward to us invading Ireland because their taxes are too low.
Just in case you wonder if Burma has any oil or not I might invite you to consider why Burmah Oil was called that.
Operations Manna and Sea Angel are the initiatives one needs to emulate here - missions of mercy on a large scale.
The Berlin Airlift was slightly less humanitarian as there was a large number of British, U.S. and French forces in Berlin who needed feeding when withdrawal was not an option. Saving the outpost of "Freedom" in darkest East Germany coincidentally turned into a marvellous symbol of Democracy vs. Communism, albeit after a year and 300,000 flights.
That little nit-pick aside, something clearly has to be done, and if it is in our capabilities then "unilateral food aid" as suggested should be adopted. You simply can't waste time in situations like these.
There's a more recent example even than this; the provision of foodstuffs and medical supplies to the Kurds of northern Iraq in the immediate aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War.
Possible reasons for not doing it would be:
1. Lack of helicopters/aircraft (certainly true of the RAF)
2. Political squeamishness
3. Possible impact on the Suu Kyi
None of these would be sufficient to excuse not acting to reduce the risk of cholera and other waterborne diseases.
Apparently (Bangkok Post report) they have now allowed one flight in: with luck they are starting to come to their senses.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=127617
That was 1948 when the remnants of Pax Britannica ensured that much of the world was intelligently governed and all the blathering impotence and incompetence of the modern UN and sundry "world leaders" had not blighted it.
There was backbone then and the RAF was a powerful force for good, supremely accomplished in the art of strategic bombing and turning Nazi cities into dust.
Now we have become a nation of mealy-mouthed, hand-wringing, apologist wimps which treats the ex-terrorists, surrender monkeys and former Iron Curtain reptiles as equals.
Thailand, Bangladesh and India neighbour Burma and all have large fleets of tactical transports and utility helicopters suitable for the mooted airdrop and liaison/reconaissance/casevac roles. The France and Germany could provide moble field hospitals and signals units for example. The key is having trained people on the ground able to assess needs. There's no point dropping food on dead villages. But until the Chinese allow the UN to help, little can be done.
If there are any loud flashes or bangs, I'd better get my sunglasses on!
There is a moral imperative to act. Aid could be distributed directly, targeted through satellite and aircraft imagery to concentrations of survivors. There is no need to “take out” the Burmese Air Force. They have a relatively sophisticated air defence system (compared with others in the region) with surface to-air missiles, but the coverage of this is uncertain and significant weather damage to the radars and communications masts would create significant problems. The BAF have around 50 fighters, I imagine that there would be significant damage to aerodromes so it is doubtful how many would get airborne. Even so, there is little that would pose a threat to a US carrier air wing – assuming the Burmese decided to resort to military force. A decent sized forward operating base in a neighbouring country would be crucial - one concern would be what effect escalation would have on such a facility being made available.
The threat of such direct intervention may make it unnecessary – the Burmese may back down and let aid in, under the pretence that they requested it in the first place.
It's funny how any questionable actions committed in poor far away lands has such a large number of people shouting to send in the gunboats, and at the same time we treat their governments' suspicions of our motives as paranoia.
If I was them, I'd be pretty bloody paranoid with sections of the international community calling for international law and the rights of sovereignty to be swept aside, and so many of Western citizens with apparant hard-ons for bomber jets and delusions of grandeur.
If we treated them with the same respect and non-interference as China, we'd have got aid in a long time ago. Unfortunately neutrality and non-intervention just isn't as sexy and solipsistic as bombers and their large, big, powerful warheads. Mmmmm, bombs.
get real guys,
at 1000 feet small arms fire would be a significant hazard, and if they have hand held sam missiles it'd be like shooting fish in a basket.
Without troops on the ground it couldn't happen and then you're into a full blown invasion. Again.
Jesus Christ Mr F. Have you considered the Health & Safety implications of some Burmese peasant being clouted on the noggin by 50Kg of airborne rice? Slotgob QC would have us in court before the dust had settled & the compensation payments would treble the national debt. Our great grandchildren would still be paying it. If you must do air-drops for Heavens sake make it cluster bombs. No survivors equals no appellants.
Nukes'd be better.
I have a malaysian friend, they couldnt care less, why should we?
You can betthe yellow peril wouldnt be helping us if we suffered a disaster.
I SAY FUCK THEM!
Burma: a deluge of moral posturing
www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/5133/
What we need is for the Americans to land some Marines to assist in defending an airbase.... Oops, sorry, I thought we were talking about South Vietnam in 1961/64 time.
NOT SO. Mr Beast. Mercy Malaysia, the main aid/emergency assistance organisation in Malaysia has several tons of emergency supplies ready loaded and waiting to go, but like everybody else they await clearance from the Burmese authorities. Rest assured there is much champing at the bit at all this delay. Ask Eve if you don't believe me!
This is going to be a very insensitive comment. Has anyone noticed the irony between this and the previous posting?
Burma is an urgent crisis on a huge scale. The massively less serious problem of food aid to British soldiers is however much cheaper and easier to solve.
Burma is the urgent priority, but don't forget the other issue.
Burma: a deluge of moral posturing
www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/5133/
Spiked: A deluge of moral posturing: www.spiked-online.com
Burma is a classic example of where "well-meaning dogoodery" does more harm than good, where "talking" is NOT enough. All those who thought that talking to despots can gain progress should now stare long and hard at what is going on in Burma and say how they would proceed.
Of course, their reply of denial would also include their ridiculous option of throwing aid into the country just in case something gets to the people. They are so often same people bemoan "trickle down" of wealthy people - HYPOCRITES!
Oil....Zimbabwe does not have oil
they haven't got any oil so why should we care ...?
Usual vacuous leftist "wit" on display, straight out of the Grauniad.
I am coming round to this point of view, but I don't think a serious air drop is possible until the US war ships arrive, which I recall somewhat dimly is at least another 48 hours. So we all have that long to decide if we dare!
Massive earthquake in China....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7396400.stm
Quick..mobilise the moral posturing!
What business is it of ours if people die in a far away place that is not vital to our national interest?
If Christians for religious reasons wish to give charity fair enough but no scarce and pescious tax punds should be wasted on Burma.
When we had our floods last year, I seem to remember either India or Pakistan offering us aid, which was refused.
I appreciate that this is a disaster on a vastly different scale, but Burma is a sovereign country, and neither the UK nor anyone else has the right to demand that thousands of our people are allowed unfettered access to their country without it going through their government.
I fear Nick Cohen has committed two unforgivable sins. He has criticised North Vietnam and omitted to mention that the USA is an evil imperialist empire. As a result he is now getting a lot of flack from the left.
Sorry, still a pessimist is partially right. During Op Manna, the allies did have air supremacy. But the wicked Boche still had lots of flak.
The simple fact is the humanitarian effort only went ahead because the local German commander allowed it to happen. The positive spin on this is that he was a humanitarian sort. A more pragmatic one is that faced with a desperate, starving population in its millions to his rear, and a well equipped enemy to hs front, he didn't fancy having to fight both. Especially when the allies had already made clear their intention to try war criminals.
Methinks the Burmese junta are neither humanitarian, nor that scared of what is only a portion of their population. Nor is it fair to assume they really fear international repurcussions, given their antics to date.
Even a MIG15 in the hands of a barely trained boy scout will make mincemeat of a C130 on a slow straight supply dropping run.
Where is that outspoken interventionist David Aaronovitch, so vocal over Iraq? Is the lickspittle leftie lackey waiting on His Master's Voice?
"As others have said, the Burmese military may even choose to sshoot down any bombers that entered their airspace - [b]as indeed any country under international law is allowed to do.[/b]"
Not true. Only aircraft committing some sort of predefined hostile act can be shot down. The USSR brought down a Korean airliner in the late 70s that may have strayed from its flight path, committing a territorial breach - completely unjustified, illegal, immoral and universally condemned. Flight restrictions have been established and policed over the sovereign territory of a number of nations, including Iraq and Serbia - the latter a NATO Article 5 operation in response to the humanitarian crisis in Kosovo (legally, a little less dodgy than the Iraq invation).
"Even a MIG15 in the hands of a barely trained boy scout will make mincemeat of a C130 on a slow straight supply dropping run."
Rubbish. Assuming it is servicable, the MiG 15 has to get airborne (from a servicable runway - storm damage), be directed onto the target by ground radar control (storm damage - easy to jam in any case), and get within missile or gun range of the C-130 to attack - all within its available fuel. No air defence radar means a lot of looking around in a lot of sky! C-130 has defensive counter measures and the F-18 combat air patrol loitering within range of the flight corridors, supported by AWACS and air-to-air refuelling (from Diego Garcia if required) will see off any MiG 15 They wouldn't be MiG 15s, they would be Mig 29s or some Chinese interceptor, not more than 50 (allowing for servicability).
Sorry to be a bore, this was my job a few years ago!
yeah the chinese will really let that one go! and we know how well "precision" bombing works after Iraq.. Aid can be dropped from the air, so why isn't it being done here? as terrible as the juntas are, I don't see the international community doing a good job here. And yes, Burma does have oil by the way.
Post a Comment