h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

FB, you might find this one also relevant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_size_of_armed_forces

Note that the UK is ranked 28th in # of active military personnel, and that it would be much lower in total personnel (reserve + active) since many lower ranked countries have more reserves.

FYI, here's the ranked listed based on thousandds of total troops:

1 North Korea ** 5806
2 South Korea 5187
3 Russia ** 3600
4 Vietnam 3484
5 People's Republic of China ** 3055
6 India ** 2614
7 United States ** 2284
8 Republic of China 1947
9 Brazil 1402
10 Ukraine 1361
11 Pakistan ** 1147
12 Iran 895
13 Turkey 892
14 Indonesia 716
15 Egypt 704
16 Syria 650
17 Israel 612
18 Spain 506
19 Thailand 506
20 Mexico 492
21 Greece 468
22 Eritrea 452
23 Myanmar 428
24 Azerbaijan 426
25 Germany 415
26 Belarus 368
27 France ** 359
28 Morocco 346
29 Peru 298
30 Italy 295
31 Poland 295
32 Japan 286
33 United Kingdom ** 247
34 Saudi Arabia 220
35 Switzerland 220
36 Colombia 207
37 Ethiopia 182
38 Sri Lanka 157
39 Bangladesh 137
40 Jordan 135
41 Chile 130
42 Algeria 127
43 Cambodia 124
44 Sudan 117
45 Philippines 113
46 Malaysia 110
47 Angola 100
48 Romania 93
49 Armenia 92
50 Nepal 90
51 Venezuela 90
52 Canada 87
53 Democratic Republic of the Congo 83
54 Nigeria 78
55 Libya 76
56 Lebanon 72
57 Argentina 71
58 Afghanistan 70
59 Yemen 65
60 Kazakhstan 65
61 Rwanda 61

"So why does the government there have a stated policy of the "Burmese road to socialism"?"

China still claims to be communist. It isn't

The Congo is called "The Democratic Republic of Congo". It's not democratic.

Communist East Germany was called "The German Democratic Republic". It wasn't democratic.

See also: North Korea whose entire name appears to be some experiment in irony.

Nazism was borne out of a party called "The National Socialist German Workers' Party" and continued to describe itself as such. The only term that correctly applied was National* (and then only vaguely)

The Russian far-right are called the "Liberal Democratic Party".

An awful lot of movements describe themselves in terms that aren't appropriate.

*please don't give me that "they were socialist" c**p. Hitler hated socialism which he thought was a Jewish plot and Nazis who were sympathetic to socialist economic ideas were murdered in the night of the long knives. The fascist economic idea wasn't free-market capitalism or socialism it was a form of corporatism which was a compromise between capitalism and socialism designed to prevent the class warfare the revolutionary socialist Left wanted.

I've been waiting for SWL to call the military dictatorship in Pakistan Socialist on the grounds of all the business and land it's taken possession of... Seem I'm noty gonna get my laugh just yet...

"As Zagreb pointed out, that isn't socialism. It's nationalism. It's specifically aimed at sectors with a lot of foreign businesses. The usul label for this sort of government is fascist (albeit a loose usage)."

Not quite. I would call what the Burmese government does "nationalist" or "xenophobic" but not really "fascist". The Burmese government are only fascist in the way they deal with dissent (ie brutally and remorselessly). Again, fascist is an ideology and the Burmese junta doesn't really seem to have one.

They just corrupt. They're in power to mug a nation and it's people, not to carry out and ideology in a corrupt fashion.

"I've been waiting for SWL to call the military dictatorship in Pakistan Socialist on the grounds of all the business and land it's taken possession of... Seem I'm noty gonna get my laugh just yet..."

Conservatives do this a lot. Socialism isn't taking property into state possession, it's an ideology dedicated to some sort of social levelling and economic "justice". Socialist governments very often *do* nationalise property but they do so in order to bring this about. If a state does this *without* this intention in mind then it isn't socialist.

"They just corrupt. They're in power to mug a nation and it's people, not to carry out and ideology in a corrupt fashion."

Exactly. They're a classic military junta.

Of course, some juntas *have* been ideological (the far-right juntas in South America and the communist regime created by the Ethiopian military in the 1970s) but this one isn't.

"Venezuala, Denmark & Egypt were picked at random. It could have been any country. The point is whenever anyone, anywhere in the 3rd world gets a cough, the cry goes up that WE have to supply the medicine, usually in the form of our own kids stopping bullets. Enough already. Sod this acting unilaterally - we get brickbats from all sides. Whine to the UN. Screw this sending billions to basket case countries which merely act as a resting place for cash before it winds up in a Swiss bank account anyway."

I don't understand the "our own kids stopping bullets" bit. Apart from that, the reason WE have to do something is that we've got the capability. With that sort of power comes responsibility. Some of us think we should face up to that responsibility rather than shrugging it off and muttering "someone elses problem" whilst dictators have people shot.

Incidentally, since you conservatives are always telling us how much you love/cherish freedom why doesn't it bother you when you see someone elses being openly denied?

"We've got patients leaving hospital suffering from malnutrition in this country. We've got countless thouands homeless. We've got the most disadvantaged people in our own society denied dental care. We've got rising numbers of kids leaving school functionally illiterate. We've got sick people being denied drugs because of cost. All this, yet we've got one of the highest tax burdens in the world!"

Oh poor us! In case you haven't noticed the Burmese are being KILLED because they stood up to a government that they have absolutely no power over (politically or economically), cannot vote out of office and can do nothing about. But apparently we should focus on our own problems like having to pay income tax (horrors!).

Let's get some things in perspective, eh? We're privileged. Obviously we need to sort a lot of things out in this country which has plenty of problems of its own but lets not kid ourselves it's all relative.

Ok - I concede the socialist point.

However, I still do not see why it should be contemplated that British troops should once again die in another thankless conflict in some godforsaken armpit. Soldiers sign up to defend their country and participate in actions designed to protect the country's interests. What interests are served for Britain in Burma? The ideal of democracy? Burma had that when they declared independence in 1948. In fact, Britain tended to leave countries with a legal and civic framework together with democracy. That some of them threw it away can hardly be held to be our fault.

Democracy cannot be imposed from without, it has to be embraced from within. If Britain, or anyone else, overthrows the junta (who are not without their supporters), we will be sowing the seeds of conflict for generations to come.

Have we learnt nothing from Iraq?

Nope.

This thread is called 'Should we do anything in Burma?' Not, should we take military action. Because I think the liklihood of us doing that is laughable. We keep hearing how the military is at full stretch as it is. If were to realistically be in a position to take military action we'd all be playing a lot more tax and find new ways to persuade young men and women to sign up to fight in Burma. Preposterous.

I think yes we should do *something*, via politicking, eg sanctions and whatever tricks we can dream up, given all the experience Britain has at stuff like this.

The very idea that we should take military action is laughable in the extreme. Why is it even being discussed? Can you imagine Gordon's advisers saying, 'oh yes we know it was a bit of a problem what happened to Tony and the whole Iraq fiasco, but Gordon we really ought to do the proper British thing, and send in some boys.'

If a few diehard idelogues want to go in, a la Spanish Civil War, fine. I'll certainly be cheering them on. Just as I'd cheer on people who might choose to go to Darfur, or Zimbabwe. Which interestingly rarely get such *top* billing on the news all the time.

Agreed, military action is a no-no. By us anyway.

Sanctions - already being done and have been in place for quite some time.
Politicking - I distinctly saw Gordon saying "Tut Tut".
Tricks -

So, out of three options, one is impossible and two are being done.

Maybe we should send James Bond?

Excellent idea. I've heard even the Chinese fear 007

"However, I still do not see why it should be contemplated that British troops should once again die in another thankless conflict in some godforsaken armpit. Soldiers sign up to defend their country and participate in actions designed to protect the country's interests. What interests are served for Britain in Burma? The ideal of democracy? Burma had that when they declared independence in 1948. In fact, Britain tended to leave countries with a legal and civic framework together with democracy. That some of them threw it away can hardly be held to be our fault."

I don't think any sort of military force is necessary yet since I think the junta can be brought down from within Burma. What needs to be done is for the international community to choke the junta to death. Unfortunately, I think the regime has taken various steps to defend itself from outside interference (see its economic policy which seems designed to stifle economic freedom within the country and completely prevent foreign capital from being able to invest in Burma - no foreign capital nothing to threaten to remove).

I'm partially-sympathetic to your opinions re: post-imperial responsibility. We did tend to leave ex-colonies with some sort of working parliamentary structure which was dismantled by forces within the country after we left. That's tragic but it's not really out fault - these countries did choose independence after all. Personally, I think the country with the most responsibility to act with regard to Burma is India which essentially backs the regime (as does China although China isn't a democracy and so can't be accused of hypocrisy). However, I think there's still plenty we can do.

"Democracy cannot be imposed from without, it has to be embraced from within. If Britain, or anyone else, overthrows the junta (who are not without their supporters), we will be sowing the seeds of conflict for generations to come.

Have we learnt nothing from Iraq?"

First you don't "impose" democracy - it's fundamental mechanism is that it's about consent and choice. The only people who are imposed-upon by it are dicators and that's exactly as it should be.

The problem with Iraq was the fall of the dictatorship created a power vacuum which the democratic government couldn't fill and which quickly filled instead by sectarian warlords who immediately vied for power. The problem wasn't a lack of desire for democracy but a significant minority who actively wanted to prevent such a thing existing (usually because they thought their group would lose out).

In Burma the country has already *chosen* a legitimate leader whom the Junta placed under house arrest. They've already held elections. The junta doesn't have any popular support and I can't see any reason why if the junta was removed the elected leadership wouldn't be able to take their place leading the country.

For every Iraq or Yugoslavia there's a Romania, Czechoslovakia, Phillipines, Chile, Nicaragua etc etc. Generally when dictatorships fall and are replaced by democracy it works. The negativist "it might go wrong so we ought to leave well alone" argument appeals to conservative isolationists and cynics but it's morally void imho.

This post has been removed.

What about reminding the French about sanctions and suggesting that Total pack up its business ?

"The problem with Iraq was the fall of the dictatorship created a power vacuum which the democratic government couldn't fill and which quickly filled instead by sectarian warlords who immediately vied for power. The problem wasn't a lack of desire for democracy but a significant minority who actively wanted to prevent such a thing existing (usually because they thought their group would lose out)."

It was removal of the dictatorship at the head of the state it was wholesale dismantlement of the state. The problem was that people were quickly put into positions of political leadership with no mandate from within or mechanism for them wield one with effect.
Why wasn't there a mechanism? Because the country had been under a dictator for so long it was thought best to remove it so that those who made the dictatorship functioning state weren't around to subvert the new American approved regime.