Burma protest - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

snowy · 09-28-2007, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

history only "says" one thing when you dont know about it.

anyway---there is a strange consequence of 24/7 tv coverage and the ability to present footage of demos and repression in realtime, which is that much that happens in the way of everyday brutality that spectators might encounter in real time (as opposed to 30 years ago, when this sort of thing would have been maybe the topic of newspaper articles written a day or two after the fact) seems to call for Responses from Someone simply because--well---you get to see the footage.

the burmese military junta is extremely brutal and has been for most of its-what 35 years?--in power. while the repression of these protests over the past 24 hours is deplorable, what is going on pales in comparison with
the systematic use of the military to maintain itself in power, a glimpse of which surfaced across the Unocal case of the laste 1980s and the symbolic problems created by keeping aung san suu kyi under house arrest for something like a decade.

so you might wonder why nothing has "been done" about the junta.
it's hard to say.
but you might look at the labels of your eddie bauer apparel for example, if you've purchased shirts from them over the past couple years, and see where they are made.
let's see: repressive military junta, no tolerance for opposition political or trade union, a decimated economy---->CHEAP LABOR----->hmm.

just a thought.

Well said, RB.

DumberThanPaint · 09-28-2007, 09:53 AM

I may, at some point, jump into this discussion. For now, I would like to simply post a picture/link. This is a picture of a Japanese man taking photographs of the protesters and the riot police in Burma/Myanmar as he lies dying from a gunshot wound inflicted by the police.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ops/article.do

mixedmedia · 09-28-2007, 10:08 AM

This was the photo on the front page of the NYT this morning...

It's a very powerful image...for what it's worth.

Thanks for the link, Paint.

But reading the text and looking at the images, I can only be further dismayed to realize that, if we are relying on China to 'do something' about this, how horribly incongruous that is when you take into account their abduction of Tibet.

roachboy · 09-28-2007, 10:47 AM

here is a .pdf of a report from the burma human rights watch group in the uk about forced labor and rape of women workers in burma:

http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/reports/kwo.pdf

seriously, folks, this state is so much more fucked up than you think from a few shocking images...

here's a link to the group's main page for reports on conditions in burma:
http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/pm/reports.php

on the burmese clothing industry (uk specific--when i have more time, i'll search up something on us-based firms doing business with this state)
http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/repo...mingclean.html

a good summary page on unocal's activities in burma, the lawsuit etc.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/SICD/Unocal/unocal.html

DumberThanPaint · 09-28-2007, 10:55 AM

"Intervention" used to be easy. You saw a kingdom you liked, you conquered it, you probably installed a puppet government and made sure the people paid their taxes. No, I'm not pining for the "good old days", but this isn't the way things work anymore. More and more, as a global society we are starting to respect international sovereignty and the right for a nation to fix its own form of government. So you can't just swoop in, put install a government, and run things under martial law until you break the spine of the resistance.

1. Intervention is expensive. Look at Iraq. Intervention in Iraq is costing the involved players (including Iraq) unbelievable amounts of money. Then there's the cost of human lives, it's bad enough to lose your child who's out fighting your country's wars, to some it's probably worse to be out fighting some other country's war.

2. Picking a side is difficult.
You really don't have to look any further than Iran to see this effect. Boy, we really picked a great side there! And funding the Mujahideen turned around and bit us on the butt. So who do we prop up in Burma? Who gets the first serving of power? Who will last long enough to restore civil order?

3. You bring matters to a head
Nothing would bring about a civil war quicker than threatening the government in power. Governments are like living organisms, with a survival instinct and fear of death. Yeah it's bad now, but what happens when the government goes out with a poison pill tactic, taking everything else out in the process?

mixedmedia · 09-28-2007, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

here is a .pdf of a report from the burma human rights watch group in the uk about forced labor and rape of women workers in burma:

http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/reports/kwo.pdf

seriously, folks, this state is so much more fucked up than you think from a few shocking images...

here's a link to the group's main page for reports on conditions in burma:
http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/pm/reports.php

on the burmese clothing industry (uk specific--when i have more time, i'll search up something on us-based firms doing business with this state)
http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/repo...mingclean.html

a good summary page on unocal's activities in burma, the lawsuit etc.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/SICD/Unocal/unocal.html

...is it too terribly jaded of me to, at this point, to observe that the most unique thing about Burma is that its people, right now, are possessed by a transcendent yet conspicuously dubious hope...

I should learn to take these things in small doses.

Rekna · 09-28-2007, 11:25 AM

Let's redeploy our soldiers in Iraq to Burma, then we would at least be able to spot the "terrorists".....

abaya · 09-28-2007, 12:08 PM

Due to my Carmen Sandiego-ness, had to check out for a while... I'll keep checking on the thread as it develops, but I may be out of commission/connection until Monday. I like the discussion so far, however... let's keep talking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

My example was not of the Burmese people, but of the people in other Western nations who now want us to come help the Burmese (while doing almost nothing to help themselves) and bitch if we don't, or call us hypocrites for not freeing everyone.

Which Western nations are calling for the US in particular to do something? Maybe I missed this in the news, but I don't think anyone is handing the entire responsibility over to the US. As I've said before, I am not saying that the US should be the world police, nor should anyone be asking us to do so. If anything, we've taken that duty upon ourselves, not because people asked us to, but because it was in our interests to do so.

But what pisses me off (and thought I had made clear in several posts, but apparently not) is that the US *preaches about democracy and uses it as an excuse to go to war* but does shit-all to ACTUALLY intervene when democracy is the exact matter at hand. If we just went about intervening only when it mattered to us, without all the crap rhetoric about freedom and whatnot, then fine... I'd be a little less pissy about this issue. Once again, at least we'd be consistent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

If this is big news in Norway like you say, shouldn't the EU be sending troops? Why turn to the US for leadership when all the rest of the free world does is bitch about US leadership?

Yes, I think the EU should be sending troops as well. I think EVERYone should be sending troops, or something... whatever it takes to stop this junta, as it ought to have been done anytime in the last 35 years.

We could have all pleaded innocent before the advent of instantaneous news, as I said earlier... but now, there is just no excuse. We all know what's going on there. Inaction is a form of complacency. The only people who can be said to be effectively ACTING and resisting these assholes are those very monks and civilians on the street in Yangon... and it appears that they are utterly alone, and are going to be shot or beaten and imprisoned, alone. Yay, one more point chalked up for oppression.

I believe the UN is sending a special envoy to Burma, arriving on Saturday (what good that does, don't ask me, but at least they are sending someone/thing). No one is pointing fingers at the US, except for me... and that's only because this is one stinking shithole of hypocrisy, if I've ever seen one. I thought it was bad enough with the Lebanese/Israeli summer war... but this is just unbelievable. We either need to stand down on our pro-democratic bullshit, or stand up and do something about it. There are just no two ways about it, if you ask me. We either mean what we say, or we don't.

Charlatan gets my point here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Personally, I don't think the US should involve itself in Burma's business. It should be China and ASEAN that stick their nose in and help the people of Burma.

However, given the rhetoric of Bush around being a supporter of democracy and willing to squash oppressive regimes, etc. Burma seems perfect. Sadly, Bush was just speaking spin.

Infinite_Loser · 09-28-2007, 01:16 PM

Most of the countries currently in political turmoil have only had their independence from European imperialism for around fifty/sixty years. Concerning how relatively new most of the worlds governments are, it's no surprise that they're currently going through the same conflicts that most European and Asian countries did hundreds of years ago (See: English Civil War and the French Revolution). It's in an inevitability within any country and the worst thing which could be done would be foreign intervention. There's no better way to exaserbate (sp?) a situation than that.

Charlatan · 09-28-2007, 03:36 PM

That's a very good read on the growing pains of democracy IL.

DumberThanPaint: It was never as easy as you paint it. Resistance always occured, the only difference is that weapons are more readily available and communications are easier for resistance. Also, I think you meant Afghanistan in point 2.

snowy · 09-28-2007, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaya

Due to my Carmen Sandiego-ness, had to check out for a while... I'll keep checking on the thread as it develops, but I may be out of commission/connection until Monday. I like the discussion so far, however... let's keep talking.
Which Western nations are calling for the US in particular to do something? Maybe I missed this in the news, but I don't think anyone is handing the entire responsibility over to the US. As I've said before, I am not saying that the US should be the world police, nor should anyone be asking us to do so. If anything, we've taken that duty upon ourselves, not because people asked us to, but because it was in our interests to do so.

But what pisses me off (and thought I had made clear in several posts, but apparently not) is that the US *preaches about democracy and uses it as an excuse to go to war* but does shit-all to ACTUALLY intervene when democracy is the exact matter at hand. If we just went about intervening only when it mattered to us, without all the crap rhetoric about freedom and whatnot, then fine... I'd be a little less pissy about this issue. Once again, at least we'd be consistent.
Yes, I think the EU should be sending troops as well. I think EVERYone should be sending troops, or something... whatever it takes to stop this junta, as it ought to have been done anytime in the last 35 years.

We could have all pleaded innocent before the advent of instantaneous news, as I said earlier... but now, there is just no excuse. We all know what's going on there. Inaction is a form of complacency. The only people who can be said to be effectively ACTING and resisting these assholes are those very monks and civilians on the street in Yangon... and it appears that they are utterly alone, and are going to be shot or beaten and imprisoned, alone. Yay, one more point chalked up for oppression.

I believe the UN is sending a special envoy to Burma, arriving on Saturday (what good that does, don't ask me, but at least they are sending someone/thing). No one is pointing fingers at the US, except for me... and that's only because this is one stinking shithole of hypocrisy, if I've ever seen one. I thought it was bad enough with the Lebanese/Israeli summer war... but this is just unbelievable. We either need to stand down on our pro-democratic bullshit, or stand up and do something about it. There are just no two ways about it, if you ask me. We either mean what we say, or we don't.

Charlatan gets my point here:

We should have stepped in years ago when Aung San Suu Kyi was put under house arrest by the military junta.

We can't expect China to step in, as much as we would wish them to, simply because their human rights record, especially in relation to Tibet, is less than spotless. They have no loyalty to democracy, and they're just beginning to see the benefits of a free market economy. There is no reason to expect them to be as horrified with the happenings in Burma as we are. Just look at Tianamen Square.

Japan is too embroiled in corruption scandals and the resignation of their PM to go far with this. They have problems at home that need taking care of. On the other hand, Japan has powerful allies who aren't going to be pleased with the death of one of their citizens, especially in the West.

This honestly couldn't have happened at a worse time, in terms of global political climate. The United States is stretched thin in Iraqistan, and we're not going anywhere else soon, as much as we would like to help others. The most we can hope to achieve is to pressure the UN to step in and do something, and to follow through with economic sanctions, while also urging UN members in the region to do their best to pressure Burma diplomatically and economically to clean up their act.

I am discouraged by the most recent news from the region, especially in regards to further restrictions on Internet access and further blocking of websites that show the political unrest in Burma. I already fear we are too late to put an end to this turmoil, and we are too late to really help the Burmese people.

JumpinJesus · 09-28-2007, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

JJ, Bangkok is in Thailand...

Crap.

In my defense, I didn't have a map as a little kid.

Also, further evidence of our own apathy about the world. I didn't even realize this was Myanmar.

I'm ashamed.

DumberThanPaint · 09-28-2007, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

That's a very good read on the growing pains of democracy IL.

DumberThanPaint: It was never as easy as you paint it. Resistance always occured, the only difference is that weapons are more readily available and communications are easier for resistance. Also, I think you meant Afghanistan in point 2.

You are right, those were two separate thoughts under the same umbrella: Iran and Afghanistan, two interventions where American policy failed.

Oh was it easy? Of course not, but I think it's measurably easier when you don't have to go through the motions of attempting to establish a legitimate, local government. It's one less difficulty you encounter in the process.

Charlatan · 09-28-2007, 06:00 PM

Just to be clear, there is a good argument to be made for intervention in Burma (there has been for years). That said if it happens, it should be done by a wide reaching coalition. No one nation should be left to bear the cost and the political brunt of the freeing a nation.

As for China, I don't think it would be a good idea for China to invade. Rather, I am suggesting that China use it's diplomatic strength to work on the Junta. Before you dismiss this, China's power is both economic (they are one of the few nations still trading with Burma) and political. If China's wind shifts against the junta in combination from pressure from ASEAN, the EU and US, it could rip any economic survivability out from under the Junta.

This sort of dictatorship cannot survive without money. Those who continue to trade with Burma (and Roachboy is correct, check the labels on your gap clothes) are supporting this regime.

dksuddeth · 10-04-2007, 02:55 PM

its too bad the people are left totally defenseless and that the police and military are the only ones with firearms. (yes, I know, this isn't about gun control....but it sure does raise an interesting point.)

Charlatan · 10-04-2007, 04:25 PM

dksuddeth... you do get that the protests are peaceful protests right?

Mojo_PeiPei · 10-04-2007, 04:45 PM

I think he makes a fair point.

The JUnta has been in power for 35 years. What options other then "peaceful" resistance do you have when you can't take back your independence or freedom?

Elphaba · 10-04-2007, 05:28 PM

There has been plenty of coverage on this, beginning with the very odd Bush condemnation of the turmoil in Burma in his speach to the UN. You just won't find the coverage in the corporitized media in the US. Abaya is correct that this is huge news elsewhere, so why not here?

If it isn't obvious to the least decerning among us, let me spell it out.

- Bush wouldn't give a flip unless there were US economic interests at stake.
- Unocol was bought out by Chevron the instant their lawsuits in the area were settled.
- Chevron is now in participation with the junta for all oil and gas operations.
- The US sanctions applied to Burma conveniently excuse Chevron.

Always follow the money, people, and find a news source outside the US.

----------------
An aside, in support of open communication:

Jazz, we would have a much better explanation of the Burma event had you not chosen to minimize host's posts. He has explained several times why he posts articles in full in the Politics forum, but y'all just don't want to hear it.

This topic belongs in Politics, but I can understand why abaya would avoid that forum. The recent emphasis of tfp also having a political focus is a cruel joke, if you silence host.

The Politics forum is moribund. If Hal is sincere in emphasizing politics once again, and not just pretending to be something more than a T&A board, he couldn't find anyone other that host to revive this forum and kick up some interest once again.

Politics isn't pretty, and monks are being murdered. How does one separate the two?

abaya · 10-05-2007, 02:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

its too bad the people are left totally defenseless and that the police and military are the only ones with firearms. (yes, I know, this isn't about gun control....but it sure does raise an interesting point.)

You're kidding, right... we're talking about Buddhist monks here. BUDDHIST MONKS. And you think they ought to be *armed*?

I'm back in Iceland now, and while the Burma news is no longer making the front page here, I'm still hearing stories about it hourly on BBC radio (one of my most important sources of news here). We don't have CNN here, so I don't know how it's being covered there, but I hope it hasn't faded this quickly. BBC has been doing opinion pieces on whether or not the protests have failed, and whether or not the decreased news coverage will submerge this issue to irrelevance for another 20 years...

And yeah, Elphaba, I briefly considered putting this in Politics, but I didn't want just the usual suspects responding to this. The only way to get a wide variety of responses to a political topic is to post it in Discussion, unfortunately. Or at least, that's my perception.

dksuddeth · 10-05-2007, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

dksuddeth... you do get that the protests are peaceful protests right?

when people are being rounded up and arrested in the middle of the night or being killed by the hundreds in the street, thats not peaceful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaya

You're kidding, right... we're talking about Buddhist monks here. BUDDHIST MONKS. And you think they ought to be *armed*?

as monks, they choose not to be armed. that is their choice. what of the others though?

mixedmedia · 10-05-2007, 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

as monks, they choose not to be armed. that is their choice. what of the others though?

You mean the other Buddhists? The monks are not operating within a vacuum. They are leading other Buddhists.

Although Buddhists using violence isn't unprecedented. Even in the modern age. If you remember the violent struggles in South Korea in the late '90s between different factions of Buddhist monks there.

But I don't think it is a precendent that most Buddhists look on as particularly Buddha-like.

debaser · 10-06-2007, 09:08 AM

Meh.

America got the shit kicked out of it for 8 years (arguably only 6) before we gained our independance. Nowadays people want revolutions that fit nicely into 2 minute clips on the evening news.

Instant gratification, hooray for freedom.

I wish the Burmese the best of luck.

MSD · 10-06-2007, 10:31 AM

I can't help letting this though creep into the back of my mind again like it did when the Darfur situation made prime time news. It's probably not going to be a popular opinion, but then again, many of mine aren't.

What if instead of demanding that our government intervene, we cut out the middleman? Take donations internationally, pool the money, and commission a private security firm (like the ones we use as mercenaries in Iraq) to overthrow the oppressive government. State the goal as having the oppressive government out of power by a certain time, at which there will be democratic elections guaranteed and guarded by those security forces and monitored by the UN or whatever international organization is capable of overseeing elections and detecting or preventing fraud. When the election is done and a new government is ready to take power, the UN can send in peacekeepers to ensure that the government that the people want remains stable. Mandate that the peacekeeper presence will be reduced to a minimum after the next election and that the military of the country will take over at that time.

snowy · 10-06-2007, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct

I can't help letting this though creep into the back of my mind again like it did when the Darfur situation made prime time news. It's probably not going to be a popular opinion, but then again, many of mine aren't.

What if instead of demanding that our government intervene, we cut out the middleman? Take donations internationally, pool the money, and commission a private security firm (like the ones we use as mercenaries in Iraq) to overthrow the oppressive government. State the goal as having the oppressive government out of power by a certain time, at which there will be democratic elections guaranteed and guarded by those security forces and monitored by the UN or whatever international organization is capable of overseeing elections and detecting or preventing fraud. When the election is done and a new government is ready to take power, the UN can send in peacekeepers to ensure that the government that the people want remains stable. Mandate that the peacekeeper presence will be reduced to a minimum after the next election and that the military of the country will take over at that time.

Yeah, cause employing someone like Blackwater to clean up the junta will take care of the situation. I don't think this is the best course of action, period. We have had enough problems with contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan to know this isn't wise.

QuasiMondo · 10-06-2007, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct

I can't help letting this though creep into the back of my mind again like it did when the Darfur situation made prime time news. It's probably not going to be a popular opinion, but then again, many of mine aren't.

What if instead of demanding that our government intervene, we cut out the middleman? Take donations internationally, pool the money, and commission a private security firm (like the ones we use as mercenaries in Iraq) to overthrow the oppressive government. State the goal as having the oppressive government out of power by a certain time, at which there will be democratic elections guaranteed and guarded by those security forces and monitored by the UN or whatever international organization is capable of overseeing elections and detecting or preventing fraud. When the election is done and a new government is ready to take power, the UN can send in peacekeepers to ensure that the government that the people want remains stable. Mandate that the peacekeeper presence will be reduced to a minimum after the next election and that the military of the country will take over at that time.

Like China's going to stand by and let that happen.

dksuddeth · 10-06-2007, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct

I can't help letting this though creep into the back of my mind again like it did when the Darfur situation made prime time news. It's probably not going to be a popular opinion, but then again, many of mine aren't.

What if instead of demanding that our government intervene, we cut out the middleman? Take donations internationally, pool the money, and commission a private security firm (like the ones we use as mercenaries in Iraq) to overthrow the oppressive government. State the goal as having the oppressive government out of power by a certain time, at which there will be democratic elections guaranteed and guarded by those security forces and monitored by the UN or whatever international organization is capable of overseeing elections and detecting or preventing fraud. When the election is done and a new government is ready to take power, the UN can send in peacekeepers to ensure that the government that the people want remains stable. Mandate that the peacekeeper presence will be reduced to a minimum after the next election and that the military of the country will take over at that time.

why hire mercenaries then? If we're that interested in helping the burmese throw off the mantle of oppression, lets go over their ourselves?

09-28-2007, 10:08 AM	#43 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	This was the photo on the front page of the NYT this morning... It's a very powerful image...for what it's worth. Thanks for the link, Paint. But reading the text and looking at the images, I can only be further dismayed to realize that, if we are relying on China to 'do something' about this, how horribly incongruous that is when you take into account their abduction of Tibet. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce Last edited by mixedmedia; 09-28-2007 at 10:23 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

09-28-2007, 10:47 AM	#44 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	here is a .pdf of a report from the burma human rights watch group in the uk about forced labor and rape of women workers in burma: http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/reports/kwo.pdf seriously, folks, this state is so much more fucked up than you think from a few shocking images... here's a link to the group's main page for reports on conditions in burma: http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/pm/reports.php on the burmese clothing industry (uk specific--when i have more time, i'll search up something on us-based firms doing business with this state) http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/repo...mingclean.html a good summary page on unocal's activities in burma, the lawsuit etc. http://www.stanford.edu/group/SICD/Unocal/unocal.html __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-28-2007, 01:16 PM	#49 (permalink)
Infinite_Loser Junkie Location: Lake Mary, FL	Most of the countries currently in political turmoil have only had their independence from European imperialism for around fifty/sixty years. Concerning how relatively new most of the worlds governments are, it's no surprise that they're currently going through the same conflicts that most European and Asian countries did hundreds of years ago (See: English Civil War and the French Revolution). It's in an inevitability within any country and the worst thing which could be done would be foreign intervention. There's no better way to exaserbate (sp?) a situation than that. __________________ I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me. Last edited by Infinite_Loser; 09-28-2007 at 01:18 PM..

09-28-2007, 03:36 PM	#50 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	That's a very good read on the growing pains of democracy IL. DumberThanPaint: It was never as easy as you paint it. Resistance always occured, the only difference is that weapons are more readily available and communications are easier for resistance. Also, I think you meant Afghanistan in point 2. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-28-2007, 06:00 PM	#54 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Just to be clear, there is a good argument to be made for intervention in Burma (there has been for years). That said if it happens, it should be done by a wide reaching coalition. No one nation should be left to bear the cost and the political brunt of the freeing a nation. As for China, I don't think it would be a good idea for China to invade. Rather, I am suggesting that China use it's diplomatic strength to work on the Junta. Before you dismiss this, China's power is both economic (they are one of the few nations still trading with Burma) and political. If China's wind shifts against the junta in combination from pressure from ASEAN, the EU and US, it could rip any economic survivability out from under the Junta. This sort of dictatorship cannot survive without money. Those who continue to trade with Burma (and Roachboy is correct, check the labels on your gap clothes) are supporting this regime. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-28-2007, 09:53 AM	#42 (permalink)
DumberThanPaint Upright	I may, at some point, jump into this discussion. For now, I would like to simply post a picture/link. This is a picture of a Japanese man taking photographs of the protesters and the riot police in Burma/Myanmar as he lies dying from a gunshot wound inflicted by the police. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ops/article.do

09-28-2007, 10:55 AM	#45 (permalink)
DumberThanPaint Upright	"Intervention" used to be easy. You saw a kingdom you liked, you conquered it, you probably installed a puppet government and made sure the people paid their taxes. No, I'm not pining for the "good old days", but this isn't the way things work anymore. More and more, as a global society we are starting to respect international sovereignty and the right for a nation to fix its own form of government. So you can't just swoop in, put install a government, and run things under martial law until you break the spine of the resistance. 1. Intervention is expensive. Look at Iraq. Intervention in Iraq is costing the involved players (including Iraq) unbelievable amounts of money. Then there's the cost of human lives, it's bad enough to lose your child who's out fighting your country's wars, to some it's probably worse to be out fighting some other country's war. 2. Picking a side is difficult. You really don't have to look any further than Iran to see this effect. Boy, we really picked a great side there! And funding the Mujahideen turned around and bit us on the butt. So who do we prop up in Burma? Who gets the first serving of power? Who will last long enough to restore civil order? 3. You bring matters to a head Nothing would bring about a civil war quicker than threatening the government in power. Governments are like living organisms, with a survival instinct and fear of death. Yeah it's bad now, but what happens when the government goes out with a poison pill tactic, taking everything else out in the process?

09-28-2007, 11:25 AM	#47 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Let's redeploy our soldiers in Iraq to Burma, then we would at least be able to spot the "terrorists".....

10-04-2007, 02:55 PM	#55 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	its too bad the people are left totally defenseless and that the police and military are the only ones with firearms. (yes, I know, this isn't about gun control....but it sure does raise an interesting point.) __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

10-04-2007, 04:25 PM	#56 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	dksuddeth... you do get that the protests are peaceful protests right? __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

10-04-2007, 04:45 PM	#57 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I think he makes a fair point. The JUnta has been in power for 35 years. What options other then "peaceful" resistance do you have when you can't take back your independence or freedom? __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

10-04-2007, 05:28 PM	#58 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	There has been plenty of coverage on this, beginning with the very odd Bush condemnation of the turmoil in Burma in his speach to the UN. You just won't find the coverage in the corporitized media in the US. Abaya is correct that this is huge news elsewhere, so why not here? If it isn't obvious to the least decerning among us, let me spell it out. - Bush wouldn't give a flip unless there were US economic interests at stake. - Unocol was bought out by Chevron the instant their lawsuits in the area were settled. - Chevron is now in participation with the junta for all oil and gas operations. - The US sanctions applied to Burma conveniently excuse Chevron. Always follow the money, people, and find a news source outside the US. ---------------- An aside, in support of open communication: Jazz, we would have a much better explanation of the Burma event had you not chosen to minimize host's posts. He has explained several times why he posts articles in full in the Politics forum, but y'all just don't want to hear it. This topic belongs in Politics, but I can understand why abaya would avoid that forum. The recent emphasis of tfp also having a political focus is a cruel joke, if you silence host. The Politics forum is moribund. If Hal is sincere in emphasizing politics once again, and not just pretending to be something more than a T&A board, he couldn't find anyone other that host to revive this forum and kick up some interest once again. Politics isn't pretty, and monks are being murdered. How does one separate the two? __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

10-06-2007, 09:08 AM	#62 (permalink)
debaser Sir, I have a plan... Location: 38S NC20943324	Meh. America got the shit kicked out of it for 8 years (arguably only 6) before we gained our independance. Nowadays people want revolutions that fit nicely into 2 minute clips on the evening news. Instant gratification, hooray for freedom. I wish the Burmese the best of luck. __________________ Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.

10-06-2007, 10:31 AM	#63 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	I can't help letting this though creep into the back of my mind again like it did when the Darfur situation made prime time news. It's probably not going to be a popular opinion, but then again, many of mine aren't. What if instead of demanding that our government intervene, we cut out the middleman? Take donations internationally, pool the money, and commission a private security firm (like the ones we use as mercenaries in Iraq) to overthrow the oppressive government. State the goal as having the oppressive government out of power by a certain time, at which there will be democratic elections guaranteed and guarded by those security forces and monitored by the UN or whatever international organization is capable of overseeing elections and detecting or preventing fraud. When the election is done and a new government is ready to take power, the UN can send in peacekeepers to ensure that the government that the people want remains stable. Mandate that the peacekeeper presence will be reduced to a minimum after the next election and that the military of the country will take over at that time.