|
|
 |
|
Getting On : All My Politics
Freedom Demonstrations in Burma | from cassy - Saturday, September 29, 2007
accessed 983 times My question is..is it our responsibility (as in the Western countries) to intervene, or should we leave it for them to sort out? Watching the events unfold in Burma with the military killing their own people who are demonstrating, it's incredibly frustrating that there isn't anything that can be done to support the people, or is there? It seems on the news that there's a lot of discussion but it seems that everyone is resigned to the fact that there will be bloodshed and the uprising will fail. I guess though, it leads me to the bigger question, which has been discussed before in places like Iraq or Zimbabwe, should it be the job of England and America to police the world, or should events just play out, and if a country has a dictator, then tough for them. Do the people eventually win out over their leaders if they stick together and there is enough of them? It seems to me that the key is getting the common military man to switch his loyalty from their commanders to join the protesters. It just seems inconceivable to me that a solider would turn on their own fellow citizens in order to keep the status quo in charge. Of course, I've never been in that position, but perhaps there are other perspectives on this. |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from resources
Sunday, October 07, 2007 - 13:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
Must see!
Operation hollywood
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8071178277073763777&hl=en
Fantastic resource for films and docs
http://www.tv-links.co.uk/listings/9
sign of the times?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2989704752696295389
(reply to this comment)
| from I do wonder..
Friday, October 05, 2007 - 05:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
what TF's position is on this. And all the the cults for that matter who are 'supposedly' trying to change the world for good. OH yeah they are in authoritarian cults which would be like condemning themselves.
when Burma is free they would only repeat the cycle and go there to leech of them and try and convert them into their cults.
Scientology would be first off course. I can see it now, tom cruise to the rescue.
It makes me so mad!
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from generals without a cause
Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 13:37
(Agree/Disagree?)
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4kanvnAfgWU
(reply to this comment)
| from Myanmar or Burma
Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 13:25
(Agree/Disagree?)
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=NGyzYspdgCw
Boycott Bagan airlines owned by the military family of Burma
(reply to this comment)
| from quote
Tuesday, October 02, 2007 - 17:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." —Margaret Mead
..So now people of Myanmar should talk and talk to the officers and soldiers to make them go out of the barracks and move on the side of monks and ordinary people. That move will bring total success as an affect of a snow ball. People should talk more and more to the soldiers and bring them food and agitate them everywhere to support monks. People of Myanmar need just few brave officers to start . People should not stay on one place . People should move and move very quickly.
(reply to this comment)
| | | |  From Baxter
Wednesday, October 03, 2007, 08:54
(Agree/Disagree?)
Military dictatorships usually work along the same lines: they create monopolies over economic and political assets. This means that officers benefit from being representatives of power. Beyond this, as with all military organisations the world over, there is a degree of separation of soldier from civilian, such that to some degree it is possible that the soldier will see the civilian as alien to him. This is obvious in the behaviour of the notorious light infantry regiments that were brought in from fighting the Karens to quell the unrest by force. These are the units that the junta will use to dispell further uprisings in the future, and these will if necessary be used against the other branches of the armed forces in the event of a mutiny - brutality can extend in all directions, and if te junta are willing to cut off their relationship with national religion in a positively devout country, then killing a few mutinous soldiers will be a drop in the bucket. In most cases the nature of military dictatorships requires the utilisation of military resources to control domestic politics: firstly, because it keeps their soldiers sharp, and secondly because they usually need to retain control by more than popular consent. Most of the officers will, under these conditions, have much more investiture in remaining with the junta, since the rewards for an officer in a military government are usually far far greater than one in a 3rd world democracy. As for the enlisted men, they will be far too scared to act on their own. An open military rebellion or coup de' tat would be meaningless as far as real change is concerned, and civil war (which is what it would come down to) would be far worse than what has just happened.
Ghandi only accomplished what he did because he was able to exploit the humanist leaning of an already guilt-laden imperial power who knew its days of glory were numbered. This strategy would never have worked against the contemporary French or the Spanish colonists. The only thing it might do would be to compell the west to impose heavy sanctions on Myanmar, but at what cost?(reply to this comment) |
| | From so..
Wednesday, October 03, 2007, 10:45
(Agree/Disagree?)
why don't they impose the sanctions on the british and foreign companies who support the regime and also on china--what about boycotting the olympics too?
Sanctions only hurt the people -look at Afghanistan and Iraq. the regime used the supplies for themselves and indeed sold the aid to those countries via the red cross back to the starving people. As in North Korea. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Baxter
Wednesday, October 03, 2007, 16:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
Personally, I think that alienating China is the last thing that should be on anyone's agenda at the moment, not least because China may be the key to resolving this crisis. China may have no interest in the propagation of democracy, nevertheless, China's priority in Myanmar and in the region is stability. The militarists in Myanmar would be next to lost without the economic and diplomatic relationship that they enjoy with China. Beyond this point, no power in the world will be willing to take on China and risk alienating one of the most profitable and potential developing markets, not least for some tinpot dictatorship in SE Asia.
Secondly, while sanctions will hurt the indegenous population to some degree, this is nothing compared to the crippling effect it will have on the power base of junta, who won't even be able to pay the soldiers they rely on to maintain their power. Political opposition leaders in Myanmar have been asking for sanctions against the junta for years. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from one woman's perspective
Tuesday, October 02, 2007 - 16:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IApdBHa8ZE
(reply to this comment)
| from Jim Carey on Aung Sung Su Chi
Tuesday, October 02, 2007 - 16:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NySuaJ2B20E
(reply to this comment)
| from police brutality
Tuesday, October 02, 2007 - 16:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
there are tons of examples of this coming to light on youtube and google video.
Especially in the USA.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from good quote
Monday, October 01, 2007 - 03:56
 (Agree/Disagree?)
First they came for the Communists,
- but I was not a communist so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists,
- but I was neither, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Jews,
- but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | from moon beam
Monday, October 01, 2007 - 03:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
make your protest heard-sign petition.
http://www.avaaz.org/en/stand_with_burma/t.php?cl=21659558
(reply to this comment)
| from Baxter
Sunday, September 30, 2007 - 13:20
(Agree/Disagree?)
It's quite possible that trade sanctions will be imposed on Myanmar, and these will in most likelihood have better long-term positive effect on the junta than direct military action at this point. Unless the Burmese military begin a programme of deliberate genocide or similar crimes of that magnitude, military action is hard to justify, and would probably do more damage than good. A limited peacekeeping mission (as with UNPROFOR in Bosnia) would not be tenable in this case, and aggressive action would have to be exerted against the Burmese government, which could go two ways: either the junta relents and steps down, as in the case of Raoul Cedras in Haiti (which is quite possible), or else it chooses to hold on to power, in which case it's prospective loss of face would mean open war. This might sound ostensibly ludicrous, but when one considers how long the Kmer Rouge managed to remain a destructive force in Cambodia, one must realise that sparking a long-term Guerrilla war in SE Asia is far worse than a sporadically violent, human-rights abusive tin-pot military dictatorship, at least in terms of regional stability. Also, the imposition of a foreign military power or coalition of powers has potential implications of which everyone is now more than aware, not least of which is the fact that more people will probably be killed in an escalation to conflict, than would ever be killed by the junta.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | From Baxter
Monday, October 01, 2007, 11:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
As I understand, it was especially due to trade sanctions on South Africa that finally broke the Apartheid state. This was due to financial forces rallying against the chokehold. The most important issue to any government, despotic or otherwise, is consistent flow and movement throughout their economies. You will notice that one of the first things the junta did after the beginning of the riots was to film one of their senior ministers inspecting indigenous industrial assets, to try and demonstrate economic stability. My point is that economic stagnation scares them considerably more than even domestic violence, which they can still deal with by exerting a little brutality. If a trade embargo was emplaced, the junta might face opposition from the domestic industrial sector as well as the popular sector. (reply to this comment) |
| | From cassy
Monday, October 01, 2007, 04:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
Sadly it's always the common person who gets hit the hardest, but on the other hand I agree that other countries should not support a regime that they fundamentally disagree with. There has to be a way to show disapproval, and economic punishment can be effective. I agree with Baxter that sometimes a lesser of two evils is the only realistic choice we have in this imperfect world.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From thatata
Sunday, September 30, 2007, 17:17
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Well, I just came out, from a little 'debate', with the sisters rainy and lisa, and I know according to some people this can be in very bad taste, to let everything hang out, but I wasnt told , exactly what there problem was with me, yes I know, this can be thot of as in very bad taste, but despite insincerity I like a little honesty sometimes. So whats the deal? Did u just want to insult me - without argument?
Something is a little funny and I dont whether to laugh or to laugh.
But, Im not crying, ha haha, (by the way, I was told saying" ha ha ha" is somehow Japanese, which of course makes me want to say , Ha ha ha)
And I know this is in bad taste but, ha ha ha.
By the way I dont hate any one of u Im just perplexed. Sorry about this, Ha ha ha.(reply to this comment) |
| | From rainy
Monday, October 01, 2007, 06:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think it's rather disrespectful of the serious topic of this article to put this little bit of silliness here Thatata. There was no debate, simply a question as to whether you are a native English speaker. I see no reason for it to offend you so. If you want to respond to this comment, please do so in another article, because I'm feeling sick inside right now about what is happening in Burma and I don't want to put this ridiculous non-existent 'argument' into the middle of it. My apology to the owner of the article for inadvertently causing this.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Samuel
Tuesday, October 02, 2007, 06:39
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Lisa, I do not hate you. I just think it would do you good to realise that the Earth revolves around the sun, not around you or your superiority complex. However, I've come to accept you the way you are.
However, you are going to have to quit using "wankable" because according to Brittanica Online, it is not a word. http://www.britannica.com/search?query=wankable&ct
Dictionary.com did not lend you any support either. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wankable
As for you saying whatever you want and not caring what other people think of you, I did not say it was a bad trait. I think it can actually be a good trait so long as you don't go overboard, and you do have a certain amount of respect from me for that.(reply to this comment) |
| | From AndyH
Tuesday, October 02, 2007, 08:12
(Agree/Disagree?)
Don't listen to him, fragiletiger. You are superior to everyone, except me. It's only a complex if it isn't true. Arrogance is just a word made up by people with no personal pride. Yes, the earth revolves around the sun, but who cares? I wouldn't want anything revolving around me. It sounds like the sun is a little insecure.
A wise man once said: "If you have a problem with me, it's probably just because I'm better than you."
Also, who looks up 'wankable' in the dictionary? Thanks for the links, Samuel. I'll bookmark them. *rolls eyes
Hmmmmm, I'm all out of saccharine. I guess I'll have to take my coffee with a little cynicism. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from pluto is at work
Sunday, September 30, 2007 - 10:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
the planet of revealing
http://www.circlesoflight.com/astrology-articles/pluto-power-propaganda.shtml
(reply to this comment)
| from some press articles
Sunday, September 30, 2007 - 08:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.1724311.0.burma_the_british_companies_that_help_to_prop_up_a_murderous_regime.php
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6919
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Military_tightens_grip_over_Myanmar/articleshow/2413869.cms
http://www.guardian.co.uk/burma/story/0,,2179898,00.html
good blog with important vids
http://maitreya-donttreadonme.blogspot.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dprj0nDWvA
Wake me up inside
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TKAh8MZ7eE
clips from pulp fiction
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nciabUuK__E
(reply to this comment)
| from Fish
Saturday, September 29, 2007 - 05:34
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ideally, my solution to this kind of situation, as well as the incessant strife in the Middle East, and the eternal hunger and disease in Africa, would be simple and straightforward:
Build a very high wall around the place in question.
In the case of Burma, this would take the form of supporting neither side. In the case of the Middle East this policy would mean yanking all support out from under Israel, Saudi Arabia and anywhere else. In Africa, this would mean leaving them the hell alone. That way, both the Muslims and the Africans can mess around and have their little wars, until eventually they grow up. Something which I suspect would happen rather quickly once their greedy neighbors desist in string pulling.
I know many would consider this course to be cruel, but the evolution of a culture generally is. During its troubled evolution he west had all manner of severe growing pains, and it is only insane hubris to think that we can prevent these same pains in other societies. We may be able to temporarily feed some starving children, but what will they do but grow up to produce even more starving children? Man is an animal, and animals tend to fight over food, water, etc…, and their population tends to fluctuate in response to the environment.
This strategy of interference, even in the rare instances where good intentions are present, is fundamentally flawed due to the fact that it is inherently unnatural. The situation in the Middle East could never sustain itself without outside help. The same must be said of the epidemics, famines and wars of Africa. These things must by necessity resolve themselves, or mankind would have gone extinct some time ago. The problem is the outside technologies and ‘aid’ which are funneled into these troubled zones. I believe that rather than decrease suffering, this outside interference by and large increases the long term human suffering.
Of course, the above policy is utter rubbish, as it is (in most cases) totally impossible to implement. Due to the utter impracticality of my preferred policy, I will fall back on a second, and in my opinion far inferior one:
The West should simply support those regimes or movements that it deems are in its interests to support.
Put simply, the West should do whatever it deems fit. The key to this policy is a far sighted perspective. None of this American quick fix bullshit should ever be countenanced.
The question of whether the west ought to support a “friendly dictator” is nothing new. It seems fairly clear that the west should support whoever supports them, within reason. Open support for a blatantly cruel and tyrannical dictator will eventually tarnish a democracy’s image, though in the case of the US, I hardly think much more tarnishing is possible.
For example, I believe the US ought to ignore any subtle moves toward tyranny by someone like Putin, who would be much better as a friend, but ought to crush irrelevant dictatorships, such as those present in Myanmar or North Korea (when such a thing is deemed desirable) if only to enhance their prestige.
I realize that this has generally been the West’s guiding policy, but there is, particularly in the case of the US, a sort of self-righteous pusillanimous “morally” induced blindness, which frustrates an enlightened yet pragmatic use of their power. I believe that should the US simply structure its foreign affairs in a clear, unafraid yet pragmatic manner, the entire world would eventually be the better for it.
(reply to this comment)
| From cassy
Monday, October 01, 2007, 04:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
You said an interesting point about intervention being unnatural. I'm starting to come round to that position as well. But it would have to go both ways. If other countries are pooring money or are meddling in other ways in a country, then they are supporting that system or regime and so to stand back when trouble happens seems to be a cop out, doesn't it?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]