http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/27/international/asia/27BURM.html Absolutly disgusting and stomach turning. Rape used as a weapon of war against ethnic rebellion. over 620 girls including young ones. Why can't we (the US) send troops here?
The same place as America's righteous indignation. UNOCAL (USA), Total (France) and Premier Oil (UK) are all buddies with the Burmese regime and as long as corporations are making money somewhere, human rights there won't be an issue. So don't look for Bush or his lapdog Blair to include Burma in the Axis of Unprofitabili... er, I mean the Axis of Evil anytime soon. Still, there are a few people here who are trying to make it an issue: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0612-03.htm
What does anyone expect them to say beside the usual PR spin? "Yeah, so? Look, we're making bucks and we don't give a crap about the fact that we're in bed with a REALLY evil regime that commits horrible atrocities against its own people. If Shell Oil can kill Nigerians, we can kill Burmese! So step off."? I agree that such honesty would at least be refreshing but UNOCAL will push whatever line they think will get people off their backs. The girls who got raped would probably disagree. If North Korea would let some of our corporations make a few bucks over there, we'd suddenly be hearing about what a great guy Kim Chong-Il is.
because while conservatives are always accused by lefties of thinking bombs first and everything else later, we're actually assessing the situation and applying the most effective use of influence, including military force if necessary. Meanwhile, lefties on these boards accuse the hawks of confusing cruise missiles with their organs, but then they want to go off on a fool crusade and invade every country (Burma, Saudi Arabia, etc.) with a nasty human rights problem, rather than deal with it in the peaceful, poltical manner that is the honorable tradition of the left. Doing so demonstrates a confusion on the left between security questions (for which military force, or at least its potential, is a necessary component) with human rights questions (for which a focused, long-term political campaign proves best).
Naturally, the narco-petroleum military dictatorship, the SLORC, has been fairly ruthless in stamping out pro-democracy dissent, especially after the pro-democracy coalition won an election in the late 80s ('88, I think). So there is support for democracy in Burma. Aung San Suu Kyi has emerged as the best-known leader of a pro-democracy movement in Burma. She won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991 and was held under varying degrees of house arrest for years. For more on her, go here: http://dir.salon.com/people/bc/2001/02/27/suu_kyi/index.html The prospects for democracy in a post-SLORC Burma would be a helluva lot better than in Afghanistan or Iraq but since the fascists in Burma are smart enough to keep their terrorism domestic and to let US and European oil companies take a slice of the pie, there won't be any war against them.
Re: Re: Perhaps the worst act of Terror I've heard of in my life I think I'm a member of this board's left, as is Mike, and I think you're off-base here. And if Gringo Tex and John Galt and some others were to chime in on this thread, I think you'd find yourself even more off-base. Don't equate Joseph the Jesus Hater with "the left." Altho, Axis of Unprofitability is a pretty good line.
Re: Re: Perhaps the worst act of Terror I've heard of in my life Agreed that not every situation can be resolved in the some sure-fire one-size-fits-all way - either always by force or always by appeasement. And agreed that some on the "left" are not always consistent in their opinions on human rights. The problem is that historically the support of the use of force by conservatives has little to do with human rights violations and much to do with if the human rights violators are letting companies make money within their borders or not. If the bad guys are letting our firms make money, then the firms and therefore the government usually have little problem with them and the language of "positive cultural and economic engagement" is used. If they don't let our companies make money or are generally doing things that are bad for business (like flying commercial airplanes into office buildings), then our leaders have usually selectively donned the cloak of human rights righteousness and sally forth to war against the foe. Which is why we're making war on the evil Saddam in Iraq but not on the equally evil junta in Burma or the evil Saudis who are liklely much more cuplable regarding 9/11 than Saddam or any of the evil rightist regimes that violate human rights in Latrin America. Conservatives rail against Castro's human rights abuses while they defend training future death squad members and human rights violators in the infamous "School of the Americas" or whatever they're calling it these days. Castro doesn't let us make profits in his country while the death squads support our companies by murdering and terrorizing workers and peasants to keep them from organizing. Therein lies the difference that matters.
Re: Re: Re: Perhaps the worst act of Terror I've heard of in my life But Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell said that Jesus sent the 9/11 bombers against us because we don't hate gays enough for Jesus's liking. That wasn't very nice of Jesus, was it?
It is disgusting, but no threat to our national security. No American lives are at stake in this, and there's no reason to put them at stake. Alex
Then why are we planning to invade Iraq??? Saddam is not threat to American lives either. Say what you will about him, he doesn't have a 10,000 mile delivery system.
Re: Re: Perhaps the worst act of Terror I've heard of in my life i.e., if we're going to actually USE that upon which we spend $400 billion annually, it certainly ain't gonna be set in motion for any damned-fool human rights issue...if and only if a strategic benefit to the US can be found (hence the harkening toward a focused long-term approach: "Wait them out and maybe it'll go away, or it'll be bled dry and we'll be outta there...) will there be any US "intervention." Beacon of freedom? Beacon of the freedom for US multinationals to exploit, US jobs to drift overseas, and US policy to become the hallmark of a failing empire, sentenced to the ignominy of all those empires before it, and interstingly enough falling from the same basic issues...
Nope, but he does have a 1,000 mile delivery system, which includes Israel. And the powers that be aren't going to let that happen.
No, he just has ties to terrorist networks. And he does have delivery systems that can hit our allies. You have to be a fool if you really think that Saddam poses no more threat to US security than the government of Burma. Alex
Without question, the government of Iraq poses no greater threat to US security than any other nation-state operating in its "interests." Don't blame others because you have decided, on your own, that England and Canada are friendly and Iraq is not. Last time England and the US actively "disagreed," the redcoats were burning down the White House...I harbor no illusions that ANYONE is our "friend." To make sure we rule the earth, as is our Manifest Destiny, we ought subjugate everyone with "Friends," "Worst-Case Scenario," "Joe Millionaire" and if we can dig it up, the first seasons of "Manimal," "Supertrain" the XFL and "Cop Rock"...that'll show 'em who's boss, damn it...
Wow. More like England and Canada decided they wanted to be friendly to us. That was 188 years ago. Alex
Exactly.. When you peel away all the "complexities" of almost any given situation around the world, it will end up back at this same story. To quote a famous line from Al Capp in "Lil' Abner"; "What's good for General Motors is good for the USA."