NationStates Jolt Archive

For a start this is not about the war in Iraq.
Yesterday was the birthday of Aung San Suu Kyi, the pro democracy leader of Burma. I was also the 2,523rd day under military detention.
What consequences have the military suffered for this by the western world?
Sanctions from one country, the USA, which have put sanctions on Burma. The EU can't decide which isn't greatly supprising and no one else seems to care.
So come on help the repressed country, oh wait a minute theres nothing in it for us so nothing happens.
A sad reflection of the world today.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/story.jsp?story=647984

Err, the US has refused to join into sanctions on nations that are widely comdemned many times; South Africa, for example. So your point is kind of dumb.

Err, the US has refused to join into sanctions on nations that are widely comdemned many times; South Africa, for example. So your point is kind of dumb.

I'm not talking generally, I'm talking about the specific case of Burma, which they have put sanctions on when the military decided to repress democracy. The rest of the world hasn't.
Now tell me what your post is trying to do other than question my intelligence?

What US?

Oh, you mean the nation that is now the Kingdom of America, ruled by King George W. Bush the First?

What US?

Oh, you mean the nation that is now the Kingdom of America, ruled by King George W. Bush the First?

Indeed

New Zealand cannot put sanctions on South East Asian nations as it would conflict with the Trade deal we are trying to seal with the South East Asian region.

Personally i wouldnt bothger to trade with them all they have is Communist Ideals and cheap hookers something's we already are sufficent in.
Id sanction there arse back to 1945.

Trade sanctions do not promote democracy. The two of them have nothing in common. What makes you think that the US is really sanctioning trade with Burma to promote democracy?

Oh wait, I just did a little research.

Other nations DO have sanctions against Myanmar/Burma:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3006908.stm

Europe and the US have imposed arms embargoes and suspended most aid programmes to the country.

Since Aung San Suu Kyi's detention, the EU has stiffened its sanctions still further - a travel ban on the Burma's top leaders and their families, freezing the assets of more than 150 senior government military leaders, ministers and officials, and an even tougher arms embargo.

SO again I question said intelligence.

New Zealand cannot put sanctions on South East Asian nations as it would conflict with the Trade deal we are trying to seal with the South East Asian region.

Personally i wouldnt bothger to trade with them all they have is Communist Ideals and cheap hookers something's we already are sufficent in.
Id sanction there arse back to 1945.

I understand that asian countries would have a hard time putting sanctions in but what about the EU? I mean they claim to be talking about it but she been incarcerated for 2,523 days. Does it take the EU that long?

The Royal Intelligence Service, lead directly by the Bush family, knows EXACTLY what they're doing!

Despite RUMORMONGERIST attempts to say that the RIS blew up a highschool thinking that RADICAL LIBERAL ANARCHIST POOFLINGERS had taken refuge, and instead wiping out the local Old Farts Republican Club, the RIS knows EXACTLY what they're doing!

By cutting off trade with Burma, the Kingdom of America has protected its native porn and hooker industry!

Oh wait, I just did a little research.

Other nations DO have sanctions against Myanmar/Burma:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3006908.stm



SO again I question said intelligence.

Oh forgive me for not reading the BBC website today and refering to an article printed yesterday, this has only just been agreed. So thats the waiting time for EU policy? And if you really look at your site that you have graciously have given it was only due to outcry

New sanctions

But international human rights advocates, including Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, criticised the European position.

"The words of protest at Aung Sang Suu Kyi's detention ring hollow when they do not translate into action," he said.

The Burmese delegation was obliged to limit itself to ministerial level at the Hanoi meeting, as a token of European disapproval.


Khin Nyunt 'resigned for health reasons', state media said
But the EU also compromised its principle of refusing all high-level contacts with Rangoon.

The Hanoi meeting was the first time that government heads from European Union countries had agreed to meet face to face with members of the Burmese junta.

There were harsh exchanges, and just two days later the 25 EU states formally announced they would extend their sanctions on Burma's generals, to ban any new investments in Burmese state-owned firms.


Only 5 years late well done EU :rolleyes:

"The European Union has a common foreign policy on Burma, and last year imposed a limited investment ban on Burma. A small but vocal group of anti-sanctions lobbyists are calling on the European Union to abandon its support for Burma’s democracy movement and give financial support to the regime. EU member states have so far ignored their demands, but the Commission appears to be promoting this position."
http://fi.oneworld.net/external/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.burmacampaign.org.uk%2Fpm%2Fweblog.php%3Fid%3DP155

Finnish companies have left the country years ago because of the junta. (krhm...Nokia was the last one to leave and only because consumers protested about it.)

A lot more could be done and should be done.

"USA is the only country that has imposed effective sanctions on Burma. It banned new investment in 1997 and banned imports in 2003. The EU imposed a limited investment ban in 2004, but the British government has admitted that no investment has been effected. This is largely because France vetoed more effective sanctions in order to protect French Oil giant TOTAL."

You got to love the French...

I understand that asian countries would have a hard time putting sanctions in but what about the EU? I mean they claim to be talking about it but she been incarcerated for 2,523 days. Does it take the EU that long?
Um the EU has bigger problems right now like keeping together.

But White nations cant go into places and force things on others anymore without being called genocidal Racists.

But you should stick the last bit of my sig into yours. :D
-Whether its accurate or not. ;)

Oh forgive me for not reading the BBC website today and refering to an article printed yesterday, this has only just been agreed. So thats the waiting time for EU policy?

That's 2003. The measures have been in effect for some time.

That aside, sanctions are generally pretty ineffective. They tend to hurt the people more than the government, and are generally pretty useless without some other stick/carrot. Moreover, they tend to really increase suffering among the people.

Look at the sanctions on Iraq- Saddam and company continued to live it up while they people starved.

Um the EU has bigger problems right now like keeping together.

But White nations cant go into places and force things on others anymore without being called genocidal Racists.

But you should stick the last bit of my sig into yours. :D
-Whether its accurate or not. ;)
Oh please. EU has done next to nothing and it won't do anything because it's harmful to business. They have spoken about it at least from 1998 and still accomplished nothing.

That's 2003. The measures have been in effect for some time.

That aside, sanctions are generally pretty ineffective. They tend to hurt the people more than the government, and are generally pretty useless without some other stick/carrot. Moreover, they tend to really increase suffering among the people.

Look at the sanctions on Iraq- Saddam and company continued to live it up while they people starved.
"Sanctions History
There is a perception that sanctions have been tried and have failed, but in fact the opposite is true. The past 15 years has seen massive foreign investment in Burma and a policy of engagement pursued by neighbouring countries. This policy of engagement has failed. Benefits of foreign investment and trade have not reached most ordinary Burmese people, and in fact poverty has increased and health spending has fallen. There has not been a single political democratic reform."

http://fi.oneworld.net/external/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.burmacampaign.org.uk%2Fpm%2Fweblog.php%3Fid%3DP155

The Super Secret Royal American James Bond Knockoff Service will send a pair of trained flying monkeys, launched specifically for the purpose from the ass of the King himself, to the EU to negotiate for increased sanctions.

We must protect New Zealand's hooker industry!

Bah, third post and I'm getting tired of that. Bleh.

Seriously, though, it comes down to where I just want to get some tanks, get a couple thousand people, and couple hundred guns, and maybe twenty or so bullets, and stage a revolution in latin america, the use that to conquer the world...

And end this silly democracy thing.

"Sanctions History
There is a perception that sanctions have been tried and have failed, but in fact the opposite is true. The past 15 years has seen massive foreign investment in Burma and a policy of engagement pursued by neighbouring countries. This policy of engagement has failed. Benefits of foreign investment and trade have not reached most ordinary Burmese people, and in fact poverty has increased and health spending has fallen. There has not been a single political democratic reform."

http://fi.oneworld.net/external/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.burmacampaign.org.uk%2Fpm%2Fweblog.php%3Fid%3DP155

So what? None of this would support implementing sanctions. Sanctions don't hurt the government, they hurt the people. Sanctions, historically, do NOT lead to political reform. In many cases they lead to quite the opposite, as power structures become further entrenched.

That's 2003. The measures have been in effect for some time.

That aside, sanctions are generally pretty ineffective. They tend to hurt the people more than the government, and are generally pretty useless without some other stick/carrot. Moreover, they tend to really increase suffering among the people.

Look at the sanctions on Iraq- Saddam and company continued to live it up while they people starved.

I missed one word, effective

So what? None of this would support implementing sanctions. Sanctions don't hurt the government, they hurt the people. Sanctions, historically, do NOT lead to political reform. In many cases they lead to quite the opposite, as power structures become further entrenched.
And so do investments.

right
and the US are the country which does the most investments in Africa

....how'd we get to Africa? I thought we were talking Burma...?

And so do investments.

I don't think that's true. Investment implies openess, openess is the antithesis of oppressive regimes. Look at what part investment and trade played in the collapse of the Soviet empire.

it was just an example

actually, the US do a lot of investments in the whole third world
and where they don't invest, the make embargos, sanctions or war

New Zealand cannot put sanctions on South East Asian nations as it would conflict with the Trade deal we are trying to seal with the South East Asian region.


There is no doubt that recent US and European threats to increase sanctions have worried Burma's military leaders.

"Instead of giving us time, instead of giving us encouragement and a pat on the back, they are always coming with threats, like sanctions and more sanctions," government spokesman Colonel Hla Min told the BBC recently.

And the threat of sanctions has even helped produce some small concessions.

The start of talks between Aung San Suu Kyi and the government nearly three years ago is a case in point. So too is her release from house arrest last year.

But these concessions - as shown by Aung San Suu Kyi's recent arrest and renewed detention - are often quickly reversed.

The problem is that the level of US and EU trade with Burma is so small that, in practice, Western-led sanctions are unlikely to have much effect. "

From the same BBC article. Asian countries are the ones who should put sanctions on Burma.

I don't think that's true. Investment implies openess, openess is the antithesis of oppressive regimes. Look at what part investment and trade played in the collapse of the Soviet empire.
Really helpful

http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/100036/1/

Oil giant Unocal has settled out of court in two lawsuits filed in the United States by villagers in Myanmar who allege the company benefited from human rights abuses they suffered during the construction of the Yadana gas pipeline.

and

http://fi.oneworld.net/external/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.burmacampaign.org.uk%2Fpm%2Fweblog.php%3Fid%3DP155
Benefits of foreign investment and trade have not reached most ordinary Burmese people, and in fact poverty has increased and health spending has fallen. There has not been a single political democratic reform.

Has anyone read "No Logo"? It explains quite well why most of the investments of foreign countries (not only US!) in the third world generate poverty instead of decreasing it.

For a start this is not about the war in Iraq.
Yesterday was the birthday of Aung San Suu Kyi, the pro democracy leader of Burma. I was also the 2,523rd day under military detention.
What consequences have the military suffered for this by the western world?
Sanctions from one country, the USA, which have put sanctions on Burma. The EU can't decide which isn't greatly supprising and no one else seems to care.
So come on help the repressed country, oh wait a minute theres nothing in it for us so nothing happens.
A sad reflection of the world today.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/story.jsp?story=647984

USA is only interested in democracy when it suits thier needs. they are perfectly happy with theocracies, authortarian states and dictatorship as long as the country abides by america's interests, and no, democracy is not one. where are the sanctions against Saudi Arabia, one of the U.S.' strongest allies in the middle east? and they have probably the worst human rights and civil rights in that region, bar israel. even iraq was more liberal when saddam was in power than saudi arabia is now. where was the U.S. during the oppression of east timor? What about the covert operations that toppled democratically elected left wing governments? and before you dismiss it as left wing propaganda, those exploits are recorded in the U.S.A.'s own congress library, coz it's what happened.

actually, the US do a lot of investments in the whole third world
and where they don't invest, the make embargos, sanctions or war

Now that's not true. The US has shown a firm willingness to trade and invest in economies with most nations; then place embargos/sanctions/wars on those few who later displease the government on some issue or another.

US Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) is remarkably forgiving to former enemies and future ones alike. That's probably because private companies are the ones investing, not so much the government itself.

Has anyone read "No Logo"? It explains quite well why most of the investments of foreign countries (not only US!) in the third world generate poverty instead of decreasing it.

Though it goes without saying that sanctions hurt even more.

Really helpful

http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/100036/1/



and

http://fi.oneworld.net/external/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.burmacampaign.org.uk%2Fpm%2Fweblog.php%3Fid%3DP155

Not really that helpful, because they fail to show:
a) a causative relationship between investment and rights abuse
and
b) that sanctions would reduce suffering rather than increase it.

No matter how bad the Burmese have it now, it will be worse under sanctions.

I don't think that's true. Investment implies openess, openess is the antithesis of oppressive regimes. Look at what part investment and trade played in the collapse of the Soviet empire.

let's talk about china huh? investment there sure didn't collapse the communist government. human right atrocities continue to be commited in that country yet it's economy is very powerful and growing, with predictions that in a few decades its economy will be the largest in the world.
And let's talk about russia huh? it isn't much of a democracy now is it? All media coverage now is basically state run

What US?

Oh, you mean the nation that is now the Kingdom of America, ruled by King George W. Bush the First?

Don't you mean George Bush the second.

Right, but sanctions and embargos or free trade are decided not only by the government alone. Everyone knows how much pressure do the private companies and the lobbies on the white house. So a country with a criminal dictatorship can trade free because of the interests of the private companies, while for example Cuba, which is no human right paradise but at least the government does not kill the dissidents like in Uzbekistan, is under embargo since the revolution for ideological reasons

let's talk about china huh? investment there sure didn't collapse the communist government. human right atrocities continue to be commited in that country yet it's economy is very powerful and growing, with predictions that in a few decades its economy will be the largest in the world.
And let's talk about russia huh? it isn't much of a democracy now is it? All media coverage now is basically state run

Right, but openess in China IS leading to reforms, both in terms of government and human rights. Look at China in its autoarkical period in the 60s compared to now. Obviously opening markets (and society as a whole) HAS made China more concerned with humanrights.

in terms of Russia, you're proving my point, essentially- the state is taking industry back from private investors, and it seems like we both think that's a bad thing. Increased investment in Russia would only help its democratization.

US Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) is remarkably forgiving to former enemies and future ones alike. That's probably because private companies are the ones investing, not so much the government itself.
Yep. US may have put sanctions on Burma but it does not stop American corporations doing business with them or in the country. Quite many companies have left because of the pressure but not all.

If someone is interested the "clean" and the "dirty" list can be found here
http://fi.oneworld.net/external/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.burmacampaign.org.uk%2Fpm%2Fweblog.php%3Fid%3DP155

Though it goes without saying that sanctions hurt even more.
it does not speak at all about sanctions
the book is about multinational companies, not US foreign policy :)

it does not speak at all about sanctions
the book is about multinational companies, not US foreign policy :)
I've read it, don't worry.

My point was that in some situations foreign investment can have negative consequences, but that in ALL situations sanctions have negative consequences (that is their point, after all).

Right, but openess in China IS leading to reforms, both in terms of government and human rights. Look at China in its autoarkical period in the 60s compared to now. Obviously opening markets (and society as a whole) HAS made China more concerned with humanrights.


China has opened because they wanted to. No outer force has changed their policies. Reforms have made it possible to invest in China. Not the other way round.

I've read it, don't worry.

My point was that in some situations foreign investment can have negative consequences, but that in ALL situations sanctions have negative consequences (that is their point, after all).
The nature of Burma’s economy is such that sanctions targeting foreign investments and international trade will impact on the regime while having a minimal impact on the majority of ordinary civilians.

Not in all situations...

China has opened because they wanted to. No outer force has changed their policies. Reforms have made it possible to invest in China. Not the other way round.

But why did they reform? In order to attract invest; this was pretty much Deng Xiopings overt goal. China wanted to join the outer world, to do so meant invesment reform. If we put sanctions on them, that incentive is gone, and they have no reason to reform at all.

Not in all situations...

oh the source:
http://fi.oneworld.net/external/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.burmacampaign.org.uk%2Fpm%2Fweblog.php%3Fid%3DP155

Read chapter 5.

Um, I couldn't find that quote in the article listed, so I can't really respond. That being said, 'targetted sanctions' are largely a myth anyways: it's virtually impossible to isolate the government from the people in sanction situations.

Also, chapter 5 of what?

Frankly, the notion that sanctions generally do sweet fuck-all is pretty weak. Hey, the US didn't clamp down official sanctions on anyone any harder than they did to Iraq over the 90's.

So what happened?

Companies like Haliburton kept on doing business with Iraq simply by forming wholey-owned foreign-based subsidiaries to do the work.


So, under existing US corporate and tax law, frankly sanctions mean absolutely sweet fuck-all to any US company as long as they are willing to spend the couple of hundred bucks to register a new overseas company.

Which is not to entirely single out the US. There are loopholes everywhere because politicians everywhere KNOW who pays their way - and it ain't joe citizen.

But hey, it lets the politicos stand on a soapbox, beat their breast, and pretend like they are doing something to their constituents when they know full well that they aren't. Fortunately Joe Average Voter either a) doesn't give a shit, or b) doesn't know just how meaningless the rhetoric is.

Um, I couldn't find that quote in the article listed, so I can't really respond. That being said, 'targetted sanctions' are largely a myth anyways: it's virtually impossible to isolate the government from the people in sanction situations.

Also, chapter 5 of what?
oh sorry, url doesn't change when you browse on that site. Here's the chapter

5. The Impact of Sanctions on Burma’s People
The nature of Burma’s economy is such that sanctions targeting foreign investments and international trade will impact on the regime while having a minimal impact on the majority of ordinary civilians.

Burma is a country with two economies, the informal and the formal. The informal economy is where the majority of Burma’s people, especially the poorest, produce, trade and work. In rural Burma (where 75 percent of the population live) people are largely involved in subsistence agriculture (see figure 2). In the urban areas, as in the rural, business units tend to be small and based around the extended family, involved in small production, trade or services. As economist Alfred Oehlers 19 of Auckland University of Technology observes regarding the informal economy:

Forms and methods of business organisation and management are not very advanced, relying principally on established customs, practices and traditions… In the informal sector, the level of exposure to external markets is extremely small.

He 20 continues:

As sanctions will primarily affect the cross-border flows of goods, services and finance, this [informal] sector – with its low level exposure to external markets – will be relatively insulated from any consequences. The informal sector is by far the most important for ordinary people in Burma, around which, most of their lives revolve.

The formal economy is very different from the informal and the two are largely independent of each other. The formal economy relies much more heavily on foreign investment and markets. Enterprises in this sector are larger, more advanced in organisation and management. When classified by the management body, 80 percent of large-scale enterprises with more than 100 employees are state-owned or state-affiliated enterprises. 21 They are concentrated in the extractive industries, manufacturing, tourism, finance and banking. 22 The formal economy both historically and currently is in the main owned by the military establishment, their families and their associates. This was the case when these industries were nationalised after the military coup of 1962 and when they were ‘privatised’ during the 1990s. As Minoru Kiryu 23 notes:

“While deregulation of private investments has encouraged the establishment of many private enterprises and important export enterprises, many of the entrepreneurs involved are retired government officials and servicemen.

Therefore it is clear that the sanctions targeting the larger scale formal economy industries in Burma will impact more directly on the economic interests of the military and its support base while having a minimal impact on the vast majority of ordinary people. As Oehlers 24 observes:

Given the highly centralised nature of the ownership of and control within the Burmese economy, it may reasonably be presumed the negative consequences arising from sanctions will have greatest impact on the military and its closest associates. Far from the blunt and indiscriminate tool it is often accused of being, in the case of Burma at least, sanctions appear to be surprisingly well targeted and capable of exerting considerable pressure on the military regime.

But why did they reform? In order to attract invest; this was pretty much Deng Xiopings overt goal. China wanted to join the outer world, to do so meant invesment reform. If we put sanctions on them, that incentive is gone, and they have no reason to reform at all.
Does Burma's junta need to change to attract invest? No. It's doing pretty well. If there were no invests, it would have to change to attract invest...

You can't really compare these 2 countries.

oh sorry, url doesn't change when you browse on that site. Here's the chapter

That's all very good and well, but it still means no medecine, etc, and it won't stop the ruling regime from taking anything they want from the people.

The best idea may be an arms embargo, which is already in place from the EU and the US, because it will reduce the ability of the regime to coerce the population. Economic sanctions will not cause terrible suffering from the ruling regime- they will not starve, and they can steal whatever they need from the people.

Does Burma's junta need to change to attract invest? No. It's doing pretty well. If there were no invests, it would have to change to attract invest...

You can't really compare these 2 countries.

My understanding is that it atracts moderate interests at best (especially in comparison to what it COULD attract: it was naturally extremely well endowed). There was an article in the economist about this a few months ago, I will see if I can link it online. I have it as a hard copy but you usually have to pay to read economist.com articles.

That's all very good and well, but it still means no medecine, etc, and it won't stop the ruling regime from taking anything they want from the people.

The best idea may be an arms embargo, which is already in place from the EU and the US, because it will reduce the ability of the regime to coerce the population. Economic sanctions will not cause terrible suffering from the ruling regime- they will not starve, and they can steal whatever they need from the people.
At least they wouldn't be stronger every day. They wouldn't have money to buy arms from countries which never put any bans on anyone.
But I agree that we should not stop helping the people of Burma. Anyway the people are suffering because of the junta and it's unwillingness to provide basic needs. The best we can do for Burmese is to free them from their leaders.

edit: the main problem is the junta. Shouldn't we focus on fixing the main problem instead of smaller problems which are mostly related to the main problem

At least they wouldn't be stronger every day. They wouldn't have money to buy arms from countries which never put any bans on anyone.
But I agree that we should not stop helping the people of Burma. Anyway the people are suffering because of the junta and it's unwillingness to provide basic needs. The best we can do for Burmese is to free them from their leaders.

Yes, and the best way to do that isn't to isolate them, but empower the people i.e. give them jobs with fair wages

Does Burma's junta need to change to attract invest? No. It's doing pretty well. If there were no invests, it would have to change to attract invest...

You can't really compare these 2 countries.

Something to keep in mind when considering sanctions; rather than a be-all end-all solution, or a straight-up waste of time; certain nations are susceptible to sanctions, others aren't effected by them very much.

Sanctions against Burma, as the evidence suggests, would be effective only if specifically targeted against their weak spots in their economy without crippling their infrastructure. No simple task, as if the distinctions are too precise, the government will find ways around it, if they are too broad the people will suffer unduly.

However, the jury is still out on wether or not the military government would be in the least impressed by their citizens' plight in that regard. Indeed, it might backfire.

The real trick right now, is Burma's rapidly nearing term as the head of ASEAN, last I heard the talk around the diplomatic circuit is for Burma to quietly and politely refuse to take its term as head...or else the EU and the US will boycott.

ASEAN is much more important than simple sanctions; and if Burma backs down, it could be a sign of positive development and the possibility of future negotiations. If not...Burma may become a new N. Korea.

Yes, and the best way to do that isn't to isolate them, but empower the people i.e. give them jobs with fair wages
And who will look after the workers' rights? The leaders can still steal everything from the people. We should isolate them so that they would be forced to make reforms. As already pointed out, that doesn't affect the ordinary civilians.

the rest of the world is sitting at home minding its own fucking business because "democracy" is just a vague political ideology in exactly the same way communism is, no one is asking the US to "fight for democracy" because thats about as intelligent as fighting against terrorism, its just an idea that the US believes in, that doesnt make it right and it certainly doesnt mean that its ok to depose governments that are minding their own business in the name of democracy

.

The real trick right now, is Burma's rapidly nearing term as the head of ASEAN, last I heard the talk around the diplomatic circuit is for Burma to quietly and politely refuse to take its term as head...or else the EU and the US will boycott.

ASEAN is much more important than simple sanctions; and if Burma backs down, it could be a sign of positive development and the possibility of future negotiations. If not...Burma may become a new N. Korea.
Oh yes. Of course ASEAN is much more important in this case but EU could do more too.

Oh yes. Of course ASEAN is much more important in this case but EU could do more too.

I have been corrected that the EU is doing something but why can't it go about doing things that are going to actually affect the situation

I have been corrected that the EU is doing something but why can't it go about doing things that are going to actually affect the situation
We both know that EU won't do shit because big corporations say no no. So instead of trying to put pressure on EU we should put pressure on those corporations which are more than happy to make business with the junta. (The junta (+relatives etc) own basically everything in the country, so everyone who's doing business over there, is doing it with the junta)

I'm not talking generally, I'm talking about the specific case of Burma.this is like Sddam talking about the his good deeds...and refusing to talk about murdering Kurds and shiites.

You want to defend the Chimps foreign policy?...I am afraid you will have to defend it all the way...not only in Madagascar.

this is like Sddam talking about the his good deeds...and refusing to talk about murdering Kurds and shiites.
This thread is about Burma, not about USA. There's certainly more than enough threads about USA.

this is like Sddam talking about the his good deeds...and refusing to talk about murdering Kurds and shiites.

Why do we continually compare saddam to Bush? Not that I like either I was just applauding the USA by making effective sanctions on Burma. I made that comment so we wouldn't get into the same old debates. The subject was on Burma so why should we mention the War in Iraq?

Err, the US has refused to join into sanctions on nations that are widely comdemned many times; South Africa, for example. So your point is kind of dumb.

The US has had sanctions on Iran for 25 years... what good has it done? :p

This thread is about Burma, not about USA. There's certainly more than enough threads about USA.
like I said this is like proposing to talk about Hitler...but focusing on his good deeds...and refuse to talk about his crimes.

like I said this is like proposing to talk about Hitler...but focusing on his good deeds...and refuse to talk about his crimes.
So? You want to talk about the crimes the junta has committed? Ok.

like I said this is like proposing to talk about Hitler...but focusing on his good deeds...and refuse to talk about his crimes.

exactly how is it at all like that? My God you have only mentioned two facist dictators in a thread about Burma, that also have nothing to do with Burma. so when are going to mention Gengis Khan ?

We both know that EU won't do shit because big corporations say no no. So instead of trying to put pressure on EU we should put pressure on those corporations which are more than happy to make business with the junta. (The junta (+relatives etc) own basically everything in the country, so everyone who's doing business over there, is doing it with the junta)

What we should do is MAKE the EU enforce rules on the Corporations but thats not within the EU powers

exactly how is it at all like that? My God you have only mentioned two facist dictators in a thread about Burma, that also have nothing to do with Burma. so when are going to mention Gengis Khan ?ok, I can do that...its like proposing to talk about Khan but tryng to limit the discussion to his good policies...and censoring out his BAD policies...OR VISEVERSA.

and for the trekkies pleasure:

KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNN!!!

:D :D :D

Sadly, democracy, freedom etc have become just sticks for the US to beat countries with when it suits US foreign policies.

" At least the US is fighting for Democracy, where's the rest of the world."

:rolleyes:

it would be good if the US has been consistent in its fight for democracy. history indicated otherwise. US's continuing friendships with Saudi despots and Paki dictators are prime examples.

lemme give an example.

US, the "oldest and greatest" democracy moved a part of its 7th fleet (including a nuclear submarine, U.S.S. Enterprise) towards the Bay of Bengal in 1971 during the Indo-Pak war of Bangladesh Liberation.

Not to help democratic India, but to intimidate it in support of a dictator Yahya of Pakistan who was suppressing a revolt in the then east pakistan. The irony is that the revolt was due to the annullment of the results of the general elections of pakistan in which an east pakistani guy (a Bengali - Mujib Rahman, the first Prime minister of independant Bangladesh) won and the west pakistani dominated army could not bear the thought of having an east pakistani Prime Minister.

so there it is. Democracy subverted by a dictator (Yahya).

The Dictator then proceeds to kill around 3 million people in a genocide. http://www.gendercide.org/case_bangladesh.html

Refugees flood bordering Indian states.

The largest democracy (India) and a dictatorship (pakistan) go to war , and the president of US , Nixon, has this to write,

"To all hands, Don't squeeze Yahya" strongly underlining the word "Don't."

see the declassified document here,

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB79/index2.htm

this is despite the US Consul General at Dhaka Archer Blood informing the state department of the genocide in what is now famously known as "Blood Telegram".

The telegrams are in pdf format in the above link. since they are in image mode and not text mode, i am quoting from another link

http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/dec/30nixon.htm

The story -- as laid out in the newly declassified papers -- begins with a telegram from the US consulate in Dacca, which says, in part: "Our government has failed to denounce the suppression of democracy. Our government has failed to denounce atrocities. Our government has failed to take forceful measures to protect its citizens, while at the same time bending over backwards to placate the West Pakistan government... Our government has evidenced what many will consider moral bankruptcy..."

Twenty consular officials signed the document, addressed to then National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger. In an addendum, then Consul General Archer Blood says that while he, as the ranking official at the consulate, cannot sign the telegram, he fully endorses the views expressed therein.

"I believe the views of these officers, who are among the finest US officials in East Pakistan, are echoed by the vast majority of the US community, both official and unofficial," says Blood, in the telegram.

In another telegram -- with the ominous words 'Selective Genocide' as subject -- also addressed to the National Security Advisor and dating back to March 1971, Blood is far more descriptive of events in Dacca:

"Here in Dacca we are mute and horrified witnesses to a reign of terror by the Pak military. Evidence continues to mount that the MLA [Martial Law Administrators] authorities have a list of Awami League supporters whom they are systematically eliminating by seeking them out in their homes and shooting them down.

"Among those marked for extinction, in addition to the AL hierarchy, are student leaders and university faculty. In this second category, we have reports that Fazlur Rahman, Head of the Applied Physics Department, Professor Dev, Head of the Philosophy Department and a Hindu, M Abedin, Head of the Department of History, have been killed. Razzak of Political Science Department is rumored dead. Also on list are the bulk of MNAs [Members of the National Assembly] elect and a number of MPAs [Members of the People's Assembly]."

If all this presages the shape of things to come in Kashmir, the next paragraph in the Blood telegram is even more apropos to current events. The Consul General writes: "Moreoever, with support of Pak military, non-Bengali Muslims are systematically attacking poor people's quarters and murdering Bengalis and Hindus..."

Blood goes on to warn that the Administration's policy towards the conflict could boomerang badly. "Full horror of Pak military atrocities will come to light sooner or later. I, therefore, question continued advisability of present USG posture of pretending to believe GOP's false assertions...

"We should be expressing our shock, at least privately to GOP, at this wave of terror directed against their own countrymen by Pak military."

Ponder these words and phrases, all penned by high-ranking US officials on the spot:
"... bending over backwards to placate the West Pakistan government"
"... Our government has evidenced what many will consider moral bankruptcy"
"... mute and horrified witnesses to a reign of terror by the Pak military"
"... with support of Pak military, non-Bengali Muslims are systematically attacking poor people's quarters and murdering Bengalis and Hindus"
"... question the continued advisability of present USG [US Government] posture of pretending to believe GOP's [Government of Pakistan] false assertions..."



part two here

http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/dec/31nixon.htm

The United States Consul General in Dacca, Archer Blood, was in fact circumspect in his wordings, when contrasted with a message that went out from the American Embassy in New Delhi a day later.



Signed by Ambassador Keating himself, the telegram -- again, addressed to the Secretary of State -- is a devastating indictment of US Administration policy. To quote, in part: "Am deeply shocked at massacre by Pakistani military in East Pakistan, appalled at possibility these atrocities are being committed with American equipment [emphasis ours], and greatly concerned at United States vulnerability to damaging allegations of association with reign of military terror.



"I believe USG [US Government] should

(a) promptly, publicly and prominently deplore this brutality;

(b) should privately lay it on the line with GOP [Government of Pakistan] and so advise GOI [Government of India]; and,

(c) should announce unilateral abrogation of one time exception military supply agreement, and suspension of all military deliveries under the 1967 restrictive policy.



"It is most important these actions be taken now, prior to inevitable and imminent emergence of horrible truths and prior to Communist initiatives to exploit situation. This is time when principles make best politics."



Signed, as mentioned above, by Ambassador Keating himself -- and interestingly, unlike Consul General Blood in Dacca, the Ambassador in New Delhi does not even refrain from signing the telegram while endorsing the views contained therein.



But what does Kissinger advise the president?


Significantly, Kissinger tells Nixon that the US has the economic muscle to force Pakistan to toe the line; and that China is actively engaged on the side of Pakistan.



The National Security Advisor then sets out the options:

"Option 1 would be essentially a posture of supporting whatever political and military program President Yahya chooses to pursue in the East...



"Option 2 would be to try and maintain a posture of genuine neutrality...



"Option 3 would be to make a serious effort to help Yahya end the war and establish an arrangement that could be transitional to East Pakistan autonomy."



Kissinger spells out what steps would need to be taken in the case of each of the options, suggests that his own recommendation is that the US government go with Option 3. Supporting this recommendation, Kissinger tells his boss: "Option 3 would have the advantage of making the most of the relationship with Yahya while engaging in a serious effort to move the situation towards conditions less damaging to US and Pakistani interests. Its disadvantage is that it might lead to a situation in which progress toward a political settlement has broken down, the US had alienated itself from the 600 million people in India and East Pakistan, and the US was unable to influence the West Pakistan government to make the concessions necessary for a political settlement."



President Richard Nixon's response to Kissinger's comprehensive six-page briefing is a hand-written, signed note, attached to the briefing itself. Marked "To All Hands", the US president sums up official policy towards the situation in the subcontinent in six simple words: "Don't squeeze Yahya at this time."


President Nixon underlines the word 'Don't' thrice, just in case anyone fails to get the message.

Not only that Kissinger infact encouraged PRC ( run by another "democracy") to intervene on behalf of the pakistanis and assured the chinese of American military involvement on their behalf should the Ruskies attack China.


This policy can still be seen today. even today the pakistani dictator Musharraf is propped up by US and he gets F-16s as part of the war on terror. I wonder what terrorist is going to be killed by an F-16.

what was the question?

"At least the US is fighting for Democracy, where's the rest of the world"

we are right behind ya. :)

Snip



So after all that what do you think about Burma and the US sanctions? As that is what I was congratulating the US on. Because we all have a go at them so I thought I'd start a thread that was positive about the US and also showed the problems in Burma but if you wanna moan about the US go right ahead

At least the US is fighting for Democracy, where's the rest of the world
Canada is clearing landmines and building field hospitals at various locations.

Canada is clearing landmines and building field hospitals at various locations.

In Burma :confused:

I really wish I put Burma in the title now lol

....how'd we get to Africa? I thought we were talking Burma...?

Lots of people with strong political biases think Burma's in Africa. Chalk it up to shoddy education.:D

Lots of people with strong political biases think Burma's in Africa. Chalk it up to shoddy education.:D

LOL :D

So after all that what do you think about Burma and the US sanctions? As that is what I was congratulating the US on. Because we all have a go at them so I thought I'd start a thread that was positive about the US and also showed the problems in Burma but if you wanna moan about the US go right ahead

hey, i did write we r right behind ya. :)

I should have made myself clearer.

I still think it would be good if US is consistent in its claims of spreading democracy and not use democracy as a stick to beat with.

moaning?

about what?

Did not the US assist the Shah of Iran to depose a democratically elected Mosadegh ?

I have some sympathies for the US supporting dictators in cold war, but I just find it VERY hollow when US / Americans claim to spread democracy.

are u saying that the US is NOT supporting dictatorships now?

i don't care about what EU or other countries say about this, cuz they don't claim to represent the ideals that the Americans claim to represent.

if u want to claim moral highness, act like it.

Don't tell us to do something , when you yourselves are not doing it.

btw, I am all for Aung San Sui Ki and her efforts agains the military Junta.

hey, i did write we r right behind ya. :)

I should have made myself clearer.

I still think it would be good if US is consistent in its claims of spreading democracy and not use democracy as a stick to beat with.

moaning?

about what?

Did not the US assist the Shah of Iran to depose a democratically elected Mosadegh ?

I have some sympathies for the US supporting dictators in cold war, but I just find it VERY hollow when US / Americans claim to spread democracy.

are u saying that the US is NOT supporting dictatorships now?

i don't care about what EU or other countries say about this, cuz they don't claim to represent the ideals that the Americans claim to represent.

if u want to claim moral highness, act like it.

Don't tell us to do something , when you yourselves are not doing it.

btw, I am all for Aung San Sui Ki and her efforts agains the military Junta.

I just didn't wanna get into a pro anti american debate, I agree with you though that America is inconsistent but if it starts acting like it does in this case then maybe it can take that moral high ground ;)

Originally Posted by Sarkasis
Canada is clearing landmines and building field hospitals at various locations.

In Burma

I really wish I put Burma in the title now lol
No, not in Burma. At least, not right now. LOL :D

But some countries (like Canada) are actively involved in social development, peace-keeping operations, and put some pressure on dictators / oppressive governments.
For example, we currently have troops in Afghanistan clearning mines (and this is a VERY dangerous job because modern mines are hard to detect), troops in Sri Lanka running a field hospital, and so on.
We don't have much of an army but we try to use it for good causes, in situations where we're able to make a difference.

Here's a small list of canadian points of views & actions about Burma:

http://www.burmalibrary.org/show.php?cat=202



PS: I was active in the "Friends of East Timor" group in the 1990s. At times it was tough, because we were receiving threats from the weapons companies & even from employees working for these companies. Canada was a major light weapons exporter to Indonesia at the time. To have the canadian change its diplomatic stance towards Indonesia, and stop these exports, was a great victory for activists. When East Timor finally gained independance, we were extremely happy for them.

No, not in Burma. At least, not right now. LOL :D

But some countries (like Canada) are actively involved in social development, peace-keeping operations, and put some pressure on dictators / oppressive governments.
For example, we currently have troops in Afghanistan clearning mines (and this is a VERY dangerous job because modern mines are hard to detect), troops in Sri Lanka running a field hospital, and so on.
We don't have much of an army but we try to use it for good causes, in situations where we're able to make a difference.

Here's a small list of canadian points of views & actions about Burma:

http://www.burmalibrary.org/show.php?cat=202



PS: I was active in the "Friends of East Timor" group in the 1990s. At times it was tough, because we were receiving threats from the weapons companies & even from employees working for these companies. Canada was a major light weapons exporter to Indonesia at the time. To have the canadian change its diplomatic stance towards Indonesia, and stop these exports, was a great victory for activists. When East Timor finally gained independance, we were extremely happy for them.

Thanks for the link :)

I just didn't wanna get into a pro anti american debate, I agree with you though that America is inconsistent but if it starts acting like it does in this case then maybe it can take that moral high ground ;)

Oh, I am not an anti-american by any stretch of imagination.

I only wish america becomes the america it was and the america it claims to be.

There is still some moral high ground left, but it is fast eroding. :(

at times the democracy rhetoric has proved not only grating but even counter productive.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/06/19/experts_bush_remarks_spurred_iran_voters/

Bush Remarks May Have Spurred Iran Voters

By BRIAN MURPHY, Associated Press WriterSun Jun 19, 7:04 PM ET

Iran's spy chief used just two words to respond to White House ridicule of last week's presidential election: "Thank you." His sarcasm was barely hidden. The backfire on Washington was more evident.

The sharp barbs from President Bush were widely seen in Iran as damaging to pro-reform groups because the comments appeared to have boosted turnout among hard-liners in Friday's election — with the result being that an ultraconservative now is in a two-way showdown for the presidency.

"I say to Bush: `Thank you,'" quipped Intelligence Minister Ali Yunesi. "He motivated people to vote in retaliation."

Bush's comments — blasting the ruling clerics for blocking "basic requirements of democracy" — became a lively sideshow in Iran's closest election since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. And they highlighted again the United States' often crossed-wire efforts to isolate Iran.

Bush described the election as an exercise in futility because Iran's real power rests with the non-elected Islamic clerics, who can override the president and parliament. Many agree with that description of a regime that allowed just eight presidential candidates from more than 1,000 hopefuls.

On Sunday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the election shows that the country is out of step with democratic reforms in the Middle East.

"I just don't see the Iranian elections as being a serious attempt to move Iran closer to a democratic future," she said in an interview on ABC's "This Week."

Apparently Rice sees the US support of House of Saud is a serious attempt to move Saudi Arabia to a democratic future.

Oh, I am not an anti-american by any stretch of imagination.

I only wish america becomes the america it was and the america it claims to be.

There is still some moral high ground left, but it is fast eroding. :(

at times the democracy rhetoric has proved not only grating but even counter productive.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/06/19/experts_bush_remarks_spurred_iran_voters/



Apparently Rice sees the US support of House of Saud is a serious attempt to move Saudi Arabia to a democratic future.
Saudi Arabia isn't my fav country its abuses of human rights have to be some of the worst currently :(

What US?

Oh, you mean the nation that is now the Kingdom of America, ruled by King George W. Bush the First?

The Second, actually. ;)

What we should do is MAKE the EU enforce rules on the Corporations but thats not within the EU powers

...including American corporations?

Lots of people with strong political biases think Burma's in Africa. Chalk it up to shoddy education.:D

I very seriously doubt that. lol

...including American corporations?


America have put stronger sanctions on Burma anyway

What US?

Oh, you mean the nation that is now the Kingdom of America, ruled by King George W. Bush the First?

There are some sad, pathetic, and ignorant people in this world who could turn a post about "What flavor of icecream do you like?" into a Bush bashing fest. How sad. :(

The House of Saud is probably the most horrible monarchy in the world today.

If u r really into Burmese politics, here is a good article

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/SRR/Volume13/bahroo.html

A Family at War: Myanmar ’s Power Struggle and Purge

Laxman Bahroo
Executive Summary

In October 2004, a terse statement by the government of Myanmar announced that Lt. General Khin Nyunt had retired for health reasons. The sudden “retirement” of the widely favored future leader of Myanmar spurred wild speculation. Overnight speculation emerged in the media about the removal and likely outcomes. Much of the analysis was premature, based on existing stereotypes and contained often repeated terms such as “hardliner” and “reformer.” Some even erroneously referred to the event as a coup. Myanmar ’s government is shrouded in secrecy and more complex than imagined by many outsiders. This paper will attempt to elucidate the dynamics within the regime, the power structure and the role of Khin Nyunt. It will then examine factors that led to his removal and the systematic purge of the government. This paper will also examine the impact of these events on the region and possible issues that may arise in the future.

Contents
Myanmar's Politics
Power Struggle
The Removal of Khin Nyunt and the Purge
List of Recently Transferred or Retired Ministers
Abolishing the NIB
Current Leadership
International Reaction
Summary and Analysis
References and Footnotes


A small factoid: Burma used to be a part of British India until 1937.

There are some sad, pathetic, and ignorant people in this world who could turn a post about "What flavor of icecream do you like?" into a Bush bashing fest. How sad. :(

I was congratulating America but it seems to have wandered a bit but to be fair its still reasonably close to its roots

America have put stronger sanctions on Burma anyway

To be fair, America has consistently been against the military junta of Burma/Myanmar.

IOW, the junta has no services to offer to the US. ;)

The House of Saud is probably the most horrible monarchy in the world today.

If u r really into Burmese politics, here is a good article

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/SRR/Volume13/bahroo.html



A small factoid: Burma used to be a part of British India until 1937.

Its a small project of mine. I'm the class human rights crusader :D. Politics needs one ;)

To be fair, America has consistently been against the military junta of Burma/Myanmar.


I am praising them for this

I was congratulating America but it seems to have wandered a bit but to be fair its still reasonably close to its roots

I know. Some people just can't give credit where credit is due. America has influenced a big movement toward democracy in the last couple of years. How sad that some people won't give America or President Bush's policies credit. :( Oh well, history will...some day.

I know. Some people just can't give credit where credit is due. America has influenced a big movement toward democracy in the last couple of years.

so u agree that America did nothing for democracy before a couple of years? ;)

jk. lol.

I am just skeptical because another american influenced big movement (modern pan-islamism during the Afghan jihad) has been so detrimental to the region and the world at large including US.

history will...some day.

Nothing has changed for history to change.

US still supports dictators when it suits.

Karimov, PRC Commies, House of Saud, Musharraf...

so u agree that America did nothing for democracy before a couple of years? ;)

jk. lol.

I am just skeptical because another american influenced big movement (modern pan-islamism during the Afghan jihad) has been so detrimental to the region and the world at large including US.
Nothing has changed for history to change.
US still supports dictators when it suits.
Karimov, PRC Commies, House of Saud, Musharraf...

If I critisize the US then I must also be fair and applaud when it has done something that I consider right. Believe me I'm not condoning America's actions on other fronts I just think this sort of policy is a step in the right direction for the USA

What US?

Oh, you mean the nation that is now the Kingdom of America, ruled by King George W. Bush the First?

soooo..... because you don't like him he is a king?

If he really was a king don't you think he would have executed the supreme court a long time ago for being such assholes?

If I critisize the US then I must also be fair and applaud when it has done something that I consider right. Believe me I'm not condoning America's actions on other fronts I just think this sort of policy is a step in the right direction for the USA

I see ur point and I appreciate it and I hope there are more like you :) and I agree that US should continue with this policy not only with Burma but with all other despotic regimes incuding the ones that the US is currently propping up.

I will concede that the title put me off and the whole "we have the monopoly on morality" line by Bush adm is getting too grating nowadays for me.

Gataway_Driver

Your friends :D , the saudis have found a novel crime to imprison political prisoners.

http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx/2005/06/20/afx2102469.html

Rice criticizes Saudis on rights; gets firm rebuff
06.20.2005, 11:27 PM

RIYADH (AFX) - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has criticized Saudi Arabia's record on democratic reform and the jailing of three activists but was firmly rebuffed by Washington's Middle East ally.

'The row is really meaningless,' :rolleyes: Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal told a post-midnight news conference after Rice conferred with him and the country's de facto ruler, Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz.

'The assessment that is important for any country in the development of its political reform is the judgment of its own people,' Prince Saud said. 'And that is, in the final analysis, the criteria that we follow.'

Rice flew into Riyadh on the fourth leg of a regional swing after delivering a major speech in Cairo calling for sweeping democratic change and naming Saudi Arabia as one of the states still lagging.

Addressing 600 Egyptian officials, scholars and students at Cairo's American University, she praised the 'brave citizens' in Saudi Arabia who are 'demanding accountable government.'

'Some first steps toward openness have been taken with recent municipal elections,' the chief US diplomat said. 'Yet many people still pay an unfair price for exercising their basic rights.'

'Three individuals in particular are currently imprisoned for peacefully petitioning their government -- and this should not be a crime in any country.'

She was referring to three activists sentenced to between six and nine years in prison in May on charges of demanding a constitutional monarch in the ultra-conservative Gulf sheikhdom.

Ali al-Demaini, Abdullah al-Hamed and Matruk al-Faleh were found guilty of 'using Western terminology' in formulating their demands. They also allegedly questioned the king's role as head of the judiciary.

'We will continue to follow the progress of this case, we think it is an important case,' Rice said.

'The petitioning of the government for reform should not be a crime.'

But Prince Saud said he told Rice the prisoners had broken a law. 'They are in the hands of the court. The government cannot interfere until the court action is taken in this regard.'



The crime of using western terminology.

That's got to be a new.

Sure, give credit where credit's due.
It just rings so damn hollow when Burma get's so little exposiure in the media, and when civil initiatives are the ones forcing sanctions through.

And please keep in mind the Burmese never asked for much US involvement. They have stated several times they are dead scared of US ridding them of the junta, inserting a new one, and selling off all the resources to US/EU corporations. Given our history, and US history in particular, it's hard to blame them. I haven't seen 1 single successfull endavour by the US to help a forign people.

And don't get me wrong. I don't like America nor what they stand for. The Freedom to Consume is a bit scary to me. But I don't hate Americans. Just this forum shows there are real humans over there.
I don't even think your governments goals are any different from what a european country's would be. You just have the means to annex other countries. We don't.

But that doesn't mean that every single President singe WWII isn't a war crimminal. It's great some things occationally works like they're meant to. It's very bad if you pretend all the horrible killings are justified by a couple of good deeds. Don't ask for recognition. If you deserve it, you'll get it. Likewise, don't expect people not to focus on your genocidal behaviour :)

Gataway_Driver

Your friends :D , the saudis have found a novel crime to imprison political prisoners.

http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx/2005/06/20/afx2102469.html

The crime of using western terminology.

That's got to be a new.

I don't know whats worse, the fact that this still happens in the world or the fact that I'm not supprised. :(

Sure, give credit where credit's due.
It just rings so damn hollow when Burma get's so little exposiure in the media, and when civil initiatives are the ones forcing sanctions through.

And please keep in mind the Burmese never asked for much US involvement. They have stated several times they are dead scared of US ridding them of the junta, inserting a new one, and selling off all the resources to US/EU corporations. Given our history, and US history in particular, it's hard to blame them. I haven't seen 1 single successfull endavour by the US to help a forign people.

And don't get me wrong. I don't like America nor what they stand for. The Freedom to Consume is a bit scary to me. But I don't hate Americans. Just this forum shows there are real humans over there.
I don't even think your governments goals are any different from what a european country's would be. You just have the means to annex other countries. We don't.

But that doesn't mean that every single President singe WWII isn't a war crimminal. It's great some things occationally works like they're meant to. It's very bad if you pretend all the horrible killings are justified by a couple of good deeds. Don't ask for recognition. If you deserve it, you'll get it. Likewise, don't expect people not to focus on your genocidal behaviour :)

Because of the lack of media attention I brought it here just to show people.

Your also correct that the Burmese want minimal US involvement which again it has agreed to, sanctions are questionable how they affect a country but diplomatically they send out a clear message and I hope this message is repeated with every nation that can (Obviously the South East Asian countries can't because of some sort of trade deal, don't know the full info on that).

From what I see there's this "you" and "me" part which is a little confusing as I'm not American.

Well I made a thread that was actually based on American foregin policy that I thought we could all agree on. All we hear is how America has now done this or that and it is never positive because its always easier for people to speak about the negatives. Your right it is time we had some fairness. How many threads have been about:

A) War in Iraq

B) Repubs Vs Dems

C)Incompetency of Bush, Kerry and god knows who else

Lets have some balance, if all these negative threads equal one positive thread then YOU are clearly mistaken

BTW I'm British and proud so what particular genocide were you referring

Because of the lack of media attention I brought it here just to show people.
Commendable move on your part.
Your also correct that the Burmese want minimal US involvement which again it has agreed to, sanctions are questionable how they affect a country but diplomatically they send out a clear message and I hope this message is repeated with every nation that can (Obviously the South East Asian countries can't because of some sort of trade deal, don't know the full info on that).
Well actually, they want media coverage, but other than that, they want as little outside interferrance as possible. No tourism. No corporate business. And whatever medical gear the junta will allow. They dread EU as much as they dread the US. And with equally good reason. Ok, it's not that simple at all, but I'v been awake far too long to make much sense right now.
From what I see there's this "you" and "me" part which is a little confusing as I'm not American.
I'm sorry. I took you for an American. My mistake. I hope you won't hold it against me.
Well I made a thread that was actually based on American foregin policy that I thought we could all agree on. All we hear is how America has now done this or that and it is never positive because its always easier for people to speak about the negatives. Your right it is time we had some fairness. How many threads have been about:

A) War in Iraq

B) Repubs Vs Dems

C)Incompetency of Bush, Kerry and god knows who else

Lets have some balance, if all these negative threads equal one positive thread then YOU are clearly mistaken
I'm new here. I'll have to take your word for it. But all those yankee bashing threads does seem to have an overwhelming amount of mindless US propaganda in them as well. I would have thought it evened it out... I am new tho, so I might just have gotten the wrong impression.
BTW I'm British and proud so what particular genocide were you referring
I wasn't referring to any British genocides, but you do realize you've had your fair share, right? BEsides, both your & my soldiers are current engaged in an all out invasion of a soverign nation. That's not legal. By all rights, all the civillians we get killed, directly or indirectly, are our responsibility. And it is borderline genocide, especially when parred with some of the wonderful anti-Muslim remarks our US allies keeps spewing.

Commendable move on your part.

Well actually, they want media coverage, but other than that, they want as little outside interferrance as possible. No tourism. No corporate business. And whatever medical gear the junta will allow. They dread EU as much as they dread the US. And with equally good reason. Ok, it's not that simple at all, but I'v been awake far too long to make much sense right now.

I'm sorry. I took you for an American. My mistake. I hope you won't hold it against me.

I'm new here. I'll have to take your word for it. But all those yankee bashing threads does seem to have an overwhelming amount of mindless US propaganda in them as well. I would have thought it evened it out... I am new tho, so I might just have gotten the wrong impression.

I wasn't referring to any British genocides, but you do realize you've had your fair share, right? BEsides, both your & my soldiers are current engaged in an all out invasion of a soverign nation. That's not legal. By all rights, all the civillians we get killed, directly or indirectly, are our responsibility. And it is borderline genocide, especially when parred with some of the wonderful anti-Muslim remarks our US allies keeps spewing.

No worries and yes I do realise that we've had more than our fair share ;)

from the title...

If the US knew where the rest of the world and understood the rest of the world, then there would be less need for "fighting/invading/liberating/etc"

whats so good about democracy anyway ?

from the title...

If the US knew where the rest of the world and understood the rest of the world, then there would be less need for "fighting/invading/liberating/etc"

whats so good about democracy anyway ?

Maybe you should look further than the title then, I admit it wasn't my best one

What US?

Oh, you mean the nation that is now the Kingdom of America, ruled by King George W. Bush the First?

soooo..... because you don't like him he is a king?

If he really was a king don't you think he would have executed the supreme court a long time ago for being such assholes?

Why would he execute the court that handed him the office? If anything, he owes them one. ;)

from the title...

If the US knew where the rest of the world and understood the rest of the world, then there would be less need for "fighting/invading/liberating/etc"

whats so good about democracy anyway ?

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other ones that we've tried. ;)

Isn't it a bit strange that someone who starts a thread promoting US policy against Burma and attacking the EU is then surprised when the debate turns into a pro- / anti- US one because, hey, the thread was "about Burma"????

The US, like any other economically powerful nation on this planet, chooses to act on some political issues and ignore others dependant upon whether or not they consider the country to be an ally or a potential trading partner. I don't think there's any doubt that the US has a generally benign attitude towards the rest of the world and wants to promote freedom and democracy across the globe; the current administration may well be truly incompetent at implementing this but that shouldn't be held against the nation as a whole.

Should the EU be doing more in the case of Burma? Yes, without doubt.

Do sanctions work? To some extent, although consumer-led boycott of product is an equally effective tool. It was a combination of these two factors that forced the South Africans to reassess Apartheid in the end.

If by the rest of the world you mean France and China, they're condoning the genocide in Sudan because of oil contracts.

If by the rest of the world you mean France and China, they're condoning the genocide in Sudan because of oil contracts.


They would condone/ignore it even if there was no oil.

People seem to be missing how sanctions rarely work effectively....The powerful military state will remain just as powerful...using sanctions to reduce the amount of money they can generate as a state will only lead the the further suffering of the poor.

I hazard that the EU might have been trying to have a dialogue with the Myanmar government....the minute they apply sanctions (that only work on rare occasions...like in South Africa) that dialogue has ended and they will close their doors on us.

The EU does also have Britain in it, which can be a disadvantage in these issues....after all, in trying to improve the situation on Zimbabwe, Mugabe just turned the nation against the EU saying they there the puppets of the Imperialist nation of Britain. I am British and sadly have seen our history thrown back at us by tinpot dictators in order to propaganda their long suffering people into thinking their poverty is all our fault.

The fact that we ruled Myanmar when it was Burma might inhibit the EU

All not as easy as it seems