NationStates Jolt Archive

BURMA



Last Updated: Friday, 21 September 2007, 10:40 GMT 11:40 UK

Burma monks issue defiant message
Buddhist monks protest in Rangoon, Burma - 19/9/07
Monks have been holding a series of anti-government protests

Leaders of protests by Buddhist monks in Burma say they intend to continue their peaceful demonstrations until the military government collapses.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7005974.stm



Where's the clergy in the States?
Oh, they're more interested in their positions/power than peace and justice.
Or the rest of us for that matter.
Let's get out of Iraq and end the hi-jacked, unconstitutional, corporate, imperial war government that occupies America (and the world via over 700 known/admitted military bases in over 130 different countries)

As long as they don't plan a bonfire...

As long as they don't plan a bonfire...

haha.
i think they are of a different sect than those from Vietnam

If normal Burmese actions are anything to go by, then their monasteries are probably going to get shelled, and then mined so that they can't come back and rebuild them, before the monks get put in labour camps.

*sighs*

BURMA



Last Updated: Friday, 21 September 2007, 10:40 GMT 11:40 UK

Burma monks issue defiant message
Buddhist monks protest in Rangoon, Burma - 19/9/07
Monks have been holding a series of anti-government protests

Leaders of protests by Buddhist monks in Burma say they intend to continue their peaceful demonstrations until the military government collapses.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7005974.stm



Where's the clergy in the States?
Oh, they're more interested in their positions/power than peace and justice.
Or the rest of us for that matter.
Let's get out of Iraq and end the hi-jacked, unconstitutional, corporate, imperial war government that occupies America (and the world via over 700 known/admitted military bases in over 130 different countries)

TWM, even if everything you allege against the current US government were 100% correct, which is not even close to being the case, it remains the choice of the people of the US.

These monks are simply asking for the right to choose.

If the religious types in the US started trying to force the government out of power, they would be going against the expressed will of the populace.

Very brave of them. They should be admired. Good luck to them.

TWM, even if everything you allege against the current US government were 100% correct, which is not even close to being the case, it remains the choice of the people of the US.

These monks are simply asking for the right to choose.

If the religious types in the US started trying to force the government out of power, they would be going against the expressed will of the populace.



Well, the cia and all their well documented dastardly deeds of overthrowing democratically elected gov'ts, subverting elections (including Australia in the 70s), funneling arms to paramilitaries, drugs (read Gary Webb's Dark Alliance among others), is unconstitutional.

no electorate EVER voted for any of THAT.
all monies appropiated by congress must be accounted for.
the cia's budget is secret. and thus unconstitutional.
plain as the paper the constitution is written on.
but..., to them that's all it is, is a piece of paper.

BURMA



Last Updated: Friday, 21 September 2007, 10:40 GMT 11:40 UK

Burma monks issue defiant message
Buddhist monks protest in Rangoon, Burma - 19/9/07
Monks have been holding a series of anti-government protests

Leaders of protests by Buddhist monks in Burma say they intend to continue their peaceful demonstrations until the military government collapses.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7005974.stm



Where's the clergy in the States?
Oh, they're more interested in their positions/power than peace and justice.
Or the rest of us for that matter.
Let's get out of Iraq and end the hi-jacked, unconstitutional, corporate, imperial war government that occupies America (and the world via over 700 known/admitted military bases in over 130 different countries)

Uch uch uch uch uch OWWWWWWWWWWWW SNAP!

Well, the cia and all their well documented dastardly deeds of overthrowing democratically elected gov'ts, subverting elections (including Australia in the 70s), funneling arms to paramilitaries, drugs (read Gary Webb's Dark Alliance among others), is unconstitutional.

no electorate EVER voted for any of THAT.
all monies appropiated by congress must be accounted for.
the cia's budget is secret. and thus unconstitutional.
plain as the paper the constitution is written on.
but..., to them that's all it is, is a piece of paper.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA America subverted our elections huh? bring some proof, the Americans had nothing to do with Whitlam

The years 1972-1975 were a whirlwind of activity, controversy and change, culminating in the dramatic events of October 1975 when the coalition parties in the Senate used their numbers to delay passage of the government's Supply Bills. A three-week constitutional impasse followed, culminating in Whitlam's dismissal by the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, on November 11

Well, the cia and all their well documented dastardly deeds of overthrowing democratically elected gov'ts, subverting elections (including Australia in the 70s), funneling arms to paramilitaries, drugs (read Gary Webb's Dark Alliance among others), is unconstitutional.
Don't think it is, you'll find.
no electorate EVER voted for any of THAT.
They don't have to vote for such things to make them constitutional or not.
all monies appropiated by congress must be accounted for.
the cia's budget is secret. and thus unconstitutional.
The budgets have been and will continue to be released after a medium-term perioid.

Well, the cia and all their well documented dastardly deeds of overthrowing democratically elected gov'ts, subverting elections (including Australia in the 70s), funneling arms to paramilitaries, drugs (read Gary Webb's Dark Alliance among others), is unconstitutional.

no electorate EVER voted for any of THAT.
all monies appropiated by congress must be accounted for.
the cia's budget is secret. and thus unconstitutional.
plain as the paper the constitution is written on.
but..., to them that's all it is, is a piece of paper.

Sorry, TWS, but Santhar's dead right. As I wrote in another thread, The Dismissal is probably the single most studied event in Australian political history - the US, simply, was not involved.

Of course, the US WAS involved in many other "dastardly deeds" - propping up the dictatorships in Greece and Brazil, funding the Contras in Nicaragua, supporting the destruction of the Chilean Allende government by Pinochet - but I think you'll find none of that was unconstitutional, and if the people of the US did not directly vote upon it - well, that is why the US is a Representative Republic, NOT a direct democracy.

And the CIA's budget is NOT secret - from Congress. Congress has no constitutional requirement to tell anyone else. So the CIA is a perfectly constitutional body.

HAHAHAHHAHAHA America subverted our elections huh? bring some proof, the Americans had nothing to do with Whitlam
The Aussie Reserves were put on alert, due to CIA pressure, to launch martial law if the Labor government got into power. That's how they were subverted.

The Aussie Reserves were put on alert, due to CIA pressure, to launch martial law if the Labor government got into power. That's how they were subverted.

Link?

The Aussie Reserves were put on alert, due to CIA pressure, to launch martial law if the Labor government got into power. That's how they were subverted.

Er, that makes exactly NO sense.

Labor WAS in power. The Whitlam Government was Labor. The whole political set of maneuvers by Fraser and company was to get the Governor General to kick Whitlam OUT of power, so that Fraser and the Liberal/National Coalition could run the country up to the next election. It worked, and Fraser went on to win that election in his own right.

BURMA



Last Updated: Friday, 21 September 2007, 10:40 GMT 11:40 UK

Burma monks issue defiant message
Buddhist monks protest in Rangoon, Burma - 19/9/07
Monks have been holding a series of anti-government protests

Leaders of protests by Buddhist monks in Burma say they intend to continue their peaceful demonstrations until the military government collapses.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7005974.stm



Where's the clergy in the States?
Oh, they're more interested in their positions/power than peace and justice.
Or the rest of us for that matter.
Let's get out of Iraq and end the hi-jacked, unconstitutional, corporate, imperial war government that occupies America (and the world via over 700 known/admitted military bases in over 130 different countries)

you think the clergy of the US should be in burma protesting the military government? thats a little unrealistic.

Link?

Er, that makes exactly NO sense.

Labor WAS in power. The Whitlam Government was Labor. The whole political set of maneuvers by Fraser and company was to get the Governor General to kick Whitlam OUT of power, so that Fraser and the Liberal/National Coalition could run the country up to the next election. It worked, and Fraser went on to win that election in his own right.
Yeah, erm, just realised, was talking utter shite. Sorry :(

My source, though I haven't read it in a long time
is William Blum's "Killing Hope", which has lots of well researched info compiled in it.
chapter 40. Australia - 1973-1975: Another free election bites the dust


Once knew a place that had this ENTIRE book online.
Now only places with select chapters, Australian one not one of them.
I will try to track it down again and repost.

Yeah, erm, just realised, was talking utter shite. Sorry :(

No worries. Verbal diarrhea gets us all sometimes.

you think the clergy of the US should be in burma protesting the military government? thats a little unrealistic.

Sorry.
I meant the clergy of US based denominations protesting for a fall of the US military government (and its 50+ years of global unjustice forced upon the world).

Oh, wait, they already are:

http://www.soaw.org

Well, actually they are not protesting to make any gov't fall, just for restorative justice

Well, actually they are not protesting to make any gov't fall, just for restorative justice

ie. "restorative justice"

Sorry.
I meant the clergy of US based denominations protesting for a fall of the US military government (and its 50+ years of global unjustice forced upon the world).

Oh, wait, they already are:

http://www.soaw.org

Well, actually they are not protesting to make any gov't fall, just for restorative justice

You do realize that the clergy in Burma is protesting because of conditions of inequality and oppression against them. I sincerely doubt they'd be up in arms if someone ELSE in Burma was being fucked with.

The same goes for the "clergy of the US." As long as their interests are represented, what need do they have to protest anything?

ie. "restorative justice"

Hmm. I never trust that phrase. It always seems to mean "Let's do something bad to one group in order to make up for something bad that happened to another group."

Well, the cia and all their well documented dastardly deeds of overthrowing democratically elected gov'ts, subverting elections (including Australia in the 70s), funneling arms to paramilitaries, drugs (read Gary Webb's Dark Alliance among others), is unconstitutional.

no electorate EVER voted for any of THAT.
all monies appropiated by congress must be accounted for.
the cia's budget is secret. and thus unconstitutional.
plain as the paper the constitution is written on.
but..., to them that's all it is, is a piece of paper.

The US constitution is written on parchment.

And you cant honestly expect the US government to publically state that theyre spending x billion dollars on the CIA's shiny toys every year, can you? People would want to spend that money on stuff like edumacation.

This is the worst civil strife Burma has seen for decades, plus with the monks protesting the Government is in a really difficult place. To 'crack down' on the monks is to seriously risk national revolutions. Like Thailand and much of South East Asia, Buddhist monks are more than respected, they are revered. Even the most brutal of military governments will be very careful to appear pro-buddhist. To strike out against monk is to drastically escalate the situation, as we have seen.

I am seriously expecting an imminent regime change in Burma, unless China really flexes it's clout to stop it. My advice; invest in a little bit of Rangoon real estate.

I find this... interesting...

Leaders of protests by Buddhist monks in Burma say they intend to continue their peaceful demonstrations until the military government collapses.

and a bit later...
It said the monks would keep up their protests until they had "wiped the military dictatorship from the land of Burma".

:p

*why are old b grade Kung Fu fight scenes now flashing through my mind?*

I'd like to see TWS live in real oppression for a while, then say the US government is doing that.

I find this... interesting...



and a bit later...


:p

*why are old b grade Kung Fu fight scenes now flashing through my mind?*

...

That's the most awesome mental image I've had for a long time.

*why are old b grade Kung Fu fight scenes now flashing through my mind?*

Once upon a time in Burma...
*Enter buddhist monk dedicated to a life of peace*
<.<
>.>
*Grabs can-opener*
...
*Grabs can of whoopass*
...

Oh my, but how to finish?

Once upon a time in Burma...
*Enter buddhist monk dedicated to a life of peace*
<.<
>.>
*Grabs can-opener*
...
*Grabs can of whoopass*
...

Oh my, but how to finish?

... the master of the worst monk/student is killed by overwhelming gunfire. the lone monk then vows revenge and proceeds to hand the military their collective asses.

it ends with a climatic battle between the Corrupt General and the monk.

the monk wins, and he refuses the people's cry for him to take power and he walks off into the sunset, preparing to rebuild his monestary...

of course it all has to be badly dubbed...

... the master of the worst monk/student is killed by overwhelming gunfire. the lone monk then vows revenge and proceeds to hand the military their collective asses.

it ends with a climatic battle between the Corrupt General and the monk.

the monk wins, and he refuses the people's cry for him to take power and he walks off into the sunset, preparing to rebuild his monestary...

of course it all has to be badly dubbed...
Genius. Very nice. I miss stories like this. If you do too, watch a Thai movie called 'Ong Bak' starring Tony Jaa. The acting is tacky, the fight scenes incredible, and the story just like this.

I'd like to see TWS live in real oppression for a while, then say the US government is doing that.

what the US gov't has done to other peoples by training dictators and death squad leaders.

yup. they have done a lot of injustice.

Hmm. I never trust that phrase. It always seems to mean "Let's do something bad to one group in order to make up for something bad that happened to another group."

calls for participants in an act of injustice to acknowledge responsibility, apologize to victims, and assure the provision of restitution to victims.


doesn't sound like any sort of injustice at all.



This may or may not be the best example, but
let's say European colonialism just came to an end in say...Africa.
the peoples of Africa should have 1) stopped sending their resources abroad
and started to trade with each other instead.
THAT is not injustice to Europeans. Merely would have been ending outright theft. It would not have been the peoples of Africa's fault if certain people of Europe had become used to the high living of a gangster boss.

2) Europeans should have compensated Africa somehow.
Not necessarily with cold hard cash.
Maybe people from Europe could have gone to places in Africa at the people's request and helped them rebuild their communities as Africans saw fit.
In this case maybe Europe might have been what is today called "poorer", but in other ways much richer.


But I doubt things would have turned out exactly X horrible way.
As the definition of above defines, it is not about revenge.


I mean, some might argue that Europeans had nothing short of having their head lopped off for having enslaved an entire continent and their peoples. (yeah, along with the US a little too)
And in some individual cases things like that I am sure happened. Some people might continue to justify it to themselves to do such things yet today.

But with the end of European colonialism the same resources kept exiting the lands at the same paces.
Africa did not do even #1 above.
From that alone it is clear that justice even in the usual sense (usual US anyway) was not served.
The quickie-mart hold up guy just put his gun down. Maybe a clerk or two helped him take things out of the store as well.

calls for participants in an act of injustice to acknowledge responsibility, apologize to victims, and assure the provision of restitution to victims.


doesn't sound like any sort of injustice at all.



This may or may not be the best example, but
let's say European colonialism just came to an end in say...Africa.
the peoples of Africa should have 1) stopped sending their resources abroad
and started to trade with each other instead.
THAT is not injustice to Europeans. Merely would have been ending outright theft. It would not have been the peoples of Africa's fault if certain people of Europe had become used to the high living of a gangster boss.

2) Europeans should have compensated Africa somehow.
Not necessarily with cold hard cash.
Maybe people from Europe could have gone to places in Africa at the people's request and helped them rebuild their communities as Africans saw fit.
In this case maybe Europe might have been what is today called "poorer", but in other ways much richer.


But I doubt things would have turned out exactly X horrible way.
As the definition of above defines, it is not about revenge.


I mean, some might argue that Europeans had nothing short of having their head lopped off for having enslaved an entire continent and their peoples. (yeah, along with the US a little too)
And in some individual cases things like that I am sure happened. Some people might continue to justify it to themselves to do such things yet today.

But with the end of European colonialism the same resources kept exiting the lands at the same paces.
Africa did not do even #1 above.
From that alone it is clear that justice even in the usual sense (usual US anyway) was not served.
The quickie-mart hold up guy just put his gun down. Maybe a clerk or two helped him take things out of the store as well.

I agree with you in theory. But in practice, it is never so clean and simple.

For instance, were you to take certain farms away from their white owners here in Australia and give them to the local Aboriginal people, some would see that as justice. And it might even be true that the land involved was once stolen from that tribe.

However, said theft would almost certainly have occurred well over a hundred years ago. The current white owners had nothing to do with the theft - they (and quite likely several generations of ancestors) have spent their lives improving the land they saw as theirs, raising their children and looking after the land. To take it from them now, is as much an injustice as the original theft.

I agree with you in theory. But in practice, it is never so clean and simple.

For instance, were you to take certain farms away from their white owners here in Australia and give them to the local Aboriginal people, some would see that as justice. And it might even be true that the land involved was once stolen from that tribe.

However, said theft would almost certainly have occurred well over a hundred years ago. The current white owners had nothing to do with the theft - they (and quite likely several generations of ancestors) have spent their lives improving the land they saw as theirs, raising their children and looking after the land. To take it from them now, is as much an injustice as the original theft.

It seems much more sensible for the most recent crimes.

Which might be why simple financial compensation might not be the "restorative justice" thing.

I remember maybe a decade or so ago a gov't in Africa took the farms of European descent people and gave it to Africans. Small farms I can see this as an obvious injustice. Large plantations on the other hand would be something entirely different. And like above, the "restorative justice" thing might be a little more than just monetary compensation. I do not know the details of the situation in 90s Africa with regards to size of the farms.

This concept is kind of new to me so I please go easy on me all around.

This is the worst civil strife Burma has seen for decades, plus with the monks protesting the Government is in a really difficult place. To 'crack down' on the monks is to seriously risk national revolutions. Like Thailand and much of South East Asia, Buddhist monks are more than respected, they are revered. Even the most brutal of military governments will be very careful to appear pro-buddhist. To strike out against monk is to drastically escalate the situation, as we have seen.

I think this is amazing stuff - it looks awesome and I hope, truly hope that there isn't a crackdown - a peaceful revolution, which has some hope with the monk-led demonstrations.

Either there's a regime change or a crackdown - it's growing and the government will have to respond sooner or later.

I wish these demonstrators all the luck in the world.

Anyone who professes an interest in politics should be following this closely.

Here's an updated article (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,507437,00.html)

Here's an updated article (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,507437,00.html)

Interesting. Thank you.


The population has begun openly showing its support too. Tens of thousands of people have reportedly joined the march of the monks. Other spectators form human chains or simply applaud. Brave-hearted monks are holding passionate speeches by Sule Pagoda in downtown Yangon. They speak of the suffering and the desperate poverty of Myanmar's 50 million inhabitants -- and call for the overthrow of the junta that seized power in Myanmar (formerly known as Burma) in 1962.

[...] For not only is Myanmar a profoundly Buddhist country -- the ruling generals are also extremely superstitious. If an overly harsh clampdown of the protests by the security forces were to lead to the death of any monks, the generals would feel they have incurred the wrath of the gods. The monks are fully aware of this strength.

A newly formed underground group, the Young Monks' Union, has for days been calling on citizens in all parts of the country to join their protest. The monks have opted for a clever tactic: Their faith requires them to beg for their daily food every morning. But for days, they have refused to accept alms from members of the military or their relatives. This is one of the movement's most powerful weapons. Such a decision is tantamount to a kind of excommunication in the Buddhist country. The monks apparently want to pressure the lower ranks of the military to break away from the junta leadership.

And now, the government issued a warning:

Myanmar government warns monk protesters (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070924/ap_on_re_as/myanmar;_ylt=AiUiALPWfqbh1EP2twq6tcms0NUE)

Go monks!

And, TWS, why must you turn this into an anti-US diatribe?

They're being joined by thousands of anti-govt. protesters.

I predict revolution.

I remember maybe a decade or so ago a gov't in Africa took the farms of European descent people and gave it to Africans. Small farms I can see this as an obvious injustice. Large plantations on the other hand would be something entirely different. And like above, the "restorative justice" thing might be a little more than just monetary compensation. I do not know the details of the situation in 90s Africa with regards to size of the farms.

This concept is kind of new to me so I please go easy on me all around.

Zimbabwe!? You're using ZIMBABWE as an example? If you're using that hellhole Zimbabwe as an example, then you've just successfully argued that black Africans should never be allowed near farms again.

Zimbabwe!? You're using ZIMBABWE as an example? If you're using that hellhole Zimbabwe as an example, then you've just successfully argued that black Africans should never be allowed near farms again.

How has that got any relevance to his comment about restorative justice?

How has that got any relevance to his comment about restorative justice?

That appears to be the example that TWS has chosen FOR restorative justice. Notably, neither restorative, nor just...

That appears to be the example that TWS has chosen FOR restorative justice. Notably, neither restorative, nor just...

I agree with that but at the same time I don't think it's exactly an invalid example of restorative justice (which is what Ferous Ocide was saying, I think), just not a particularly good idea.

Man this subject derails quickly here.

Another update (http://www.guardian.co.uk/burma/story/0,,2176570,00.html)

It is interesting to wonder what China will think of this; they can't really condone an uprising and it's possible they're urging a crackdown but then they can't really be seen to go against the monks either.

Their mantra over Taiwan and Tibet is that countries should not interfere with the internal affairs in another country.

Over 100, 000 protesters and confirmed spread to 4 other cities.

Imagine it spread into South West China.

Man this subject derails quickly here.

Another update (http://www.guardian.co.uk/burma/story/0,,2176570,00.html)

It is interesting to wonder what China will think of this; they can't really condone an uprising and it's possible they're urging a crackdown but then they can't really be seen to go against the monks either.

Their mantra over Taiwan and Tibet is that countries should not interfere with the internal affairs in another country.

Over 100, 000 protesters and confirmed spread to 4 other cities.

Imagine it spread into South West China.

This is amazing. Could we see some peaceful overthrow? Hopefully yes but I doubt it. If the government does something stupid, there'll be a riot.

This is amazing. Could we see some peaceful overthrow? Hopefully yes but I doubt it. If the government does something stupid, there'll be a riot.

Here's more on China's predicament (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2176620,00.html)- I can't vouch for it as correct though I feel it covers most of the points.

Even the most "peaceful" religions have a dark side ;). Good luck to 'em.

i think we know where the clurgy in the u.s. is. the small percentage who have a conscience have been leading and participating in protests, while what seem to be the vast majority have instead been kissing the you know what of you know who.

the who of course being the criminal corporate mafia that has usurped the political proccess. we need to realize though, that what made it possible for this to happen, theology, idiology and the rest of oh gees aside, is that the market for them to be able to do so was created and continues to be created by the statistical concensus of people being more concerned about what each other thinks of them as an individual and trying to impress each other, then about the kind of world we all have to live in.

=^^=
.../\...

Monks set themselves on fire in South Vietnam but the government didn't change. Good luck to them though.

i think we know where the clurgy in the u.s. is. the small percentage who have a conscience have been leading and participating in protests, while what seem to be the vast majority have instead been kissing the you know what of you know who.

Care to back this up with facts?

Monks set themselves on fire in South Vietnam but the government didn't change. Good luck to them though.

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, I believe that monk set himself on fire due to the US invasion. I could be wrong.



Burma’s Conflict in a Nutshell: Burma/Myanmar Backgrounder
http://www.freeburmacoalition.org/fbcbackgrounder.htm

Zimbabwe!? You're using ZIMBABWE as an example? If you're using that hellhole Zimbabwe as an example, then you've just successfully argued that black Africans should never be allowed near farms again.


if you mean being poor and not making money off the farms,

we have the IMF and World Bank, as well as the WTO and its main proponents to blame

if you mean being poor and not making money off the farms,

we have the IMF and World Bank, as well as the WTO and its main proponents to blame

Sorry, but that doesn't cut it in this case.

I'm not saying the international monetary policy makers are infallible, haven't made mistakes, and don't need some good reform. But they really aren't the problem in Zimbabwe.

Prior to the "reallocation" of the farms, the country was on top of it's debts, making good headway on paying them off, in fact. You see, under the "colonial" farmers (who were on average as much native-born Rhodesians/Zimbabweans as anyone else in the country) those farms were prosperous, providing employment and local infrastructure, enabling the country to feed itself and STILL make money from international sales. One report I read in the early 1990's called Zimbabwe "The Breadbasket of Sothern Africa." I think that was in "Newsweek."

But the 'new owners' have no idea how to run a farm. Mugabe and Co. made a common cityfolk mistake - they thought making a farm a going concern was simple. It isn't. In addition to sometimes back-breaking dawn-to-dusk work, you have to know how to use a plough properly (and safely), look after your animals and crops, know when to seed, how to rotate crops, the skills of reaping and threshing...it's a career, with all the difficulties associated with that.

So, the once prosperous farms are now producing...well, more or less nothing. And since Zimbabwe's economy was almost entirely based on agriculture, said economy is on the verge of disappearing altogether.

Sorry, but that doesn't cut it in this case.

I'm not saying the international monetary policy makers are infallible, haven't made mistakes, and don't need some good reform. But they really aren't the problem in Zimbabwe.

Prior to the "reallocation" of the farms, the country was on top of it's debts, making good headway on paying them off, in fact. You see, under the "colonial" farmers (who were on average as much native-born Rhodesians/Zimbabweans as anyone else in the country) those farms were prosperous, providing employment and local infrastructure, enabling the country to feed itself and STILL make money from international sales. One report I read in the early 1990's called Zimbabwe "The Breadbasket of Sothern Africa." I think that was in "Newsweek."

But the 'new owners' have no idea how to run a farm. Mugabe and Co. made a common cityfolk mistake - they thought making a farm a going concern was simple. It isn't. In addition to sometimes back-breaking dawn-to-dusk work, you have to know how to use a plough properly (and safely), look after your animals and crops, know when to seed, how to rotate crops, the skills of reaping and threshing...it's a career, with all the difficulties associated with that.

So, the once prosperous farms are now producing...well, more or less nothing. And since Zimbabwe's economy was almost entirely based on agriculture, said economy is on the verge of disappearing altogether.



I see.
As I do concede, I know little about Zimbabwe itself.
Let alone specifics of the farmers there.



The problem with the corrupt, neo-colonialist IMF, World Bank, etc... is that they push these neo-liberal, so-called "free trade" policies onto countries as conditions for extravagent loans that the IMF know will never be paid back. Then the US and Europe, with Africa in general I believe it is predominantly Europe gets to basically dump their cheaper products into the country and local farms cannot compete.

Whatever one believes on so-called "free trade" matters, no country should be forced to not be able to grow all their own food if they so choose. And not have others set conditions that allows for the destruction of "food security".

Voices of Reason.

"A flyer distributed in the crowds dealt with ahimsa (non-violence) and how all Burmese are suffering at the hands of one another and
asked all to come together to end the suffering."

September 23, 2007, Mizzima News


http://www.freeburmacoalition.org/




So, apparently the rise up in Burma was sparked by the increase in fuel prices.
Yikes, the two headed imperial corporate war party/junta better watch it back in the states.
I'm only saying...
still :p to you