-{SpoonmaN}-

Junta soldiers kill protesting monks | The Australian

Personally, I cannot see Any excuse for this kind of snivelling "Military" scum to be ruling any nation on Earth. If this is not the final straw then I don't know what is...
Honestly, if the "West" cares at all about democracy (let us pretend for a moment), then this stops here... and the junta goes down tomorrow. Even China didn't want this sort of thing on the world's TVs, and they know as well as anyone that people are quick to forget... and easy to forgive when the economy is at stake.
So why, oh why, does anyone put up with this s**t?

__________________
"I have this to say to the people of Australia: Kick me, I'm different."

astralis

spoonman,

for the west, democracy is a nice-to-have, but it never is a primary factor in making foreign policy decisions- especially decisions that would necessitate use of force.

__________________
Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.

-Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Parihaka

While we'll only get a better idea when they're gone, probably not, and certainly not on body count. NK yes, but Myanmar is lower down the scale, and as Astralis says, it would involve the use of force.

__________________
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

chankya

Actually I've always thought that the west does not like democracy in other countries. It makes sense given that most of the developing world has a not-so-rosy view of the west and its foreign policy directions. Most of the US allies in Asia are or were dictatorship/juntas and the ones that transition into democracies seem to be steadily exiting the US orbit.

__________________
"Of all the manifestations of power, restraint impresses men the most." - Thucydides

astralis

chankya,

the west likes democracies and particularly those with democratic institutions. the difference is that sometimes, there are other concerns that overwhelm this liking.

really? which countries are you referring to here?

Adux

What are the postives and negative's of Indian invasion of Burma for instilling the Ang san su Ki government
What will be the Chinese reaction, What will be the strain on North East Troops?
Can the Olympics card be played against the Chinese? Will that make them non-interference?
How will the ULFA and the rest be affected?
How will the world community react to this?
If it all we do have to do this, when will be the apt time?
How will this help or destroy our geo-political ambitions?

Tronic

Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt to name a few. Ofcourse, the formers are yet to become democracies but the polls already indicate a huge dislike for the US. I believe it was BBC which carried out a poll which suggested that majority of Pakistanis dislike the US more then they dislike India.

__________________
Nabha Sparasham Deeptam
-Touch The Sky With Glory

ExNavyAmerican

I always took the 3rd-world's dislike for the western world as jealousy. As it is, I'm not too convinced it isn't...

__________________
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
- Thomas Jefferson

Adux

i rather doubt it sir, the whole reason western countries are rich is the fact they plundered the resources of the so called 3 rd world. Western countries have played havoc with lives of others, in other countries..while they took care of their own. Why was the Iranian democracy overthrown? The amount of Indians killed by the brits, its not even funny sir.

Amarnath

As far as china is concerned they will happily supply weapons and material to burmese army as long as they bleed IA.

World community wouldn't do anything as it's not "their problem".

I don't think we can invade Burma, it would be too costly. A better option would be to bomb the generals. But we have no idea who will be incharge after them and whether they will allow democracy. I don't think we can do much about burma

chankya

While it is terribly counter productive to actually say this, since people tend to close their ears when I do, I shall do so once more. Few countries which are not overwhelmingly white actually agrees with the US foreign policy.(and barring France the west does pretty much what the US wants). People may actually like the US and want to migrate there but practically no citizenry of a non western country actually likes US foreign policy.

This 'white' thing: I would actually put it down to a shared cultural heritage and history more than actual skin color. But it's a useful grouping to use.

The angst I suppose is that the US fails to live up the ideals it advertises. Freedom tends to mean freedom for the west. Casualties are a heartache only if they are western casualties. Why is that by the way? Because the average American I've met seems to be if anything more compassionate about people.

The other thing that annoys most people about the west is the amount the west preaches. That's usually a bit too rich coming from people who've been robbing and enslaving the world silly for the last two centuries. (Fun fact: Guess where the most number of dying languages in the world are?

Answer: America. Native American Languages. It's interesting to me that people who wiped out a whole continent full of people and destroyed whole cultures and people now speak of immigrants changing the dominant culture and not assimilating. So why ain't you lot living in tepees? )

So why does the world care so much about the west? Because the West is powerful and rich. The west can and does therefore interfere with the lives of people in other parts of the world. It's only now that some countries are emerging from the legacies of poverty and economic destruction wrought by centuries of colonialism.

I keep hearing people in the US saying "Why don't they like us? We are for freedom and American Pie and everything nice in the world". The answer is that the statement is not true. The US is for nothing and no-one but itself. That is completely fair and proper and as it should be. All countries must act in their best interests. In doing so however the US often finds that the popular choice does not like the US. This used to be because the popular choices in third world countries gravitated towards socialism but these days there is so much dislike of the US that most popular govts dislike the US. So the US uses overt and covert means to try and bully people to do what it wants.

Let's take Bolivia as a recent example(He was on the daily show yesterday). I heard or read somewhere that the President thinks that the reason he won was because the US ambassador took it upon himself to threaten the populace with something(loss of aid?) if they elected him. (Evo Morales thats the president's name). While you might argue that "loss of aid" implies ongoing aid and that they should be grateful for that, my point remains that the US is no friend of democracy abroad. They consistently meddle in and coerce other other countries and their electorates.

All countries in the ME allied to the US. Add Pakistan to the list. South Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia, Thailand(? only question here is whether a democratic Thailand is moving away from the US.), Philippines.

I'm not sure if its actually fair to accuse the US of actively seeking out dictatorships in SE Asia but its completely fair in the islamic cresent.

Oh and weren't there a couple of the eastern european countries with US supported dicatators? (I'll check and post back later. As a foreign office wonk you probably know better.)

Reading through it sounds like the first part of my post is a rant. It isin't.It's an attempt at establishing the reason why the west cannot afford democracies abroad. (Although it has become a amalgamation of a lot of things I've been wanting to say on a lot of threads and therefore a bit muddled.)

Is the west all bad? No. The west possibly gives more aid than all other the other countries put together(excluding Japan), still my original point was that the west does not like democracies. And that still stands.

I've used west and the US interchangeably because excepting France I haven't seen any Western govt not tow the US line.

ExNavyAmerican

The United States didn't. It was opposed to European meddling in affairs not their own. And it's the richest country on the planet. Besides, it was once ruled by Britain, and it had no problems of the sort. Sorry, but it doesn't slide.

The western world was wealthy before they started colonization -why do you think they started colonization?

A country has no responsibility to any people but it's own.

What Iranian democracy?

How about the fact that when the Brits came in, Hindus were 3rd class citizens? Not allowed to practice their religion, go to school, or govern themselves; the Brits came and gave all those rights to Hindus. They were very tolerant of Hindus -to the point where Christians weren't even allowed to enter a Hindu temple because it's what the Hindus asked. The British did ruthlessly conquer India, I'll give you that. But it happened a lot in history. It was a different time, different standards. The British governed the United States, and did it unjustly; I'm not going to cry about it; it happened. They burned Washington D.C.; what are you going to do? It happened. I'd just like to refute your assertion that the west is wealthy at the total expense of the 3rd-world. AND I'm tired of hearing about all the brutal things that happened in history. It happened.

ExNavyAmerican

But, on topic, I'd agree that the Burmese Junta is an evil thing and needs to go.

What do you expect us to do about it?

Mekstizzle

I agree. As a person with Indian parents saying this. I'd rather have British rule than any stupid Muslim Turkic Mughal 6th Century backwards rule that was going on in India before the British took over. Sometimes though you feel ashamed that we let Muslims and then the British take over the country, but at least the British installed alot of relatively modern industry into the country. They were the lesser of two evils.

Actually if the British didn't invade then the stupid Muslim Mughals will still be ruling and also I might not even be living in England, I can't imagine how backwards India would be if Muslim Mughals were still ruling, no offence to any Indian Muslims here!

Cactus

Though this statement is completely besides the point of this thread, it is still completely wrong historically. The objection is quite easily summed up in this one map of political India in 1806:


Vast majority of India, including Delhi - capital of Mughal India, was already in hands of Hindu Marathas (yellow region). A significant portion in the North-West was in the hands of Sikhs (green, NW), quite amically disposed towards Hindus. The only British areas of influence were in two areas of Muslim rule (Nizam of Hyderabad in South-East {green}, Oudh in East {green}), one of Hindu rule (Mysore in South-West {pink}), their own annexed territory in Bengal (East {pink}). As you can imagine, Hindus (and Sikhs) were quite free to practice their religion, studies, governance etc. in their own territories quite freely.

Conclusion: Hindus, Sikhs, and even some local Muslims had more or less liberated themselves, but British exploited their war-fatigue to enslave them once more. No thanks to British for that.

Finally, religious tolerance and freedom is not such a novel phenomenon in India as to be remarked upon. Many Indians have been Christians atleast since 70CE, so I would only think it natural that they know and respect the taboos of Indian Hindus. It may seem a big deal that a dominant religion, Christianity, didn't abuse its dominance to outrage Hindus, but knowing that Hindus had been tolerant of their religion for nearly 1900 years, I would think that it is just the natural state of being for them.