2024-03-29, 14:28 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Censorship in Burma  (Read 6513 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Kain-Xavier
 

Beta Tester
Icon of Sin
***********
Posts: 917

« on: 2007-10-02, 13:19 »

I very rarely post in CC much less create new topics, but I felt this warranted mentioning.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2563937.ece

Burma has been going through a great deal of political turmoil.  People are being gunned down in the streets, peaceful people.  The reason why you haven't heard about it is that the Burmese government has effectively barred unregulated communication with the outside world.

This articles speaks of those who would subvert this form of censorship.  They have became our only source of information about the struggle of the Burmese people.  Their words have become so dangerous the government has shut down internet access for the whole of Burma.  These people have put their lives at risk by bringing us the truth.  They must now live from place-to-place, on the run from the "law."  Their story exemplifies the true power of "freedom of speech."  This is why we should never forget the hardships others have endured so that we could retain our God-given right.
Logged

Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8805

WWW
« Reply #1 on: 2007-10-02, 15:51 »

It goes way beyond censorship.  From what I've read estimates in the news about the number of people murdered by the Myanmar military government is very low.  It's really up in the thousands.  God knows how many they've imprisoned.  They've mined the jungle trails and the only way out is by the river that borders Thailand.  It's complete butchery.  They shut down the journalists because they don't want the truth about what's going on there getting out.  This is just like what Stalin did to Russia, and once again nobody's lifting a finger to help.  But then, that's the question - do people want intervention?  Or do they not want someone playing the "global cop"?  Who has the power and the will to put a stop to this?

By all appearances the people there are on their own.  The US will do nothing.  The UN will do nothing.  This is exactly what happens when the people who don't have guns take on the people who do.  I would suggest prayer, and if people can, donations to relief organizations.  Short of an armed insurrection or coup from within their military government I can see nothing beyond more slaughter until they've beaten the people down so much they have no more will to resist.
Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
Kajet
 

Vadrigar
*********
Posts: 601

I have no clue what to put here...

« Reply #2 on: 2007-10-02, 19:09 »

America will only play "World Cop" when there's something to be gained, other than "helping innocent people by unseating a vicious dictator."
Logged
Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8805

WWW
« Reply #3 on: 2007-10-02, 21:44 »

Well in the case with Saddam, the UN should have ordered the SOB taken out.  Technically they did when they said "disclose, allow inspectors in, or else", but they seemed to have trouble getting around to the "or else" part, especially when Kofi, France, Germany, and a few others were getting some nice money from the Oil for Food scandal.  Saddam violated the surrender terms from the 1991 war, routinely launched SAMS at NATO aircraft overflying the patrol areas dictated by the surrender terms (launching SAMS at planes flying under UN mandate is an act of war, btw) and was to everyone's belief - including the NATO and the UN - secretly developing and stockpiling WMD's.  All he had to do was stop launching SAMS and say "OK, come in and inspect, 100% compliance, I have nothing to hide!" and there would have been no Iraq war.  No idea why he didn't do that if he wasn't up to something, but it's history now.

Strategically, yes, Iraq was a threat to the stability of the world's oil supply, as well as a regional threat to friendlies like Israel, and countries the US has defense treaties with, like Saudi Arabia (yes, that one is for oil, courtesy of Nixon).  It also was under UN sanctions and a surrender treaty after hostile action against Kuwait in 1991.  I have no problem with the US acting in its own interests to a certain degree, and if that happens to coincide with enforcing international law when the UN is too corrupt to do so, and it happens to coincide with removing a dictator from power - so be it.  I don't like how it's been handled after the initial invasion, but I have a fairly black and white view of how wars should be waged.  To me, the primary goal is total and complete victory with little or no risk of reprisal.  That means you use overwhelming force to annihilate the enemy.  If avoiding civilian casualties and avoiding infrastructure damage is desired, that has to be balanced short-term to long term.  Will it cost more in damage and lives to go in hard and heavy, or will it cost more later in a long-term slug out if you go in too light?  Borders must be secured, and sectors cleared of hostiles and weapons caches systematically.  This was not done, and Iran and Syria have just been stirring up a mess.  It's being done now, but that's only because Petraeus is a more competent commander and is being given more troops to secure the more hostile areas.  Rumsfeld was an idiot and should have never been put in charge of the operation.  They needed more troops from the beginning and I think everyone planning things underestimated Iran and Al Qaeda's influence and ability to wreak havoc.

Enough of talk about Iraq though, or this will go off-topic in a hurry.  It is true that Myanmar is of no strategic concern of the US, and I'm not sure of what status it is with the UN.  The UN, as far as I'm concerned, is absolutely worthless and will do absolutely nothing in the face of this problem.  I think the only way a nation like the US could intervene would be if a UN military action were mandated, or if the US were to adopt a formal declaration of war with the Myanmar government - something the US has no legal cause to do.  Declarations of war typically require an aggressive act to be committed against the US first.  What's happening in Myanmar would be classified as an internal problem with a non-allied nation.

So in short, the US can't do anything unless the UN security council orders it.  That won't happen.  With Saddam there were UN resolutions with military consequences, and the President was given full congressional authority to enforce the binding UN resolutions.  This situation is different.  There's no legal way to intervene militarily.  God knows I wish there were.
Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8805

WWW
« Reply #4 on: 2007-10-03, 16:20 »

And another report to add to the ugly picture:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,509232,00.html

I don't understand why people are pinning hopes on China to help the situation.  China wants to do away with the monks in Tibet and has been trying for decades.  If anything the Chinese are taking notes from the junta.  Oh I'm sure China wants stability, but the kind of stability they want is the peace of the gun, and the Chinese government certainly doesn't care how many have to die to get it.  "Imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever..."  That's the kind of future these people now face, that is, those who aren't murdered in the night.
Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
Lopson
 

Elite
*
Posts: 1133

Still Going In Circles

« Reply #5 on: 2007-10-04, 15:48 »

The Chinese? Helping? Don't think so. This will probably fall into the sands of time as time goes by... I mean, who the spork cares about a small asian country besides Adidas, Nike and a couple more of companies?
Logged

Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8805

WWW
« Reply #6 on: 2007-10-04, 16:41 »

I do.  Slipgate - Surprised
Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
Dr Sean
 

Ogre
**
Posts: 50

« Reply #7 on: 2007-10-05, 03:17 »

I think Lopson meant countries, not individuals, like, "why would China care" is what he was getting at.
(Thats what I got form it anyway)
Logged
Kajet
 

Vadrigar
*********
Posts: 601

I have no clue what to put here...

« Reply #8 on: 2007-10-05, 03:32 »

Indeed, humanitarian efforts aren't very profitable when the country you're liberating has only sweat shop labor as a major resource
Logged
Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8805

WWW
« Reply #9 on: 2007-10-05, 04:22 »

I know, Dr. Sean.  Governments are worse than useless.  We have the US Senate passing resolutions condemning a radio talk show host for voicing an opinion, while people are being massacred across the sea.  Politics first, as always.  The priorities of so many people on this world could not be more backward, and yet, I cannot remember a time when it was different, only it seems it is so far worse now than I have ever seen it.

Kajet:  Humanitarian efforts are not supposed to be profitable economically.  The profit is in doing what is right to help someone.  Raise someone up who is in need, and set an example, and that person will be more likely to do the same in kind when they meet someone else in need.  This is something Christian missionaries understand - they want to alleviate suffering and bring people to Christ so they can participate in a wonderful eternity, but also instill a sense of charity in those they help so that they will be able to help themselves and those around them.  There are certainly other non-religious charities which, while not concerned with the afterlife, do work to meet the material needs of people who are suffering, and also work to help them become self-sufficient again.  I know there are good people on this world who give a damn and have some compassion, or these kinds of people and organizations would not exist.  It seems they are becoming fewer in number all the time.
Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to: