Octopus Overlords

So it looks like the junta has started shooting those uppity Buddhists. No link because it's being reported everywhere. Here's one quote:

Police fired tear gas and made some arrests trying unsuccessfully to scatter the demonstrators. Protesters marched off toward the Sule Pagoda in the heart of Yangon, but were later blocked by military trucks and security officers with riot shields, clubs and guns. Groups of marchers then fanned out into other streets, chased by security forces.

Officers fired warning shots and tear gas trying to disperse the main group and began dragging monks into army trucks - the first mass arrests since protests against the military dictatorship erupted Aug. 19.

Reporters saw some monks beaten, and an exile dissident group said about 300 monks and other protesters had been arrested in small clashes across Myanmar's biggest city.

There were reports of destruction of property but it was unclear whether it was done by demonstrators or pro-junta thugs who were seen among the soldiers and police. Witnesses said a mob burned two police motorcycles.

Myanmar's government said security forces fired when a crowd that included what it called "so-called monks" refused to disperse at the Sule Pagoda and tried to grab weapons from officers. It said police used "minimum force."

Do we care? I mean, it's about democracy 'n' stuff, but they got no oil or terrorists. Not our problem, right?

"What's going on in Burma is outrageous," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said.

Oh. Alrighty then.

Haiku for Rangoon.

Today I expressed
Sophomoric irony
To show that I care.

Ironrod wrote:Do we care? I mean, it's about democracy 'n' stuff, but they got no oil or terrorists. Not our problem, right?

Turn in your energy card.

Let go of the material world, which is illusory.
Let go of your outrage, commitment, emotion-- these are shackles.
Understand that there's nothing to see here; then you will achieve enlightenment.

So it looks like the junta has started shooting those uppity Buddhists.

This has been going on for years, unfortunately. Always remember, Tang Shwe gets his way.

Do we care? I mean, it's about democracy 'n' stuff, but they got no oil or terrorists. Not our problem, right?

It is not really the US's problem, per se. The problem with Burma are the human rights violations and the unjustified killings. The people want a different government there and they elected one in 1990 under Aung San Suu Kyi but the military dictatorship dissolved and voided the election. Her and her father are/were good people. She won the Nobel Peace Prize as well.

I'm pleased to see that the administration is standing up to despots by refusing to use the new names they have given their countries.

I would like to digress long enough to observe that the outgoing (in 2006) Dragon King of nearby Bhutan had the most happenin' name of any then-sitting monarch: Jigme Singye Wangchuck.

Tareeq wrote:Haiku for Rangoon.

Today I expressed
Sophomoric irony
To show that I care.

Too much time spent debating whether Iran's president was a dictator or not? Too bad. Maybe you will find time in the future to devote yourself to more worthwhile issues.

Grifman wrote:

Ironrod wrote:Do we care? I mean, it's about democracy 'n' stuff, but they got no oil or terrorists. Not our problem, right?

Turn in your energy card.

So no oil, but they have gas a-plenty, but it's not for us.

The European Union and the United States have imposed economic sanctions on Burma for a decade, but oil-hungry Asian nations and energy firms have ignored these in their no-holds-barred dealings with the Burmese military regime.

I gather that we have no tangible stake in Burma, apart from our rhetoric about democracy.

Flim
Flam
Flarm
Filth.

Thus shall be America's involvement in Burma.

killbot737 wrote:Flim
Flam
Flarm
Filth.

Thus shall be America's involvement in Burma.

Of course, after all, we shouldn't go to war to remove oppressive regimes.

Do we care? I mean, it's about democracy 'n' stuff, but they got no oil or terrorists. Not our problem, right?

The same people who criticize us for "trying to be the world's policeman" are the same people who complain that we're not doing enough about conflicts in various remote regions of the world.

I guess we should only spend taxpayer dollars and American lives resolving conflicts that have no strategic value to us whatsoever?

YellowKing wrote:I guess we should only spend taxpayer dollars and American lives resolving conflicts that have no strategic value to us whatsoever?

Some might call that Christian. But whatever... fuck everybody else who doesn't have oil or relate to Israel. Good job on the morals there, I'm sure St. Peter will giver you bonus points for being pragmatic

killbot737 wrote:Flim
Flam
Flarm
Filth.

Thus shall be America's involvement in Burma.

I think our prime directive mandates that we do no flarm.

Grundbegriff wrote:

killbot737 wrote:Flim
Flam
Flarm
Filth.

Thus shall be America's involvement in Burma.

I think our prime directive mandates that we do no flarm.

Nyuk Nyuk.

Be a man of principle for a change.

Mr. Sparkle wrote:Be a man of principle for a change.

"For a change"-- Why do you say that?

Where have I been pragmatic (or unprincipled)?

Grundbegriff wrote:

Mr. Sparkle wrote:Be a man of principle for a change.

"For a change"-- Why do you say that?

Where have I been pragmatic?

I never accused you as such. Relax. Take a chill pill.

Mr. Sparkle wrote:Be a man of principle for a change.

Mr. Sparkle wrote:I never accused you as such.

Sorry-- I'm not following your meaning here.

Mr. Fed wrote:I'm pleased to see that the administration is standing up to despots by refusing to use the new names they have given their countries.

Is that like calling Deutchland Germany?

noxiousdog wrote:

Mr. Fed wrote:I'm pleased to see that the administration is standing up to despots by refusing to use the new names they have given their countries.

Is that like calling Deutschland Germany?

No. It's like calling Deutschland/Germany "the Holy Roman Empire".

Shoot em all and let Budda sort em out.

dbt1949 wrote:Shoot em all and let Budda sort em out.

I don't think Buddha would condone that line of reasoning.

Grundbegriff wrote:

Mr. Sparkle wrote:Be a man of principle for a change.

Mr. Sparkle wrote:I never accused you as such.

Sorry-- I'm not following your meaning here.

But I thought you liked blueberries!?

Yeah, sorry... misfire of the rhetorical shotgun there.

Mr. Sparkle wrote:

YellowKing wrote:I guess we should only spend taxpayer dollars and American lives resolving conflicts that have no strategic value to us whatsoever?

Some might call that Christian. But whatever... fuck everybody else who doesn't have oil or relate to Israel. Good job on the morals there, I'm sure St. Peter will giver you bonus points for being pragmatic

So the US should be a Christian theocracy after all. I appreciate your endorsement. YellowKing's logic applies along this avenue as well.

Mr. Sparkle wrote:

Tareeq wrote:Haiku for Rangoon.

Today I expressed
Sophomoric irony
To show that I care.

Too much time spent debating whether Iran's president was a dictator or not? Too bad. Maybe you will find time in the future to devote yourself to more worthwhile issues.

With apologies to Freud:

There was a man named Mr. Sparkle
Who frequently waxed retorical
He felt it his right
To wade into fights
His issues were all matriarchal.

Tareeq wrote:

Mr. Sparkle wrote:

Tareeq wrote:Haiku for Rangoon.

Today I expressed
Sophomoric irony
To show that I care.

Too much time spent debating whether Iran's president was a dictator or not? Too bad. Maybe you will find time in the future to devote yourself to more worthwhile issues.

With apologies to Freud:

There was a man named Mr. Sparkle
Who frequently waxed retorical
He felt it his right
To wade into fights
His issues were all matriarchal.

Hahahaha... good one! Oh wait... people are dead.

Montag wrote:

Mr. Sparkle wrote:

YellowKing wrote:I guess we should only spend taxpayer dollars and American lives resolving conflicts that have no strategic value to us whatsoever?

Some might call that Christian. But whatever... fuck everybody else who doesn't have oil or relate to Israel. Good job on the morals there, I'm sure St. Peter will giver you bonus points for being pragmatic

So the US should be a Christian theocracy after all. I appreciate your endorsement. YellowKing's logic applies along this avenue as well.

I hate when people do it to me, so I hate when people do it to others. Sparkle said no such thing. Endorsing a line of action and calling it Christian is not the same as saying the US should be a theocracy. That's quite a stretch you got going there.

Mr. Sparkle wrote:

YellowKing wrote:I guess we should only spend taxpayer dollars and American lives resolving conflicts that have no strategic value to us whatsoever?

Some might call that Christian. But whatever... fuck everybody else who doesn't have oil or relate to Israel. Good job on the morals there, I'm sure St. Peter will giver you bonus points for being pragmatic

So you believe the US should stay in Iraq then?

Grifman wrote:So you believe the US should stay in Iraq then?

You know that's a different question.

I approve of the methods of Gandhi. GO MONKS!

Mr. Sparkle wrote:

Tareeq wrote:

Mr. Sparkle wrote:
Too much time spent debating whether Iran's president was a dictator or not? Too bad. Maybe you will find time in the future to devote yourself to more worthwhile issues.

With apologies to Freud:

There was a man named Mr. Sparkle
Who frequently waxed retorical
He felt it his right
To wade into fights
His issues were all matriarchal.

Hahahaha... good one! Oh wait... people are dead.

Stop you before you kill again?

To deal with what I believe your misunderstanding over my jab at Ironrod to have been, the United States has economic and diplomatic sanctions in place against the junta that controls Burma. We have encouraged right-thinking allies to do the same. We have been frustrated in our attempts to widen these sanctions through the United Nations by Burma's enablers China and Russia, who consistently veto such measures. In fact, yesterday the most the UN Security Council could do, due to the intransigence of these powers, was to pass a resolution authorizing and the envoy of the Secretary General to visit Burma, and encouraging the junta to listen to him.

Ironrod is evidently of the opinion that we aren't doing enough, but what more can we do? Making the political personal, I do believe that you would oppose military action against the Burmese junta, but if not you have some consistency checking to do, as the Burmese junta is nowhere near as loathsome as was the Ba'athist regime in Iraq, which you evidently believe we toppled for the reasons suggested by Mearsheimer and Walt.

Is it your position that we should topple the regime in Burma, which isn't committing genocide but is merely a tyranny? I know you've suggested that we do that in Sudan, for reasons I agree with somewhat, but if not what do you think we should do in Burma? Cut off free trade with China or destabilize the Putin regime? They seem to be the root of the problem, don't they?

Mr. Sparkle wrote:

Grifman wrote:So you believe the US should stay in Iraq then?

You know that's a different question.

No, not really. If it is "Christian" to intervene in Burma because of the oppression there, would it not be "un-Christian" to leave Iraq with all the suffering going on there, which would most certainly get worse without the US there?

How we have gotten or would get into each of these situations is or would be different but that doesn't change the question you've asked, which dropping the religious part, what is the moral thing to do?

I actually think Bush has it right with this situation. He’s tightened sanctions, condemned the regime and urged other nations to do likewise during his speech at the UN General Assembly. There’s nothing else that can be done. The Chinese will block any attempt to take UN action, and a unilateral invasion would be insanity.

Grundbegriff wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:

Mr. Fed wrote:I'm pleased to see that the administration is standing up to despots by refusing to use the new names they have given their countries.

Is that like calling Deutschland Germany?

No. It's like calling Deutschland/Germany "the Holy Roman Empire".

If only we could go back to the old days, when we referred to Kampuchea as Cambodia, and Zaire as Congo.

Isn't Zaire back to the Congo again?

Some might call that Christian. But whatever... fuck everybody else who doesn't have oil or relate to Israel. Good job on the morals there, I'm sure St. Peter will giver you bonus points for being pragmatic

Some might call it Christian for you to donate all your worldly possessions to the poor and spend the rest of your life living as a pauper and sharing the word of Christ. That doesn't make it a realistic option.

Tareeq wrote:Is it your position that we should topple the regime in Burma, which isn't committing genocide but is merely a tyranny?

I wouldn't propose taking control of Burma. I would propose taking action to protect innocents before there is genocide.

Or we could wait and wring some hands together later on if you prefer.

Mr. Sparkle wrote:

Tareeq wrote:Is it your position that we should topple the regime in Burma, which isn't committing genocide but is merely a tyranny?

I wouldn't propose taking control of Burma. I would propose taking action to protect innocents before there is genocide.

Or we could wait and wring some hands together later on if you prefer.

Military action?

Mr. Sparkle wrote: I wouldn't propose taking control of Burma. I would propose taking action to protect innocents before there is genocide.

I know of no threatened genocide in Burma, but if you do, what action do you propose?

Or we could wait and wring some hands together later on if you prefer.

A metaphor is a terrible thing to waste.

I just learned that I've been pronouncing junta wrong all this time.

Burma (and I only use that term because it's easy to spell) is pretty big on Buddhism. Killin' monks is tainto. It's not going to go over well once it all blows over. It's definitely not genocide, but rather an incompetently run military government overreacting to a protest. Burma is a Spiritual Civ but for some reason the player insists on building military units everywhere. I don't know, CIV analogies aren't my forte. Tareeq can probably come up with a better one.

Any "action", frankly, isn't ours to take. Our involvement would only make things far far worse. It's really up to China, and whether they want this hanging over their precious Olympics.

Poleaxe wrote:

Mr. Sparkle wrote:

Tareeq wrote:Is it your position that we should topple the regime in Burma, which isn't committing genocide but is merely a tyranny?

I wouldn't propose taking control of Burma. I would propose taking action to protect innocents before there is genocide.

Or we could wait and wring some hands together later on if you prefer.

Military action?

Preparations for such, yes. I'd like Blue Helmets to be there, but I sometimes think the UN can work. I've been a liberal hawk for as long (or close to) as I've been posting here, so this shouldn't be a surprise.