Nonviolence and hypocrisy in Burma

Looking at the latest bad news from Burma (or Myanmar, if you *insist*), two things become obvious. First is that nonviolence has failed once again. Gandhi's victory with the British was very much a special case, and only a fool derives his principles from a special case. The general rule is: nonviolence just doesn't work.

Okay. Now that's out of the way, let's look at the second truth illustrated here. These people who criticize our interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in the same breath demand we intervene in Sudan or Burma, are brazen hypocrites. In Iraq, it was all about the oil? In Afghanistan, it was all about the oil pipeline? Well, guess what. Sudan is swimming in oil. Burma's got lots of oil, too. Suppose we intervene in one or both of these places. Will International A.N.S.W.E.R. applaud our leadership, or will they just trot the no No War For Oil signs yet again? I know which one I'd bet on.

You people - you know who are are - can't have it both ways. Four fifths of the population of Iraq wanted democracy and was willing to fight for it, even before we went in with serious intentions. But they couldn't rid themselves of Saddam and of the brutal Sunni Muslim domination without our help. We know because they'd been trying for years. By the same logic you apply (for the moment, at least) to Sudan and Burma, we were right to go in. The distinction you try to make between Iraq and, for example, Burma, is utterly bogus.

The oppressed of the world, by and large, are not in a position to free themselves. That's why they're oppressed in the first place. Either we in the free world intervene, or the oppression continues. It's that simple.

And this principle applies regardless of which thugocratic hellhole it is, or which party the POTUS at the time belongs to, or how it might affect George Soros' investments. It applied to Junker Germany, Nazi Germany, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo (yes, Kosovo!), Afghanistan and Iraq. It applies to a lot of other places we haven't gotten to yet. Like Burma. And the Sudan. And Iran. And Syria. And, sadly, it still applies in spades to North Korea.

As far as I'm concerned, these are all illegitimate governments, and they're all fair game. The only reason I wouldn't advocate toppling *all* of them is practicality. We have to pick and choose. Or else beef up our military to World War II levels, and perhaps tolerate World War II casualty rates. Anyone willing to vote for that?

I'm no isolationist. Isolationists are fools. But at least they're consistent. They don't shift their ground. That's a step up from this what-about-Burma crowd.

[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/20071001.html|Angelfire link] (turn off Javascript to avoid popups)
[link|http://marlowe-essays.blogspot.com/2005/01/what-we-need-prescription-for-our.html|What We Need - a prescription for our times]

[link|http://marlowe-essays.blogspot.com/2005/01/where-i-stand-proverbs-and-axioms-for.html|Where I Stand - Proverbs and axioms for the real world]

[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/dictionary.html|the Marlowe Dictionary]

Post #294,002 by marlowe 10/1/07 7:46:21 PM Reply	Nonviolence and hypocrisy in Burma Looking at the latest bad news from Burma (or Myanmar, if you insist), two things become obvious. First is that nonviolence has failed once again. Gandhi's victory with the British was very much a special case, and only a fool derives his principles from a special case. The general rule is: nonviolence just doesn't work. Okay. Now that's out of the way, let's look at the second truth illustrated here. These people who criticize our interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in the same breath demand we intervene in Sudan or Burma, are brazen hypocrites. In Iraq, it was all about the oil? In Afghanistan, it was all about the oil pipeline? Well, guess what. Sudan is swimming in oil. Burma's got lots of oil, too. Suppose we intervene in one or both of these places. Will International A.N.S.W.E.R. applaud our leadership, or will they just trot the no No War For Oil signs yet again? I know which one I'd bet on. You people - you know who are are - can't have it both ways. Four fifths of the population of Iraq wanted democracy and was willing to fight for it, even before we went in with serious intentions. But they couldn't rid themselves of Saddam and of the brutal Sunni Muslim domination without our help. We know because they'd been trying for years. By the same logic you apply (for the moment, at least) to Sudan and Burma, we were right to go in. The distinction you try to make between Iraq and, for example, Burma, is utterly bogus. The oppressed of the world, by and large, are not in a position to free themselves. That's why they're oppressed in the first place. Either we in the free world intervene, or the oppression continues. It's that simple. And this principle applies regardless of which thugocratic hellhole it is, or which party the POTUS at the time belongs to, or how it might affect George Soros' investments. It applied to Junker Germany, Nazi Germany, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo (yes, Kosovo!), Afghanistan and Iraq. It applies to a lot of other places we haven't gotten to yet. Like Burma. And the Sudan. And Iran. And Syria. And, sadly, it still applies in spades to North Korea. As far as I'm concerned, these are all illegitimate governments, and they're all fair game. The only reason I wouldn't advocate toppling all of them is practicality. We have to pick and choose. Or else beef up our military to World War II levels, and perhaps tolerate World War II casualty rates. Anyone willing to vote for that? I'm no isolationist. Isolationists are fools. But at least they're consistent. They don't shift their ground. That's a step up from this what-about-Burma crowd. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/20071001.html\|Angelfire link] (turn off Javascript to avoid popups) [link\|http://marlowe-essays.blogspot.com/2005/01/what-we-need-prescription-for-our.html\|What We Need - a prescription for our times] [link\|http://marlowe-essays.blogspot.com/2005/01/where-i-stand-proverbs-and-axioms-for.html\|Where I Stand - Proverbs and axioms for the real world] [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/dictionary.html\|the Marlowe Dictionary] ---------------------------------------------------------------- 4 out of 5 Iraqis choose democracy! If you don't like my posts, don't click on them. Never mind the AP. Here's the real Iraq reporting: [link\|http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/\|http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/] "The period of debate is closed. Arms, as the last resort, decide the contest." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense
Post #294,005 by Another Scott 10/1/07 8:23:13 PM Reply	Quite a few strawmen in there, Phil...
Post #294,034 by Simon_Jester 10/2/07 9:46:39 AM Reply	But the biggest - who wants us to go to Burma/Sudan?
Post #294,007 by boxley 10/1/07 8:27:48 PM Reply	non violence hasnt lost yet, this may push a lot of people into the arms of the shan who are decidedly violent. The religious belief systems of the locals also play a large part. The monks are refusing food from the army. Deserters are showing up in thailand. this story isnt over yet. thanx, bill Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #294,026 by warmachine 10/2/07 7:15:47 AM Reply	Every case is a special case Tiananmen Square protests were squashed by the Chinese military but the Russian military refused to shoot their compatriots and walked off the job. Military intervention got the Serbians out of Kosovo but didn't keep the NVA out of South Vietnam. What works in one case doesn't work in another. Please try to tailor your propaganda to the arguments made on this board. Few here have opposed the intervention in Afghanistan. Your messages are like angry spam and it's annoying. Matthew Greet Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got heroin? - Mark Renton, Trainspotting.
Post #294,346 by a6l6e6x 10/6/07 10:58:47 PM Reply	So, you agree with Hamas? And disagree with Greenspan who says Iraq is about oil. Alex Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. -- Sophocles (496? - 406 BCE)

Welcome to IWETHEY!