• What is Democracy? ( Ian )
• Athletes's foot ( Ian )
• The Translation of The Ramadan Month ( Hs )
• Nobody loves me…….. ( PasaNINJA2499 )
• I have recently changed my job! ( Tow )
• Let's Not Confuse the Issue! It is the Ousting of a Criminal Prime Minister and His Government, Not a Voting! ( Piset )
• The substance is talking, Felix! ( talkfact )
• Thailands 40 Richest Persons & Families ( Dalmasian )
• Ultimate Score ( naive )
• PAD Thai House ( Dalmasian )

more

The Tigers Are Getting Hungry

Dictators ride to and fro upon tigers which they dare not dismount. And the tigers are getting hungry
Permalink : http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/fearless

Posted by Fearless , Reader : 416 , 00:30:12  
Print

Than Shwe is too busy these days with photo opportunities. He and his cronies seem to pose with aid that is given by the people of Thailand and the people of the USA, Europe and many other countries. What is worse, Burma’s stand up guys in green seem to siphon off food, exchanging high quality food from the WFP with tasteless biscuits from their own warehouses and are stealing the tents. In a country where their own marine has been decimated by the cyclone and where they must have lost thousands and thousands of their own puppets a where organising a phoney election was and still is consuming the manpower urgently needed to help people, where monasteries and school buildings are forcibly evicted from the refugees of the storm, it is no wonder that Than Shwe must fear for the life of himself and his cronies. There must be many very angry military men who lost friends and family in the cyclone and who are sick of the fat man with the bad taste. It seems that the prime minister of Burma, have spoken out and was sent home like a little child, the chap seem to have said that he is hoping to be retired soon. Maybe the Western world or even philanthropists should put an huge sum on the heads of the junta, who knows that the job will be done by the army’s own executioners. Than Shwe and many of his cronies do deserve the death penalty and if it has to be done by their own, so it be. Lots of military men must be fed up with the man who is deep in his heart far worse than Saddam Hussein ever was. At least Hussein took care of healthcare and decent schooling, Than Shwe is only taking care of his own, stealing even the food of the needy. Let’s encourage the angry hi rakes to take the non existing laws in Burma in their own hands, even they understand right now that the generals who swap good food for rotten food, who find an photo op more important than the life of children should be dealt with, no toothless UN, no permanent member with a veto should be able to stand in the way of humanity, let’s do precisely what the Russians did with the man who was responsible for the death of so many school children in Baslan. The day that Than Shwe dies must be considered a good day for humanity. I believe that it would be a good thing when we encouraged an hit on mass murderers. Yes I am against the death penalty and yes I normally feel that extra judicial killings are a terrible thing, but people that you call in one breath with the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot or Saddam Hussein have chosen to play in another league than any other criminal government leader. The Burmese generals do need to been seen as a new category of pariahs, therefore we need to borrow a fathwa from the Ayatollahs it is the task of any decent human being to assassinate Than Shwe and cronies they should not be safe at any place on earth, they might neither run nor hide any more.

Read comment

comment 37 Obeyno1kinobe date : 20/05/2008 time : 18.20 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/obeyno1

Agree, we only know for sure what happened Not what might have if........ We are where we are. No Foreign govt I can think of is going to try and assasinate the Burmise Junta leaders anyway. Interesting debate, but a moot point.

comment 36 Ian date : 20/05/2008 time : 15.41 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Well Pol Pot of Cambodia managed to exterminate 1.7 million Cambodians, the Burmese Junta is approaching 250,000, it makes Thaksin's few thousands seem very small fry in comparison. Life is cheap in Asia if you are poor, it is only westerners who find this hard to understand and accept.

comment 35 catch22 date : 20/05/2008 time : 13.27 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/catch22

There are a couple of factors regarding the reluctance of the generals to act in the delta. One they are mostly Karen, the most hated of the regimes opponents. Two, once the delta is devoid of inhabitants it can be turned into rich pickings such as prawn farms. It must be quite obvious to anyone that the regime does not want any intervention in the delta - they see the future potential as an area with no Karen but lots of prawns (or something else). The cyclone has done their clearing for them.

comment 34 Ian date : 17/05/2008 time : 13.48 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

The best solution is impossible. A referendum from the Burmese people telling us what they want us to do:-)

comment 33 narcisuss date : 17/05/2008 time : 11.08 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/narcisuss I  come in peace :)

ups.. seems I did manage to sneak in a bit of time travel after all.. just to append to my previous answer.. it would seem that the prognosis for Burma with the current course of action(which is inaction) in the retrospect of 50 years is a nation that will slide further into destitution and vulnarability to things like cyclones. To make it worse, cyclones and other extreme weather phenomenon will become more frequent. ..plus rising food prices... Raise to the power of violent and incompetent government... and the urgency of action seems to be increasing. but let me just emphasise again that I am not saying that war or killing is the best solution.. I don't know what the best solution is, partly because I'm human, mostly because I don't know Burma.

comment 32 narcisuss date : 17/05/2008 time : 10.57 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/narcisuss I  come in peace :)

c30 good question.. IF there are only two outcomes of an action, good and bad (which seems unlikely) first one would have to try to get a sense of the worst possible outcome of action compared to inaction.. if it is significantly worse than you might not want to do it. Then look at the best possible outcome and see if it is significantly better than the status quo. Make up your mind about the probability of each outcome and make a decision. The question also has a second dimension and it relates to the hitler question. Can there be a situation where one should act because of a moral obligation even if it is probable that the net outcome is a loss (on whatever scale of value you suppose).. I'm not sure.. I guess Felix would say yes. To answer the Q about hitler as short as possible without wandering off into the topic of time travel and omniscience.. Me being from the future knows that we are better off than in 1939, but such is the nature of economic growth and technological development. I do not know that we wouldn't be even better off if WWII never happened. I know that I could probably prevent the death of many millions in that time period by killing hitler. Can I be sure that no other conflict, potentially more deadly would arise? No.. But nor can I know the butterfly effect of me flushing the toilet.

comment 31 Ian date : 17/05/2008 time : 09.45 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Narc, the end result of Hitler and WW2 has been a new world order. The end of the British empire, the formation of the EU, the rise of super powers. Have these changes been for the better or the worse? If for the better then you would have to let Hitler live.

comment 30 Ian date : 17/05/2008 time : 09.40 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Narc, is action that might work, or might make things worse, better than innaction? This is a common medical dilemma, to operate (which always carries a risk), or not to operate. Possibly a well equipped and armed group of ex-pat Burmese could simply do a sea approach with support from the resident population.

comment 29 narcisuss date : 16/05/2008 time : 23.22 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/narcisuss I  come in peace :)

I keep asking myself one type of question.. If somehow I was transported back to the past and there was Hitler in a room alone with me.. Would the moral imperitive be for me to kill him or to respect the life of the individual infront of me..

comment 28 narcisuss date : 16/05/2008 time : 23.18 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/narcisuss I  come in peace :)

ob1.. I do agree with you that assassinations and invasions justified by the set of morals of an arbitrary coalition of nations can be a slippery slope.. But is it really never necessary? And is there no behaviour that is so obviously wrong and sickening that there can be no doubt that something needs to be done? To be honest I have no strong opinion on what is the correct way to proceed.. But I feel very strongly that we need to try something that is not another 50 years of ineffective diplomacy and sanctions. If a military invasion is the best we can come up with I'd rather the world tried that than sit on its ass. If we can come up with something more cerebral that would be even better. But the clock is ticking for the people in burma.

comment 27 Ian date : 16/05/2008 time : 19.45 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Yes, sorry Narc.

comment 26 narcisuss date : 16/05/2008 time : 13.12 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/narcisuss I  come in peace :)

Catch, regarding your comment 21, please see my comment 20. Somehow you and Ian have mistaken GGRass' comment 18 for mine.

comment 25 Obeyno1kinobe date : 16/05/2008 time : 12.29 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/obeyno1

I could be wrong (have been twice - joking) but war is restricted to self defence according to the UN charter. Peace keeping is a different beast. Slippery slope invading to rescue peoples. Sounds like what the Japanese did in the 1930's. Re assasination, interesting dynamic between peace time and war time killing. during war people happily kill each other. Different dynamics when at peace. Personally, I don't think governments should go around assasinating world leaders, or anyone, unless they okay it with me. You see I don't trust them. And if we do it, then it is okay for others to do it to others, even our friends, or ourselves. Right? Better if the Burmese did it themselves. The military government is not legitimate for the people. Whereas it is treated as ligitimate by outside countries. I wouldn't complain if some burmese other threw or knocked off the illigitimate rulers. If some idiots were killing my people, I would feel justified to defending them and fighting back. Longer stretch if you count your people as all humans, regardless of nationalities as there are real different political ramifications. The problem with all this government lead invasion and assasination stuff is what is right and what is wrong depends on your perspective. Killing in self defense, fine. Invading and assasination in other countries or of the general public, is more risky. 911 was justified with this kind of thinking. The extra judical killing during the drug wars. How often will innocent people be knocked off, or enemies removed for the wrong reasons. Most of what governments do is in their national interest, even when "helping". The US supported the Taliban vs USSR, because it weakened the USSR, not in the interests of freedom. At the sametime it was convenient to support other dictators like Saddam Hussien. I wouldn't trust any government with killing people or invading other nations except in self defence.

comment 24 Ian date : 15/05/2008 time : 08.50 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Catch, China has problems with the Moslem Uigers, and the Tibetans, I think she would think hard before adding Karen and Shan to the list. She could end up with a glut of terrorists inside her borders.

comment 23 catch22 date : 15/05/2008 time : 07.57 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/catch22

Ian - You're probably right. If Burma gets out from under the military regime, I believe it will break into at least three parts, two of those being Karen and Shan states. The Karen like the easy access to Thailand as would the Shan. The problem would be how much would China be running the country by then?

comment 22 Ian date : 14/05/2008 time : 17.22 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Catch, this is the problem with the old colonial empires, Britain took different tribes, cultures and religions and enclosed them in unnatural borders. Once we left the fell apart, often violently. We have seen it in Africa and the Indian subcontinent, now we are seeing it in Burma. Unless a massive re-education integration programme can be organised I think Burma must break up along ethnic lines. As we saw with greater India when it split into 3, millions may die in the process. Sorry mate, I'm a bit of a pessimist when it comes to human nature.

comment 21 catch22 date : 14/05/2008 time : 16.06 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/catch22

But the opposition groups are fighting a war among themselves! Narc do you mean a civil war between the Burmans, Karen, Shan, Chin, Kachin, Arakanese et al...because that's what will come. CHINA is the key to any ideas. They MUST be involved otherwise nothing should be started. How do you mobilise a weary, back broken nation to mobilise itself, when they can't even find a cup of rice to feed their family. Money yes its great, but how do you get things in? Give them a plastic spoon and say charge!! Most are too weak to even stand

comment 20 narcisuss date : 14/05/2008 time : 15.44 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/narcisuss I  come in peace :)

Ian, I suspect you meant GGrass, not Narc. Financial support of opposition groups is the oldest trick in the book.

comment 19 Ian date : 14/05/2008 time : 15.13 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Narc, "How do you get them to organize a civil war? ", easiest thing in the world if you have the money.

comment 18 GGrass date : 14/05/2008 time : 13.23 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/GGrass

It sounds interesting, that any nation or nations should invade Burma, but interesting is all it is. We need practical tactics. I don't think any nation, or group of nations can possibly wage war against Burma. If anyone wages war against the junta, it should be its own people. How do you get them to organize a civil war?

comment 17 narcisuss date : 14/05/2008 time : 13.18 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/narcisuss I  come in peace :)

If the big friendly panda wants to supply its military force in exchange for not having feminine quiche eating soldiers too close to their borders that would be ok... They would of course have to give the newly instated semi-democratic government of Burma complete oversight and control over the panda army's actions within Burma's borders while they make the transition to democracy(or we could hope a comet struck the junta which seems equally likely)... . China really makes the equation a little harder.. sigh... why can't people just get along.... Maybe Oprah can help..

comment 16 Ian date : 14/05/2008 time : 13.16 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

I eat cheese and egg flan

comment 15 Ian date : 14/05/2008 time : 13.15 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Catch, I agree on the following points, if China is already entrenched they will be hard to shift. Whislt the Chinese leaders have many human rights problems, they are angels compared to the Burmese junta. They are also more sensitive to world opinion. So letting the Chinese take over would seem an option. However, this I think would start a domino effect, Thailand next? Better start learning Chinese

comment 14 catch22 date : 14/05/2008 time : 13.04 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/catch22

Narch - REAL MEN don't eat quiche

comment 13 catch22 date : 14/05/2008 time : 13.03 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/catch22

Narc - I'm with you on most of what you have written. There is one big single factor that doesn't seem to be fully comprehended (no disrespect to anyone) and we can hypothosise until the cows come home. CHINA Its not coming or on its way IT'S THERE BIG TIME AND IT AINT GOING AWAY!! Not only is it there, if it need a bigger presence they can just walk in and roll their armoury across the border. A bit different from getting equipment from the other side of the world. They will be set up and ready for whatevewr happens. They certainly won't give a bigger military presence to anyone other than the current regime or themselves. Is China more warmhearted? Probably yes, so hand it over to China and let them do the job.

comment 12 narcisuss date : 14/05/2008 time : 12.57 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/narcisuss I  come in peace :)

c10, what if the french lead the charge? Chiang mai could turn into a haven of baguettes and quiche

comment 11 narcisuss date : 14/05/2008 time : 12.54 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/narcisuss I  come in peace :)

c9, if Burma already is engaged in many tribal/ethnic conflicts it would be harder to make the case for there to emerge a stable democracy after Than Shwe & Co. departs. Thailand is engaged in an ethnic conflict, but I'm pretty sure Thailand wouldn't be better of with Than Shwe. I assume you think it would be worse than the situation in southern Thailand? How was Burma before the coup in 62, was it as bad as now? And if these conflicts are going on already - given that burma maintains its own or is given a modern transitional military force - why would it get worse by the removal of TShwe? Given your explanations it would be naive to think one could switch on the democracy switch by smashing the military. But do you think it would be impossible to gradually improve the situation through a mix of strong control and concessions driven by an administration just a smidgen more warm-hearted and competent than the Junta?

comment 10 catch22 date : 14/05/2008 time : 12.39 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/catch22

God (no not you GG) - I've just had a thought if it happens. USA at war with Burma/China. Best airbase position without doubt - Chiangmai. Another RR ground for USA military? Another Pattaya in the making? Should I buy buy, buy buy property? Or should i just pee off.....where's left....Pitcairn?

comment 9 catch22 date : 14/05/2008 time : 12.14 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/catch22

Ian - Its not as simple as that really. Burma is already divided into several states and divisions. The Karen (in my estimation) would want a bigger state than they already have...goaded on by the non-ceasefire KNU. There will be massive internal conflict because the Karen already think they should be ruling the country, not all the ones that made ceasefire deals with the military. Burma is a massive country for South East Asia, no-one will 'give it up' to anyone and I REALLY think the Chinese would be willing to go to war over it.

comment 8 Ian date : 14/05/2008 time : 12.06 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Catch, if the price of peace is to fragment into smaller states, then so be it. Give the Karens their nation, and the Kurds, and the Pattanis. Yugoslavia is still sorting itself out after this process, but ironically are slowly reintegrating under the EU format. We have seen this historically many times in Europe, large nations fragment, then slowly reform as they see the advantages of union. The end result is a more stable nation than one originally artificially created by a foreign power.

comment 7 Ian date : 14/05/2008 time : 12.00 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Not only is there a very good reason to risk war but also I think the risk is minimal. Apart from China, Russia, and a few supported parasites like South Africa, the entire world...not just the West, want to see action. Russia and China want allies not enemies.

comment 6 catch22 date : 14/05/2008 time : 11.59 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/catch22

Narc - Many good comments as usual. If it is EVER decided to go into Burma and I can't see it being done with out the blessing of either China, Russia or India who will all veto...then it has to be shit or bust on a scale never been seen before....no half measures. Is the world ready for the biggie? They voted overwhemingly for ASSK...but the average person can't tell you why....except they are tired of the junta. No-one there has ever been allowed exposure to political systems that might work under such conditions. The KNU in Mae Sot (Karen non ceasefire goup) are keeping pretty quiet right now...they're not too unhappy with all this turmoil. How big a state would the Karen want?.....Certainly much bigger than they have been allocated now ....the fighting will continue, but instead of it being two sided it will be multi sided, everyone fighting for their share of the cake, ethic group against ethnic group and massive revenge killings against innocent Burmans and their families.....the country has been divided like this for a purpose over the last 40 years.

comment 5 narcisuss date : 14/05/2008 time : 11.49 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/narcisuss I  come in peace :)

I mean, if there has ever been a reason to RISK war... Personally I think Russia and China are unlikely to wage war against a unified west, and we could make it even more unlikely by making sure the gas still flows to them.

comment 4 narcisuss date : 14/05/2008 time : 11.36 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/narcisuss I  come in peace :)

there is a risk of souring international relations, but there is a risk of letting a new 50 years of oppression go on too. What if China or Russia doesn't change? What if they continue to protect the tyrants of this world and grow more and more powerful in the process? At least now we stand a chance.

comment 3 narcisuss date : 14/05/2008 time : 11.32 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/narcisuss I  come in peace :)

C1, I've thought about that question too.. In burma there exists a political party that was elected by popular vote (even if it was long ago) right? Wouldn't the onous be on them to step up to the plate of government? I don't know if Iraq had any such popular opposition. Also, I don't know if Burma is has heterogeneous as Iraqi society with it's tribes (and tribulations). If burma is more homogeneous it might make it more likely that a stable government could emerge. Of course one could be wrong, but hey, how much worse could it get. As for China, it is the global community that is fueling their rise and influence, so if they start bombing to revenge the death of a tyrant, well to hell with them.

comment 2 narcisuss date : 14/05/2008 time : 11.22 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/narcisuss I  come in peace :)

I've been pondering the same thing for quite some time. I am opposed to the death penalty, but as you say, certain people are wilfully causing the death of thousands. Letting such people live is a death penalty unto those thousands. The tricky part would be to defend such an execution if it didn't bring about any change; if the apparatus of destruction would remain unaffected by Than Shwe's passing. But I would argue that his death at least has the potential to serve a great cause and that is more than can be said about the execution of inmates on death row (who are executed in an act of revenge).

comment 1 catch22 date : 14/05/2008 time : 11.14 http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/catch22

And who will run the country after these assassinations? We got rid of Saddam didn't we....and look whats happened there WITHOUT having to fight the Chinese, Russians too.

Comment

"If you are not member, please register to comment. It take only a few steps." member sign in   |   member register Username: Password:

name :
email :
website :
comment :
		back top

<<	May 2008					>>
s	m	t	w	t	f	s
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31