Garrett Moore
Newbie
Karma: +1/-0
 Offline
Posts: 23
Free Burma From Fear
|
 |
« Reply #1 on: January 18, 2009, 08:55:37 PM » |
|
I am curious, but what do you think will happen politically as a result of Aung San Suu Kyi being freed that will help Burma?
And what is this difference you speak about Americans being able to make?
I seem to recall some Americans in recent years being responsible for freeing the entire country of Iraq, while other Americans gave comfort and opportunity to the Islamic terrorist insurgents by presenting a partisan division which was geared towards denying the republican party any political advantage from the quick military victory, a division which would parlay to democratic votes in the very election which saw Obama elected.
This was quite a departure from what the democrats were saying when they voted to give President Bush the authority to go into Iraq, which is on record. If someone out there wants to throw out the "where were the weapons of mass destruction?" question, do you think the democratic politicians don't have their own sources of intelligence to make their decisions by?
You may find that the democrats are now miraculously less in a hurry to get out of Iraq, since they can now reward their campaign contributors with the contracts for rebuilding Iraq in order to repay their campaign debts. (which is their prerogative as the current administration, and better than leaving Iraq to fall into the hands of foreign Islamic fundamentalist insurgents) I suppose the question will be whether the voters recognize that it has magically become a meaningful endeavor now under Obama.
All of those politicians in countries which refused to participate in freeing Iraq have saved their countries billions of dollars, making up for some of the money they lost in Saddam's downfall.
Remember the United Nations weapons inspectors which Saddam refused to allow to do their business? Remember the chemical weapon attacks on the Iraqi ethnic minorities? Remember the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait? Remember Hussein's threats to attack Israel with weapons of mass destruction?
Saddam was a bad man doing bad things and threatening to do worse.
After the 911 attacks on the United States, our leaders no longer had the leisure to take a wait-and-see attitude towards people like Saddam Hussein.
The smirking American politicians who sold out their country, sold out the freed Iraqi people, and sold out the US Military in order to win votes are as shameful as the politicians in the many free-world countries who refused to participate in the freeing of Iraq, and the protection of the Iraqi people afterwards. Meanwhile, we Americans had to hear Iraqi casualty reports from CNN, FOX, and MSNBC every fifteen minutes to remind us how many American soldiers had been needlessly killed while the media practically made the Islamic terrorist insurgents sound like heroes while they murdered Iraqi civilians by bombing mosques and market places, and played ethnic groups against each other.
Many of those countries which refused to get involved in Iraq were doing lucrative business under the table with Saddam, in violation of the United Nations embargoes. Many of those same countries are now doing lucrative business with the SPDC regime making their profits on the blood, sweat, and tears of ethnic nationality race forced laborers working at castor oil, palm oil, and rubber plantations built on former rice producing land confiscated from Burma's ethnic nationality races, and fertilized with the bodies of ethnic nationality race children.
Short of invading Burma, which I think would fall in a matter of hours, the United States, like the marginalized United Nations Security Council can make very little difference in the politics of Burma.
If the leaders of all of the countries which refused to get involved in Iraq were OK with Saddam Hussein continuing his reign of terror and his regional threats, what chance is there that a US incursion into Burma would be seen as a good thing when the SPDC regime is only harming the fifty-million citizens of Burma, and posing *no threats to their neighbors?
(*other than the threats of spreading heroin, methamphetamine, AIDS/HIV and multi-drug resistant tuberculosis across the borders into India, China, Laos, Malaysia, and Thailand)
Like your proposal to Obama, the main Burma issue most "Burma advocates" have concentrated on over the past five years was for Aung San Suu Kyi to be freed again.
And what does it mean to say your statement was "Not overly detailed because we want folks to read it."?
That's like saying don't bother telling the American people the truth.
I'll tell you right now that not telling the truth about Burma kills hundreds of thousands of Burmese citizens every year!
If my memory serves me right, the truth is that the last time Aung San Suu Kyi was freed in 2003 she was nearly assassinated, placed under house arrest again and nothing changed at all except that she nearly died.
History shows that when she was re-arrested, the progress of the democratic movement was again stopped dead.
Since her re-arrest, with the exception of the Saffron Revolution of 2007, a poorly planned, poorly organized knee-jerk reaction by monks and city dwellers to rising fuel and commodity prices which was far from the sort of disciplined peaceful protest envisioned by Aung San Suu Kyi, there has been no movement towards democracy.
Are you blind to the fact that the SPDC can free her and other political prisoners one day to silence international critics, and pick them up again one at a time until they have again silenced the opposition?
Why would you propose repeating this process again when over the last five years the Burmese people have only continued to live in poverty in a land of great natural resources, hundreds of thousands of Burmese citizens have died from disease and starvation, and hundreds of thousands more have been chased into the jungle or placed in forced labor and relocation camps while their homes were looted and burned, and their natural resources were plundered?
The Burmese democratic movement has been dormant ever since the ill-fated awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Aung San Suu Kyi, and ever since then the SLORC and the SPDC have masterfully played the international politics game while turning Burma into their own private gold mine, and the NLD has ceased to actively promote the "revolution of the spirit" which Aung San Suu Kyi advocated.
It is not up to Americans, or Europeans, or Asians or the man in the moon to make a difference now, it is up to the Burmese people.
Does Aung San Suu Kyi need to be freed again to repeat that she wants to see the peaceful transition to a political system which is in accordance with the will of the majority?
Does Aung San Suu Kyi need to be freed again to repeat that to accomplish this political system she wants the people of Burma to be disciplined, united, to use the most peaceful means possible?
Does Aung San Suu Kyi need to be freed again to risk her freedom and her life again to speak of Gandhi and peaceful protest and courage and self sacrifice and intrepidity?
Even from the confines of her house arrest, Aung San Suu Kyi has continued to say the same things over and over again, none of which mention the necessity of her freedom as being a prerequisite to action. As recently as January 4th 2009, she put up a red banner on the grounds of her home which can be viewed from the street. Her message was clearly stated quoting her father, independence hero Gen Aung San: ''Act decisively in the interest of the nation and the people."
Yet so-called "Burma advocates" continue to ignore her agenda to free the citizens of Burma, in order to follow their own agenda to raise money to continue to support their own agendas to free only Aung San Suu Kyi...... sounds like a good plan for "job security", but it does nothing at all to promote Aung San Suu Kyi's agenda, the revolution of the spirit.
Aung San Suu Kyi is one person exhibiting great personal sacrifice in order to free an entire country.
Meanwhile many "Burma advocates" mindlessly drone on with their agenda to free one person, while sacrificing the entire population of Burma year after year.
To now promote Barack Obama as the saviour of Burma on the strength of his having mentioned Burma twice in his book is counting your chickens before they have hatched. Wake up...there are no outside political or economic means which will ever entice the SPDC and the Burmese military leaders to simply walk away from becoming richer and richer every day.
The United Nations Security Council watches helplessly as Russia and China veto every possible solution, and the freedom of Burma still boils down to the people of Burma following their elected leader's directions of how to carry out Burma's second struggle for independence.
More Nobel Peace pipe dreams, can only result in more years going by with the SPDC in power, more poverty and more death for the Burmese people.
If the World continues to place all of the responsibility for freedom and democracy on the shoulders of Aung San Suu Kyi, the SPDC will either continue to deny her the opportunity to promote her agenda by keeping her under house-arrest, or they will free her and then arrange to have her assassinated, likely blaming it on one of the many ethnic nationality races which have suffered terribly decade after decade.
For twenty years since Aung San Suu Kyi joined the struggle for freedom and democracy, starting with the Nobel Peace Price, the leaders of the free world have applauded her courage, awarded her with medals, and honorary doctorates and citizenships, but what did they do to promote her agenda on her behalf?
Recently many former world leaders have begun calling for Aung San Suu Kyi and all "political prisoners" to be released.
How does this help the Burmese citizens when there is no longer a democracy movement to be led by these political prisoners who would quickly be imprisoned again for participation in any anti-regime movement?
It is simple folks, if you want to free Aung San Suu Kyi, FREE BURMA...and you will free Aung San Suu Kyi!
To free Burma, teach the Burmese people the peaceful Gandhian methods of protest which Aung San Suu Kyi believed in, and promote her agenda for the Burmese people to learn how to become united and disciplined, to act with intrepidity and courage, and to act decisively in the interest of the nation and the people.
And then pressure the United Nations and its members to make it clear to the SPDC that they stand ready to assist the people of Burma should it become necessary to protect them.
In her own words from her Freedom From Fear essay of 1991, Aung San Suu Kyi states many of the same thoughts as I have outlined above.
Ignore my words if you must, but if you want to be a "Burma advocate", start looking carefully at her words, and promoting her agenda, or go save a whale instead.
Garrett
Quote Aung San Suu Kyi 1990:
In an age when immense technological advances have created lethal weapons which could be, and are, used by the powerful and the unprincipled to dominate the weak and the helpless, there is a compelling need for a closer relationship between politics and ethics at both the national and international levels. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations proclaims that ‘every individual and every organ of society’ should strive to promote the basic rights and freedoms to which all human beings regardless of race, nationality or religion are entitled. But as long as there are governments whose authority is founded on coercion rather than on the mandate of the people, and interest groups which place short-term profits above long-term peace and prosperity, concerted international action to protect and promote human rights will remain at best a partially realized struggle. There willcontinue to be arenas of struggle where victims of oppression have to draw on their own inner resources to defend their inalienable rights as members of the human family.
The quintessential revolution is that of the spirit, born of an intellectual conviction of the need for change in those mental attitudes and values which shape the course of a nation’s development. A revolution which aims merely at changing official policies and institutions with a view to an improvement in material conditions has little chance of genuine success.
Without a revolution of the spirit, the forces which produced the iniquities of the old order would continue to be operative, posing a constant threat to the process of reform and regeneration. It is not enough merely to call for freedom, democracy and human rights. There has to be a united determination to persevere in the struggle, to make sacrifices in the name of enduring truths, to resist the corrupting influences of desire, ill will, ignorance and fear.
|
