Skip to main content

What does "do something in Burma" mean?

Instapundit linked to this article by Vaclav Havel lamenting that the international community isn't doing something about Burma.

What does he think ought to be done?

Reading the comments has depressed me. There are a couple of people who see the problem but most, even those not overtly anti-American or anti-UK, miss it entirely. What does "do something" mean?

Even those who agree that "something" must be done are more concerned with "who" does it than "what". The fellow who really torqued me, ellis, also made the best point, even if he/she doesn't realize what that point was:
One very simple thing to do is to set a good example.
Right now it is no contest which governments are "butchering" the most innocent people.
And the suspicion is that Havel's prescription would lead to the deaths of many more, just as it did in Iraq, just as it could in Iran.
If we're going by *fewest deaths* the fact is that doing absolutely nothing but stand by while a government kills its people... until they get tired of it... will result in the fewest total deaths. The bad guys will kill the good guys until the good guys are too weak to cause problems and the result? The result will be PEACE.

The *only* way that intervening makes sense is if we want the bad guys to die and the good guys to live.


The best point on the other side of it is from a fellow going by Tourbillon:

To leave you with an adult thought (meaning a distastefully realistic one): international community diplomacy + US military power = US military power. Get over it. Move on. Instead of wondering why fairy dust is not working in Burma, [...],
Tourbillon has the answer to the question... what is "something?" Oh, it's not that other military power can't do what US military power can do. It's that they *won't*. And when people are wringing their hands and talking about the international community "doing something" they aren't talking about military power, they're talking about "international community diplomacy"... ie. Fairy Dust.

Comments

Ymarsakar said…
There was some discussion over the international slash American thing over at bookworm's room. I made two lengthy comments trying to cover this subject.

Linka
1:47 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Some times some people.

 
Post a Comment
Read more

It's Not Projection

Take the case of "fascism". When you can see clear as day that the person who is accusing you of fascism is a fascist, they aren't projecting. They're talking about something ELSE. Basically, in the case of fascism, the basic set of fascist government controls are the default assumption of reality for a whole lot of people. The government is supposed to control every part of your life. The government is supposed to make you moral and good and reflect "justice". The government is supposed to do this by picking winners from the good people and losers from the bad people. The government is supposed to control the way people do business, how businesses (and farmers) function and what they produce. And people should be made to cooperate with this control because they are part of society and society is dependent on everyone being in compliance. This is simply the Truth. It's how the world works and how the world is supposed to work. The Socialist Nationalism, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Tyranny.gov vs Tyranny.com

Compulsion is Compulsion, no matter who does it.  This is Brilliant Theft is Theft, no matter who does it. Freedom of Association has no room in it for *private* action   that takes that away Freedom of Association. If I have a business and have voluntary associations such that I choose to serve some people and to not serve others, that might make me a jerk and it might lose me business, it might make me smart and it might gain me business, but it's got to be my choice.  If I would normally serve the current disliked minority in my shop except for the fact that if I'm SEEN to serve them by the wrong people I'll have a private campaign against me as those people do everything possible to ruin me by preventing me from doing business physically or by attacking my customers or suppliers, then I am NOT free to make those choices. Does it really make a difference to losing my CHOICE to voluntarily associate if there's a law that says I may not serve "those people" o...
Post a Comment
Read more