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

How Suzanne Brockman lost me.

I just finished reading the latest paperback from Suzanne Brockmann. _Dark of Night_. I'm disappointed and that's a sad thing because I've absolutely loved her series of romances about SEAL team 16 and the Troubleshooters. Aparently I'm not alone. My complaint isn't the same as most of the others... I'm great with Sophia and Dave. I even am okay with Tracey being people smart. She and Decker did seem to come out of left field. I thought Decker was great even if I thought his overwhelming conflict was pretty lame. What I didn't care for was the politics. I read for escapism, for studly dangerous men acting like men, for sex, and adventure with guns, where our military are the good guys and the SEALs are supermen and military contractor's are heroes, too. (I wonder if Ms. Brockmann realizes that the Troubleshooters ARE Blackwater?) I do not read sexy action adventure to be presented with a *cause*. It's small things but they don...
14 comments
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

The Shooter

I just watched the DVD. When I saw trailers for this I wanted to see it. It's the sort of movie that I usually enjoy. It wasn't bad. In fact it was pretty good in some ways and the annoying bits weren't too hard to ignore. The end was sort of bad. Not the choices that I'd make. It took conspiracy a bit too far, away from conspiracy to "this is the way the world works." It *should* have been enough to expose the Senator and his fellows. Where was the press in this? The idea wasn't too bad. The speech his spotter's widow gave about her dead husband's choices was good. (Though why she'd go back to using her maiden name I can't imagine.) Among all those willing to look the other way were several people who were... righteous. But overall it wasn't a "conspiracy" movie. There wasn't a "conspiracy" there was only finding out the "truth" of reality. In this world president Bush re...
14 comments
Read more