Myanmar/Burma

Tens of thousands of monks have been silenced by the junta's soldiers in Myanmar (formerly known as Burma). Soldiers locked some monks in their monasteries, imprisoned others, and beat or killed an unknown number. The monks gave moral, spiritual weight to the people's uprising. After a week of peaceful protests, the junta sent in the machine guns. What's a mob of civilians and unarmed monks to do? Many chose to die for their right to protest peacefully.

Thus far Bush's plan involves economic sanctions againt the junta leaders, and this is what pisses me off. Didn't we used to be beacon of democracy. Isn't that one of the reasons our parents and grandparents came to this country? We sent our troops to Iraq under many guises, at least one of which was to "liberate" the Iraqui people, who had not at that point shown the kind of rebellious will power necessary to overthrow a dictatorship. The people of Myanmar have been showing that now for over a week. They are ripe for change, willing to die for the democratic right to protest peacefully. Isn't this exactly the kind of country we should help with a military presence? I think so. But we're maxed out financially, our soldiers stretched to the limit fighting for oil in Iraq, inadvertently provoking rebellion against democracy there when we could be providing assistance towards democracy's birth elsewhere--someplace like Myanmar , where the people are hungry for change.

They will stand alone. And we will let them (and democracy) fall again. I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I think we should. I don't think we should EVER occupy another country under the guise of spreading democracy, which is just a euphemism for empire-building. I think you enter a war when you are being attacked or when your allies are being attacked--otherwise, you're juts a bully. On the other hand, we could at least have sent to Burma peace-keeping troops so that soldiers wouldn't have an opportunity to slaughter peaceful protesters.



Source: Times Online (UK)