4 ms·

Well it's happening again in Myanmar, and the most important thing we have to talk about in the US is what our doofus 'leaders' have tweeted last.

microcolonel 9y ago
I mean, if you are so certain of the way forward in Myanmar, please tell us all how we are supposed to maintain all of our tense, fragile security positions in the rest of the world while invading Myanmar and somehow coming out without having committed heinous acts of some sort or bungling the whole thing. I, for one, think that the Myanmar situation is going to play out as it is, regardless of foreign involvement.
- lr4444lr 9y ago
  I doubt we could in any way make the plight of the Rohingya worse by intervening, even with nothing more than peacekeeping forces to aid their migration out of Burma. They are being butchered on the run.
- craftyguy 9y ago
  Ignoring for a moment that the need for almost all of these "fragile security positions" is from our own doing.. invading the country isn't the only way. How about we bring wide-spread international attention to it? What about pressuring Myanmar's neighbors to take a stand against it (sanctioning Myanmar's leadership)? For fuck's sake, what about providing support for refugees fleeing that situation? I don't know which answer would work, nor did I claim to, FYI since you somehow think I said that, but doing absolutely nothing is probably not a great idea.
  - weberc2 9y ago
    I tend to agree, but our society incentivizes political inaction from our leaders. Doing something good and hard that could be cast in an unethical light (i.e., virtually anything) can be damning. Of course a good leader would sacrifice his career to do the right thing, but our political system largely weeds out most such leaders before they rise to national office.
- Lendal 9y ago
  At least we could bring attention to it, public denunciation, sanctions, etc. That would be better than just ignoring it.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  while invading Myanmar Assuming that you know where other people are going with an argument is rarely well-founded or conducive to reasoned argument.
camus2 9y ago
What's your solution for Myanmar? sanctions? invasion?
- xemoka 9y ago
  Why should he have to have a solution to point out an atrocity or something that's wrong?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
Mikeb85 9y ago
What Myanmar situation? Saudi-backed Rohingya militants being pushed out by the military? You do know there's been an ongoing jihad for the last 60 years, right? And that the Rohingya at one point tried to secede and have Rakhine state annexed by East Pakistan?
- geofft 9y ago
  > Saudi-backed Wasn't the current Saudi regime put in place by the US? > And that the Rohingya at one point tried to secede and have Rakhine state annexed by East Pakistan? Absent other information, I tend to assume that when a population (especially one with identifiably distinct culture) wants to secede, they probably should secede, and refusal to let them secede is a violation of their human right to self-government. Of course this isn't always the case, especially if there are other populations on the land who won't have rights to self-government under the separate government, but it is a good default.
  - Mikeb85 9y ago
    > Wasn't the current Saudi regime put in place by the US? The British, but the US props them up. Hence the support for the Saudi campaign in Yemen, as well as Saudi 'causes' like Kosovo, the Rohingya, Uyghurs, etc... > Of course this isn't always the case, especially if there are other populations on the land who won't have rights to self-government under the separate government, but it is a good default. The Rohingya are still a minority in Rakhine, yet they started an insurrection and attempted to have it annexed by East Pakistan...
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- InclinedPlane 9y ago
  And that's an excuse for genocide and ethnic cleansing of entire populations how exactly? "Because muslims?"
  - Mikeb85 9y ago

microcolonel 9y ago

I mean, if you are so certain of the way forward in Myanmar, please tell us all how we are supposed to maintain all of our tense, fragile security positions in the rest of the world while invading Myanmar and somehow coming out without having committed heinous acts of some sort or bungling the whole thing. I, for one, think that the Myanmar situation is going to play out as it is, regardless of foreign involvement.

lr4444lr 9y ago
I doubt we could in any way make the plight of the Rohingya worse by intervening, even with nothing more than peacekeeping forces to aid their migration out of Burma. They are being butchered on the run.
craftyguy 9y ago
Ignoring for a moment that the need for almost all of these "fragile security positions" is from our own doing.. invading the country isn't the only way. How about we bring wide-spread international attention to it? What about pressuring Myanmar's neighbors to take a stand against it (sanctioning Myanmar's leadership)? For fuck's sake, what about providing support for refugees fleeing that situation? I don't know which answer would work, nor did I claim to, FYI since you somehow think I said that, but doing absolutely nothing is probably not a great idea.
- weberc2 9y ago
  I tend to agree, but our society incentivizes political inaction from our leaders. Doing something good and hard that could be cast in an unethical light (i.e., virtually anything) can be damning. Of course a good leader would sacrifice his career to do the right thing, but our political system largely weeds out most such leaders before they rise to national office.
Lendal 9y ago
At least we could bring attention to it, public denunciation, sanctions, etc. That would be better than just ignoring it.
anigbrowl 9y ago
while invading Myanmar Assuming that you know where other people are going with an argument is rarely well-founded or conducive to reasoned argument.

camus2 9y ago

What's your solution for Myanmar? sanctions? invasion?

xemoka 9y ago
Why should he have to have a solution to point out an atrocity or something that's wrong?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

Mikeb85 9y ago

What Myanmar situation? Saudi-backed Rohingya militants being pushed out by the military? You do know there's been an ongoing jihad for the last 60 years, right? And that the Rohingya at one point tried to secede and have Rakhine state annexed by East Pakistan?

geofft 9y ago
> Saudi-backed Wasn't the current Saudi regime put in place by the US? > And that the Rohingya at one point tried to secede and have Rakhine state annexed by East Pakistan? Absent other information, I tend to assume that when a population (especially one with identifiably distinct culture) wants to secede, they probably should secede, and refusal to let them secede is a violation of their human right to self-government. Of course this isn't always the case, especially if there are other populations on the land who won't have rights to self-government under the separate government, but it is a good default.
- Mikeb85 9y ago
  > Wasn't the current Saudi regime put in place by the US? The British, but the US props them up. Hence the support for the Saudi campaign in Yemen, as well as Saudi 'causes' like Kosovo, the Rohingya, Uyghurs, etc... > Of course this isn't always the case, especially if there are other populations on the land who won't have rights to self-government under the separate government, but it is a good default. The Rohingya are still a minority in Rakhine, yet they started an insurrection and attempted to have it annexed by East Pakistan...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
InclinedPlane 9y ago
And that's an excuse for genocide and ethnic cleansing of entire populations how exactly? "Because muslims?"
- Mikeb85 9y ago