Debate:Right and wrong in Myanmar

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
! THIS IS A DEBATE PAGE, NOT AN ARTICLE. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Conservapedia.
Your opinion is welcome! Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions.
New Users: Please read our "Editing etiquette" before posting

Which side is more "right" in the September 2007 Myanmar Monk March conflict?

This discussion is wrong

This whole discussion is a fig leaf for CP editors who want conceal that they are unable to simply feel for the oppressed in Burma, regardless of religion and ideology. Enough said. Order 20:30, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

  • I agree with you, Order. The abysmal record of AI has noting to do with the fact that Burma, and its people deserve freedom and democracy the same all all people. All other talk on this page is a deceit to bring relativism to this non-debate. And I am not even going to mention the other deceits on this page, inasmuch as the participants here have walked away from here, eschewing CP and have made multiple slanders against CP and its Admins and users, one has to question why they will not retract their deceits and just participate openly. I for one would welcome them. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 13:14, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

My opinion on this matter is quite clear. The mainpage should be edited to give a fairer analysis of the conflict in Burma. What really annoyed me was the claim that the protesters were under the thumb of some sort of Liberal Plot, and that the Military Dictatorship was being harshly treated. They are a military dictatorship. Nuff said.

Also, in light of most admins disagreeing with Ed, the news item still hasn't been taken down. And those who disagree with what is exclusively Ed Poor's opinion are receiving blocks. Its a disgrace. Graham 15:13, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

That's just a coincidence. It was not for disagreeing but for making personal attacks that they were blocked.
Or are you conceding another admin's point that it is liberals who (instead of arguing rationally) merely stoop to personal attacks? --Ed Poor Talk 15:30, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Oh, lets not drag on the damning hypocrisy that is 'Liberal Style' into this Ed. My point was that since you are the sole person who supports the news item on the mainpage, yet refuse to take it down, your reaction has been to block those who hold a righteous indignation towards your actions. Graham 15:54, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

The monks are more right

I have to go with the Monks. Remember the Boston Massacre? A bunch of stone throwing patriots fighting a dictatorial government? Sound familiar? Maestro 16:09, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm (unsurprisingly) going with the monks, and the whole NLD/NCGUB peace movement. See below. --SayaSan
Why are the monks more right? Do you support a coup against the dictatorship, or what?
For reasons stated elsewhere, it's not a coup as such - there's a case for it being the quelling of a hostile insurgency on the SPDC's part. Still, I would say that a peaceful overthrow of the SPDC, followed by a return to democracy, would be desirable, yes. I would ideally have as little bloodshed of the prodemocracy groups as possible, but even so, that would be dwarfed by the numbers who die in Burma every year in the countryside. --SayaSan

The government is more right

Analysis of Ed's points

Amnesty International has a well-deserved reputation for partisanship. They vigorously oppose "dictatatorships" which aren't particularly hostile to America, while largely turning a blind eye to much worse human rights violations perpetrated by America's enemies. Not a good place to start.

OK, if we go by a purely utilitarian calculus, then maybe AI's concentration on Guantanamo isn't the best, but that's a whole different argument. The issue is that letter writing campaigns do have an effect, and, if you want evidence that they're not all against America, I wrote five letters in my local student AI group today - one to Burma, one to Syria, one to China, one to Total (the oil company, also re:Burma), and one to Venezuela. Fairly cosmopolitan, I would say.

How about defining a human rights standard? For example, do you think people everywhere ought to have the right to "petition the government for redress of grievances" as we do in America? Should everyone everywhere have the freedoms of speech, press and religion? Should our outrage and disgust toward a goverment be in proportion to how many people's rights they violate, or should we just magnify a few cases to advance the liberal agenda?

It doesn't get as much press attention as the whole Aung San Suu Kyi business, but that's because there isn't much press attention at all on Burma.

OK, witness for the prosecution - a fairly big wrong on behalf of the SPDC. Here. Genocide? More likely than you think. Even if that didn't stick, you could throw pretty much all of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court at them - what's going on there is terrible.

Also, I think that your left/right divide over Burma is not quite right. They're more like fascists, than anyone else - it's the worst elements of each.

'So that our great primary aim of our single Burman race to last forever we will meet with success, and for the greater national race to progress and develop, the easiest method is an aggressive campaign to

Click to enlarge

dilute racial blood by taking foreign women who are not Burman ... Burman comrades-should we not be able to take such action, the Shan will endanger us in the future. Therefore, our Burmese race must be untied in this. We must take a firm hold of whatever situation is available to us. Even if it should come about that we, individuals, have permanently to abandon the Shan State, we must leave behind our own flesh and blood, our progeny and those related to us. Those women who are Shans and minorities must become in the end such that whenever a Burman offers money or makes advances to them, they are easily available almost as if they were prostitutes.'

Sound familiar? --SayaSan

Response on AI: To the right is Amnesty internationals record of criticism from the period of 1995–1998. Notice how much criticism goes towards democratic/free governments as opposed to dictatorships and closed countries.--Tash 16:26, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Tellingly short time period, not so relevant now, and anyway, are you going to use that to get yourself out of the issue now? Remember, when you do an AI campaign, it's not in favour of AI, it's in favour of the people that you write about in your letters. Are you going to deny the people of Burma your support over this? --SayaSan

  • You're the one who started the digression about Amnesty International. Tash and I are only responding to that side point. Now that he and I have won there, shall we return to what we were talking about before? --Ed Poor Talk 16:36, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
Since when are Turkey (not allowed in the EU because of gross human rights violations) and Egypt (Brutally cracks down on free speech) and Pakistan 'free and democratic'? Maestro 16:40, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Ah, but, by a cunning means, it was my point all along. All the media have stuff on the Burma conflict; could we spend our time better by actually doing something that helps the monks? Anyway, there's a whole lot of non-AI stuff up there. --SayaSan

Would anyone here like to contribute to the Myanmar article? It does need work! Karajou 17:22, 26 September 2007 (EDT)