Difference between revisions of "Debate:Right and wrong in Myanmar"

Revision as of 20:26, September 26, 2007

!

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?

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

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 Internationale's 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)