|
Post by juancarlos on Oct 11, 2007 0:26:13 GMT -5
Once again, defending yourself from a military assult, after praying peacefully infront of them doesn't sound all too violent to me. Consider their predicament, how would you have handled it? The Burmese government handled the protests as any other country would have -- first, riot police were deployed, and when the crowd was still unruly, the army was deployed. In 1992 after the Rodney King riots, the US army was deployed to LA, and rioters did not dare to fight the army. No, Gore did a fine job of making a fool out of himself afterwards -- becoming fat and growing a beard like some Michael Moore wannabe, making sensationalist films about how the Earth is going to blow up, refusing to run for President again. Maybe the junta should release Suu Kyi and let her do the same. How popular is Suu Kyi going to be with the mobs anyway, as she grows older and uglier? Burmese are not known for treating women well. I'm sorry - the Burmese government did not handle the protests as "any other country would have". The militaries of Western governments do not generally fire with live bullets on their people, causing scores to die or in the case of 1988, thousands to die, no matter how unruly the crowd gets. In very unusual instances where the Western military has actually fired and killed people on the crowd, it becomes a subject of a major national investigation and controversy. Needless to say, it is not standard operating procedure for Western militaries to fire live bullets and kill unruly protesters, much less peaceful ones. Au contraire, as Suu Kyi has grown older and "uglier", she has become more popular among the Burmese people and internationally now more than ever. And what an insult to the Burmese people for you to suggest that they are so fickle and shallow!!!
|
|
|
Post by haplotype on Oct 11, 2007 1:04:45 GMT -5
I'm sorry - the Burmese government did not handle the protests as "any other country would have". The militaries of Western governments do not generally fire with live bullets on their people, causing scores to die or in the case of 1988, thousands to die, no matter how unruly the crowd gets. In very unusual instances where the Western military has actually fired and killed people on the crowd, it becomes a subject of a major national investigation and controversy. Needless to say, it is not standard operating procedure for Western militaries to fire live bullets and kill unruly protesters, much less peaceful ones. If the riots get bad enough, law and order breaks down, then militaries are forced to shoot people, regardless of the system of government. The magnitude of the riots is a function of the country's poverty. India has a tolerant democracy, but the poor people stage extensive riots, so shootings are a regular occurrence. It is especially in a democracy that people grow fickle and shallow, where politicians have to waste more energy on their appearance, pasting fake smiles on their faces all the time to get elected. Do we see a lot of ugly old female politicians?
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Oct 11, 2007 7:11:23 GMT -5
When did I say I want to stop discussing the issues? You were the one who wrote: "there's not much point in debating whether it's better to be fed, treated medically but not be free or "free" to starve....." The only point I was making at the start of this thread was that it was time for the Burmese military junta to step down and give way to Suu Kyi's elected government. I did not start the debate on the merits of democracy vis-a-vis other forms of government, a topic we debated extensively on some other thread already. Nevertheless, thanx for posting that link for the petition. The Burmese people need all the support they can get at the moment. no probs for the petition...& i'll post it again for this page.... www.avaaz.org/en/stand_with_burma/tf.phpas for the rest, merely questioning the assumption that whatever follows the junta will be any better....or that Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD are "saints"...tho granted, they do deserve the benefit of doubt, all things considered.... that the SPDC is nasty there is no denying....but it should also be pointed out the latest protests were sparked by the end of fuel subsidies, a measure imposed on the junta by the IMF and World Bank, which are funded by Western governments....even though they knew perfectly well it would drive up the price of everything - and beyond the means of many Burmese....and yet the oil fields in Burma are jointly owned and run by western ones, amongst others....which makes them partly responsible for propping up the junta....it's not all China's fault.... in other words, westerners should take a harder, much harder, look at what their own governments and corporations are DOing, as opposed to saying..... peace
|
|
|
Post by jericho on Oct 15, 2007 9:06:00 GMT -5
Burmese are not known for treating women well. Got any basis for that ridiculous claim? Or would it also be safe to assume that all people from Alabama are wife beaters?Seriously, what a stupid thing to say.
|
|
|
Post by haplotype on Oct 15, 2007 12:52:23 GMT -5
Well let's see, I work at a major medical center in Alabama, and I'm not finding malnourished women who are sold to brothels at an early age, denied schooling, or frequently raped by soldiers. I work in an office full of assertive women, one of whom is getting her pilot's license. Many of my math professors in school are women. (I work full time and go to school full time.) According to www.aworc.org/bpfa/pub/sec_e/vio00001.html"With a cultural tradition of maternal self-abnegation, women consistently forego their own needs in order to give their children first priority. Due to a combination of traditional Burmese customs and the deteriorating economic situation, families are increasingly prioritizing the rights of males over females to limited resources. As a result, women and girls throughout Burma suffer from reduced access to nutritious food, medical services, as well as vocational training and other educational opportunities. Rural women are most affected by the nation's instability. Frequently widowed or separated from their families at an early age, women are forced to work as porters and unpaid labourers for local SPDC military troops and are often raped by soldiers. Ethnic women in areas where armed conflict with the junta is ongoing face constant threats of attack, rape, torture, slavery, and murder by SPDC soldiers. In addition, while male members of the community are taken as porters, serve as soldiers, or are killed, women are often left alone to raise their children. Even after fleeing to a neighboring country for protection, female refugees and children are the most vulnerable in threats to their security. Urban women who have historically enjoyed relatively high levels of social power have, under SLORC=-SPDC, been subject to restrictions on speech and increasingly limited opportunities for higher positions in public or private service. In the government and civil service, the junta gives priority to those with military experience, who are usually male. Repeated school and university closures since 1988 have prevented many female students from completing their secondary schooling, leaving fewer young women equipped with the background to enter positions in the public or private sectors. In addition, the scarcity of jobs has left women with a paucity of employment choices, thus they are less likely to take legal resources in cases of sexual harassment by male employers, which are frequently alleged in some work environments. In addition very few women in Burma have access to education concerning their reproductive rights or live in situations where they are able to practice safe forms of birth control. As a result of economic exigency, an increasing number of women and girls are entering Thailand in search of work in order to support their families. Many end up in brothels under conditions that put them at high risk of contracting HIV, and a growing number of Burmese women are dying of AIDS in Thailand."
|
|
|
Post by jericho on Oct 16, 2007 4:23:44 GMT -5
Well let's see, I work at a major medical center in Alabama, and I'm not finding malnourished women who are sold to brothels at an early age, denied schooling, or frequently raped by soldiers. I work in an office full of assertive women, one of whom is getting her pilot's license. Many of my math professors in school are women. (I work full time and go to school full time.) According to www.aworc.org/bpfa/pub/sec_e/vio00001.html"With a cultural tradition of maternal self-abnegation, women consistently forego their own needs in order to give their children first priority. Due to a combination of traditional Burmese customs and the deteriorating economic situation, families are increasingly prioritizing the rights of males over females to limited resources. As a result, women and girls throughout Burma suffer from reduced access to nutritious food, medical services, as well as vocational training and other educational opportunities. Rural women are most affected by the nation's instability. Frequently widowed or separated from their families at an early age, women are forced to work as porters and unpaid labourers for local SPDC military troops and are often raped by soldiers. Ethnic women in areas where armed conflict with the junta is ongoing face constant threats of attack, rape, torture, slavery, and murder by SPDC soldiers. In addition, while male members of the community are taken as porters, serve as soldiers, or are killed, women are often left alone to raise their children. Even after fleeing to a neighboring country for protection, female refugees and children are the most vulnerable in threats to their security. Urban women who have historically enjoyed relatively high levels of social power have, under SLORC=-SPDC, been subject to restrictions on speech and increasingly limited opportunities for higher positions in public or private service. In the government and civil service, the junta gives priority to those with military experience, who are usually male. Repeated school and university closures since 1988 have prevented many female students from completing their secondary schooling, leaving fewer young women equipped with the background to enter positions in the public or private sectors. In addition, the scarcity of jobs has left women with a paucity of employment choices, thus they are less likely to take legal resources in cases of sexual harassment by male employers, which are frequently alleged in some work environments. In addition very few women in Burma have access to education concerning their reproductive rights or live in situations where they are able to practice safe forms of birth control. As a result of economic exigency, an increasing number of women and girls are entering Thailand in search of work in order to support their families. Many end up in brothels under conditions that put them at high risk of contracting HIV, and a growing number of Burmese women are dying of AIDS in Thailand." I guess having Burmese family members and being in contact with Burmese people in Burma is no where near as good a supporting argument. True as your article says, it does happen there. However, you cannot label the Burmese people in such a way (it is not traditional behaviour but has occurred out of circumstance - which does not excuse such behaviour), when similar occurrences happen in several military juntas and war torn countries around the world. Being half burmese myself, I simply found that previous statement rather insulting.
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Oct 16, 2007 5:06:25 GMT -5
Well let's see, I work at a major medical center in Alabama, and I'm not finding malnourished women who are sold to brothels at an early age, denied schooling, or frequently raped by soldiers. I work in an office full of assertive women, one of whom is getting her pilot's license. Many of my math professors in school are women. (I work full time and go to school full time.) According to www.aworc.org/bpfa/pub/sec_e/vio00001.html"With a cultural tradition of maternal self-abnegation, women consistently forego their own needs in order to give their children first priority. Due to a combination of traditional Burmese customs and the deteriorating economic situation, families are increasingly prioritizing the rights of males over females to limited resources. As a result, women and girls throughout Burma suffer from reduced access to nutritious food, medical services, as well as vocational training and other educational opportunities. Rural women are most affected by the nation's instability. Frequently widowed or separated from their families at an early age, women are forced to work as porters and unpaid labourers for local SPDC military troops and are often raped by soldiers. Ethnic women in areas where armed conflict with the junta is ongoing face constant threats of attack, rape, torture, slavery, and murder by SPDC soldiers. In addition, while male members of the community are taken as porters, serve as soldiers, or are killed, women are often left alone to raise their children. Even after fleeing to a neighboring country for protection, female refugees and children are the most vulnerable in threats to their security. Urban women who have historically enjoyed relatively high levels of social power have, under SLORC=-SPDC, been subject to restrictions on speech and increasingly limited opportunities for higher positions in public or private service. In the government and civil service, the junta gives priority to those with military experience, who are usually male. Repeated school and university closures since 1988 have prevented many female students from completing their secondary schooling, leaving fewer young women equipped with the background to enter positions in the public or private sectors. In addition, the scarcity of jobs has left women with a paucity of employment choices, thus they are less likely to take legal resources in cases of sexual harassment by male employers, which are frequently alleged in some work environments. In addition very few women in Burma have access to education concerning their reproductive rights or live in situations where they are able to practice safe forms of birth control. As a result of economic exigency, an increasing number of women and girls are entering Thailand in search of work in order to support their families. Many end up in brothels under conditions that put them at high risk of contracting HIV, and a growing number of Burmese women are dying of AIDS in Thailand." I guess having Burmese family members and being in contact with Burmese people in Burma is no where near as good a supporting argument. True as your article says, it does happen there. However, you cannot label the Burmese people in such a way (it is not traditional behaviour but has occurred out of circumstance - which does not excuse such behaviour), when similar occurrences happen in several military juntas and war torn countries around the world. Being half burmese myself, I simply found that previous statement rather insulting. But Haplo's statement should no longer surprise you, given Haplo's various posts on this thread. Haplo has claimed the following: 1. the monks were staging violent protests and consisted mainly of teenage thugs; 2. the Burmese government behaved just as any goverment would in view of the "violent" protests (i.e. allowing the military to shoot and kill people); 3. the West is "systematically" deleting any negative info on Suu Kyi - i.e. we're being indoctrinated; 4. it's only the military junta and the Burmese elite who can run the country - no one else; 5. Suu Kyi is getting old and ugly and the Burmese people will start ignoring her cos they only go for looks. 6. Most of the Cuban Mariel immigrants turned out to be criminals, when in fact only 9% of them had criminal backgrounds. The record speaks for itself. JC
|
|
|
Post by haplotype on Oct 16, 2007 5:29:44 GMT -5
I guess having Burmese family members and being in contact with Burmese people in Burma is no where near as good a supporting argument. Just becase you are half Burmese does not mean you know anything about Burma. Interesting. That differs from your original reply of "Got any basis for that ridiculous claim? Seriously, what a stupid thing to say."
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Oct 16, 2007 5:52:04 GMT -5
I agree with you, R. Haplo's claims were utterly ridiculous. I suppose if you take things out of context you can really support any outrageous argument.
|
|
|
Post by haplotype on Oct 16, 2007 6:02:46 GMT -5
So you're wanting to say that Burmese women have just as many rights as American women. In that case, it undermines your own argument that human rights abuses occur in Burma. ;D
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Oct 16, 2007 6:53:02 GMT -5
So you're wanting to say that Burmese women have just as many rights as American women. In that case, it undermines your own argument that human rights abuses occur in Burma. ;D Thank you for once again demonstrating how to take things out of context.
|
|
|
Post by jericho on Oct 16, 2007 18:03:23 GMT -5
Just becase you are half Burmese does not mean you know anything about Burma. That certainly is a possibility, though not in my case. Just because you can post internet links and work in a 'hospital', doesn't mean you know what you're talking about.
|
|
|
Post by Altan on Oct 17, 2007 20:45:34 GMT -5
I'm an American, Burma is repression they are bad. Just like China and their naval base in Burma...long live the Dalai Lama. A true American Patriot in China!!! Chinese tricks with bright lead toys to make American babies stupid. Hah...we have found you out.
|
|