Intellectual Dishonesty
With the current humanitarian crisis in Burma, exacerbated by the corruption and inefficiency of their military junta government, there's been an outbreak of proposals to 'liberate' the Burmese people. And guess what? All these are written by the same leftoid fools who opposed the US invasion of Iraq, for just about the same(or better) reasons.
The intellectual vapidness of these idiots is astounding. As the people on the Belmont Club have commented, all it takes is for the US to take action, and suddenly these fools advocating the overthrow of the Burmese government will start protesting against the heavy-handedness of the US military, the bombed out remains of shattered Burmese combat vehicles. They are stupid, but more than that, they are dishonest.
Now in all probability if the "good old U.S. military" actually does invade Burma it will incinerate every vestige of armed opposition in its path. Burmese Army units will stand about as much chance as ants before a kid's homemade flamethrower. And then all of a sudden the assumptions will collapse in reverse order. People are going to say, 'we didn't realize invasions meant killing people'; 'we didn't realize we wouldn't have allies'; and finally 'we did not think it would be so expensive'. And then we will hear that classic line: "I was for it before I was against it."I had always supported the US invasion of Iraq, on the simple grounds that no Saddam is better than Saddam, and the 'peace' of Saddam's Iraq is akin to the peace of the grave, enforced by thugs. For the same reasons, I would support any invasion of Burma, even by China, which would be a damn sight better than the military junta in power now. However, the only world power with the actual capability to do so, the US, has citizens tired and weary of cleaning up the world's messes. They won't lift a finger.
I've commented on Burma last year, and I noted then that freedom bought cheaply with the lives of others is just as easily sold cheaply for a pack of lies. I don't expect anything to change. The best option is to stay out, but if anyone asks, I don't mind donating a few hundred bucks for a fund to raise some mercnaries(ala Rambo) or to purchase weapons to smuggle into Burma for the resistance in the country.
posted by The Wobbly Guy at 7:04 AM
1 Comments:
And a dictatorship to impose secularism is good... why? A secularism involving the industrialized mass murder of hundreds of thosuands? With possibly more on the way when he finally gets his nuclear weapons in addition to the chemical and bioweapons he probably already had?
Your argument is morally and intellectually dishonest. Morally because if you cared so bloody much about the women of Iraq, you would have noted that Saddam killed plenty of women too, spouses of his enemies. Intellectually because they weren't free to teach unless they subscribed to his regime of terror and taught that Saddam is The Man(TM). Shades of 1984 there. Or did you think they were truly free to do as they wish? You are a fucking idiot.
I would note that Malaysia and Indonesia have Sharia Law too, with only the merest panderings to their countries' racial and religious minorities. However, it has not prevented their women from the pursuit of happiness.
What's important is also how islamic law is viewed by the Iraqi populace. My gut feel is that it's more of a series of guidelines they adhere to for the sake of keeping up appearances, only to abandon at the first instance of advantage. That's to Saddam's dubious credit; he discredited the clerics enough for people to realize that hey, religion ain't the end-all-and-be-all.
Iraq is hardly a theocracy... yet. It may yet become one, but my take is that the clock cannot be turned back, and the educated and liberated women of Iraq are there to stay. They might wear burqas, but are otherwise quite free to conduct their own business. They should be offered the chance to produce a prospering free and liberal capitalist democratic nation that they never had. If they throw that away, then that's just too damn bad. At least then they cannot blame anybody other than themselves for whatever mess they had gotten themselves into.
From all indications though, the Iraqis would not want to give up democracy for theocracy. Limited theocracy via democracy, maybe, but still a damn sight better that a pure theocracy. And why would they want a theocracy when the manifestly disastrous results of such a political system can be seen right next door in topsy-turvy Iran? The Iraqis, as fractured as they are into Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds, none of the factions would want to give up their slice of the decision making process.
Rather than rely on distant editorials blowing smoke up our asses, why not rely on somebody on the ground who had a closeup look at the situation?
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2005/02/iraqi-election-results.php
There is still a hellacious amount of work left to be done in Iraq, but they are doing part of the lifting and bleeding, and in generations to come, if they and the US military can pull it off, it will be a testament to the belief in human decency and determination.
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=334:bread-and-a-circus-part-ii-of-ii&catid=52:bread-and-a-circus&Itemid=79
BTW, Google 'Iraq' and 'theocracy'. Most of the links are 3 years old. That alone says volumes about your assertions. Utter and pure bunk. The fact that the leftoid media dropped the issue like a hot potato after the Iraqi polls in 2005 showed that a theocracy was not going to happen says it all.
Post a Comment
<< Home