Thread: America: Silent Witness to Genocide

Originally Posted by tsurara

I'm not implying that we should or shouldn't get involved at all. I'm trying to point out the hipocracy of the United States using the excuse of bringing democracy to the world's opressed peoples when we've proven time and time again that we're willing to stand by and let major pro-democracy movements fail (and hundreds or thousands die in the process) when there is no obvious political or economic gain to be had.

But unless you actually have some suggestions on how someone in particular can do something in particular you haven't done that. All you have done is highlighted that there is a tragic situation on going right now. Now explain to me how what is essentially at the moment a civil issue impacts any other countries National Security in such a way that they could legitimately take any physical action without the support of other nations and without breaking international laws? Forget the US. What is the nearest Democracy doing about it? What about their neighbors? For that matter what can they do?

It's easy to point fingers but unless you have legitimate options it is utterly meaningless.

Originally Posted by Arrianna

But unless you actually have some suggestions on how someone in particular can do something in particular you haven't done that. All you have done is highlighted that there is a tragic situation on going right now. Now explain to me how what is essentially at the moment a civil issue impacts any other countries National Security in such a way that they could legitimately take any physical action without the support of other nations and without breaking international laws? Forget the US. What is the nearest Democracy doing about it? What about their neighbors? For that matter what can they do?

It's easy to point fingers but unless you have legitimate options it is utterly meaningless.

So opinions need to be legitimized now? Who decides which opinions are "legitimate"?

As for the situation in Myanmar:

The United Nations has sent a representative. Japan has currently vowed to hold the military junta accountable for it's hand in the death of a Japanese journalist killed in the protests (admittedly a wholly self-centered act). Everyone is imposing economic and trade sanctions: but no one is willing to send an actual peace-keeping force: why? Because China's government has allied itself with the miltary government in Myanmar and no one wants to step on China's toes.

I'm aware that politics are complicated and that it's not "easy" to come to a decision to send troops to another country to die for a cause that would seem to gain nothing for yourself. But that's not what this thread was intended to create discussion about.

I wanted people to think about their OWN biases and what makes them aware of or lend support to a cause as opposed to ignoring it altogether. Why does the media choose some stories to cover and not others? Why do we learn so much about certain events in our textbooks and nothing about others? Why do most Americans consider our actions in the middle east to be "for the sake of the Iraqi people" when we're willing to turn the other cheek at the suffering of those in other nations unless we've been told by our government that it's unpatriotic not to?

If our government is truly a representative democracy: then we have no one to blame for our failures in the world than ourselves.

Reguardless of whether it is practical, prudent or even possible: the United States has built a name for itself as the defender of justice and democracy in our world. People look to us for help when they have no other hope and we, as US citizens, take pride in that. We want to believe that we're doing good in this world... but how much good are we doing for others? And how much for ourselves?

Nice vent, now what about your "OWN biases"? You have not only failed to provide a viable option you have disproven your own point. If the media didn't actually care enough to write about it why are we reading about Myanmar in the news right now? If other countries didn't care then why are so many speaking out about it? Why did the US representative to Burma run to the capitol to try and intercede? That's not enough for you? Give a legitimate reason for an invasion of force by ANY country that would not set precedent for superseding a countries sovereignty. If you cannot give me one then it doesn't matter how bad the situation is in Burma. Until their own people have had enough and start picking up their own weapons to fight their own government all we can do is support them with the same weapon they themselves are using, their words. Until the Junta commit actual provable Human Rights violations no other country can invade, even if China wasn't watching, without committing the very imperialistic actions that the US is so often accused of.

So once again the question is, for this as well as any other situation, WHO do you want to do something and WHAT do you want them to do. If you can't answer those two simple questions the question of bias is meaningless.

Originally Posted by Arrianna

So once again the question is, for this as well as any other situation, WHO do you want to do something and WHAT do you want them to do. If you can't answer those two simple questions the question of bias is meaningless.

I would like the United States to pay their U.N. dues and agree to act as an functional part of the organization they currently head rather than being the first to assert that they will not send any troops of their own as peacekeepers or lift a finger to fund any peacekeepers that are sent. I would like to see some initiative and leadership taken by the developed world as a whole to prevent the death of monks and protestors at the hands of what the entire world has openly condemned as a military dictatorship. I would like to see a firmer political and diplomatic stance with China, especially when they are currently a much larger threat to the world and their own people than Iran will likely ever be.

I have plenty more opinions about the United States current role in International affairs, but since they're mostly negative, I doubt you want to hear them or would accept them anyway.

I still fail to see why anyone's opinion needs to be "Arrianna endorsed" for it to count.

As for the media currently covering Myanmar: tourists with video cameras were the first to send detailed images of what was happening to the United States. This is a story that was broken by regular folks like you and me using the internet.

Originally Posted by tsurara

rather than being the first to assert that they will not send any troops of their own as peacekeepers or lift a finger to fund any peacekeepers that are sent.

Sources.

Originally Posted by tsurara

I would like to see some initiative and leadership taken by the developed world as a whole to prevent the death of monks and protestors at the hands of what the entire world has openly condemned as a military dictatorship.

WHO and HOW.

Originally Posted by tsurara

I would like to see a firmer political and diplomatic stance with China, especially when they are currently a much larger threat to the world and their own people than Iran will likely ever be.

Very true. That I will agree with you on... however, HOW do you do that without risking all out war?

Originally Posted by tsurara

I still fail to see why anyone's opinion needs to be "Arrianna endorsed" for it to count.

It doesn't. You do need to back it up though or simply saying "it's the US's fault" is nothing more then a vague opinion.

Originally Posted by tsurara

As for the media currently covering Myanmar: tourists with video cameras were the first to send detailed images of what was happening to the United States. This is a story that was broken by regular folks like you and me using the internet.

pshaw, so what? That has become standard these days. The internet allows instant dissemination of information globally. That is why one of the first thing the government did in Burma in the crackdown was cut the internet lines. That does not change the fact that I (and likely most others) found out about it through the news outlet as it was happening.

America is in the buisness of making money, and caring sells. America is just really good at gathering a blind following by using words like"Freedom", "Liberate", and "Unity". America doesn't believe those things, I'd be hard pressed to find an individual who always operates on good wholesome motives. Face it, money and power are great, I feel like people are just being used, but why would the government care? As long America can come off as being the hero, they will help, the actual help is a bonus and after effect. The reason we dont hear about those other stories, is because we wern't involved. The reason we weren't involved is because it wasn't profitable. Human rights and compassion have no place in a capitalist, power hungry nation. Sucks huh?

After discussing this subject yesterday I did a little online research and made an interesting discovery. The same genocides and human rights violations that have been mentioned as being ignored by major powers... weren't. I found economic sanctions, calls for peacekeeping actions, and constant oversight and monitoring by the same countries that are being criticized. The interesting part is that not only didn't I know about most of them as they were happening neither did I know about the government actions taken to counter them.

It seems to me that the issue isn't that no one cares but that the news doesn't care.

Large News in "Democratic" countries are owned by cooperations with their own agenda's. Large News in non-democratic countries is controlled by the government. Either one has interests of their own to protect or just profits to concern with. For the most part if it doesn't benefit them to talk about it then it doesn't happen as far as they are concerned. While the news in on top of the currant situation in Burma this blindness on the part of the news concerning other previous world issues has annoyed me for years. That seems to be changing with the onset of internet reporting and breaking of news. It forces the News outlets to be honest about what is happening in the world. Perhaps if that continues then we will start learning more about events that don't just effect our immediate environment because, honestly, if we aren't told and it doesn't happen to us how are we to even know?