What is the United States going to do about Myanmar?

Depending on which version of the reason for invading Iraq you choose to believe in, you have to think we ought to be storming into Myanmar right now. I mean, one of the largely held reasons by those who support the war in Iraq is “we’re bringing democracy to the people of Iraq.” The problem being, the people of Iraq don’t really seem to want democracy. I certainly never heard any stories of Iraqis protesting or rioting for it. Myanmar, on the other hand, clearly wants democratic rule.

groups of several hundred men and women yelled in English “F— you,
army. We only want democracy”, provoking charges by small bands of

So why are we sitting on our thumbs for this one? If spreading democracy is our national directive, we should be sitting an aircraft carrier and some troop transports in international waters just outside of Myanmar, and “politely encouraging” the government there to give the people what they demand.

It’s deja vu. Like father, like son. Bush senior did nothing about Myanmar when the government slaughtered 3,000 protesters in 1988, but he ran quickly to the aid of Kuwait. Now junior’s following in his footsteps, attacking Iraq again, and again ignoring a country whose people are very obviously oppressed and wanting democracy. I’ve always rejected the liberal claim of “blood for oil”, but it is a rather striking difference between our willingness to intervene in a region where there is oil versus a region where there is not. We love to put troops into the Middle East, but we ignore places like Africa and Myanmar where there is true unrest. Then we have the nerve to claim our actions are noble, when we are so obviously self-serving.

…I guess this ends my self-imposed moratorium on being negative?

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  • Jeff, KE9V  On September 28, 2007 at 10:46 am

    Well of course the incursion into Iraq is about oil. So on some level, it is “blood for oil”.

    But generally when I hear folks say that they are indignant about it, as if “blood for oil” isn’t a good trade-off, or better stated, as though we have a choice.

    Americans burn 85 million gallons of gasoline a day and 80% of that comes from places other than here.

    If Americans were truly outraged about “blood for oil” they would stop driving. Apparently, we really are willing to make that trade because since invading Iraq the US demand for oil has only increased and I have yet to see any serious debate among my fellow countrymen about what *other* arrangements we are willing to make so we can stop the foolish dependence on mass quantities of Islamic oil and the related mischief that has led us in to.

    All I’ve seen are posters that say, “No Blood For Oil” sitting alongside fleets of neighborhood SUVs.

    Americans want the oil and the SUVs and apparently we are assuming that our absorption of this dwindling resource in an energy starved world can take place without a fight.

    I’d like to know how…?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: