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?