You can't really go in there and remove the government without violating the country's soveriegnty and damaging its stability. The citizens have to realize that their country is not going to get better under the dictator's rule and overthrow him themselves. After they've done that, then we can go in with humanitarian aid and Henry Kissinger to help them establish a government that won't kick their citizens around.
So you're saying that since people don't like it when the US invades their country, America should wait until there's been some sort of change in the power structure of a country before they go in and forcibly change the government? Because, seriously, that sounds like the complete fuck up that was Iran in 1953.
No, I'm saying is having someone go in and say: "Good job getting rid of that dictator. This is how we do things in our country. Now that I've explained it, I'll get out of the way while you figure out what you want to do with your government. Just let me know if you have questions. I'll be over here by the punch bowl."
On the subject of death and daemons disappearing: arrows sure are effective in Lyra's universe. Seems like if you get shot once, you're dead - no lingering deaths with your daemon huddling pitifully in your arms, just *thunk* *argh* *whoosh*. A battlefield full of the dying would just be so much more depressing when you add in wailing gerbils and dogs.
You can't really go in there and remove the government without violating the country's soveriegnty and damaging its stability. The citizens have to realize that their country is not going to get better under the dictator's rule and overthrow him themselves. After they've done that, then we can go in with humanitarian aid and Henry Kissinger to help them establish a government that won't kick their citizens around.
So you're saying that since people don't like it when the US invades their country, America should wait until there's been some sort of change in the power structure of a country before they go in and forcibly change the government? Because, seriously, that sounds like the complete fuck up that was Iran in 1953.
No, I'm saying is having someone go in and say: "Good job getting rid of that dictator. This is how we do things in our country. Now that I've explained it, I'll get out of the way while you figure out what you want to do with your government. Just let me know if you have questions. I'll be over here by the punch bowl."
I'm trying to translate this into some sort of enactable foreign policy and it's just not coming to me outside of continuous offers of aid.
For situations like Burma/Myanmar, Iraq, Sudan and other nations that are led by a power-hungry dick or a group of such, there isn't much that can be done. You can invade and overthrow the government, but what then? That just leaves a vacuum that every warmonger and all the other power-hungry dicks are going to rush in to fill.
That's why we're in the situation we are now with Iraq. Great, we got rid of Saddam Hussein and his bastard sons. But now our soldiers are stuck there trying to keep all the war lords and power-hungry mullahs from tearing the country apart. Yes, Saddam was an asshole that oppressed his own people and ethnically cleansed Kurds. But the local gun-toting assholes weren't dumb enough to oppose him or run around bombing shit like they do now.
It's kind of like watching a domestic violence situation unfold. You know the guy is no good. So does the girl getting beat up every night. But, for whatever reason, she stays with him. And you can't exactly make her leave him without violating her human rights or kick the shit out of the guy without going to jail yourself. So you just hope and pray that she'll realize that she can't live with him and help her leave when she does.
Same thing with these dictator-led countries. You can't really go in there and remove the government without violating the country's soveriegnty and damaging its stability. The citizens have to realize that their country is not going to get better under the dictator's rule and overthrow him themselves. After they've done that, then we can go in with humanitarian aid and Henry Kissinger to help them establish a government that won't kick their citizens around.
I disagree completely.
In Burma, there definitely is a person and group to fill the gap.
In Iraq, the reason there's a civil war is that we essentially went in alone with a force that Rumsfeld made to be smaller, lighter, faster, with more emphasis on mobility and firepower- exactly what you don't want in an occupying force. Had we actually had a significantly larger number of troops with training, etcetera appropriate for the mission, it's difficult to know where we'd be exactly but it almost certainly would be a damn sight better than where we are now.
Re: Domestic violence, you can call that shit in.
Re: Dictator-led countries, you'll certainly be violating its sovereignty, which is why it's nice to have some sense of legitimacy when you go in and kick them out. Loss of stability is hardly a guarantee- certainly, conflict is incredibly disruptive, but an appropriate force and an appropriate strategy can do wonders for keeping shit together.
From here, a murdered monk lying in a stream in the Pazuntaung district of Rangoon, Sunday morning, September 30th.
The "saffron revolution" has been crushed. Power, though not legitimacy, comes from the barrel of a gun. And although its an outrage, theres nothing we can do about it. Continued talk of invasion is silly: it wont happen, and it shouldn't happen. The best thing we can do is continue to twist China's arm. Bringing China on side turned the tables with North Korea, and it could do the same for Burma.
The "saffron revolution" has been crushed. Power, though not legitimacy, comes from the barrel of a gun. And although its an outrage, theres nothing we can do about it. Continued talk of invasion is silly: it wont happen, and it shouldn't happen. The best thing we can do is continue to twist China's arm. Bringing China on side turned the tables with North Korea, and it could do the same for Burma.
I agree. The Olympics seem like a perfect point to lean on, too.
Man, what? North Korea isn't exactly hurting from being at the negotiating table at the moment what with the concessions people are starting to pile up for them.
I picked the domestic violence thing because it's the closest analogy I could think of to describe the situation. You can call the police in all you want. But, many times, the police can't do anything unless the woman he beat on wants to press charges. That's what makes domestic violence so hard to prosecute. The woman is so cowed by the guy that not having him in her life is more unthinkable than the opposite.
And dictators are hard to overthrow for much the same reason: the general populace is fearful, but they're not sure how to rebuild their government. I'm not really sure how intervention and installing a non-sucky government would work. But I do know the way we went about it in Iraq was not the way to go.
On the subject of death and daemons disappearing: arrows sure are effective in Lyra's universe. Seems like if you get shot once, you're dead - no lingering deaths with your daemon huddling pitifully in your arms, just *thunk* *argh* *whoosh*. A battlefield full of the dying would just be so much more depressing when you add in wailing gerbils and dogs.
You can't really go in there and remove the government without violating the country's soveriegnty and damaging its stability. The citizens have to realize that their country is not going to get better under the dictator's rule and overthrow him themselves. After they've done that, then we can go in with humanitarian aid and Henry Kissinger to help them establish a government that won't kick their citizens around.
So you're saying that since people don't like it when the US invades their country, America should wait until there's been some sort of change in the power structure of a country before they go in and forcibly change the government? Because, seriously, that sounds like the complete fuck up that was Iran in 1953.
No, I'm saying is having someone go in and say: "Good job getting rid of that dictator. This is how we do things in our country. Now that I've explained it, I'll get out of the way while you figure out what you want to do with your government. Just let me know if you have questions. I'll be over here by the punch bowl."
I'm trying to translate this into some sort of enactable foreign policy and it's just not coming to me outside of continuous offers of aid.
I believe the idea is that we go in, knock down the govenment and then leave. Or something like that.
Of course, we all know this just leads to more chaos and ethnic cleansing and shit like that. So maybe you stick around to help them rebuild. And then, your in the Iraq War situation, and it's gonna be awhile.
Posts
No, I'm saying is having someone go in and say: "Good job getting rid of that dictator. This is how we do things in our country. Now that I've explained it, I'll get out of the way while you figure out what you want to do with your government. Just let me know if you have questions. I'll be over here by the punch bowl."
I'm trying to translate this into some sort of enactable foreign policy and it's just not coming to me outside of continuous offers of aid.
I disagree completely.
In Burma, there definitely is a person and group to fill the gap.
In Iraq, the reason there's a civil war is that we essentially went in alone with a force that Rumsfeld made to be smaller, lighter, faster, with more emphasis on mobility and firepower- exactly what you don't want in an occupying force. Had we actually had a significantly larger number of troops with training, etcetera appropriate for the mission, it's difficult to know where we'd be exactly but it almost certainly would be a damn sight better than where we are now.
Re: Domestic violence, you can call that shit in.
Re: Dictator-led countries, you'll certainly be violating its sovereignty, which is why it's nice to have some sense of legitimacy when you go in and kick them out. Loss of stability is hardly a guarantee- certainly, conflict is incredibly disruptive, but an appropriate force and an appropriate strategy can do wonders for keeping shit together.
From here, a murdered monk lying in a stream in the Pazuntaung district of Rangoon, Sunday morning, September 30th.
The "saffron revolution" has been crushed. Power, though not legitimacy, comes from the barrel of a gun. And although its an outrage, theres nothing we can do about it. Continued talk of invasion is silly: it wont happen, and it shouldn't happen. The best thing we can do is continue to twist China's arm. Bringing China on side turned the tables with North Korea, and it could do the same for Burma.
I agree. The Olympics seem like a perfect point to lean on, too.
I picked the domestic violence thing because it's the closest analogy I could think of to describe the situation. You can call the police in all you want. But, many times, the police can't do anything unless the woman he beat on wants to press charges. That's what makes domestic violence so hard to prosecute. The woman is so cowed by the guy that not having him in her life is more unthinkable than the opposite.
And dictators are hard to overthrow for much the same reason: the general populace is fearful, but they're not sure how to rebuild their government. I'm not really sure how intervention and installing a non-sucky government would work. But I do know the way we went about it in Iraq was not the way to go.
I believe the idea is that we go in, knock down the govenment and then leave. Or something like that.
Of course, we all know this just leads to more chaos and ethnic cleansing and shit like that. So maybe you stick around to help them rebuild. And then, your in the Iraq War situation, and it's gonna be awhile.