Must we be witnesses to insanity when help is refused? Or are we required to act?

[myrgthful]

Citing the fact that the Myanmar regime is, in active and stubborn negligence, allowing its citizens to starve, contract diseases and fall into lawlessness, Time magazine has come up with a radical proposal:

Comments

[gigiss]

I just don't know; I saw the same article, and felt the identical feelings of You Have Got to be Kidding that you stated. Unfortunately, the exchange rate for the U.S.'s goodwill these days is pretty low; we have managed to create an atmosphere of international suspicion concerning our motives that will long taint everything that we try to do - even when it is a Good Thing.

For that reason alone, I feel like we ought to exercise extreme restraint, even if the price of that conduct is that millions of innocent Burmese will suffer unspeakably. It sticks in my throat to even think this, but it is the price that we pay for having aroused the world's suspicion for so long.

[myrgthful]

I've thought about this for a few days.

I think I have a very difficult time standing by, when I could help someone. Especially, someone who I perceive as being victimized (even, unto death) by someone else.

Perhaps you are correct that the US has gained a lot of rancor from other corners. Ought that to be a reason to prevent us from doing good? Even if we do not use military force (except to protect our own people), would we be justified in making "illegal" food-drops to the people of Burma?

It all reminds me a bit of Alma 14 -- which I couldn't find well enough before posting this first, so I'm adding it in an edit. Perhaps there are circumstances where we are required to stand by and just witness... but I feel there are not enough good acts and good men in the world. The balance must be repaired by greater acts and greater men.

[gigiss]

For the record, I feel much the same that you do, but let's try a little exercise: A catastrophic earthquake hits the Midwestern US, and although America does the best it can to succor the survivors, it is not nearly enough. Pretty soon, you are walking your way through the ruins of Utah, and you see parachutes and cargo planes and military vehicles descending into Bountiful and Farmington and Ogden - but they are manned by North Korean and Iranian (and Myanmarese?!) troops whose governments decided that the U.S.'s instrangience towards their offers of aid constitutes a crime against the citizens of the U.S., which these troops are here to rectify

[myrgthful]

I get that you're trying to portray the situation in reverse, but I don't feel it's completely reversible. The fact is that Myanmar's Junta would rather neglect its people to death, rather than accept aid. I also feel that North Korean and Iranian troops would be much less merciful than we are apt to be

Yikes

[anonymous]

Good grief.

I share the shock and disbelief regarding Burma's behavior through this crisis, but let's be realistic. Even if one were to concede that we have a responsibility to intervene (which I'm not really sure I am) I think such an action would be best saved for when the world is at relative peace, and U.S. forces are relatively idle-- not currently engaged in not just one ill-advised intervention, but two.

One thing at a time, please.

[lfinder]

Gee. . .that's quite a change in tune.

Seriously, politics aside, I would love nothing more than to see Burma free to forge it's own destiny. I have enormous faith in Aun Sang Suu Kyi. She's a good woman and deserves all the help in the world.

[myrgthful]

If she can lead.