"Americans are outraged by the situation in Burma"

redline

CAGiversary!
Feedback
4 (100%)
Outraged at the situation with Britney Spears... maybe. But Americans outraged by the situation in Burma? C'mon. ;)

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20070925/D8RSMBFG0.html



Sep 25, 3:45 PM (ET)

By BEN FELLER


UNITED NATIONS (AP) - President Bush announced new sanctions Tuesday against the military dictatorship in Myanmar, accusing it of imposing "a 19-year reign of fear" that denies basic freedoms of speech, assembly and worship.

"Americans are outraged by the situation in Burma," the president said in an address to the U.N. General Assembly. The military junta renamed the Asian country Myanmar, but the United States does not recognize the change.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a bitter foe of the United States, sat in the chamber and checked his watch during Bush's remarks. First lady Laura Bush, also present for the president's speech, walked right by the seated Iranian president. The two had no contact.

Bush urged other nations to support countries that are struggling for democracy.


"The people of Lebanon and Afghanistan and Iraq have asked for our help, and every civilized nation has a responsibility to stand with them," Bush said.

"Every civilized nation also has a responsibility to stand up for the people suffering under dictatorship," the president said. "In Belarus, North Korea, Syria and Iran, brutal regimes deny their people the fundamental rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration" of the United Nations.

While the war in Iraq continues, Bush made scant mention of it.

After his speech, however, he reassured Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that U.S. support is not wavering. "We're with ya, prime minister," Bush told him.

Addressing reporters after a roughly hour-long meeting, Bush and al-Maliki did not say whether they had discussed the killing of 11 Iraqi civilians by security guards with Blackwater USA, a private contractor. The incident has strained U.S.-Iraqi ties.

But Al-Maliki did say "Iraq's security is very important and we talked about the importance of mutual respect between our two sides."

Bush prodded political parties in Iraq to reconcile their differences and pass a series of pivotal laws. "Some political parties may be trying to block the laws to gain special advantage," Bush said.

In his address to the U.N., Bush barely mentioned Iran, a nation the United States accuses of terrorism, pursuit of a nuclear weapon and aid for deadly insurgents in Iraq.

Instead, Bush focused his remarks elsewhere, challenging the U.N. to uphold its pledge to fight for freedom in lands of poverty and terror.

"The nations in this chamber have our differences, yet there are some areas where we can all agree," Bush said. "When innocent people are trapped in a life of murder and fear, the declaration is not being upheld. When millions of children starve to death or perish from a mosquito bite, we're not doing our duty in the world. When whole societies are cut off from the prosperity of the global economy, we're all worse off."

"Changing these underlying conditions is what the declaration calls the work of larger freedom and it must be the work of every nation in this assembly," he said. "This great institution must work for great purposes: to free people from tyranny and violence, hunger and diseases, illiteracy and ignorance and poverty and despair."

Bush looked ahead to a Cuba no longer ruled by Fidel Castro, the ailing 81-year-old leader of the communist-run government.

"In Cuba, the long rule of a cruel dictator is nearing its end," Bush said. "The Cuban people are ready for their freedom. And as that nation enters a period of transition, the United Nations must insist on free speech, free assembly and, ultimately, free and competitive elections."

Cuba's foreign minister walked out of the gathering in protest of Bush's speech. The Cuban delegation later said Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque's move was a "sign of profound rejection of the arrogant and mediocre statement" by Bush.

Bush urged the U.N. to reform its Human Rights Council, created to replace the discredited Human Rights Commission. But Bush criticized the new body for ignoring abuses in places like Iran "while focusing its criticism excessively on Israel."


"The American people are disappointed by the failures of the Human Rights Council," Bush said. "The United Nations must reform its own Human Rights Council."

But the president's call for change came with the suggestion of a deal: the United States' support for the highly contentious issue of expanding the Security Council, the U.N.'s most powerful body. Bush suggested that Japan is "well-qualified" to be an additional member and said "other nations should be considered as well."

The council has 10 rotating members elected for two-year terms and five permanent members with veto power - the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France. Bush said the United States would listen to all "good ideas."

Bush singled out Myanmar for particular attention.

"Basic freedoms of speech, assembly and worship are severely restricted," he said. "Ethnic minorities are persecuted. Forced child labor, human trafficking and rape are common. The regime is holding more than a thousand political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi, whose party was elected overwhelmingly by the Burmese people in 1990.

"The ruling junta remains unyielding, yet the people's desire for freedom is unmistakable," he said.

Bush said the United States would tighten economic sanctions on the leaders of the regime and their financial backers and impose an expanded visa ban on people responsible for human rights violations, as well as their family members.

The policies came as Myanmar's military government issued a threat Monday to the barefoot Buddhist monks who led 100,000 people marching through a major city. It was the strongest protest against the repressive regime in two decades.

About a dozen anti-war protesters were arrested during a peaceful demonstration of President Bush's speech before the U.N. General Assembly. They were among about 400 people opposing the Bush Administration's war in Iraq, and its incarceration in Guantanamo Bay of more than 300 men on suspicion of terrorism or links to al-Qaida or the Taliban. Many in the crowd wore orange jumpsuit in solidarity with the Guantanamo detainees.
 
Hehe, yeah I was watching the speech live and I was like wahhh..?? Bruma? You mean from Oblivion??

LoL...umm yeah Americans are real outraged about Burma...whatever that is...
 
[quote name='dragonreborn23']Hehe, yeah I was watching the speech live and I was like wahhh..?? Bruma? You mean from Oblivion??[/QUOTE]

Shit! And I just bought a house there! Now how am I supposed to get all my glass armor?
 
[quote name='dragonreborn23']Heh, that's not quite fair. This one is definately on the media. I'm watching msnbc and cnn for at least 3 hrs a day. (Like I stated previously, I was watching Bush's U.N. speech live.) If our media won't report on it, how are we supposed to care about it?[/quote]

fuck our media. I don't watch American news, I only do the BBC.
 
[quote name='Hex']fuck our media. I don't watch American news, I only do the BBC.[/quote]

The BBC is full of a lot of biased bullshit too.
 
[quote name='bigdaddy']The BBC is full of a lot of biased bullshit too.[/QUOTE]


yes but they cover news, not whats going on with Britney and whatever fluff political story is the hot topic, like that whole Betray US ad
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']yes but they cover news, not whats going on with Britney and whatever fluff political story is the hot topic, like that whole Betray US ad[/quote]

Yes, I'm just saying I hate when people go "Listen to just this one source!". It's like "No, read many things, as many as you can".

I had to look this country up, but it seems that it has a few different names.
 
This will make some of you groan, but between npr and The New York Times, they manage to cover a remarkable amount of "real news" without getting into how many times Britney Spears snorted coke last night.

If it makes you groan, then I can guarantee you've *NEVER* sat down and read the NYT front section cover to cover.
 
I wouldn't mind if more Americans (and people in other countries) were enraged with how things are in Burma. I took an entire class on Burma a few semesters ago (and I have a few Burmese friends) and...if any country right now needs and wants democracy, it's them.
 
[quote name='vietgurl']I wouldn't mind if more Americans (and people in other countries) were enraged with how things are in Burma. I took an entire class on Burma a few semesters ago (and I have a few Burmese friends) and...if any country right now needs and wants democracy, it's them.[/quote]

...and this is why I don't drink the Pepsi products. Or eat the Pepsi-affiliated foods.
 
Our government should spend LESS time forcing democracy on people who don't want it (and are fighting a civil war amongst themselves) and MORE time helping people suffering for it attaining it.

As to news sources, the more the better and the more critical you are of them the better. NPR is great for me because I have about a 50 minute commute to and from work.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Our government should spend LESS time forcing democracy on people who don't want it (and are fighting a civil war amongst themselves) and MORE time helping people suffering for it attaining it.

As to news sources, the more the better and the more critical you are of them the better. NPR is great for me because I have about a 50 minute commute to and from work.[/QUOTE]

Case in point, the entire Diane Rehm show this morning was about Burma/Myanmar.

Though, of course, the argument here is that the media should have been on top of this story a long time ago, so pointing to news today doesn't really say that they are doing what is expected of them.
 
It's been said, that the greatest sin against our fellow man is not hatred but indifference.

Myanma, or Burma or whatever you want to call it is a perfect example. Darfur is another. Americans, or rather people in general, don't seem to care about what doesn't affect their lives.

To be frank though, its not like any of you are going to do shit about it. Its probably safe to say that nobody reading this will actually do anything about it at all. I can admit that I won't. I'll think about it and feel bad about it but you and I are not going to get off our asses and write any letters to our senators, or go protest, or do anything helpful at all. This is sad, and probably not right, but it is the way it is.

If this is not true and you are very politically active then good for you, but most people aren't because it doesn't affect them. Out of sight out of mind. Maybe we are helping by just being good, cognizant, taxpaying citizens of a democracy.
 
[quote name='redline']Outraged at the situation with Britney Spears... maybe. But Americans outraged by the situation in Burma? C'mon. ;) [/QUOTE]LOL!

yup of every person I have ever met in my life only TWO people guessed I was burmese.

the country is real fucked up tho...

like the whole Daw Aung Saung Suu Kyi situation, the country held a democratic election for something I cannot remember, but she won the election.

did the Junta honor the results? of course not, what a fuckin joke. and she's been under house arrest for like over 15 years or something just for being a peace activist.

she's the only hope rite now Burma would ever have for decent human rights, and she will most likely die under house arrest. What happens then who knows? For now the concern would be if the current protests eventually turn into riots and violence

edit:

[quote name='mykevermin']This will make some of you groan, but between npr and The New York Times, they manage to cover a remarkable amount of "real news" without getting into how many times Britney Spears snorted coke last night.[/QUOTE]lol part 2!

NPR sure kno how to make a good news segment about 50 Cent vs. Kanye West tho!
 
[quote name='pittpizza']
Myanma, or Burma or whatever you want to call it is a perfect example. Darfur is another. Americans, or rather people in general, don't seem to care about what doesn't affect their lives.
[/quote]

I'm sorry, but isn't that good?

I hate people who hear someone died or was murdered and they go "That's so terrible, I feel so sorry for them. May they RIP". If I don't know them, or if it has no effect on me then I don't care.

I think the problem with America is that we care, or try to care about everyone. All that does is make a lot of countries think we are trying to shove our ways down their throats. Even in our own country we have right wing Christain freaks speaking for their God and trying to put into other people's lives. If everyone leaved everyone else alone America wouldn't be hated as much.

That said as humans we can't let people get killed for no reason, but isn't that the point of the UN? Oh right, it's the UN.
 
I wasn't attempting to label that phenomenon with a "good" or a "bad" and, on the contrary, was trying to avoid normative allocations. Rather it was simply an attempt to describe the way it is, for better or worse.

Certainly there are some actions where clearly the majority would agree we should stay out of, then there are others where clearly the majority would agree we should get involved. Unfortunately the world is not black and white and there is a whole big fuck load of grey area where we will fight and fight and debate and debate. Lets get it on about Myanmar!
 
well I havent been keeping up for the past few days coz yesterday I felt like listening to music and today I was in hella conference so I didnt listen to the news during work...

apparently doods are already dying:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/28/world/asia/28myanmar.html?hp

Burmese citizens themselves do not have the power to begin a civil war, the question now is how many more ppl are gonna get killed before the government opposition quits? I would be very surprised if another country intervenes more than just offering an opinion.
 
Its kind of a question of "When should a country intervene when fucked up shit is going on in another country."

WWII wasn't even easy for the US to get involved in and that was much much worse than the localized tryanny in Burma. It wasn't until Pearl Harbor was attacked did we intervene.

I dunno, maybe we should just mind our own business and be isolationists, but at what point to we have to stop looking the other way and stand up for other people's rights?
 
well the US most likely won't be doing anything.

from the latest news, it looks like China is the prime candidate for any help.

it's quiet down a bit as of right now also, internet and email communications were shut down today (yesterday?) morning so it has put a great hinderance on getting information out.

prior to that the Burmese were putting videos up on youtube for all to see =P
 
bread's done
Back
Top