Aung San Suu Kyi accepts Nobel peace prize

[Symmetry]

saxi, how did a polar bear like yourself learn to use a computer and speak English?

Video Professor

saxi, how did a polar bear like yourself learn to use a computer and speak English?

Judging by his posts, he was trained by a military dictatorship in order to post against democratically elected leaders receiving peace prizes for passive resistance.

Who elected her to what?

Maybe I'll boycott the 2012 U.S. presidential election and then declare I won it because, probably, people would have voted for me had I not been boycotting it with my maids, gardeners and butlers in my luxury villa that features a private lake.

Charming, as ever Saxi.

[saxitoxin]

saxi, how did a polar bear like yourself learn to use a computer and speak English?

Video Professor

saxi, how did a polar bear like yourself learn to use a computer and speak English?

Judging by his posts, he was trained by a military dictatorship in order to post against democratically elected leaders receiving peace prizes for passive resistance.

Who elected her to what?

Maybe I'll boycott the 2012 U.S. presidential election and then declare I won it because, probably, people would have voted for me had I not been boycotting it with my maids, gardeners and butlers in my luxury villa that features a private lake.

Charming, as ever Saxi.

No, I think the office of "Charming" is held by someone else, not Aung.



Anyway, I shan't hold my breath for an answer.

[huamulan]

Saxitoxin's comments about the opening up of Burmese oil fields are entirely appropriate. History has demonstrated that regimes (in this case Western ones) back leaders who can and will do the most extravagant job of repaying said regimes' political/economic/military support. Why do you think NATO marched so happily into Libya to fight alongside the revolution while ignoring the various Sub-Saharan countries that also continue to experience violent upheaval? (Hint: Sub-Saharan over-throwers would be equally grateful but, alas, don't have the oil to demonstrate this gratitude. Libya, however, does.)

On another note, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to a terrorist in 1993 (Nelson Mandela) so the award's credibility was shot long before it was awarded to Obama.

[Symmetry]

Saxitoxin's comments about the opening up of Burmese oil fields are entirely appropriate. History has demonstrated that the West backs leaders who can and will do the most extravagant job of repaying the West's political/economic/military support. Why do you think NATO marched so happily into Libya to fight alongside the revolution while ignoring the various Sub-Saharan countries that also continue to experience violent upheaval? (Hint: Sub-Saharan over-throwers would be equally grateful but, alas, don't have the oil to demonstrate this gratitude. Libya, however, does.)

On another note, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to a terrorist in 1993 (Nelson Mandela) so the award's credibility was shot long before it was awarded to Obama.

Can I go back to arguing with Saxi, please? I've been here a while- dealing with substandard levels of trolling is a little difficult after talking to the premier league. I like my defenders of fascism to have a little class.

Still, you seem cute. I wish you well.

Oh, and please do correct the obvious spelling mistak in your post whenever you feel free.

[huamulan]

Trolling? I'm deadly serious. Ask yourself two questions:

1) Why is the West so desperate to propel Aung San Suu Kyi and her party to power in Burma when it does nothing about authoritarian regimes and human rights abuse in Fiji, Indonesia, Mali, Bahrain etc.? What is special about Burma?

2) Why did/does the West back upheaval in Egypt, Libya, Iran and now Syria while it totally ignores the current resistance and human rights abuses in Oman, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE?

[huamulan]

Another fun dilemma of the economic imperative:

Why is the resistance of the minority in the Middle East/Russia 'the voice of democracy', touted as evidence that the current governments should step down, while the Occupy protests were just dirty hippies who ended up getting broken up and arrested?

Do you honestly believe that the world spins on your moral axis?

[Gillipig]

Darn Norweigians! They've tainted Alfred Nobel's good name with their silly selections. Remember when Obama got the nobel peace prize for....... what exactly? Even though they only have one prize to award they still manage to screw it up.

[Symmetry]

Trolling? I'm deadly serious. Ask yourself two questions:

1) Why is the West so desperate to propel Aung San Suu Kyi and her party to power in Burma when it does nothing about authoritarian regimes and human rights abuse in Fiji, Indonesia, Mali, Bahrain etc.? What is special about Burma?

2) Why did/does the West back upheaval in Egypt, Libya, Iran and now Syria while it totally ignores the current resistance and human rights abuses in Oman, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE?

Trolling, because of course, you're a troll posting from an anonymous proxy account to hide your IP.

As for your questions... they make little sense. Why rail against "the west" for recognising Aung San Suu Kyi if you believe that "the west" should recognise resistance against military dictatorships.

If you were genuine, you'd applaud the recognition of peaceful resistance and democratic achievement. As is, you see it as a conspiracy.

[huamulan]

Who says that I believe the West ought to be rallying against military dictatorships? Yes, depending on the regime I think that true democracy is more desirable than military dictatorship for those not a member of the regime's inner circle. I also, however, think that puppet governments who will be forced to bleed their country for the benefit of the big boys (said big boys being the reason the new government ever achieved power) are even worse than a military regime. I would much rather the change stemmed from internal effort - as it did when the Europeans overthrew their monarchies - than via a fresh leader who rules in the shadow of significant foreign powers.

The reason I worry about 'conspiracy' is, simply, Libya. The UK and France rushed in to fight alongside armed rebels and install a new government. Amongst the continuing chaos, violence and political purge the UK and France blackmail the new regime by threatening to remove the British/French military support that was so decisive in the rebels' victory. The new regime, which is slowly proving itself to be a fairly nasty piece of work, is now strapped over a barrel by the nature of its rise to power.

I say 'the West' because that's who it is. I don't see Russia, China or any of their team leaping up and offering their assistance to the spread of democracy.

People use VPNs for reasons other than 'trolling'.

[Symmetry]

Who says that I believe the West ought to be rallying against military dictatorships? Yes, depending on the regime I think that true democracy is more desirable than military dictatorship for those not a member of the regime's inner circle. I also, however, think that puppet governments who will be forced to bleed their country for the benefit of the big boys (said big boys being the reason the new government ever achieved power) are even worse than a military regime. I would much rather the change stemmed from internal effort - as it did when the Europeans overthrew their monarchies - than via a fresh leader who rules in the shadow of significant foreign powers.

The reason I worry about 'conspiracy' is, simply, Libya. The UK and France rushed in to fight alongside armed rebels and install a new government. Amongst the continuing chaos, violence and political purge the UK and France blackmail the new regime by threatening to remove the British/French military support that was so decisive in the rebels' victory. The new regime, which is slowly proving itself to be a fairly nasty piece of work, is now strapped over a barrel by the nature of its rise to power.

I say 'the West' because that's who it is. I don't see Russia, China or any of their team leaping up and offering their assistance to the spread of democracy.

People use VPNs for reasons other than 'trolling'.

So essentially, would it be fair to say that you think of the world as "east" and "west"- that is, there are a bunch of countries you consider "west" that you see as having a homogenised foreign policy, and a bunch of countries that you consider "east" who are being manipulated by the "western" conspiracy?

[huamulan]

No. It's generally accepted that 'the West' is a term referring to the USA, Canada, Europe (Eastern Europe excepted), Australia and New Zealand. They all have fairly similar politics and culture.

The most internationally prominent members of the West are the permanent Security Council members: US, UK and France. All three tend to speak as one when it comes to foreign or internal matters, just as China and Russia tend to march in time with each other.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to say that governments won't expend time and effort if they aren't going to get something in return. Western inaction with regards to many of the world's authoritarian regimes suggests that 'the warm fuzzy feeling that comes from spreading civil rights' doesn't quite cut it as motivation.

[Symmetry]

No. It's generally accepted that 'the West' is a term referring to the USA, Canada, Europe (Eastern Europe excepted), Australia and New Zealand. They all have fairly similar politics and culture.

The most internationally prominent members of the West are the permanent Security Council members: US, UK and France. All three tend to speak as one when it comes to foreign or internal matters, just as China and Russia tend to march in time with each other.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to say that governments won't expend time and effort if they aren't going to get something in return. Western inaction with regards to many of the world's authoritarian regimes suggests that 'the warm fuzzy feeling that comes from spreading civil rights' doesn't quite cut it as motivation.

Huh, nonsense, Russia is a permanent security counsel member (veto and all); the most prominent recent wars were notably not declared by consensus amongst the US, UK, and France, the idea that they "speak as one", is laughable.

China and Russia marching in time with one another? Really? That's Cold War conspiracy thinking, and it wasn't even particularly true back then.

[Symmetry]

Who knew there was so much anger at a peaceful politician, democratically elected, receiving a prize for peace?

[saxitoxin]

Who knew there was so much anger at a peaceful politician, democratically elected, receiving a prize for peace?

... from the government of a leading member of a nuclear armed military alliance that's spearheaded 4 wars in the last 15 years.

The word is "bemusement", not "anger."

It's like the Klan giving a civil rights award.

[Symmetry]

Who knew there was so much anger at a peaceful politician, democratically elected, receiving a prize for peace?

... from the government of a leading member of a nuclear armed military alliance that's spearheaded 4 wars in the last 15 years.

The word is "bemusement", not "anger."

It's like the Klan giving a civil rights award.

Charming, as ever, Saxi.

[saxitoxin]

Who knew there was so much anger at a peaceful politician, democratically elected, receiving a prize for peace?

... from the government of a leading member of a nuclear armed military alliance that's spearheaded 4 wars in the last 15 years.

The word is "bemusement", not "anger."

It's like the Klan giving a civil rights award.

Charming, as ever, Saxi.

stop hitting on me, I only like you as a friend

thank you

[Woodruff]

The most internationally prominent members of the West are the permanent Security Council members: US, UK and France. All three tend to speak as one when it comes to foreign or internal matters

That's pretty funny. The US/UK I'd buy...France? No.

just as China and Russia tend to march in time with each other.[/quote]

[quote="huamulan"]
China, much to their credit, really doesn't tend to march in time with anyone.

[huamulan]

France sent troops to Libya and Afghanistan, joined in with the economic sanctioning of Iran and is currently pushing for upheaval in Syria. The only time that France have significantly deviated from the line taken by the others is the Iraq War (and even that was little more than a circus to appease the populace (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sa ... 5963764811)).

Huh, nonsense, Russia is a permanent security counsel member (veto and all)

I am well aware of that. I never said that US, UK and France were the only members of the Council. China is the fifth Permanent Member, FYI.

[Symmetry]

France sent troops to Libya and Afghanistan, joined in with the economic sanctioning of Iran and is currently pushing for upheaval in Syria. The only time that France have significantly deviated from the line taken by the others is the Iraq War (and even that was little more than a circus to appease the populace (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sa ... 5963764811)).

Huh, nonsense, Russia is a permanent security counsel member (veto and all)

I am well aware of that. I never said that US, UK and France were the only members of the Council. China is the fifth Permanent Member, FYI.

Indeed, so going with a narrow Orientalist approach of "east" vs "west", seems a little silly, no? Or are you genuinely upset that the democratically elected leader of a country received recognition from the Nobel board?

[saxitoxin]

the democratically elected leader of a country

This is the third time in this thread you've claimed Aung was elected the "leader" of Burma. You've still yet to clarify exactly when she was elected "leader" and each time you've been asked you've responded by flirting with me instead of answering.

[saxitoxin]

One of my favorite photos of Aung ... here pictured in 2009 welcoming Ronald Reagan's former Secretary of the Navy Jim Webb at her waterfront palace in Yangon. (SLORC has blocked actively appointed U.S. military commanders from holding strategy sessions with Aung.)



Is it rational for the government of a nation experiencing a bloody armed insurgency to express skepticism when opposition politicians eagerly take meetings with foreign military leaders? I think so.

[Symmetry]

the democratically elected leader of a country

This is the third time in this thread you've claimed Aung was elected the "leader" of Burma. You've still yet to clarify exactly when she was elected "leader" and each time you've been asked you've responded by flirting with me instead of answering.

If you want to say that she wasn't democratically elected, do point how how and why.

[saxitoxin]

the democratically elected leader of a country

This is the third time in this thread you've claimed Aung was elected the "leader" of Burma. You've still yet to clarify exactly when she was elected "leader" and each time you've been asked you've responded by flirting with me instead of answering.

If you want to say that she wasn't democratically elected, do point how how and why.

To the best of my knowledge, Aung has only run in one election and she was elected a Member of Parliament of the second-largest party. Maybe she's briefly served as "Leader of the Opposition" but to say, as you did, she is the "democratically elected leader of a country" is like saying Belgian Ed is "leader of the UK" or Mitt Romney is "leader of USA."

If you have other information you should feel free to share ... or continue flirting with me, if you prefer.

[huamulan]

Indeed, so going with a narrow Orientalist approach of "east" vs "west", seems a little silly, no? Or are you genuinely upset that the democratically elected leader of a country received recognition from the Nobel board?

Sigh. I don't think of the world as 'east vs. west'. I have never said this.

I just said that the West has a high degree of political hegemony. Which it does.

[saxitoxin]

More than 1,000 Now Dead in Aung San Suu Kyi's Brutal Crackdown

Since Aung San Suu Kyi accepted the Nobel Prize she has been released from house arrest by the SLORC and become de facto ruler of Burma and has instituted a brutal crackdown on ethnic minorities.

The Burmese authorities may have killed more than 1,000 Rohingya Muslims during a recent crackdown on the minority group in the northeast Rakhine state, two unnamed UN officials have told the Reuters news agency.

The UN has previously dubbed the Rohingyas, who are also denied access to university education and in 2013 were hit with a two-child policy, as “the most oppressed people on Earth”.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 70116.html

It's too bad the only way to prove Saxi is always right on these disastrous policies and lunatic leaders is for a few thousand dead bodies to materialize.

Pretty inspiring, and a great landmark.

She is a wonderful person and I admire her greatly , those that mouth off about 'freedom' and 'liberty' would be well advised to learn what those words really mean.