Aung San Suu Kyi, and hindsight

[urban genie]

Now I first heard of aung san suu kyi on my first visit to Thailand in 1999 as there was an article in the bangkok post, and it told of her house arrest and how she was fighting to bring about a change in the military juntas grip on power.

Anyway I read up a few articles over there on the situation and watched some interviews, and it became apparent to me at least that she was as bad as the junta in her opinions and was a bit off in my opinion, and much to derision and slagging off, said I didn't like her or that she was bad for burma.

Was I right? A tthe minute it looks like it and a lot of western powers and media are now questioning her ethics and behaviour.

There are other examples of this western trend quick to back a political opposition, that then blows up in it's face.

For example

Middle East

The mujahadeen (spelt wrong)
Sadam and Hafel al assad (early years)
The revelation america were encouraging the ayatola prior to the iranian revolution.

South America (tbf mainly america not the west)

Papa Doc
The Contras
Pinochet
Jorge.videla
Honduras (obama era)
Carlos castillas aramos
El salvador death squads
Operation condor

Any more.other can give?


As much as trump is a twat maybe he is slightly right we are, in the west a bit shit when it comes to interefering overseas as we seem to make matters worse and it bite us on the arse decades later.


I was going to comment on the dalai lama who I also find a bit of aa charlatan and gobshite but think that would be too much of an unpopular stance, much as was mine on Aung San Suu Kyi 10 years ago.


Can I point out I am just throwing it out there and musing, let's have a philosophical chat on it not a bun fight.

 

[blueonblue]

Can I point out I am just throwing it out there and musing, let's have a philosophical chat on it not a bun fight.

I decided long ago that the west is not always wearing the "White Hat", for all the posturing it has climbed in bed with some right c*nts (And produced some of its own) because it suits the often hypocritical agenda of the day. But its an accusation that can be levelled at both the left and right with a fair bit of "We know best" or "For your own good" arrogance thrown in.

 

[Fred_Quimby]

Love the way the yanks go on about ethnic cleansing when what they did to the native Americans was atrocious.

 

[urban genie]

I decided long ago that the west is not always wearing the "White Hat", for all the posturing it has climbed in bed with some right c*nts (And produced some of its own) because it suits the often hypocritical agenda of the day. But its an accusation that can be levelled at both the left and right with a fair bit of "We know best" or "For your own good" arrogance thrown in.

That's why I am saying the west fully knowing it was by governments leaning left right and center facilitating these despots, which why I think it needs to be discussed without the usual partisan rivalry.

Hopefully like yourself people with keep it general not for point scoring l.


Though the americans under reagan was about crushing socialist/communist elected governments in SA and so does need pointing out.

 

[blueonblue]

That's why I am saying the west fully knowing it was by governments leaning left right and center facilitating these despots, which why I think it needs to be discussed without the usual partisan rivalry.

All people play "The enemy of my enemy is my friend", politicians often act in the short term because by the time the truth about the kind of c*nts they have gotten behind is exposed they are out of power and someone else gets to clean the mess up. But the arrogance of the west interfering is usually clouded with a do good motive of one kind or another.
Saddam was a c*nt but he kept the Islamic fundamentalists from spreading into Iraq. The west removed him supposedly to save lives, but add up those killed in the war plus the many thousands Al Qaeda/ISIS/Taliban have wiped out and Saddam could well have been the lesser of two evils.

Its probable that sometimes just letting a country sort its own problems out until it gets fed up of the death toll and finds its own solution would be better in the long run, but there is always money or influence to be gained so thats never going to happen.

 

[Henkeman]

I met her in Myanmar funnily enough. All part of the build up to the elections last time. Myanmar is somewhere I have work responsibility for, and I love the country.

There are endless layers of complexity here. The army and the cronies are still in control of the country, but the figleaf of democracy has rightly focused attention on Suu Kyi. And she's been disappointing to say the least.

But here's the thing - the army have their perfect solution. She gets the crap while they carry on doing what they've always done, and the worst part about that is that by and large the populace are supportive of it. The Bamar people are the kindest, nicest you can imagine - until you get them on to the subject of the Rohingya, and then they turn into crazed psychopaths, fully in favour of every measure you care to name to get them out of the country. It's really, really weird.

She can't control the army. If she tried, there'd be another coup. But she probably should denounce it anyway, whatever the cost, because her silence implies approval, which may or may not be the case.

One other small thing. It's curious how this has had so much media coverage, and the ongoing civil war in Thailand virtually nothing. Same sort of thing with an over-mighty army demolishing an ethnic group.