and we're live in...

Hey, i know its been forever. I almost forgot about this, until yesterday when my brother asked if i was going to be writing in it ever again. So I thought i might do just that =)

As i've said, this is a place for my thoughts, and my thoughts don't include my day-to-day life. Yes, i realize that contradiction. But i've fully embraced the inherent contradictions in living, so i'm ok with it. So in keeping with contradictions, lets describe myself a bit further.

Socailly: liberal (if you know me, you know this to be true), economically: a realist (you can't have an econ major and not want to laugh at policy wonks and all they get wrong, not to mention discussions about NAFTA or other free-trade agreements), with a peace-nik/diplomacy based foreign policy view. But that certainly doesn't mean i haven't learned the lessons of the "real world," because i throw Machiavelli-cynicism into my world view. what does that mean, exactly?

It means we should consider invading Burma.

(And its Burma, not Myanmar. The Junta renamed the country because they felt like it, and recognizing the name change means recognizing the power of the Junta.)

This is not to say that we're going to, or even if we are litterally able to muster enough force to do so. I'm just saying that its something that should be done.

The war in Iraq is just stupid, because we should be focusing on Afganistan. And i would usually say "but that aside," but i can't at this moment. Because we never should have invaded Iraq. Ever. Never ever ever never ever. Stupid to the Nth degree.

But Burma is inhearently different. Its own government is seizing the aid sent by the US, the UN, and other organizations and countries, and isn't giving it out to its own cyclone-raveged people. They refuse to grant foreign works visas so they can help the sick, wounded, or dead. Burma used to be one of the worlds largest exporters of rice, and now it can barely feed itself. This is the same country that beat and imprisioned the Monks last year who were protesting governemnt mandated food prices and gathering money for the poor.

Not even China, everyone's older brother in that part of the world, can persuade the Burmese junta to allow foreign aid. Without aid to help clean the destruction, the possibility of a devastating disease ripping thru that part of the world becomes very real.

But why invade? I mean, isn't like invading Iraq? Saddam was certainly repressive to his own people. First off, teh basic premise is different. The cliche of "welcomed as liberators" wasn't true in Iraq, but it has definate possibility in Burma...only it wouldn't be "liberators" it would be "thank god, Food!" When a governemtn harms its own people, in this new, world community, there is an obligation for us to help our fellow man.

But it will never happen, specifically because Iraq happened. The era of US interventionalism is on its death-bed, and it has G.W. Bush and all the neocons to thank for it. Look, US Interventionalism can be a good thing. But it can also be disasterous. Espeically because the same problems from Iraq would resurface, except in the place of Iran you'd have China. How do you make a governemnt in Asia without China having a major say? You can't.

But forceful intervention, to save lord knows how many lives, is something to be considered.

~M