The true solution will definitely be a combination of the above, but which do you think would be be the most influential?

Drop screwshort and his skinhead friends in the middle of a meeting of the military leaders, two problems solved in one go...

You mean Burma?
Despite multiparty elections in 1990 that resulted in the main opposition party - the National League for Democracy (NLD) - winning a landslide victory, the ruling junta refused to hand over power. NLD leader and Nobel Peace Prize recipient AUNG SAN SUU KYI, who was under house arrest from 1989 to 1995 and 2000 to 2002, was arrested in May 2003 and is currently under house arrest. Her supporters are routinely harassed or jailed.
Let her go. But the most important solution is to STOP burma's black market trade, and put into being the 1990 elections mandate. The Junta have to be punished, plus stop using the name Myanmar. The military regime took steps in the early 1990s to liberalize the economy after decades of failure under the "Burmese Way to Socialism" which has just created abject rural poverty.
They are a resource rich nation, so help them create a free market after they honor the 1990 elections.

A lot of Westerners (Australian Foreign Minister Downer included) have their snouts covered in blood(money) cutting deals with one of the worst regimes in SE Asia, oh they mouth support for Aung San Suu Kyi, while doing nothing concrete to change the situation on the ground.
Like West Papua, the Burmese people stood tall and at the side of the Allies during WW2, and now look at how we the West repays them...

With nothing but contempt.


A new dawn...after the darkest of nights, will soon break for the Burmese people, and I for one, will celebrate long and loud when their day of Liberation arrives.

LONG LIVE FREEDOM

Time.
In this region, nothing works but time and patience.
And not being too confrontational.
Don't make them lose face.
However bad they are, give them some leeway, some way out.
Without them losing face which they will not have if they accept foreign pressures.
I think the Thai government understand that and most of the rest of the world does not,...

But how much longer must the Just and the Innocent wait?

Too many of the powerful in the 'West' are happy to keep the status quo indefinately...

I accept and understand your thinking on this, but still in world post Iraq, I find it sickening that nothing will be done.

Is Iraq better for Iraki people?
Today, is life easier and better for them?
Durable change for better or for worse has to come from inside.
Not from outside.
Except if you annex countries, make them a colony and run them forever.
But is there a forever?
At the end, local people decide.
Like it or not.

Today Iraq is a mess no doubt.
But tomorrow offers the dawn of a new day and the hope that it brings.
I fully support the US motive for wanting to liberate the people of Iraq.
But as for their motive of wanting to stay, this changes things entirely.
I can't accept the idea of the US wanting to annex Iraq, but with oil racing towards $50 a barrel I can understand why they (and the rest of the developed world for that matter) take a direct interest in the Mid East.
Change does have to come from within, and the Iraq people declared this by their general (if reserved) welcome they gave to the coaltion forces upon the downfall of the Hussain regime.
Its a matter of how the US treats Iraq into the future that holds the key to this phase in history, the support of a President who (allegedly) executes his enemies in police stations isn't a good begining and could well be an ominous sign of things to come...but these are still yet early days...
Lets hope for the best, with faith in both the Iraqi and American people, that things can get better
Only time will tell.

Good.
You mean you accept the fact that the US invaded Iraq for the oil and not for the elusive WOMD that your President was trying to find underneath the furniture of the White House.
This is not a critic.
European invaded countries for centuries because we were "stronger".
And we did not hide our motives.
So why are you so shy about the truth?
You thought you evolved past those stupid, materialistic reasons?
Well, sorry to disappoint you,...

Oh I think European countries have hid and still are hiding their motives just like the rest of the worlds countries. It just wouldn't do to let the peasants see and hear the truth. They might form valid opinions, make wise decisions and then what would happen?

Hi Milton,

Good point and good post! Hope to see you post again in the future.

Bluecat,

errr...I'm an Aussie (although your point is still valid if you substitute the word "President" for "Prime Minister" and the word "White House" for "Kirribilli").

Oil as a motive for US (coalition) involvement in the Mid East is an area of great interest to me, and I will give you a more detailled response to this in "Political News" under a thread "Mid East Oil...motives".

I don't know if you can entirely excuse Europe from that kind of behavior - after all, England is complicit.

But I fully agree that the reason we are in Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism or with Iraqi freedom - but with oil, and moreover, establishing a US military force in the Middle East.

The reason that the neocon's lie about their intent is easy enough - No one would support them if they knew what their aims really were. So to get support they look to George Orwell and say exactly the opposite of what they mean.