On 9/29/2018 at 12:19 AM, spidermike007 said:

 

One cannot argue with any of that. As far as I am concerned the three major blemishes on the history of the US, are the treatment of the American Indians, the black population, and the Mexican nation. One can argue it goes way beyond that. And it does. Although the US has been involved in many campaigns that have led to countless deaths, we are now talking about the current day. Right now, as we speak, the Burmese army is committing atrocities that are unthinkable, against the Muslim population. It does amount to genocide, though many apologists on this forum will say differently. And Suu Kyi is absolutely complicit in mass murder and rape.

 

How is she "absolutely complicit"? Issuing orders? Having any real authority?

While preachers preach of evil fates

teachers teach that knowledge waits

can lead to hundred-dollar plates

and goodness hides behind the gates

but even the president of United States

sometimes must stand there naked.

 

politics explained by Bob Dylan 1966

On top of the the army's power, another factor which may influence her position is public opinion. I guess that most of the population dislikes Rohingyas and is also influenced by the official propaganda. Supporting Rohingyas would be a bad political move for her and her party and elections are due in 2020. And Rohingyas are not allowed to vote as they are not even considered as citizens.

15 minutes ago, candide said:

On top of the the army's power, another factor which may influence her position is public opinion. I guess that most of the population dislikes Rohingyas and is also influenced by the official propaganda. Supporting Rohingyas would be a bad political move for her and her party and elections are due in 2020. And Rohingyas are not allowed to vote as they are not even considered as citizens.

 

Further, regardless of image, she might very well hold similar views to said public opinion, if more PC about it.

Because she was married to a foreigner she was not allowed to become President of Myanmar . As such and because of the situation in Burma she has no real power as it is still held by the Military. Speaking out would possibly lose what steps forward to Democracy Her and her Party have achieved. It is easy to criticize from outside but stand up in Yangong and say the same things . Where would you end up.

Minorities are persecuted in Myanmar yes. Those who attack Police or Military there get dealt with harshly. The problem with the Rohingyas goes back a 100 years. Yes perhaps she should speak up or perhaps she cannot and must play the juntas game. Easy to condemn from the safety of Our lounge chairs.

21 hours ago, Morch said:

 

How is she "absolutely complicit"? Issuing orders? Having any real authority?

 

By completely denying that these atrocities are even taking place and refusing to address them on any level, as the de facto leader of her nation, she is totally complicit. Practically and morally. 

 

Just now, spidermike007 said:

 

By completely denying that these atrocities are even taking place and refusing to address them on any level, as the de facto leader of her nation, she is totally complicit. Practically and morally. 

 

 

You may want to look up what de facto means.

She doesn't wield much by way of real power or authority.

 

Her conduct and positions may certainly be criticized, with good reason.

The hyperbole you tout? Doubtful.

23 hours ago, Morch said:

 

How is she "absolutely complicit"? Issuing orders? Having any real authority?

 

She can't have a two way bet. IMO she should acknowledge her errors of judgement and resign, especially taking on board her father, whose leadership generated a great deal of respect for her. Her father recognised the Rohingya at time of independence. However, it may be of interest to read the BBC's take i.e. lacking in moral leadership.,,

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-42824778

 

 

5 hours ago, simple1 said:

 

She can't have a two way bet. IMO she should acknowledge her errors of judgement and resign, especially taking on board her father, whose leadership generated a great deal of respect for her. Her father recognised the Rohingya at time of independence. However, it may be of interest to read the BBC's take i.e. lacking in moral leadership.,,

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-42824778

 

 

 

It is understandable that people feel disappointment with her lack of action or "moral leadership", but IMO, at least part of that stems from casting her as a super-hero to begin with, along with high expectations etc.

 

I've no issues with assertions that she let many down, and a lot of the criticism involved. That said, claims regarding her being directly complicit or bearing direct responsibility are, IMO, just the usual fare on such topics. 

 

Should she resign? I don't know, and I have no idea what that means for Myanmar, or the gains that were made in terms of democracy. Would her resignation change anything with regard to the Rohingya's situation? Is the replacement going to be anything but a rubber-stamp for the military?

 

Going after her is more like a feel-good move. It gives the illusion that something is being done, while not actually dealing with the more relevant players, or even leaning much on countries that got some leverage.

 

9 hours ago, simple1 said:

 

She can't have a two way bet. IMO she should acknowledge her errors of judgement and resign, especially taking on board her father, whose leadership generated a great deal of respect for her. Her father recognised the Rohingya at time of independence. However, it may be of interest to read the BBC's take i.e. lacking in moral leadership.,,

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-42824778

 

 

Yes - She may have little to no power, but she lent her (family) name to the current mob now running Myanmar. She should either stand shoulder to shoulder with this lot, or make her disquiet publicly known and withdraw her 'brand', for want of a better term. As you say, she can't have a two way bet and expect to retain a modicum of credibility. 

10 hours ago, Morch said:

 

It is understandable that people feel disappointment with her lack of action or "moral leadership", but IMO, at least part of that stems from casting her as a super-hero to begin with, along with high expectations etc.

 

I've no issues with assertions that she let many down, and a lot of the criticism involved. That said, claims regarding her being directly complicit or bearing direct responsibility are, IMO, just the usual fare on such topics. 

 

Should she resign? I don't know, and I have no idea what that means for Myanmar, or the gains that were made in terms of democracy. Would her resignation change anything with regard to the Rohingya's situation? Is the replacement going to be anything but a rubber-stamp for the military?

 

Going after her is more like a feel-good move. It gives the illusion that something is being done, while not actually dealing with the more relevant players, or even leaning much on countries that got some leverage.

 

Agree in principal with your comments. On the other side of the coin should she not act as leader and register her support for the oppressed and marginalised by resigning. Regrettably to my limited knowledge of Myanmar politics she now comes across as yet another do nothing politician. Would be interesting to know how her sons now think of her.

3 hours ago, simple1 said:

Agree in principal with your comments. On the other side of the coin should she not act as leader and register her support for the oppressed and marginalised by resigning. Regrettably to my limited knowledge of Myanmar politics she now comes across as yet another do nothing politician. Would be interesting to know how her sons now think of her.

 

Your comment seems to illustrate one of my previous points. She is, whether we like it or not, a leader of her own people - rather than acting as an ambassador of a liberal (for lack of better word, let's not get into a debate on that one, I think the meaning is clear enough) world view. If she is, indeed, just "another do nothing politician", it shouldn't be surprising. The transition from a revolutionary (or a political struggle figurehead) to actual politics is quite often like that. And about that "her own people" - what this stands for is also a matter of personal attitudes and political expediency, not necessarily the more enlightened views either assumed by others or suggested by herself.

 

I agree that she's a disappointment. To what extent? Depends on expectations and realism. And I'm also aware that "off with her head" is a quick indignation fix, but what next? Or rather, who's next?

 

It's all too easy for a nation to grant or remove citizenship, according to popular opinion, to someone who obviously isn't going to make use of it.  Perhaps Canada should put its money where its mouth is and grant citizenship to the Rohingya instead?

8 minutes ago, ballpoint said:

It's all too easy for a nation to grant or remove citizenship, according to popular opinion, to someone who obviously isn't going to make use of it.  Perhaps Canada should put its money where its mouth is and grant citizenship to the Rohingya instead?

But it's much easier to attack the Lady !

On ‎10‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 5:11 PM, mauGR1 said:

But it's much easier to attack the Lady !

Indeed. It's a propaganda exercise designed to make people think they are doing something when, in fact, they are not doing anything at all. If they are so concerned, they should send the Canadian armed forces to repatriate the refugees, and then remain forever to protect them.