Thailand Rejects Clinton Call To Expel Burma From Asean

[Publicus]

Rambo 4, yes indeed. Would love to see that kind of action in Burma but against the government directly. However, it's a matter of priorities for the US Government. With nukes in N Korea, Iran and Israel and Iran threatening air strikes against the nuclear facilities of the other, the campaign in Afghanistan and the drawdown in Iraq, nukes in India and in Pakistan not to mention the Taliban in such places etc, the US doesn't have the resources to mount and organize such an insurgent campaign against the fascist generals of Burma who have destroyed all hope and possibilities in that godforsaken land.

Again, ASEAN owns the Burma problem entirely and exclusively. ASEAN is allied with Burma in an intricate and nefarious web of business and financial schemes and corruption. Further, due to a deficit of democracy among ASEAN member states who moreover haven't respect of human rights, the Burma problem is the work of ASEAN itself to include of course Thailand as a principal culprit.

Trying to connect the US military to Burma via Thailand is quite a stretch, however. Sec Clinton hardly would have specifically referred to the close ties and connections between the Thai and US militaries had the US wanted to deflect or obscure attention from some (imagined) interconnection of the two with Burma.

Also, I'm pleased to see that the farang apologists of the Thai and ASEAN alliance and support of Burma have given up on that most dubious pursuit, to state it politely.

[mauGR1]

Amnesty International yesterday awarded the Burma political prisoner Aung San Suu Kyi its Human Rights Award for her long service to the cause of human rights, to include her ceaseless efforts over decades to seek democracy and social justice for the people of Burma.

Suu Kyi presently is defending herself (without hope of 'acquittal') in a bogus trial the fascist generals who run Burma have been staging. Suu Kyi is being persecuted by the Nazi Burmese courts as the time approaches for the disingenuiouly promised elections the generals had falsely agreed to. The trial is in its concluding stages with the expectation that Suu Kyi, who's been under house arrest for most of the past 20 years since winning a landslide election in 1991, will be sent to the infamous Ensein prison to rot and die.

Suu Kyi is a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.

Last week, during the ASEAN Foreign Ministers meeting in Phuket, Sec of State Clinton called for ASEAN to expel Burma. Thai PM Abhisit responded, as expected, that ASEAN would do no such thing. Abhisit, ASEAN and Burma are supported by numerous farang apologists who post to the ThaiVisa Forum site as well as by some Thais who post.

The reason ASEAN will not expel Burma is that ASEAN is allied with Burma and supports the Burma regime in business deals and financial arrangements that oppress the people of Burma but make ASEAN member states and their profiteers richer than they already are, as evidenced by shameful standards of living and quality of life in almost all ASEAN member states to include their having shabbly democracies.

There also exists within ASEAN a disregard of human rights, democracy and social justice. Consequently Pres Obama and Sec Clinton know fully well ASEAN will never expel its ally and partner in crime Burma. However, it needs to be made clear that ASEAN owns the Burma problem and that nothing can be done to improve the standard of living in Burma unless its ASEAN allies and supporters agree to effect the needed and necessary changes.

I share your discomfort about the appalling conditions of the people in Myanmar,but i disagree on your stance about Abhisit.I think he is busy enough with all the problems in Thailand,don't you think so?Who do you think will pay the higher price if Myanmar is expelled from ASEAN?The generals or the poor people?

Or maybe you would prefer the US to bomb Myanmar to bring the shining light of democracy like we can see in those lucky countries like Iraq or Afghanistan?Declare war to China maybe an option?

Besides that we cannot say that US or EU are perfect societies,would you?

Of course you can blame whoever you like for the evil in this world,but PM Abhisit..come on...

[EndofDays]

Amnesty International yesterday awarded the Burma political prisoner Aung San Suu Kyi its Human Rights Award for her long service to the cause of human rights, to include her ceaseless efforts over decades to seek democracy and social justice for the people of Burma.

Suu Kyi presently is defending herself (without hope of 'acquittal') in a bogus trial the fascist generals who run Burma have been staging. Suu Kyi is being persecuted by the Nazi Burmese courts as the time approaches for the disingenuiouly promised elections the generals had falsely agreed to. The trial is in its concluding stages with the expectation that Suu Kyi, who's been under house arrest for most of the past 20 years since winning a landslide election in 1991, will be sent to the infamous Ensein prison to rot and die.

Suu Kyi is a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.

Last week, during the ASEAN Foreign Ministers meeting in Phuket, Sec of State Clinton called for ASEAN to expel Burma. Thai PM Abhisit responded, as expected, that ASEAN would do no such thing. Abhisit, ASEAN and Burma are supported by numerous farang apologists who post to the ThaiVisa Forum site as well as by some Thais who post.

The reason ASEAN will not expel Burma is that ASEAN is allied with Burma and supports the Burma regime in business deals and financial arrangements that oppress the people of Burma but make ASEAN member states and their profiteers richer than they already are, as evidenced by shameful standards of living and quality of life in almost all ASEAN member states to include their having shabbly democracies.

There also exists within ASEAN a disregard of human rights, democracy and social justice. Consequently Pres Obama and Sec Clinton know fully well ASEAN will never expel its ally and partner in crime Burma. However, it needs to be made clear that ASEAN owns the Burma problem and that nothing can be done to improve the standard of living in Burma unless its ASEAN allies and supporters agree to effect the needed and necessary changes.

I share your discomfort about the appalling conditions of the people in Myanmar,but i disagree on your stance about Abhisit.I think he is busy enough with all the problems in Thailand,don't you think so?Who do you think will pay the higher price if Myanmar is expelled from ASEAN?The generals or the poor people?

Or maybe you would prefer the US to bomb Myanmar to bring the shining light of democracy like we can see in those lucky countries like Iraq or Afghanistan?Declare war to China maybe an option?

Besides that we cannot say that US or EU are perfect societies,would you?

Of course you can blame whoever you like for the evil in this world,but PM Abhisit..come on...

You mean the fact that Iraq and Afghanistan now have the freedom to vote for thier leaders without fear...including a women's right to vote...that shining light of democracy? Live free or die, mate.

[EndofDays]

South Africa couldn't get rid of aparthied and free Nelson Mandella from prison until the US Congress enacted laws prohibiting US businesses operating in S Africa.

These posts about supposed US corporations in Burma are the same old sh*t from the same old slingers. Too cliched and lazy to look it up.

I might remind you that US companies get around the rules by going through second and third-party corporation. Indirectly {and not on paper}, the US is one of the largest business partners doing their thing in Burma. Corporations are numb to the ideals of belonging to a national state. They are the state. So much for doing extended research and looking it up. Mind you, I'm not critiqing the US - just bringing the illusional state some much needed light. Al the usual suspects continue to do their thin in Burma. No one is sainted.

The ban on u.s. companies during business with Burma includes the use of "other parties" companies. The same penalties apply. You need to look things up before you insert foot in mouth. Name compnay doing business in Burma. If coke sells it drinks to a thai company and that company turns around and sells the product to Burma, if money from that transaction is applicable to the U.S. company then they are in penalty of the ban. If that thai company buys the product and sells it with no connection to the original seller than that is that thai's company doing. I know you hate America, I'm sorry you feel so small and helpless that you have to find a "boogeyman" to blame.

Edited July 28, 2009 by EndofDays

[Johpa]

I am pleased to see the Prime Minister stand-up to Mrs. Clinton and tell her to keep her nose out of the Asean business.

100% Agree

Get back to the US and sort your own internal issues out and keep out of other peoples and nations business.

But of course, as there is no better response to large scale human rights abuses and ethnic cleansings in one of the world's most brutal and corrupt regimes than appeasement. Besides, the Burmese generals even make the Chinese and Thai leaders look good in comparison, so yes, please keep then around and Ms. Clinton, please don't interfere as we know the US human rights abuses at Abu Ghraib were on such a similar scale.

[EndofDays]

I am pleased to see the Prime Minister stand-up to Mrs. Clinton and tell her to keep her nose out of the Asean business.

100% Agree

Get back to the US and sort your own internal issues out and keep out of other peoples and nations business.

But of course, as there is no better response to large scale human rights abuses and ethnic cleansings in one of the world's most brutal and corrupt regimes than appeasement. Besides, the Burmese generals even make the Chinese and Thai leaders look good in comparison, so yes, please keep then around and Ms. Clinton, please don't interfere as we know the US human rights abuses at Abu Ghraib were on such a similar scale.

Another idiot brings in Aub Grahib...ok, now name another one, and another one, and another one. What other country prosecutes its own soldiers for war crimes? Name one, not even the Brits when their tanks tore down the iraqi jail to get one of their own out. We hold our own accountable. Nobody holds the evil accountable it seems, who behead people, blow up women and children...because we have to understand them better. The Burma Government is "evil", can you understand that concept? It is ethnic cleansing. Name one country that has held ITSELF accountable for ethinc cleansing? I will tell you one, the U.S., for what it did durring the westard expansition and the slave trade (remember the 600,000 Americans who died for that war?). The U.S. polices itself while other countries look away. Burma IS ASEAN's problem. They have to decide which side of history they want to be on. It will most likely be ignored because the bordering countries continue to ignore it. Thailand fought its own communist insurgency but ignores Burma's attrocities. I love Thailand because my wife is Thai but sooner later they can't ignore what is happening over there. Instead of opening your gap to bash the U.S. why don't you grow a pair and ask what your dirtbag countrty can do? Nothing, because whenever something big happens they always look to the U.S. to do something. Well, guess what, with this current President we you best be looking to Europe because he will before he does anything.

[Johpa]

I am pleased to see the Prime Minister stand-up to Mrs. Clinton and tell her to keep her nose out of the Asean business.

100% Agree

Get back to the US and sort your own internal issues out and keep out of other peoples and nations business.

But of course, as there is no better response to large scale human rights abuses and ethnic cleansings in one of the world's most brutal and corrupt regimes than appeasement. Besides, the Burmese generals even make the Chinese and Thai leaders look good in comparison, so yes, please keep then around and Ms. Clinton, please don't interfere as we know the US human rights abuses at Abu Ghraib were on such a similar scale.

Another idiot brings in Aub Grahib...ok, now name another one, and another one, and another one. What other country prosecutes its own soldiers for war crimes?

Whoa there partner, hold your horses, reread my post, and try to see the irony. I am on your side. This is one of the rare occasions I give kudos to Ms. Clinton.

[zzaa09]

Rambo 4, yes indeed. Would love to see that kind of action in Burma but against the government directly.

How romantically Hollywood. Less one forgets, there has been at least 3 resistence groups continuely battling a guerrilla war for some 40 years. Where the U.S. {et al} could do some good would be to underwrite and supply a proxy........they've been known to do this.

[Plus]

Those resistence groups are locally based, they have absolutely no intentions of taking on junta outside their support areas and conquering the whole country.

The real problem is that the junta is supported by a great number of people, and even more people will take the govt side if there's any foreign intervention.

I don't know what could possibly help, short of a fast and decisive regime overthrow when one morning people simply wake up to the new reality and go with the flow, as they usually do.

[animatic]

The Nobama talks to N.Korea and Iran but wants Burma thrown out.Obama is a fool.

Apples and Oranges.

North Korea doesn't belong to anything to get thrown out of.

But there has been an on again off again dialog.

Iran has been making noises, like talking through back channels.

And much of the youth populace is not for the current regime,

and will be more powerful sooner than the Burmese people are going to be .

Tne Myanmar generals, say talk, and never listen a bit.

And China owns them and doesn't think of them as the loose cannon N. Korea is.

Cash cow comes to mind. And no where near as strategically dangerous as N. Korea is.

[animatic]

I am pleased to see the Prime Minister stand-up to Mrs. Clinton and tell her to keep her nose out of the Asean business.

100% Agree

Get back to the US and sort your own internal issues out and keep out of other peoples and nations business.

But of course, as there is no better response to large scale human rights abuses and ethnic cleansings in one of the world's most brutal and corrupt regimes than appeasement. Besides, the Burmese generals even make the Chinese and Thai leaders look good in comparison, so yes, please keep then around and Ms. Clinton, please don't interfere as we know the US human rights abuses at Abu Ghraib were on such a similar scale.

Another idiot brings in Aub Grahib...ok, now name another one, and another one, and another one. What other country prosecutes its own soldiers for war crimes? Name one, not even the Brits when their tanks tore down the iraqi jail to get one of their own out. We hold our own accountable. Nobody holds the evil accountable it seems, who behead people, blow up women and children...because we have to understand them better. The Burma Government is "evil", can you understand that concept? It is ethnic cleansing. Name one country that has held ITSELF accountable for ethinc cleansing? I will tell you one, the U.S., for what it did durring the westard expansition and the slave trade (remember the 600,000 Americans who died for that war?). The U.S. polices itself while other countries look away. Burma IS ASEAN's problem. They have to decide which side of history they want to be on. It will most likely be ignored because the bordering countries continue to ignore it. Thailand fought its own communist insurgency but ignores Burma's attrocities. I love Thailand because my wife is Thai but sooner later they can't ignore what is happening over there. Instead of opening your gap to bash the U.S. why don't you grow a pair and ask what your dirtbag countrty can do? Nothing, because whenever something big happens they always look to the U.S. to do something. Well, guess what, with this current President we you best be looking to Europe because he will before he does anything.

Well said.

Abu Grahib was a gungho military mindset grafted on classic small town prejudices and it all got out of hand.

But it HAS been prosecuted and the soldiers involved are not enjoying their life right around now.

Names shamed and locked up. All armeys in foreign lands have a percentage of cockups with soildiers

thrown from one world into another.

Abu Grahib is an aberration and was dealt with,

it was not policy of government to abuse in that fashion

that policy from the top down stopped a bit lower on the abuse scale,

but was still reprehensible. And is finally being removed, post Bush.

Myanmar's generals on the other hand are still having policies of wiping out huge sections of their own populace,

for control, ethnic and financial reasons, they are evil because they put in place a military mentality,

that allows no dissent, nor feedback. And has been in place so long there are 2-3 generations of

non-thinking-speaking 'leaders" running the show. One nutter with absolute say and no feedback from below.

Same as Korea, the mind set is 2nd, 3rd to 4th generation now.

Calling for a total mental retooling. If the inmates run the asylum too long,

there is no telling WHERE SANITY USED TO BE... the references are lost.

[venturalaw]

I am pleased to see the Prime Minister stand-up to Mrs. Clinton and tell her to keep her nose out of the Asean business.

But of course, as there is no better response to large scale human rights abuses and ethnic cleansings in one of the world's most brutal and corrupt regimes than appeasement. Besides, the Burmese generals even make the Chinese and Thai leaders look good in comparison, so yes, please keep then around and Ms. Clinton, please don't interfere as we know the US human rights abuses at Abu Ghraib were on such a similar scale.

Another idiot brings in Aub Grahib...ok, now name another one, and another one, and another one. What other country prosecutes its own soldiers for war crimes? Name one, not even the Brits when their tanks tore down the iraqi jail to get one of their own out. We hold our own accountable. Nobody holds the evil accountable it seems, who behead people, blow up women and children...because we have to understand them better. The Burma Government is "evil", can you understand that concept? It is ethnic cleansing. Name one country that has held ITSELF accountable for ethinc cleansing? I will tell you one, the U.S., for what it did durring the westard expansition and the slave trade (remember the 600,000 Americans who died for that war?). The U.S. polices itself while other countries look away. Burma IS ASEAN's problem. They have to decide which side of history they want to be on. It will most likely be ignored because the bordering countries continue to ignore it. Thailand fought its own communist insurgency but ignores Burma's attrocities. I love Thailand because my wife is Thai but sooner later they can't ignore what is happening over there. Instead of opening your gap to bash the U.S. why don't you grow a pair and ask what your dirtbag countrty can do? Nothing, because whenever something big happens they always look to the U.S. to do something. Well, guess what, with this current President we you best be looking to Europe because he will before he does anything.

I agree with you. The America bashing is so tiring. Europeans like henryalleman haven't a clue. They never think about what would have happened to Europe if American had not stepped in and saved it. The mentality is take take take, and then criticize due to their feeling emasculated instead of grateful. Shear ignorance.

[rixalex]

Another idiot brings in Aub Grahib...ok, now name another one, and another one, and another one. What other country prosecutes its own soldiers for war crimes?

Whoa there partner, hold your horses, reread my post, and try to see the irony. I am on your side. This is one of the rare occasions I give kudos to Ms. Clinton.

Not a bash, a genuine question - why is it that a number of Americans, whilst being normal, educated and generally well-rounded people, struggle with the concept of irony?

[Datsun240Z]

Another idiot brings in Aub Grahib...ok, now name another one, and another one, and another one. What other country prosecutes its own soldiers for war crimes?

Whoa there partner, hold your horses, reread my post, and try to see the irony. I am on your side. This is one of the rare occasions I give kudos to Ms. Clinton.

Not a bash, a genuine question - why is it that a number of Americans, whilst being normal, educated and generally well-rounded people, struggle with the concept of irony?

This says enough?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bb1CHTtJ_iE

[klikster]

There was a story of the impact of US sanctions on jewellry trade.

Some 85% of all stones from Burma are sold by small businesses, and they are the ones that are severely affected because Thailand, the world's biggest ruby trading center, can't sell the jewellry to the biggest clients anymore.

So those small traders are either going bust or selling their stones to Burmese government, which is very thankful because now it gets more business than ever.

Right now there's evaluaiton of that policy going on, with several US representatives travelling in the border areas to see the impact for themselves. Hopefully this policy is going to be reconsidered once they submit their reports.

Plus, do you have a clue?

Have you ever visited the gem markets in Maesai and Maesot, Rangoon?

85% of numbers, carats, value? Where did you even come up with 85%?

Much Mong Hsu material is smuggled through Mae Sai as rough. Some lower value Mogok material is smuggled through Mae Sot.

Burma’s gem mines are ruled with an iron hand by military authorities and mining companies. Deplorable conditions at the mines reportedly include rampant land confiscation, extortion, forced labor, child labor, environmental pollution and unsafe working conditions for miners. HIV/AIDS, drug-resistant malaria and tuberculosis are increasingly common in mining areas.

The country’s gem industry is dominated by the Burmese military, which benefits financially from exports.

The military-owned Union of Myanmar Economic Holdings Company (UMEH) operates as a conglomerate that owns many businesses in Burma, including in the lucrative gem-mining sector. UNHCR.org

[klikster]

Rambo 4, yes indeed. Would love to see that kind of action in Burma but against the government directly. However, it's a matter of priorities for the US Government. With nukes in N Korea, Iran and Israel and Iran threatening air strikes against the nuclear facilities of the other, the campaign in Afghanistan and the drawdown in Iraq, nukes in India and in Pakistan not to mention the Taliban in such places etc, the US doesn't have the resources to mount and organize such an insurgent campaign against the fascist generals of Burma who have destroyed all hope and possibilities in that godforsaken land.

Again, ASEAN owns the Burma problem entirely and exclusively. ASEAN is allied with Burma in an intricate and nefarious web of business and financial schemes and corruption. Further, due to a deficit of democracy among ASEAN member states who moreover haven't respect of human rights, the Burma problem is the work of ASEAN itself to include of course Thailand as a principal culprit.

Trying to connect the US military to Burma via Thailand is quite a stretch, however. Sec Clinton hardly would have specifically referred to the close ties and connections between the Thai and US militaries had the US wanted to deflect or obscure attention from some (imagined) interconnection of the two with Burma.

Also, I'm pleased to see that the farang apologists of the Thai and ASEAN alliance and support of Burma have given up on that most dubious pursuit, to state it politely.

The U.S. and others missed the window of opportunity because of any number of politically motivated decisions. Before the Karens were divided and conquered, before Khun Sa was marginalized, the county was so ripe for a multi-pronged insurrection ..

IMO, if the west had shown the courage to ignore lesser evils and focus on the greater evils, we could now be traveling to bungalow resorts in the Mergui Archipelago.

[klikster]

Not a bash, a genuine question - why is it that a number of Americans, whilst being normal, educated and generally well-rounded people, struggle with the concept of irony?

Maybe because we see irony a bit differently than people who say, 'whilst'.

Or maybe because irony/satire is usually too poorly done. All too often, the writer of irony, and satire, assume that the reader understands their own mindset, then don't do a proper job of setting it up.

[Publicus]

Amazing, but not at all unpredictable or unexpected that people from the US stand up to speak for a Nobel Peace Laureate and one who this week was honored by Amnesty International, Aung San Suu Kyi of fascist Burma, and the farang robotically reach for their clubs and start swinging in one direction only.

We of and in the US know we have our warts. We realistically and first hand know the USA continues to be a work in progress, that the US never was and never will be a finished product. We also know we do have a Consitution that is rooted in the European Enlightenment, especially in respect to its first 10 amendments, aka the Bill of Rights. Indeed, two republics which were radically founded similtaneously in history--the USA and France--focused on the rights of man which we now refer to more broadly as human rights.

It's not intellectually serious to propose that some from the US would want to carpet bomb Burma as if all Americans were (thoroughly discredited) neocons. Yes, the US has clandestinely supported insurgencies in the past, such as the "Contras" in Nicaragua during the Reagan presidency. However, several people in the White House and the US military found those policies to be career enders, especially after they were called to testify before the Congress. Additionally, it's been pointed out in the thread that contrarian bands of fighters in Burma consist of disparate ethnic tribes who want their territory and haven't any interest in gaining control of the state, which moreover would require major campaigns against the army.

(As a Bay Stater, I recognize the "Live Free or Die" motto of the neighboring Granite State. A dagger of a motto but also a clear one!)

I like Abhisit and the Democrat party of Thailand. However, it's more than unfortunate that Abhisit has to squirm his way through explanations of cutting boatloads of refugees loose at sea to perish and of how Thailand and ASEAN are unable to take needed and necessary action against the fascist generals of Burma.

[rixalex]

Not a bash, a genuine question - why is it that a number of Americans, whilst being normal, educated and generally well-rounded people, struggle with the concept of irony?

Maybe because we see irony a bit differently than people who say, 'whilst'.

It's not a case of people who wear fanny packs seeing it differently, it's a case of them not seeing it at all.

[DagonKhan]

The statements by some people in here accusing American companies, aided by the US government, of investing in Myanmar are false and inaccurate. The two toughest positions on sanctions in the world are those effected by the USA and Canada.

Not really.

The US' involvement dates back to Unocal's investment in the Yadana gas field which was made prior to the US sanctions. The sanctions stated that any investment made prior to the date the sanctions came into effect were exempt. There were several US companies here doing business directly with the Myanmar Government prior to the sanctions that continued doing business afterwards, Qualcomm spring to mind with the CDMA telephone network. I'm not sure that they received any aid from the US government though, i doubt they would have needed it anyway.

So Unocal gets taken over by Chevron who remains a major shareholder in Yadana which is a primary source of foreign income. The US isn't particularly good at encouraging these sanctions when corporate profits are at stake....

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gncKIW...sm5419O3oCIGsog

So yes, I think people should be a little weary of believing the US 'holier-than-thou' policy of using sanctions.

[Publicus]

Not a bash, a genuine question - why is it that a number of Americans, whilst being normal, educated and generally well-rounded people, struggle with the concept of irony?

Maybe because we see irony a bit differently than people who say, 'whilst'.

It's not a case of people who wear fanny packs seeing it differently, it's a case of them not seeing it at all.

Humor, irony, sarcasm and the like often are cultural (as is spelling--'humour').

I've spent most of my life trying to see the Charlie Chaplin humor of Benny Hill and Mr. Bean and a host of others. But, alas, I've never found any.

James Bond is witty but with the help of Hollywood.

Peter Sellers was a genius of a wit but he was playing a Frenchman.

Bear in mind Thais are supposed to laff at everything from serious mistakes to the sight and/or sounds of other people laffing and anything and everything in between.

[Publicus]

The statements by some people in here accusing American companies, aided by the US government, of investing in Myanmar are false and inaccurate. The two toughest positions on sanctions in the world are those effected by the USA and Canada.

Not really.

The US' involvement dates back to Unocal's investment in the Yadana gas field which was made prior to the US sanctions. The sanctions stated that any investment made prior to the date the sanctions came into effect were exempt. There were several US companies here doing business directly with the Myanmar Government prior to the sanctions that continued doing business afterwards, Qualcomm spring to mind with the CDMA telephone network. I'm not sure that they received any aid from the US government though, i doubt they would have needed it anyway.

So Unocal gets taken over by Chevron who remains a major shareholder in Yadana which is a primary source of foreign income. The US isn't particularly good at encouraging these sanctions when corporate profits are at stake....

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gncKIW...sm5419O3oCIGsog

So yes, I think people should be a little weary of believing the US 'holier-than-thou' policy of using sanctions.

There always are farang who shop for their clubs at designer boutiques which have refined weights, balances and shapes to their sticks. Thus, there never is any possibility of changing the fixed minds of so many, or of prompting a reduction of club swinging in one direction only. This has been true for many a moon and always will remain true.

Edited July 29, 2009 by Publicus

[rixalex]

Not a bash, a genuine question - why is it that a number of Americans, whilst being normal, educated and generally well-rounded people, struggle with the concept of irony?

Maybe because we see irony a bit differently than people who say, 'whilst'.

It's not a case of people who wear fanny packs seeing it differently, it's a case of them not seeing it at all.

Humor, irony, sarcasm and the like often are cultural (as is spelling--'humour').

I've spent most of my life trying to see the Charlie Chaplin humor of Benny Hill and Mr. Bean and a host of others. But, alas, I've never found any.

James Bond is witty but with the help of Hollywood.

Peter Sellers was a genius of a wit but he was playing a Frenchman.

Bear in mind Thais are supposed to laff at everything from serious mistakes to the sight and/or sounds of other people laffing and anything and everything in between.

What tickles a person is a personal thing of course. Like you i find nothing remotely funny about Benny Hill or Mr Bean. Other people do though and that's fine - no reason why we shoud all laugh at the same thing.

Irony though is different from humour. It's used to make a point rather than make us chuckle. In the UK i think it's very much part of our daily conversations, and when people use it there never seems to be any confusion or mis-understanding. In my, albeit limited, communications with Americans, including on this forum, there does however seem to be on occasion an issue of misunderstanding.

Jopha's post is one such example.

My only guess is that for some Americans irony is not something they use to express themselves and as such they tend to take things they hear literally and at face value, in so doing missing the intended meaning. Just a guess...

[Publicus]

[ From Rixalex:

What tickles a person is a personal thing of course. Like you i find nothing remotely funny about Benny Hill or Mr Bean. Other people do though and that's fine - no reason why we shoud all laugh at the same thing.

Irony though is different from humour. It's used to make a point rather than make us chuckle. In the UK i think it's very much part of our daily conversations, and when people use it there never seems to be any confusion or mis-understanding. In my, albeit limited, communications with Americans, including on this forum, there does however seem to be on occasion an issue of misunderstanding.

Jopha's post is one such example.

My only guess is that for some Americans irony is not something they use to express themselves and as such they tend to take things they hear literally and at face value, in so doing missing the intended meaning. Just a guess...

Personal sure, and culture plays a significant role. In so-called Modern American English we tend towards identifying "unintended consequences" and "unforseen variations" even tho we always are attentive individually and collectively to "expect the unexpected." We also say "The irony of it is..." but often in pointed or especially memorable instances.

Because any language reflects cultural behaviors (behaviours) and underlying assumptions, I too have found that remarks I say to many farang are not identified properly/appropriately, and I see that as cultural. Identical statements I say to fellow Americans are innately clear and immediately understood and appreciated.

Also we in the US like to play with the language, invoking laffs, such as saying, "There's a lot of seriousity around here!" Hardly any farang appreciate what otherwise is often seen as murdering the language so that too is cultural in my book.

Many Australians especially like to point out there's a distincltly Australian sense of humor (what I call gallows humor). That can be identified as a national characteristic or trait, but it's cultural for sure too..

(Also I had a tuff time making this post because I supposedly had too much text cited.)

Edited July 29, 2009 by Publicus

[animatic]

Amazing, but not at all unpredictable or unexpected that people from the US stand up to speak for a Nobel Peace Laureate and one who this week was honored by Amnesty International, Aung San Suu Kyi of fascist Burma, and the farang robotically reach for their clubs and start swinging in one direction only.

We of and in the US know we have our warts. We realistically and first hand know the USA continues to be a work in progress, that the US never was and never will be a finished product. We also know we do have a Consitution that is rooted in the European Enlightenment, especially in respect to its first 10 amendments, aka the Bill of Rights. Indeed, two republics which were radically founded similtaneously in history--the USA and France--focused on the rights of man which we now refer to more broadly as human rights.

It's not intellectually serious to propose that some from the US would want to carpet bomb Burma as if all Americans were (thoroughly discredited) neocons. Yes, the US has clandestinely supported insurgencies in the past, such as the "Contras" in Nicaragua during the Reagan presidency. However, several people in the White House and the US military found those policies to be career enders, especially after they were called to testify before the Congress. Additionally, it's been pointed out in the thread that contrarian bands of fighters in Burma consist of disparate ethnic tribes who want their territory and haven't any interest in gaining control of the state, which moreover would require major campaigns against the army.

(As a Bay Stater, I recognize the "Live Free or Die" motto of the neighboring Granite State. A dagger of a motto but also a clear one!)

I like Abhisit and the Democrat party of Thailand. However, it's more than unfortunate that Abhisit has to squirm his way through explanations of cutting boatloads of refugees loose at sea to perish and of how Thailand and ASEAN are unable to take needed and necessary action against the fascist generals of Burma.

Hear, hear, my friend.

[zzaa09]

The statements by some people in here accusing American companies, aided by the US government, of investing in Myanmar are false and inaccurate. The two toughest positions on sanctions in the world are those effected by the USA and Canada.

Not really.

The US' involvement dates back to Unocal's investment in the Yadana gas field which was made prior to the US sanctions. The sanctions stated that any investment made prior to the date the sanctions came into effect were exempt. There were several US companies here doing business directly with the Myanmar Government prior to the sanctions that continued doing business afterwards, Qualcomm spring to mind with the CDMA telephone network. I'm not sure that they received any aid from the US government though, i doubt they would have needed it anyway.

So Unocal gets taken over by Chevron who remains a major shareholder in Yadana which is a primary source of foreign income. The US isn't particularly good at encouraging these sanctions when corporate profits are at stake....

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gncKIW...sm5419O3oCIGsog

So yes, I think people should be a little weary of believing the US 'holier-than-thou' policy of using sanctions.

The U.S.'s involvement dates back even further.....as was their dedication to win Burma back for the British during the 1940s.

[Johpa]

Those resistence groups are locally based, they have absolutely no intentions of taking on junta outside their support areas and conquering the whole country.

The real problem is that the junta is supported by a great number of people, and even more people will take the govt side if there's any foreign intervention.

The junta is only supported by guns and violence and by the few families who are allowed to profit. It is not actively supported by any of the non-Burman "minorities" who, when added up, make up the majority of the population. Yes, many of the minority groups have made various strategic agreements with the Junta, bu they do not nessecarily support the ruling generals. And Aung San Suu Kyi's movement, primarily ethnic Burmans, still has great support within the country. So the real problem is not that the junta is supported by any great number of people, but that it is supported by, apart from guns and brutality, foreign countries such as the ASEAN countries as well as China. all of whom have their own human rights abuse issues, and are willing to allow the Burmese generals to run amuck as long as they get their own profits and strategic goals.

Look, the world in not perfect, Paradise has yet to be found and Utopia remains a literary genre, but on the continuum of good and evil, the Burmese generals still hold the end position, and it is not on the good side of the continuum. Exactly how we face this, well I don't have the answer and nobody is calling for a foreign invasion, that is just a red herring. So call me a softie, but total appeasement does not appeal to my senses of fairness. Clinton putting some public pressure on ASEAN is a good thing. I don't really think the US thought that ASEAN would expel Burma, but putting on some diplomatic heat did not hurt.

[Johpa]

Not a bash, a genuine question - why is it that a number of Americans, whilst being normal, educated and generally well-rounded people, struggle with the concept of irony?

Given that one of the most popular and influential TV shows in the US is "The Colbert Report" I would tend to disagree. In this case it is a combination of this rather two-dimensional media and my limited writing ability. I should use those little smiley things more often to signal my intent.

[EndofDays]

The statements by some people in here accusing American companies, aided by the US government, of investing in Myanmar are false and inaccurate. The two toughest positions on sanctions in the world are those effected by the USA and Canada.

Not really.

The US' involvement dates back to Unocal's investment in the Yadana gas field which was made prior to the US sanctions. The sanctions stated that any investment made prior to the date the sanctions came into effect were exempt. There were several US companies here doing business directly with the Myanmar Government prior to the sanctions that continued doing business afterwards, Qualcomm spring to mind with the CDMA telephone network. I'm not sure that they received any aid from the US government though, i doubt they would have needed it anyway.

So Unocal gets taken over by Chevron who remains a major shareholder in Yadana which is a primary source of foreign income. The US isn't particularly good at encouraging these sanctions when corporate profits are at stake....

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gncKIW...sm5419O3oCIGsog

So yes, I think people should be a little weary of believing the US 'holier-than-thou' policy of using sanctions.

Again, you ar pathetically wrong. The ban on companies doing business with Burma forces any compnay, even if they already have investments in that country, to pull out. Again, why do you sad people always have to bring the U.S. into this. You complain to high hel_l when the U.S. gets involved, then you complain to high hel_l when the U.S. doesn't get involved. Very sad. I'm not an isolationist but a small part of me would love to see what would become of the world if the U.S. just shut itself politically and militarily from the rest of the world. Interesting to see.

[brahmburgers]

I wish I could see light at the end of the tunnel - in re; to Burma's suffering.

There are recent correlations with Iraq and with former Yugoslovia. Each of those were essentially invaded militarily by western Europe and North American forces led, not surprisingly, by the US.

Part of me wishes the same would happen with Burma, but doubt it will. It certainly wouldn't happen with ASEAN leading the way. ASEAN can't take an initiative about anything. Even if another Khmer Rouge scourge came along in SE Asia, ASEAN would find a way to tolerate it.

I'd like to imagine that major change for the better for Burma will come from withing Burma itself. Indeed, it nearly got going a couple years ago, but the military showed its true colors and came down like the tyrants they are. In the junta's view: if hundreds of monks needed to dragged to prisons and violated, then so be it.

Perhaps a country-wide sustained strike would have the desired effect. The people are already dirt poor, so they don't have a whole lot to lose re; lost wages (who gets wages in Burma, except those involved with the ruling junta?). Would the top thugs direct their soldiers to go in to work places to bludgeon people to go back to work?

I doubt a widespread strike would happen, but am still holding a glimmer of hope that Burma will get decent people in charge in my lifetime (I still have a couple decades left on my warranty). From the bit of interaction I've had with Burma and its people, I feel a keen affinity with them. More so than with Thais. I hope they get a better deal.