Comments on: a case of conflicting principles

By: Ufology

Ufology — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 02:39:21 +0000

Somehow i missed the point. Probably lost in translation Anyway … nice blog to visit.

cheers, Ufology.

By: deepali

deepali — Thu, 22 May 2008 13:45:05 +0000

@ Lonnie – Outdated or not, it still occurred, yes? And energy companies are still allowed to do business there, if not directly.
Trade might not be the biggest factor, but it is *a* factor. Cuba might not have trade relations with the US, but it does have them with plenty of other countries.
Regardless, it’s not trade, but investment, that is funding this regime. When we divested from S Africa, we brought down apartheid. We could do the same in Burma.

@ Mrs Micah – Ideally “working with them” would include only gaining permission to enter the affected regions… and nothing else.

By: Lonnie Bruner

Lonnie Bruner — Thu, 22 May 2008 12:51:28 +0000

That link you put describing Halliburton’s business dealings in Burma is out-dated. Actually, Bush recently put stronger trade restrictions on Burma than any other US president. Now, even the major credit cards can’t do business there. I know this because I visited Burma last year and had to use a 4-inch stack of paper cash; everyone blamed Bush on the lack of credit card options.

But all this is moot. We know that trade is not the main factor to determine whether a bad regime will stay in power. If that were the case, Castro would’ve been gone a long time ago. Burma has been run by the military since 1962. That’s not an easy thing to get rid of.

By: Mrs. Micah

Mrs. Micah — Wed, 21 May 2008 16:51:18 +0000

Indeed. To my mind the possibility of helping some people trumps the other. Ideally, when this is better recovered-from, it’ll be easier for people to try opposing the junta, etc. For now, working with them may be the best option.