Very recently the left were telling us how Aung San Suu Kyi (not a panda) was an icon of human rights, enthroned in the pantheon with Mandela, Gandhi and the Dalai Lama. Now, it turns out she is a not so thinly veiled, ethnic cleansing, islamophobic racist. As is very often the case, the left back the wrong horse.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

She was given the red carpet treatment by Labour when she opened the party’s then London HQ five years ago.
At the time, Ed Milliband said: “I can think of no better person than the most famous leader of the opposition in the world, if I may say so – and the most distinguished, and the most courageous and the most brave – to open our offices. We have admired from afar, and we have supported your struggles over the past many years. We have seen the courage you have shown, we have seen the fortitude that you have displayed and we are absolutely with you in the fight for ... the transition to a full democracy. We are with you every step of the way. You will be our leader in this struggle.”

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

I agree with you on this. I don't know much about Aung San Suu Kyi but I did see the folly of trying to foster democracy on countries that hadn't had the history that leads up to the establishment of democracy.

Its often forgotten that in the UK the origins of what we call democracy really starts around 10/11 AD and its not until the last century where we got to the point that almost all UK citizens were enfranchised.

Democracy tends to occur where other alternatives have failed badly (in Greece it was the failure of the Tyrannies that destroyed Athens that led to the experiment with the idea of democracy of the citizens).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

I would hasten to add that I agreed with and to an extent still agree with the thinking of those neo cons.

Though I'm not sure the cost to us was worth it....but where I changed my mind was in the expectations.....However, war was always going to happen after 9/11. We were lucky it wasn't with a major country like pakistan.

Edited by Stirlingsays (19 Sep 2017 11.58am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

you can see now why she let go of her family and was able to live for so long under strict conditions and house arrest.

Hard-nosed bitch.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

On some level I agree with them, the idea of regime change in Iraq makes sense. What I disagree with is for who's end, and by whom - The US invasion was about US interests in the region, not the interests of democracy and the people of Iraq, and in the process of that regime change they completely f**ked the country, and it allowed them to plow a huge amount of US taxpayer cash into corporate supporters bank accounts.

But their intention was really about securing oil reserves, creating a client state and strategic ally in the area, they could control (where as Saudi and Kuwait are more problematic).

Realistically, the Iraqi people needed to 'take control of their own destiny'. Iraqi, prior to 2004 was a secular country, and prior to 1991 a very secular country - It seems every time the US took a hand, it effectively strengthened the position of Fundmentalism in the middle east (Iran is now the major player outside of Saudi, and effectively has massive influence over Iraq).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]