Burma

[Ironside]

In many cases the nature of the revolution will define the nature of the state that comes from that revolution. If the Junta is overthrown by force, having gained power through force, then you are starting a vicious cycle which will ultimately not benefit Burma in the slightest.

Peaceful protest will be more painful but it has the potentional to have more positive long-term results.

Ah, but you still need military support if those in power can cause massacres without severe consequences.
Now, it should be enough if for example the highest military commander of the forces in Rangoon had joined his forces with the people. Beating those down would be quite hard and probably trigger a civil war (and that at a point were the rebels got very high support).

[Reverend Joe]

I think the point that the supporters of a peaceful revolution are trying to make is that nonviolent resistance itself is the key to persuading, and thus disarming, the military and the power structure. No revolution has ever come about through simple peaceful protests. But if the resistance movement can convince the military to refuse to perform any more massacres or beatings, mainly by making these massacres seem futile, then they will win through sheer force of will. It is one of the hardest things in the world to do, but it is also one of the most effective vehicles of change, when it finally works.

[Marshal Murat]

This makes me sad.

[Lemur]

The situation in Burma makes me think that the right to keep and bear arms would have radically changed the equation, had it been part of the culture and legal heritage. If a small percentage of civilians were armed, the military regime would have needed to be much more careful about where to send troops. And the soldiers themselves would have been more thoughtful about facing down thousands of protesters, if they knew that some were armed.

A lot of folks scoff at the "prevention of tyranny" argument for gun ownership, but let's face it -- peaceful revolution does not work if the ruling regime has any support from the outside (cough, India, cough, China).

[AntiochusIII]

I'm not sure guns would help, Lemur. The government would just drive the armed citizens into the jungle and call them rebels, similar to what happens in various South and Central American countries.

There's just no infrastructure for a popular revolution in Burma to succeed. Not as long as China keeps providing the regime with whatever it needs; not without a middle class; and not without continuous resistance, which to most Burmese translates to certain death by the hands of the junta.

[Slyspy]

The situation in Burma makes me think that the right to keep and bear arms would have radically changed the equation, had it been part of the culture and legal heritage. If a small percentage of civilians were armed, the military regime would have needed to be much more careful about where to send troops. And the soldiers themselves would have been more thoughtful about facing down thousands of protesters, if they knew that some were armed.

A lot of folks scoff at the "prevention of tyranny" argument for gun ownership, but let's face it -- peaceful revolution does not work if the ruling regime has any support from the outside (cough, India, cough, China).

Rubbish, it would simply have raised the death toll terribly.

[Lemur]

Slyspy, Antiochus, I hear what you're saying. From another discussion:

The days of the Revolutionary War are over. Native Americans had guns. The Iraqi insurgency even has pretty decent guns (AK-47s). Having guns is just an invitation to get slaughtered. Without equivalent firepower, no militia or popular uprising has any chance against a modern army. Being seen holding a gun simply means "shoot me first". There's a reason why IEDs are the weapon of choice in Iraq. Every time that the insurgency tries to stand and fight, or even snipe at the troops, they get mowed down. If the Burmese people suddenly find massive caches of assault rifles, body armor, RPGs, armored vehicles and air support, let me know.

Good points all. I guess I'm just terribly frustrated at what's going on in Burma, and I wish the protesters could do more than march and get shot/beaten. At the moment, it looks as though their bid for democracy is on hold. Very depressing.

[AntiochusIII]

Good points all. I guess I'm just terribly frustrated at what's going on in Burma, and I wish the protesters could do more than march and get shot/beaten. At the moment, it looks as though their bid for democracy is on hold. Very depressing.

Oh, certainly, I desperately despise such thuggish regimes as that of the current Burmese -- pardon, Myanmar -- government.

I guess it was cynicism that holds me back from truly applauding their hopeless cause. Despite massive international pressures, which the U.S. essentially leads by the way (good for them), the leader of the Burmese Democrats [note: no US correlation] has yet to be released from her years of "house arrest." I suspect she'll never get out alive.

Considering the position of monks in Southeast Asian society -- very elevated, almost like a caste of Brahmans -- the sheer audacity in the methods used in suppressing them expresses very well how far the bunch of scums in charge will go in protecting their pathetic little warlord status from crumbling.

The only way to end the regime in the near future would be a Chinese embargo, which we'll not likely see for a long time. The Old Men in Beijing are far too Machiavellian in their neo-colonialism to care about such trifles as a few dead and tortured monks.

Apologies to the noble Machiavelli for the abuse of his name.