Are We Beacons of Democracy Only When it's Easy?

Our leaders have developed an achingly obvious flair for the dramatic when it comes to talking about democracy and what it takes to change the world. For example,

I will never forget that the only reason I'm standing here today is because somebody, somewhere stood up for me when it was risky. Stood up when it was hard. Stood up when it wasn't popular. And because that somebody stood up, a few more stood up. And then a few thousand stood up. And then a few million stood up. And standing up, with courage and clear purpose, they somehow managed to change the world. -- Barack Obama speech, Jan. 8, 2008

As we become increasingly good about talking about standing up, we seem to become increasingly unwilling to actually stand up and do anything.

Just over 18 months ago, a group of monks, men with no arms and possessions stood up against a brutal dictator who rules with astrology, terror and an army, feeding his insanity with a steady diet of drugs and jewelry sales.

As we talked the talk, the monks walked through the streets of Yangoon, and literally paid with their lives.

Today, Aung Sang Suu Kyi is undergoing a pathetic show trial, and yes I know we are gravely concerned and all that, but really, we aren't doing anything.

Today, in Iran, the crackdown will come. Hundreds, thousands, may be killed in the terror. Freedom and democracy and the right to vote, people are standing up for that today in Iran.

What exactly are we doing to help them?

Besides talking about it.

Comments

[BillMelater]

Why don't you try enlisting?

[StillweRise]

To the author:

What, exactly would you have the U.S. "do" about the situation in a sovern nation beyond "talking" about it?

[p-junkie]

Right!! Nothing short of military action would make the slightest bit of difference and that's not going to happen. AND IT SHOULDN'T!!

[tyruler]

Another interventionist kook. Listen America can't meddle in other country's affairs. When Bush W. stole the election of 2000, Iran and other nations didn't pass resolutions condemning America's political process.

Its up to the people of that nation to govern themselves.

And if you so care about Iranina people rights being tramples then condemn Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabian regimes for their trampeling of the righs of its neigbhors and citizens, openly and with the support of their "friend" the United States.

[dsws]

What are you suggesting we do? Do you really think we can govern Iran with air strikes?

[MarkOfBrooklyn]

It's so easy to forget the troops already in Iraq who are fighting against Iranian supported insurgents. Iran will stepup the violence in Iraq if we "meddle", and will still crack the skulls of their people.

We must also think about Americans troops in Iraq.

[Wisdo]

If you want to be a "beacon" then yes, talking about it is just fine.

I think what you are after sir, is a "sword of democracy"

or a "bunker busting bomb" of democracy.

That way was tried and found wanting, I think youll find.

[BobLablah]

Sadly, Barry doesn't care.

[Wisdo]

Because he hasnt ordered any airstrikes yet?

[BobLablah]

Because he hasn't voiced any support at all for the protesters who want free and fair elections. Viva France, where the prime minister had the balls to speak up.

[jazabelz]

Not true -- he just knows that we could make the situation worse by interfering where we are not welcome. We are not in charge of the world!

[BillMelater]

You must not either, you haven't enlisted.