Hope and morality have their place. And adherence to such principles is without question a virtuous stand. But, much as it may be wished, politics is a domain in which hope and morality do not necessarily translate into policy.

Having witnessed what transpired on the streets of Rangoon in September, having experienced the hospitality of impoverished village communities, having come into contact with personal sagas of love and country lost – change in Burma, so much needed and deserved, demands tough decisions be made; decisions made with an aim to proactively address the situation on the streets and in the fields of the country.

Let's hope for the best and prepare for the worst", was reportedly the message from Burma's long detained and inspirational leader, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, after a rare meeting with other leaders of her National League for Democracy party yesterday. The Burmese people deserve more than hope, they need ideas and actions to move Burma forward. They should be laying the groundwork in preparation for a better day, not having to ready themselves to undergo additional hardship. A broad spectrum of Burmese society, if hearing these words, must be thinking to themselves: "Haven't we been doing this for decades now already?"

The United States, after first expressing unbelievable surprise that talks between Burma's military junta and opposition were not proceeding well, reiterated the standard line: "We once again call on the regime…to begin a time-bound dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi and all relevant parties, including ethnic minorities, immediately," White House spokesperson Tony Fratto told reporters yesterday.

This is essentially the same mantra that the European Envoy to Burma is currently on tour pounding out ad infinitum to leaders of Asian countries

The NLD, United States, European Union, a sea of rights and activists groups are all justifiably "dissatisfied" with the current advances, or lack thereof, in all party talks. But instead of hoping that the regime will suddenly awake from a near 50 year slumber and embrace all that is "right" and "good", initiatives must be undertaken to address the ground reality. If the current approach in unsatisfactory, then change tactics.

Big, tough decisions may have to be made – by everyone; decisions that fall short, possibly well short, of an ideal. Yet, if tomorrow is going to be better and not worse than today, such decisions are not made in defeat.

The International Crisis Group released a detailed report last year on the moribund political crisis in Zimbabwe – a crisis that the Burmese quagmire considerably dwarves on the question of longevity. The report concluded that in order to break the downward spiral and put the country on a road forward, otherwise morally questioned options may have to be considered. Such policies included assurance to the current government that their personal wealth would not be affected as well as protection against certain legal action.

This need not necessarily be part of the "stimulus package" to turn Burma around. But it is imperative that new ideas are brought forth, by all parties to the crisis; new ideas running the entire gamut of hope and morality.

In the words of Isaac Asimov: "Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.

Are we content to let another round of protests end in bloodshed? Will children of Burma be allowed to continue to die from curable diseases? Is the appeal of Rambo that it offers hope, or that it delivers an alternative storyline?