Is It Time To Invade Burma?

Let’s see: first the Wall Street Journal says that Burma should be kicked out of the United Nations (why can’t the US be kicked out, so we would be able to stop funding their rampant anti-Americanism and support of human rights violaters, dictators, and terror supporting nations?), now Time writes

That’s why it’s time to consider a more serious option: invading Burma. Some observers, including former USAID director Andrew Natsios, have called on the U.S. to unilaterally begin air drops to the Burmese people regardless of what the junta says. The Bush Administration has so far rejected the idea — “I can’t imagine us going in without the permission of the Myanmar government,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday — but it’s not without precedent: as Natsios pointed out to the Wall Street Journal, the U.S. has facilitated the delivery of humanitarian aid without the host government’s consent in places like Bosnia and Sudan.

So, it is apparently OK in Liberal World to invade a sovereign nation that has no bearing on US security, is not trying to gain WMD, is not systematically torturing, maiming, raping, and slaughting its citizens on purpose, is not paying families $25k to have their kids blow themselves up in Israel, and is not in violation of 17 UN resolutions, not to mention firing on US forces in the No Fly Zones.

Great. Maybe we could invade New Zealand next.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

3 Responses to “Is It Time To Invade Burma?”

  1. […] William Teach marvels at the Leftists’ rank duplicity on use of military force. […]

  2. Steven says:

    Wow, what a pathetic attempt to defend the Iraq invasion. All decisions of force should be viewed through our best national interest. Therefore we should not invade Burma, but we should also not have invaded Iraq. By your logic the real only difference between the two is the threat to Israel (since no weapons of mass destruction ever showed up anywhere). When in fact our support of Israel is the greatest threat to our national security. From a national security standpoint, I could care less how much a suicide bomber’s family gets paid for killing Israelis, it has no effect on my personal security. It only becomes my problem when we stick our nose where it shouldn’t belong, hello 9/11. Thanks Conservative world.

  3. Perhaps you should read your history, as Iraq is considerably more important then Burma in terms of Middle East peace, and the majority of world intel agencies said Saddam had active WMD programs, as well as so many world leaders including many in the Democrat party.

    Furthermore, do you not see the irony of Newsweek saying we should invade Burma?

Pirate's Cove