This is, put simply, an unacceptable abdication of our moral responsibilities. Even though our standing in the world has been severely diminished by Iraq, we should at least be debating intervention in Burma. There are, no doubt, many logistical complications and unintended consequences that would follow from such a policy. But there are also reasons why it should be a live option. The goal of such an intervention need not be regime change; it should simply be to make sure that a vulnerable population receives the supplies it desperately needs. Of course, if violating the sovereignty of a murderous regime happens to undermine that regime's legitimacy, then that would not be such a terrible result. But this does not necessarily have to be our goal.
Are you kidding me?
As a result of these same a-holes protests regarding our intervention into Iraq, they effectively nullified our ability to "intervene" anywhere in the world. After all, how do we justify losing the life of one American soldier for anything anymore?
Well Gordon, this would be a humanitarian intervention.
At least in Iraq, we had a national interest, oil, but there was also a humanitarian component of our invasion into the country. Have you ever read the reports of the Hussein boys and how they got to break in a bride before she married? What about their Olympic athletes and their run through the hot tar after defeat, ultimately boiling to death.
I guess that humanitarian effort doesn't count because...... why?
Once again, "progressives" show that they have no conscience for the long term consequence of their beliefs. Ween us off of oil through ethanol production; wow, people are now starving. Protest a war; wow, now we've neutered any future military intervention. Give people welfare; wow, now they don't want to work.
Once again, someone please tell me what's so "progressive" about "progressives".