[governsleastgovernsbest]

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Myanmar hawks of the NY Times. Ping to Today show list.

[Southerngl]

Those poor Burmese victims need a US invastion STAT!

Screw Iraq, they like being put in a wood chipper and who are we to question?

/S

[2ndDivisionVet]

Okay: Draft every ink-stained wretch and tough talker from every newsroom, ACORN office, lefty blog and NGO, put them in a uniform, give them a weekend-long orientation, hand them a parachute and an M-16, and we’ll see how enthused they are about military action! Morons!

[Kozak]

We had to burn the village to save it?
Wasn’t that the “ironic” quote the Left was so in love with in Vietnam?

[theDentist]

Once again, a liberal shows that they believe the Military should be used for social programs and humanitarian missions. While they can be ordered for such things, the primary purpose of the Military is to BREAK THINGS.

But, I guess the question for this yahoo is: We'd have to depose the leadership too. If we do militarily invade to help the people, what is our exit strategy?

[gusopol3]

Kaplan’s not such a bad guy; has even written in support of what was accomplished in Viet Nam.

[A Balrog of Morgoth]

Let the French and the Germans spearhead this one.

[ishabibble]

>>Of course, the approval of the United Nations Security Council would be best, but China — the junta’s best friend — would likely veto it.<<

The situation in Burma is, by far, the best example of what a useless and corrupt organization the U.N. is, and for this happyhead idiot to suggest that the U.S. must invade Burma to save those people is even more damning. The might of the U.S. military is just fine as long as it is under the control of the pesthole U.N.?

First Lady Laura Bush has been on top of this since it happened. Did anyone at the NYT bother to listen to her?

[Stepan12]

This is rich! The New York Times is adopting a Rambo foreign policy.

Stallone's new flick is how Rambo kicks butt in Burma.

[wolfcreek]

Guess the Junta leaders were correct in their fears.

[Joe Boucher]

Let’s be honest, there isn’t 5 percent of the American populace that truly gives a rats patootie about Myanmar.
We have zero national interests here. It is in the Chi-coms back yard, let them deal with it.

[gridlock]

Looks like a job for be Blue Helmets...

[Wavrnr10]

I don’t know why we don’t just start doing random airdrops of the supplies. Is the myanmar Air Force going to keep us out?

[Rummyfan]

the New York Times demonstrates that the MSM isn't opposed to America's invasion of foreign countries. There's really only one precondition: the national security interests of the United States must not be at stake.

Libs are always for use of the United States military as long as there is no national interest for us. See: all military operations under the Clinton Administration.

[Free Vulcan]

The left only opposed Iraq because it was a vehicle to oppose a Republican and not make it look like vile partisanship. That is the only reason.

[ken21]

liberals have always done this.

remember darfur?

they want intervention.

remember vietnam?

that was a liberal war until the left dumped it on nixon.

and, dumped nixon.

the results:

1. opec

2. a sunni insurgency.

3. a shiite insurgency.

but most americans don’t know the difference between the sunni’s and shia,

nor could they locate countries in the middle east.

we haven’t recovered from the carter administration, nor has any u.s. president since dealt effectively with the problem.

[libh8er]

Send Stallone and his mercenaries... this time for real !

[popdonnelly]

Invade the country because we don’t like the government? Hasn’t the Left accused the U.S. of this many times?

We invaded Somalia for humanitarian reasons, and our liberal President Clinton pulled them out. Somalia has turned out real well.

[popdonnelly]

How could I forget Haiti? That turned out real well, too.