A good reason for the US to invade another foreign country ...

It has vast reserves of natural gas though. I believe that any military intervention by western powers or even India would have serious repercussions because China wouldn't tolerate any intervention in its backyard. Burma has been a flashpoint point between India and China - India is looking for natural gas and China maintains a stronghold in the region since it provides a strategic edge.

There's little the US and its allies can do at the moment because it has almost no trade relations with the US, the western powers would have to look towards the regional powers to act on the matter.

Hi Dennis, I'm close to agreeing with you on such a purely humanitarian mission. Unfortunately, there's no oil in Burma (as far as I know), so bad luck for the poor victims there.

Yes-- no oil. That's also why we won't help Darfur-- no oil in the Sudan!
/sarcasm

Mridul, thanks for this info.

Krishna, the oil in Darfur/Sudan already 'belongs' to China ;)

Agreed that much of the lack of response in Burma and Sudan is due to the presence of China. Great article, Dennis. I think it's not too late, though. There are still countless victims who could be helped, or saved, through US military intervention.

Excellent analysis, Mridul.

In my opinion, there's very rarely a very good reason to invade another country. Even if that country is unarguably repressive - that just kicks open the door enough to that anyone could argue for invading another nation on shaky moral grounds. Invading another nation should only be the last resort of a country for the sake of self-defense.

Yes, Cuba. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

Cuba - One of the first countries to offer aid, Cuba offered to send 1,586 doctors and 26 tons of medicine. This aid was rejected by the State Department. [8]

...and Venezuela too. Venezuela

which offered one million barrels of oil and 5 million dollars in aid to the United States. This aid was rejected by the State Department.[35].

OK, those are "enemies," right? (I don't think dying and starving and homeless and sick Katrina victims would have given a damn about US politics at that point). But quickly reading down that list, you see a few other rejections of help as well. To France (initially, long delays) for example. And according to the following WaPo article, the US declined 54 of 77 aid offers from allies...

More: Most Katrina Aid From Overseas Went Unclaimed

And while television sets worldwide showed images of New Orleans residents begging to be rescued from rooftops as floodwaters rose, U.S. officials turned down countless offers of allied troops and search-and-rescue teams. The most common responses: "sent letter of thanks" and "will keep offer on hand," the new documents show.

Overall, the United States declined 54 of 77 recorded aid offers from three of its staunchest allies: Canada, Britain and Israel, according to a 40-page State Department table of the offers that had been received as of January 2006.

Moreover, (PDF file)

When other countries offered the United States $854 million in cash and oil as foreign aid to help the areas devastated by Hurricane Katrina, they merely accepted 4.7% of the total aid offered, the rest went uncollected.

4.7% acceptance. That's a huge rejection.

The Burmese simply do not have the resources to deliver the required level of aid, but the government is wilfully and callously blocking tangible aid in the form of food, shelter, etc.

This seems to be true, but it can also be easily shown that the US Gov. also willfully blocked tangible aid and assistance, even from other states that had offered help. The outcry was huge at the time and the rest of the world was scratching their heads in disbelief. Maybe they should have considered an emergency invasion to help Katrina victims (thousands of whom are still, by the way, suffering) as the help was rejected and the bodies piled up or out.

While I don't defend the way Katrina played out - 1,800 deaths (the Katrina toll) is a far cry from the potential 100,000 deaths they are talking about in Myanmar.

Had 100,000 people been at serious risk of dying due to inaction by our govt then sure some other countries maybe should have considered forcing their help down our throats fortunately things here, as bad as they were, weren't nearly that bad.

And that's 100,000 people in a much smaller country than the US (47m vs 300m). A proper comparison would be a death toll of over half a million!

I think you need to say something to the effect of "mirror mirror on the wall...."

Oh, and by the way Dennis, I don't think you're nuts or loco or insane (not to be redundant). I think you're spot-on with this one, and along the same lines as many other commentators including NPR's Daniel Shore, and Time Magazine.

Not exactly the most hawkish sources....

;-)

I stretch the point, as you stretch logic. You're nuts. Loco. Insane.

A friendly reminder-- personal attacks are a violation of the COH.

It's cool Krish. I don't get too agitated about these personal attacks. They keep me well sedated here at the asylum.

;-)

Well, they really don't bother me all that much either-- obviously they say more about the person doing the attack than the person they are directing their venom at. However, was I recently subjected to some heavy confrontation in a discussion elsewhere on the Vine recently-- because some people felt I was not diligent enough in searching for, and calling our COH violations. So I've perhaps become a bit over-zealous. (Maybe not such a bad idea anyway...especially good idea to remember to use the ! feature when appropriate).

I understand your point about the lopsidedness of the military action we have taken and the one we haven't. But to be semantic, I'd prefer the UN handled it without it coming down to the US being the junkyard dog.

Based upon their past record-- U.N. forces might only make things worse (do we really need U.N. troops in there raping their women-- don't they have enough problems as it is?)

Based upon their past record-- U.N. forces might only make things worse (do we really need U.N. troops in there raping their women-- don't they have enough problems as it is?)

In any event, I believe that would require Security Council action-- I doubt China would be too happy with the idea of interferring with the "internal affairs" of a dear ally. (And-- if the U.S. was behind it, there is always the possibility that Russia and France might oppose-- for just that reason :)

Krishna, the US usually makes things worse. As for the rape thing, ask the Okinawans about the US military's track record - and there isn't even a war there.

If it's a mission based on humanitarianism and therefore impacts the world (even if only in a spiritual sense), the mission should be a world effort.

Well Martin, way to lay on the abuse. Your comment is utterly devoid of any critical argument. You choose not to refute any point Dennis brought up; ignore completely the topic of Myanmar and the disaster there; or provide any alternate solution.

Rather than the smart-ass comments, could we please stay on topic?

EDK, the topic is the justification of killing for the "higher goal".

For matter of salvation or preemtive.

There are no justifications, however hard you try to find one and then use that basis for progressive expansion and translation for the situations you aim for.

Making hay out of human catastrophies has been tried on so many occasions that one doesn't have to be a wizzard to know what's up when its coming.

Its a veil, a smokescreen. The intent to exploit a crisis not to relieve it but for fooling bystanders and making gain out of it.

As such, I have been 100% on topic while you may want the discussion 100% on smokescreen.

EDK, the topic is the justification of killing for the "higher goal".

For matter of salvation or preemtive.

There are no justifications, however hard you try to find one and then use that basis for progressive expansion and translation for the situations you aim for.

Making hay out of human catastrophies has been tried on so many occasions that one doesn't have to be a wizzard to know what's up when its coming.

Its a veil, a smokescreen. The intent to exploit a crisis not to relieve it but for fooling bystanders and making gain out of it.

As such, I have been 100% on topic while you may want the discussion 100% on smokescreen.

i would assume, then, that you are opposed to the U.S. "invasion"...of Nazi Germany during WWII?

You must mean I left you hungry for more.

That's too kind.

Martin's positive attitude has contributed much to Newsvine. Perhaps we should all nominate him for a RAV?

Back to square one, EDK

Mounting an effective attack on the leader of Myanmar takes how long?

What will the military do then?

How will this military reaction affect the ones supposed to be saved?

How long will it take to compensate for the activity lost on saving the affected?

In such a scenario the aid consists of bodybags.

So stop the handwringing, EDK. Its not about what's best for the victims. Its about what's best for your purposes. Making hay out of a humanitarian catastrophy. There is not even room for doubts about that.

The alternative?

Its freakin' obvious.

Drop the loads from the air right into the villages. No soldier will dare to shoot at any unarmed plane carrying water and food for his starving wife and his thirsty children.

The Myanmar Junta doesn't need to be attacked, it needs to be IGNORED. Violate their airspace at will. Don't even care to talk to them. Exactly what Bernard Kouchner has announced to the Junta what he will do as soon as he's on site: Ignore them, do as if they weren't there.

Its about what's best for your purposes.

Which is the reason the US will not send aid by way of military intervention. There is nothing we stand to gain by a regime change there. It's been stated earlier, but no oil? Sorry dudes you're outta luck.

You are missing two critical things in your righteous indignation Martin E.

1. Flying over Myanmar Airspace without permission could easily be considered an act of war and as such we would still be the "aggressor" if we were to do so.

2. More importantly you are deluded if you seriously think a military junta wouldn't confiscate, and possibly kill their own people doing so, in order to prevent what they would view as an open act of aggression and propaganda distribution from their enemy #1 us. Now, however, by dropping the supplies off without any support we would be putting the civilians we were trying to help at even greater risk than they already are.

Obviously our invading Myanmar to provide humanitarian aid is not a practical or even possible solution. Even if our purpose were purely benevolent the political crisis that would occur from us invading a close ally of China would be pretty insane. However, just blindly dropping supplies to the people of Myanmar is just as impractical.

Honestly I'm amazed that you are attacking Dennis and ED Kain. You don't know their reasoning or justification - instead you just project the worst possible motivations onto them. Go back and read a lot more of Dennis writings and then claim he is a war monger who just wants to take advantage of the tragedy in Myanmar. There is no way you could.

I don't always agree with Dennis - in fact I often don't - but he is far from a Hawk. It is a shame you would say something so egrarious about Dennis without knowing him or his motives at all.

I am not familiar with Kain's writings at all but, even so, I wouldn't be so bold as to presume he wants to take advantage of the people of Myanmar.

I think most people who even imagine this solution (invading to provide help) do so because they feel helpless and frustrated knowing that there is nothing they can do to help. The people in Myanmar are suffering needlessly due, in part, to their leaders destructive policies.

Personally I don't know what to do to help these people. The situation is so incredibly complex and fraught with disaster no matter how you approach it that there is no clean solution. Regrettably tens of thousands of additional people in Myanmar will die all because there is no way to help them.

Well spoken, finalcut. Thanks for the practical approach to a difficult situation.

No soldier will dare to shoot at any unarmed plane carrying water and food for his starving wife and his thirsty children.

How does that soldier know that the U.S. plane he sees in the sky is doing that? And besdies-- that sort of thing happens all the time. Firing at someone bringing humanitarian aid? Her's but one recent example.

So it would be wrong to kill one person to save ten? Or to use force against the Burmese junta, possibly killing some of them, to rescue tens or hundreds of thousands of people?

And who knows if they really would fight back? Their refusal of aid could be all bluster and no substance.

Peace comes at awfully high price sometimes, and I'm not sure sacrificing the lives of thousands of innocents is worth the risk.

I think alotof the opposition to humanitarian efforts we often hear is based on rigid follwoing os some abstract ideological dogma...which sometimes overrides compassion for other human beings...

However, as you pointed out-- their might not necessarily be major hostilities (if any). Sometimes when a very small weak military is confronted by an overfwhelming force of a superpower...they merely collapse --choose not to fight at all.

In fact, there have been numerous examples in history where the mere threat of force has caused the other side to give in to demands-- with neither side firing a shot.

Invasion should never be in America's playbook, not even for humanitarian reasons. We don't need to be nuns with machine guns...

Do you think it was wrong for the U.S. to invade Germany in WWII? (And-- those soldiers weren't even involved in carry bundles of "humanitarian aid"...).

The fact that Auschwitz wasn't "liberated" until 1945 and by Russians and not Americans (and mereley for being on their way) may give you a hint about the "humanitarian character" of that war.

As might give you the footage of carpet bombings by "B-17 (aka) "Liberators" (as if that sarcasm needed specific mention).

Stop living in your cozy myths. WWII didn't happen the way you would like it to have happened.

The fact that Auschwitz wasn't "liberated" until 1945 and by Russians and not Americans (and mereley for being on their way) may give you a hint about the "humanitarian character" of that war.

As might give you the footage of carpet bombings by "B-17 (aka) "Liberators" (as if that sarcasm needed specific mention).

Stop living in your cozy myths. WWII didn't happen the way you would like it to have happened.

As I mentioned previously-- don't you really think Martin should be nominated for a RAV? (If only for his positive attitude...???)

As long as your definition of "positive" refers to "supportive to the spread of death and destruction", I can bear my negativity with pride.

Do you think it was wrong for the U.S. to invade Germany in WWII?

Is defending our allies from an invader the same as invading a country that is not invading anyone?

Is defending our allies from an invader the same as invading a country that is not invading anyone?

Good point. However, the next question that comes to mind is: "Is defending & protecting our allies from atrocities committed by a brutal regime the same as defending & protecting our non-allies from atrocities committed by a brutal regime? ("non-allies" is this case meaning the average citizens of Myanmar?) What's the difference? Sometimes I wondfwer if there's racism involved (after all, the Europeans are "white"-- but when it comes to atrocities committed vs "thierd world peoples"-- be it in Darfur or Myanmar--there seems to be more resistance to helping them...???)

Is defending & protecting our allies from atrocities committed by a brutal regime the same as defending & protecting our non-allies from atrocities committed by a brutal regime? ("non-allies" is this case meaning the average citizens of Myanmar?) What's the difference?

You have to understand what alliances mean. It is about mutual survival. It has nothing to do with racism. Race is an overblown issue. Cultural, economic, and military ties are far more important. What a dangerous precedent: to ivade countries that are brutal and oppressive to their people. Next will be Korea, Iran, China, I mean, where do you draw a line? Or should we only attack regimes that we can easily beat?

You have to understand what alliances mean. It is about mutual survival. It has nothing to do with racism. Race is an overblown issue. Cultural, economic, and military ties are far more important. What a dangerous precedent: to ivade countries that are brutal and oppressive to their people. Next will be Korea, Iran, China, I mean, where do you draw a line? Or should we only attack regimes that we can easily beat?

Sounds a bit like you are reviving the "Domino Theory"-- remeber that one?

Sounds a bit like you are reviving the "Domino Theory"-- remeber that one?

Precisely.