US invade Burma: Why not?

Timing Invasions

Well, no. It's a bad idea no matter when. After all 350,000 in mass graves in Iraq made no difference.

Of course there's the inevitable Rwanda comparison. Yep, we missed the boat there too.

How about we let the UN handle.. oh wait, that's right. They're busy investigating Human Rights abuses in the US... dont have time for third world. And the Hotels and night life suck. OTOH, they DO have poor kids to get some pedo thrills...

What many... wonder if they mean Noam Chomsky, who denied for a decade the killing fields ever happened, and his slavering moonbat worshippers?

All in all, though.. No. I've learned my lesson. But when Obama gets in and decides to remove Burma's scum government, so we can all see he has an iron will, I'll support it.

Unlike some. :roll:

 

Frankly, I don't know how one would even consider, or ever considered Iraq a war after about the second week. We haven't fought a real army or government ever since then. Small organized gorilla groups yes, but not an army. Iraq is more of a police action now or post war clean-up action, much like what happened after WWII (that as far as I will make that comparison so let's not get crazy with my analogy). Even Afghanistan is hardly a war, we are rooting out the bad guys and fighting small skirmishes and providing security. Not really a war in my mind. Frankly, I don't even recall us declaring war on either place. At best they are military actions.

 

People get killed in all kinds of scenarios but we don't call them wars. I am not trying to under appreciate that American solidiers are in harms way and aren't sacrificing their lives but it seems to me using the word 'War' in describing what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan is inflaming what is really happening there. It's no different than calling someone who has had 1 pint drunk, to use your analogy. It's an exageration of what is happening there and I think it is used for political or emotional purposes. Just my two cents.

Back on thread I am of the mind to be an isolationist with respect to Burma for now. Hatter makes one good point, we are spread too thin with our current deployments.

I don't think being an isolationist is the role of America in general though. We had significant numbers of isolationists (politicians and citizenry) in this country that opposed our involvement in WWII, WWI, Civil War, and Revolutionary War, hmmm I wonder what they would think now.

Not trying to pick an argument just something I don't agree with.

 

This would just be a ridiculous decision and we would get ourselves stuck in another civil war. There's a lot of ethnic tension in Burma, something the MSM fails to report. Just notice how all of these Burmese rebel groups have some sort of ethnicity in their name.

 

Eloquent in its brevity and I couldn't agree more.

Crisis in Lebanon ('58 ), Vietnam ('64), Lebanon again ('83), Desert Storm ('91), Operation Enduring Freedom ('01) and Operation Iraqi Freedom ('02)... All have been deemed military action and not war. Relativity of your perception.

 

Somebody already mentioned the loss of life (over 4,200 US soldiers lost to date). How about the price tag ($604B so far)? Or how many soldiers still deployed in the country (about 144K)?

If it's a semantics issue that's confusing your judgement, you can call the affair in Iraq an "Invasion and Occupation" - I actually think that terminology is more accurate.