Monday, May 12, 2008

Interesting article from Time. Of course, I cannot imagine any scenario in which our current left would ever agree to a full invasion of any country for any reason.

The disaster in Burma presents the world with perhaps its most serious humanitarian crisis since the 2004 Asian tsunami. By most reliable estimates, close to 100,000 people are dead. Delays in delivering relief to the victims, the inaccessibility of the stricken areas and the poor state of Burma’s infrastructure and health systems mean that number is sure to rise. With as many as 1 million people still at risk, it is conceivable that the death toll will, within days, approach that of the entire number of civilians killed in the genocide in Darfur.

So what is the world doing about it? Not much.

I’m not sure why the free world hasn’t gotten to the point where they will “deliver” humanitarian aid via tank. Darfur, Myanmar, any other number of places - just deliver the packages with giant American flags on them via tank and “unauthorized” air drop.

Popularity: 6% [?]

Posted by: PrivatePigg in: Democrats, Genocide, Poverty at 4:00 pm

Permalink | trackback (right click and save) | 
One Response to “Should We Invade Burma?”
  1. 1
    2Hotel9 Says:

    First, it is Burma. Second, the “government” of Burma is a Marxist nightmare, and they are all to happy to allow 100s of thousands of people to die slow agonizing deaths. We have the physical capability to airdrop food, water, and emergency shelter materials to any point on the face of this planet, and we damned well should have been doing so within 24 hours of Nargis making landfall. Just as we did after Katrina.