The situation in Burma has not improved much in a week, with the potential of 100,000 deaths. The military junta insists on controlling every aspect to the relief assistance, to which they are ill-prepared to handle.
The human toll of this crisis had Romesh Ratnesar, of Time Magazine, wondering aloud – “Is It Time To Bomb Burma.”
Time: Drop Bombs First, Aid Second
Is Time Magazine suddenly taking a neoconservative approach to this crisis? Is Ratnesar’s suggestion valid?
The human toll of this crisis had Romesh Ratnesar, of Time Magazine, wondering aloud – “Is It Time To Bomb Burma.”
Time: Drop Bombs First, Aid Second
Is Time Magazine suddenly taking a neoconservative approach to this crisis? Is Ratnesar’s suggestion valid?
Posts
3 comments:
The article never suggested that we “bomb” Burma. The author was asking whether an invasion of Burma, geared towards humanitarian aid, was justifiable, which I believe it is. The problem is that our military is stretch so thin, because of Bush’s failed policies, that potentially thousands of more people will die.
This is the kind of military action the American people will stand behind and will wind us goodwill around the world.
I meant to say "win (not wind)"
Blue,
Your right, the article only mentioned invading Burma, which should only require straws and spitballs. Burma’s Army will put up some resistant, bombs will be used, and people will die. Your response was very naïve and an example of how those on the Left view the role of the military. The military is ineffective if we do not allow them to engage the enemy without hesitation. Does Somalia ring a bell? Probably not, since it was a Democrat initiative, and Bill Clinton only used our Forces wisely and to fight injustice.
The American people will stand behind the invasion of Burma until your friends start protesting and blaming the Republicans for “invading Burma.” And how is this Bush’s problem anyway? I hate to tell you this Blue, but you are sounding an awful lot like a, dare I say it, NEOCON!
Post a Comment