Again today, 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.
Thus it is that the NYT op-ed page today runs Aid at the Point of a Gun by Robert D. Kaplan, a national correspondent for The Atlantic and a fellow at the Center for a New American Security. The gist is that while it could bring ongoing obligations, the armed invasion of Myanmar for purposes of bringing aid to the cyclone victims is justifiable and feasible. Extended excerpt [emphasis added]:
France’s foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, has spoken of the possibility of an armed humanitarian intervention, and there is an increasing degree of chatter about the possibility of an American-led invasion of the Irrawaddy River Delta.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓As it happens, American armed forces are now gathered in large numbers in Thailand for the annual multinational military exercise known as Cobra Gold. This means that Navy warships could pass from the Gulf of Thailand through the Strait of Malacca and north up the Bay of Bengal to the Irrawaddy Delta. It was a similar circumstance that had allowed for Navy intervention after the Indian Ocean tsunami of December 2004.
Because oceans are vast and even warships travel comparatively slowly, one should not underestimate the advantage that fate has once again handed us. For example, a carrier strike group, or even a smaller Marine-dominated expeditionary strike group headed by an amphibious ship, could get close to shore and ferry troops and supplies to the most devastated areas on land.
The magic of this is that an enormous amount of assistance can be provided while maintaining a small footprint on shore, greatly reducing the chances of a clash with the Burmese armed forces while nevertheless dealing a hard political blow to the junta. Concomitantly, drops can be made from directly overhead by the Air Force without the need to militarily occupy any Burmese airports.
In other words, this is militarily doable.
Ever think you'd read a columnist writing in the NYT of "the magic" of a military invasion?
I've saved the best for last:
Of course, the approval of the United Nations Security Council would be best, but China — the junta’s best friend — would likely veto it.
So not only is that "magic" invasion "doable," we shouldn't let the absence of UN approval stand in our way!
Just in case people might imagine that, though the Times ran the column, it opposes its argument, check out this editorial which also appears today. Though not as forceful as Kaplan's call for consideration of invasion, it includes this paragraph [emphasis added]:
There is a growing debate about whether this obstruction amounts to a crime against humanity, one that requires the United Nations to forcibly deliver relief supplies under its “responsibility to protect” principle. The European Union’s foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, has suggested the United Nations use “all means” to help the victims. How that would happen is unclear.
By "all means" necessary: right on!
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
If we actually did something like that...
May 14, 2008 - 07:16 ET by on-the-rocksthe NYT would be among the loudest to holler about "John Wayne - cowboy tactics" (as if there is something wrong about that).
It might have been good for the people of Burma if we had launched a few cruise missiles into the junta headquarters, then sent the C-130s in with aid, but with Afghanistan and Iraq on our plates (and the unloyal opposition here), it just wouldn't work.
....and when the chicoms
May 14, 2008 - 13:17 ET by TruthMonger....and when the chicoms immediately launch ww3 in response it will suddenly all become Bush's "incompetenly planned debacle" with "no exit strategy" and "internationally illegal" blah blah blah...
the MSM can easily afford this kind of crap - after all they're completely un-accountable - so they can easily toss this story out there - and be lavished with a ton of humanitarian credit for the idea (without actually doing anything - as usual), and of course the extra added bonus is when Bush refuses to do this - "well, there's no oil there of course - that's why..."
see how easy it is to be diabolical left wing:)?
caveman could do it
»→ Close shave in Burma
May 14, 2008 - 07:17 ET by Cool ArrowDang right, let's go in there. Let's save all them people to the utter embarrassment of their government.
But while we're invading Burma or Mjölnir or whatever they call it, perhaps the Chinese would like to "liberate" Taiwan.
♣ a seal
As long as nobody upsets the UN
May 14, 2008 - 07:30 ET by sarcasmoAnd tries air dropping thousands of single shot pistols (instructions: "shoot your brutal rulers cheaply, the policeman of the world can't invade every hellhole!") along with thousands of 100ml dropper bottles full of bleach (instructions: "add to filthy water, let sit a few hours, drink!").
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
OK, CALL ME A WARMONGER...
May 14, 2008 - 07:51 ET by danybhoyI beat the NYSlimes to the punch, I said we should do just that. The best thing we could do is kill off these punks who run about the most repressive totalitarian communist state in the world. I posted about this a couple of days ago under the same byline...
"Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise" Mark Levin
To play "devil's advocate"...
May 14, 2008 - 08:41 ET by c5thenShould we take the same tactict with the earthquake victims in China? Should we parachute the 82nd Airborne into the area to provide aid and comfort for the population?
Or is it different when not dealing with a very small and realtively weak country whom we can militarily brush asside if we want?
Do you make it a habit of grabbing a homeless person and forcibly taking them to the Y for a shower and then buying them new clothes and a meal and making them eat it?
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
To play "devil's advocate"...
May 14, 2008 - 08:42 ET by c5thenShould we take the same tactict with the earthquake victims in China? Should we parachute the 82nd Airborne into the area to provide aid and comfort for the population?
Or is it different when not dealing with a very small and realtively weak country whom we can militarily brush asside if we want?
Do you make it a habit of grabbing a homeless person and forcibly taking them to the Y for a shower and then buying them new clothes and a meal and making them eat it?
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Tibet could probably use
May 14, 2008 - 13:19 ET by TruthMongerTibet could probably use some "military help" as well:)?
Pakistan? Iranian earthquake victims?
Dangerous and Irresponsible Editorial
May 14, 2008 - 08:26 ET by reasonsjesterThis paragraph in particular draws my ire:
"The magic of this is that an emormous amount of assistance can be provided while maintaining a small footprint on shore, greatly reducing the chances of a clash with the Burmese armed forces while nevertheless dealing a hard political blow to the junta. Concomitantly, drops can be made from directly overhead by the Air Force."
I can say with a high degree of confidence that the military junta would exact reprisals on the villagers who accepted aid after a forced delivery. To clamor for intervention without also advocating the occupation of the territory to protect the native people is absolutely irresponsible. And by extension, the situation would invoke unforeseen consequences that might entail overthrowing the government. This could elicit, thanks in part to the leftist media's created hysteria over American "imperialism," a negative reaction by poweful adversaries like China and Russia. In light of the obvious parallels, it is fair to call this editorial hypocritical. But it should be added that it is also dangerous and irresponsible.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius
That's because you're missing the reasoning the left uses
May 14, 2008 - 08:36 ET by c5thenThe NYT and the liberals don't REALLY care about the people in Myanmar, they just care about the appearance of the US and that we are seen to be doing the right thing. They would be perfectly happy to deliver the aide with a military expeditionary force and then simply leave. After the genocide that occured because of the childish lack of self-esteem that the military rulers have, they NYT and the liberals would wring theit hands and say "at least we tried to help".
It's all about appearances, not actually solving problems.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Vietnam Syndrome
May 15, 2008 - 05:47 ET by reasonsjesterIt might be more accurately said that Vietnam Syndrome is not a description of Americans' "war weariness" in protracted conflicts, it is the desire, evoked often by the mainstream media, to interject our military forces into humanitarian crises and to flee when the blood starts flowing. Thousands perished and hundreds of thousands became refugees after the United States packed up and left Vietnam. Nixon, who had been run from the White House in what was essentially a coup over a two-bit burglary, had advocated an "honorable peace," which entailed threats of reprisals on the North, such as resuming bombings and mining key harbors.
To effect lasting change in a brutal, corrupt regime entails, first, having a plan for drawing the people together into a stable and effective government after the regime's overthrow (this is Clausewitzian); second, having a plan for invading the country while minimizing casualties - in effect, knowing the population and the terrain; third, having a plan to reduce the threat of insurgency, including positioning troops in strategic areas that lend themselves to guerilla warfare; fourth, striking with quick, deadly, and overwhelming force; and fifth having the willpower and resources to occupy the country and to stabilize it; this entails assisting with political consolidation and the functioning of social services, and providing law and order. The last step in the process is especially time consuming and costly, even for the United States.
It would be wise if the editors of the New York Times thought long and hard over the implications of humanitarian intervention in countries with brutal dictatorial regimes. And furthermore, if the U.S. should intervene abroad for humanitarian reasons and the New York Times editors should support the action, the Times staff should not contradict themselves and ask for the United States to immediately retreat after the dust of the first intervention has settled.
OH the Irony!!!!
May 14, 2008 - 08:18 ET by dlwoltmann2005: The US Govenment is totaly clueless about disaster response. We invaded a Soverign nation (Iraq) and should be tried as War Criminals
2008: The US knows how to respond to disasters. We should Invade a soverign nation (Myanmar) to help save these people from an oppressive regime.
Do they even think before they publish this stuff?
I agree that this would be the context by which China would use to take back Taiwan.
and where the hell is FEMA?
May 14, 2008 - 13:21 ET by TruthMongerand where the hell is FEMA? and all this while Bush lounges at a wedding over the weekend?!?!?!?
Bush must hate Burma
France is behind the
May 14, 2008 - 08:19 ET by usinkoreaFrance is behind the idea.
It must be right.
By all means, I encourage
May 14, 2008 - 12:52 ET by BDBy all means, I encourage the frogs to put their expeditionary force on their navy and immediately depart for the Irrawaddy River delta for an immediate invasion.
Of course, there is the problem of how many Gendarmes the Frogs are capable of loading onto their yacht that hovers off Tahiti.
God knows their military couldn't do it without the US to transport them....
And you know what happened
May 15, 2008 - 00:27 ET by usinkoreaAnd you know what happened the last time the US decided to take up the slack in an France-inspired, France-led military effort?
Just shows the hypocrisy
May 14, 2008 - 08:20 ET by c5thenIt's not OK to invade a country and replace the regime that is hiding chemical and biological weapons information from the UN and is responsible for killing 2 million of it's own population over 5 years or so....but it IS OK, and preferable, to invade a country in order to bring "humanitarian aide" after a natural disaster when the government doesn't want it.
In the bigger picture...when is it going to become obvious to even the liberals that the UN is a dysfunctional organization who's sole purpose seems to be to spend the dues money of the member nations without actually accomplishing anything? It's long past time to disband the UN and get on with real and productive diplomacy instead of the corrupt and disingenuous type that now exists.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
I think the Lib Dems....
May 14, 2008 - 08:38 ET by sbarkthe Lib Democrats should quickly via D.Kos, M.Matters etc raise a volunteer army, funded by Soro's to head on over there.......Code Pink must have the "structure" in place, C.Matthews and Olberman the strategists---been at it for years....Big eddie Schultz can supply the arms, Propaganda sure wouldnt be a problem
Possibilites are endless........
I agree
May 14, 2008 - 14:17 ET by NBFYes, but their army cannot have any guns. No hypocrisy allowed.
Excuse me, but isn't that
May 14, 2008 - 08:41 ET by motherbeltExcuse me, but isn't that exactly how the debacle in Somalia occurred?
»→ Yes, motherbelt
May 14, 2008 - 08:57 ET by Cool ArrowThe Dems have been working very hard since JFK to impugn the military.
JFK - Bay of Pigs (White house full of chickens)
Jimmy Carter - Hostage rescue (Jimmy's too scared to try again)
Bill Clinton - The Somali retreat. (Blue dress down)
♣ a seal
And the Repubs? Ike:
May 14, 2008 - 09:19 ET by JerAnd the Repubs?
Ike: Ignored pleas from Hungarian freedom fighters who were flattened under Soviet tanks
Nixon: Abandoned faithful Laotian allies to face probable death during Vietnam withdrawal
Reagan: skedaddled from Beirut after Marines barracks bombing
Bush I: Called off the war against Saddam after seeing "highway of death". Encouraged revolt by the Kurds and then looked the other way
Bush II: Apologized to China for allowing a U.S. aircraft to be rammed and forced to land in its territory. Responded to pre-9/11 threats from bin Laden by withdrawing military assets from forward areas
Jer
»→ OUCH
May 14, 2008 - 09:26 ET by Cool ArrowNo fair fighting fire with fire, Jer.
♣ a seal
Well, Cool, to be fair, I
May 14, 2008 - 09:31 ET by JerWell, Cool, to be fair, I probably agree with just about everything that I listed...couple are debatable, but mostly justifiable.
Jer
Jer
May 14, 2008 - 09:36 ET by OldSailor88Thanks for the clarification. Your point about the apology to China almost ticked me off. We apologized so that we could get our people back. The senior flight engineer on that plane was a good friend of mine. Nothing about that incident was our fault.
Noli habere bovis, vir!
OldSailor...I know we in no
May 14, 2008 - 09:53 ET by JerOldSailor...I know we in no way were at fault. That's why I had slightly mixed feelings about the apology. But I understand the reasons for it, and I of course was extremely gratified by the safe return of the crew [and especially your good friend].
Jer
»→ Well, Jer
May 14, 2008 - 09:37 ET by Cool ArrowI don't buy into the bin Ladin thing since it occurred on our soil and Bill Clinton had already taken a pass on eliminating him.
But you make sense on some of the others.
♣ a seal
Cool...I agree. I do
May 14, 2008 - 09:58 ET by JerCool...I agree. I do believe Clinton was properly focused on the Al Quaeda threat in the final years of his presidency, but I am sure he and other senior members of his administration regret not taking more agressive action in dealing with it. And if they don't regret it, they should.
Jer
Quite the distortion...need a reality break?
May 14, 2008 - 09:31 ET by spiderdanJer --
Not too much in tune with reality, eh, Jer?
The Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II references are pure manure, while the Nixon and Eisenhower points are absolute revisionism at its finest.
Not enough space to make the corrections here, but suffice it to say you need to stay out of the freeway with your toy cars.
Take your best shot, spider.
May 14, 2008 - 09:33 ET by JerTake your best shot, spider.
Jer
come on spider
May 14, 2008 - 10:04 ET by candanceJer was making a valid point that Democrats don't have a monopoly on foreign policy complications. He didn't just invent those things from thin air so don't be so quick to write them off, especially when so many other NBers who understand history agree with him.
No, Democrats don't
May 14, 2008 - 10:51 ET by spiderdanNo, Democrats don't have monopolies on foreign policy disasters, but historically, Democrats set the stage for future administrations that leave very little wiggle room. His/her examples are muddy references to issues that were very complex -- regarding the Eisenhower and Nixon issues -- and left out very key aspects of the Reagan, Bush, and Bush II references.
Revised history, as it seemed here, is just that. I agree the heavy handed Soviet response to the Hungarian rebellion was troubling, but Europe did not wish to set off a much wider conflict. I agree the Laotian elements were abandoned, but no more than the South Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Thai allies. Beirut was manipulated by the Democratic Congress (to end funding the mission) where it needed to be expanded. Bush I -- get a freaking clue. The mandate to liberate Kuwait had been met; the carnage on the Basra highway illustrated the thoroughness of the Iraqi defeat, and without further authority to advance, the coalition accepted Saddam's appeal for a cease fire (which Clinton abandoned and failed to enforce). Finally, Bush II.....see Clinton. Bush "apologized" to China for the surveillance plane incident in order to get the crew back -- just as every US administration has had to endure with the Asian communists (Vietnam, Korea, China...etc.) That was no foreign policy weakness, it was an incident parlayed into a propaganda opportunity for China.
spider...you're taking this
May 14, 2008 - 17:48 ET by Jerspider...you're taking this much too seriously. My original post was simply mirroring the manner in which I believed overly-simplistic, contextually inadequate allegations about Democratic presidents had been posited by Cool Arrow.
That is why I thereafter noted I substantially agreed with the actions taken by the Republican presidents referenced. But I engaged in no revisionism--the statements I made were technically factual. It's just that without appropriate background information, they appear more controversial, open to question, and less justifiable than if they were considered in their full historical perspective.
That said, in almost every case, sound arguments can be made to support either side of this issue. For example...
The CIA had been engaged for years with Montenyard tribesmen in Laos against the Pathet Lao and Vietnamese communist factions. They had always been assured that all measures would be taken to assure their protection in the event of an American withdrawal. They weren't.
This is the first time I have ever heard the precipitous departure from Beirut after the Marine bombing blamed on the Democrats. I have heard Republicans--while blaming Democrats for other failures in the long road to 9/11--concede that the Reagan administration made a mistake in this instance.
Bush I...Thanks. But I've already got a freakin' clue. I agreed with the cessation of Gulf War hostilities then, and I still do. But a legitimate argument could be made for pressing forward and ousting Saddam while we were there with the obvious means to do so--UN mandate or not. His "monstrous" proclivities were already well documented. The atrocities uncovered in Kuwait and his setting fire to the oil fields provided plenty of further pretext.
I was gratified and relieved by the safe return of the crew after our surveillance craft was deliberately attacked in international air space and forced to crash land in Chinese territory. The action was so egregious, however, that I was uncomfortable by the relative quickness of the apology, and, frankly, by the "groveling" language of its text. It begs the question as to whether there may have been further diplomatic or extra-diplomatic options available before resorting to an apology.
The "backing off' of military assets in response to Bin Laden threats speaks for itself.
Jer
This is a serious
May 14, 2008 - 18:01 ET by spiderdanThis is a serious subject. Therefore, I intend to respond commensurately.
Do some research on the Beirut mission and all the variables. While most will insist the mission was simply to end the Israeli occupation, others insist it was Reagan's attempt to install a full time military presence in the region. That political hallucination -- a point of view echoed today by Democrats -- left Reagan in a position of having to keep the mission "peaceful" while not being overly aggressive in pursuit of those attacking Lebanese Christians, Lebanese government authorities, or provoking the Israelis into another full scale assault. When the barracks was destroyed in a suicide bombing, the Democrats howled like the cowards they've repeatedly proven to be -- all the while, demanding Reagan keep the Marine contingent handcuffed and effectively defenseless. Just as Democrats do today, their motives have absolutely nothing to do with military tactics or strategy, it is all about making a Republican administration seem careless, feckless, or inept when engaging a dangerous enemy militarily.
It was a disgusting display of cowardice and partisanship by the Democratic House and Senate, cutting the funding for the mission while using images of our dead Marines being carried from the rubble. I have -- from that day -- resolved myself to never allow another Democrat to assume enough power that might influence such a travesty. Yet, here in America 26 years later, we see the Democrats and their feckless ilk replicate the process -- all in the effort to embarrass or marginalize President Bush.
So, yes -- I take this very seriously....as should you.
spider...I take the
May 14, 2008 - 18:38 ET by Jerspider...I take the underlying events very seriously, but my polemical sparring with Cool was simply that, and not intended to precipitate a full-scale debate on the historical implications of each incident.
Regarding Beirut, I will take your advice and look into the role of the Democratic Congress viz-a-viz limiting Reagan's options.
Also, you might review what the congressional Republicans and their "feckless ilk" did to embarrass and marginalize Clinton in the foreign policy and terrorism arena during the 90's.
Jer
Not being a jerk here -
May 15, 2008 - 05:44 ET by reasonsjesterBut it is vis-a-vis (without the frenchie diacritical), not "viz-a-viz." There is a latin term"viz." - which means roughly, "and so it follows."
If you are going to be the resident liberal, make sure to get the French terms correct.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius
Thanks for the corrrection, reasonsjester.
May 15, 2008 - 08:16 ET by JerThanks for the correction, reasonsjester. Actually, I had spelled it properly in earlier posts, but after seeing it spelled with a "z" by someone a few weeks ago, I thought "hmm....I believe I have been misspelling the term." Unfortunately, I didn't bother to check it out and have spelled it with the "z" a couple of times since.
I am familiar with, and occasionally use, "viz." which I have always understood to mean "namely".
Feel free to correct any further errors of mine you encounter. Grammar policing doesn't bother me.
Jer
Ditto
May 15, 2008 - 08:28 ET by reasonsjesterOK, if you're gracious enough to receive constructive criticism, you may be a better fellow than I first thought.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius
rj...
May 15, 2008 - 08:49 ET by Jer"...you may be a better fellow than I first thought."
Rather than dwell upon the possible implications of that remark, I'll simply say it's gratifying to be headed in the right direction.
Jer
Yes, of course it is BUT
May 14, 2008 - 09:37 ET by VonuANY excuse for war, maybe we can stay 200 years!
By similar logic we
May 14, 2008 - 08:47 ET by MidAmericaBy similar logic we should 'invade' Mexico and establish an aid presence there. Mexican refugees are fleeing their country by the millions and the rulers of Mexico are unable or unwilling to control this humanitarian disaster.
»→ Right MidAmerica
May 14, 2008 - 09:04 ET by Cool ArrowJudging from all the "refugees" flooding over the border it's obvious the Mexican government needs a good thrashing.
♣ a seal
What Mexico needs is an
May 14, 2008 - 13:00 ET by BDWhat Mexico needs is an immediate aid program to arm its citizens. C-130's dropping loaded revolvers with parachutes the size of hankies over Monterray, Chihuahua City, Mexico City etc.
Those citizens can then start shooting the graft laden beaucracy that runs the place and prohibits it rising into the league of civilized nations.
"Excuse me senor, as sherrif it will cost you 5,000 pesos to use the road in my town" BANG!!!!!
Amen. But not even revolvers.
May 14, 2008 - 13:03 ET by sarcasmoCheap, disposable single shot weapons which are so obvious they require 0 training/instruction would be the best thing possible for worldwide liberty. They probably wouldn't cost much more than a Bic pen, when made in quantity. That's why the dictatorship protection racket at the UN is so-viscerally against the idea.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Sarc: Concur with one
May 14, 2008 - 13:13 ET by BDSarc:
Concur with one reservation.
In your scenario they would be used against tyrannical leadership figures in a Mexican administration. That would be fine if it applied, but in this case they would be used against mostly LOCAL thugs (Local Federale's, policemen, politicians, etc)
I'd say all of the above deserve a bit of fear
May 14, 2008 - 13:20 ET by sarcasmoI know this will never happen with any UN-member government, but it would be fascinating if someone somehow privately financed something like this. Would those hypothetical disposaguns be misused occasionally? I'm sure of it. Humans are sometimes evil.
But would the lives of the poorest of the poor in these hellholes improve in the long run by dint of only a few random ones occasionally being armed? I'm just as sure of that, because more people are good than evil. And what good people want is exactly what the UN fears most. Freedom.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Disagree
May 15, 2008 - 05:38 ET by reasonsjesterI believe most people think they are good, including the little Stalinists that run around our media, legislatures, schools and colleges. But what is more evil than socialism, which is essentially a form of slavery to the state, backed up by a large centralized coercive government, which ultimately needs to resort to brutality to make examples of those in favor of liberty as "enemies of the people"?
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius
No, most people *are* good.
May 15, 2008 - 07:16 ET by sarcasmoBelieve me, if as many libertarians were violent and destructive anarchists as accused, there'd be a LOT of violence and destruction in this world in very short order, even though we make up a tiny minority of the population. Same's true of other, larger groups. Plenty of good people don't become killers & get their sick story featured on MSNBC over and over. That's why ordinary citizens, not just government agents, can and should be trusted with deadly force, and THAT's why airdropping single shot pistols on nations where rights are abridged is such a damn good idea.
The single shot weapons would occasionally be misused, of course, but just the chance of an ordinary citizen having one would greatly constrain the power of even the best armed Burma (or Iraq under Saddam, or Saudi, or Iranian.....) style dictatorship. Despite the fact that we know individuals with firearms are the smartest and cheapest possible "smart missile" against oppression, this idea never gets tried. WHY? Does the Second Amendment idea only work within the USA? I think not, but it's never even tried elsewhere due to our bipartisan-beloved UN, so who knows...
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Someone explain something to
May 14, 2008 - 09:22 ET by KillgraveSomeone explain something to me.
The liberals drone on and on and on about how we should "engage" with thugs and have "talks". We also should petition and receive the full blessing of the world body before we invade a sovereign nation.
What happend to that? Or is it safe to say that "consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds".
Boilerplate Pablum
May 14, 2008 - 10:39 ET by CaringwhiteguyThis is exactly the role the Times and the rest of the left envision for the military. They don't like it when we kill bad guys, but they get a Chris Matthews "thrill up their leg" when they see our guys off-loading bags of rice. In the Times' opinion it would be even better if we could send Jimmy Carter along to have a supervise the mission and have a dialogue with the regime.
Time to change their travel guide
May 14, 2008 - 10:44 ET by CobraManI wonder if the New York Times is considering a change to their published Travel Guide?
"Plan your trip to Myanmar with The New York Times Travel Guide, featuring the best hotels, restaurants, museums, shopping, bars and more in Myanmar."
The Times has gone from promoting leisure and travel to invasion and armed conflict, all in the same country! Whodathunkit?
The new travel guide should read:
“Plan your invasion of Myanmar with The New York Times Military Guide, featuring the best Assault Craft, Carriers, Weaponry , Strategy, Tactics and more that our Military has to offer.”
Nice Catch
May 15, 2008 - 05:32 ET by reasonsjesterOur military men are tough, but you my friend deserve a medal for reading the New York Times so attentively. What did you bite on to stem the pain to your brain, wood or rubber?
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius
The US military has but one
May 14, 2008 - 13:37 ET by R D HelmThe US military has but one job, and that is to kill people and break things.
They should not be used as a uniformed meals-on-wheels program.
you beat me to it
May 14, 2008 - 15:20 ET by wizardjrThe lefties see the military as meals on wheels so that they are not so 'militant' and 'scary'. Libs know what a bunch of knee shaking pants wetters they are that's why they hate the military and want it put into such ridiculous roles.
When we're out there killing bad guys it scares the crap out of our lefties. They should move to France.
And... it's long over due for the rest of the world to step up to the plate. The damn French are always pledging millions of dollars and never paying up. Call 'em on it. Same for the rest of the Euro-weenies. Make 'em step up.
Burma never violated any terms of surrender.
May 14, 2008 - 14:08 ET by NBFIraq did (repeatedly).
Send 'em!
May 14, 2008 - 14:21 ET by okiehawk44BHO's going to send Sharpton and Farrakhan to "Sweet Talk" and mesmerize those junta fellas when he's president anyway, why not now?