Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

Still wanting to invade Myanmar
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, June 03, 2008

Why is it the left is always for the war we're not fighting and always against the one we are fighting?

The New Republic says we've committed "an unacceptable abdication of our moral responsibilities" by not putting together, militarily one assumes, some sort of "humanitarian intervention designed to resolve the situation" in Myanmar.

But ending the brutal regime in Iraq, where rape rooms and trips through wood chippers seemed to be the norm and mass graves were common wasn't on the same par with Myanmar I guess? I mean if the basis for "intervention" is on humanitarian grounds, then certainly the same argument can be made for Iraq (and Sudan, and Zimbabwe, etc.)

Cognitive dissonance is all I can attribute it too. And if you want a clue to how absolutely absurd this idea is, why feast your eyes on this line:
The goal of such an intervention need not be regime change; it should simply be to make sure that a vulnerable population receives the supplies it desperately needs.
Oh, so a regime which has resisted present attempts to flood the country with aid now would simply roll over and watch from the sidelines if such a military backed intervention were made, is that the argument?

I mean why not add a war to the problems these people are now facing - yeah, that's the ticket.

Sounds like something Obama would dream up.
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

The New Republic says we’ve committed "an unacceptable abdication of our moral responsibilities" by not putting together, militarily one assumes, some sort of "humanitarian intervention designed to resolve the situation" in Myanmar.
Don’t worry....I remember quite well the same howls of outrage when we allowed Saddam to run rampant back in the day, way back to before Gulf War 1. And I particularly remember the bitterness over our abandonment of our Kurdish allies. So be comforted that if an eeeeeeeeeeeevil Republican ever does decide to do something in this area, the usual subjects will throw this down the memory hole and proceed to imitate screech owls so filled with indignation will they be!

Written By: shark
URL: http://
1) First there are SEVERAL internal rebellions going on in Myanmar, so once we’re there, "We’re going to be in the middle of a civil war(s)";
2) This will only be the EXCUSE given by the US, when the REAL goal will be Myanmar’s Oil/Natural Gas/Rice.....
3) Oh and then once 500 Americans have died, Anthony Lewis/Andrew Sullivan/TNR will "realize" the error of their position, and reverse their position, calling for immediate withdrawal and excoriating the Administration for their ineptitude.
Written By: Joe
URL: http://

Unless the current president has the "correct" stance on gay marriage. In that case, Sullivan is with him until the bitter end...
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Shark, *LOL* I are correct.
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
No blood for mud.
Written By: Augustus
URL: http://
Lets send in John Rambo.

Given that Burma is a client state of China, how long before we end up with a perpetual war between proxies of the US and China.
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
If there was a war, and there won’t be because there will be niceness beams flowing from all round the world in support, but if there WERE a war, it would be a good war, and worthy of any blood and treasure that we’d expend.

And Muslim extremists, who we’ve really peeved in Iraq and the world over, will totally and completely avoid Myanmar and will let us go about our aid the locals activities unmolested.

Written By: looker
URL: http://
Afghanistan had the "brutal winter," Iraq had the ’sandstorm of doom,’ what would fit for Myanmar?
Written By: andrew
URL: http://
what would fit for Myanmar?

The Slough of Despond?
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
No blood for mud.
Bithead ought to make that Snark of the Day.

I recounted in a post on 9/11 that in a conversation with a leftish acquaintance I said "Every single thing Bush does can’t be wrong." His response? "Yes, it can!". That’s the mindset here. If Bush comes out tomorrow for invasion of Burma, these guys will spin to oppose it faster than a figure skater.

I’ve often wondered what it’s like to give such control over your life to another person that they can force you to think anything they want. Bush can do that to the left. All he has to do is take a position, and they’ll reflexively take the opposite. Don’t they feel like puppets under his control?
Written By: Billy Hollis
I presume Obama would possibly be in favor of bombing Burma, since that was his answer to problems in Pakistan. Or maybe he’s only in favor of bombing allies. That wouldn’t really surprise me.
Written By: JorgXMcKie
URL: http://
Q: If we took a giant saw and cut Burma loose from it’s continental plate, forced it down until it was flooded, killing everyone and destroying everything there, how would it affect our lives?

A: It would not affect us at all.

That is the definition of "not in our national interest."
Written By: arch
URL: http://
Afghanistan had the "brutal winter," Iraq had the ’sandstorm of doom,’ what would fit for Myanmar?
The Moonsoons of Doom!!!

What should we do?

Arm the population with liberator pistols and 1 month of rations. All of them. Take no sides except removing the status quo. Give them a translated copy of the Declaration of Independence Constitution and Bill of Rights. Tell them, it’s worked for us, but hey, make your own rules up.

What will we do?

Plead with the ruling junta, through the UN and other aid agencies, to allow more aid to flow more freely into the country.
Written By: Keith_Indy

Actually, I’ve supported Operation Iraqi Freedom largely because I’m a liberal.

President John Kennedy, 1961:

"Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

President Bill Clinton, 1998:

"In the century we’re leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we’ll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace."

"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government — a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort."

President Bill Clinton, 1998:

"The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq’s history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else.

The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life."

President George W. Bush, 2004:

"For decades, free nations tolerated oppression in the Middle East for the sake of stability. In practice, this approach brought little stability, and much oppression. So I have changed this policy. In the short-term, we will work with every government in the Middle East dedicated to destroying the terrorist networks. In the longer-term, we will expect a higher standard of reform and democracy from our friends in the region. Democracy and reform will make those nations stronger and more stable, and make the world more secure by undermining terrorism at it source. Democratic institutions in the Middle East will not grow overnight; in America, they grew over generations. Yet the nations of the Middle East will find, as we have found, the only path to true progress is the path of freedom and justice and democracy."

Written By: Eric Chen
URL: http://
Actually, I’ve supported Operation Iraqi Freedom largely because I’m a liberal.
Well I hate to tell you this Eric, but you’re the exception, not the rule.
Written By: McQ

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks