Should These United States Go To War With Myanmar?

I think that that would be a much more just war than the war in Iraq but the bottom line is we just can't afford it. We should influence the UN to do something, however.

 

Do they have oil?

 

Definitely not! They have to meet all the criteria...The people there will just have to put up with the situation until enough oil is discovered there and the leaders try to kill Dubya's paw...

 

Not unless they have weapons of mass destruction capable of being used against the United States within 15 minutes.

 

Not for any reason but a direct and unprovoked assault on the US Embassy, its personnel, any US citizen in their country.

We are not the world's big brother, not the keeper of democracy, not the owner and giver of democracy.

NO. no. no. no. no. no. no.

What ? what did you say ?

They have oil ?

oh. uhmmm.....

you know, I think we should.

 

We will NOT go to war with Myanmar.

We could possibly engage in actions classified as "military operations other than war," which could possibly include utilizing military forces to provide security, humanitarian efforts, etc. But we would do this with a United Nations cooperation, with the support and cooperation of other nations; and more importantly, with the cooperation and partnership of non-governmental organizations.

 

Should we go to war with Myanmar? No. They pose no threat to US national security. We cannot go around the world solving everyone's problems. Myanmar must solve its own problems.

 

How does the idea of the U.S. waring with Burma, get interjected here?

And I reject the notion that the U.S. should keep it's value system out of others business. I want us to provide safety for democracies, and hope for others, and when brutal dictators emerge, we should firmly deal with them. but that's just me.

 

I am sure you could do a google search and find out. If they have it, maybe you and George can dawn your Captain America outfits and lead the charge.

 

==Well the founders of our Republic would not have agreed with that. In fact Washington, in his famous farewell address, clearly warns against such policies. I would argue that playing the world's police is one reason we are in the mess we are in now.

Many modern conservatives could learn some good lessons from the founders.

 

It is a good trhing the French at one time didn't hold to such a notion. We might not be here to make such claims of our Founders if they had.

 

France was a monarchical state at the time. It wasn't interested in protecting democracy. It was interested in undermining their mortal enemies, the British.

 

OK?

 

They have opium.

 

Simply saying that France wasn't just being a benevolent state. France used us as a pawn against Britain. Granted, we benefited, but our benefit was not in the forefront of the French state's policy.

 

OK?

 

1. We are not the French.

2. Our founders kept us out of the war between France and England when both powers were trying to draw us into it.

3. Washington warned against involving ourselves in the affairs of other nations.

4. We should take his advice. It would save us money, blood, and tears.

 

Apparently, they do.

http://www.bnd.com/239/story/140500.html

 

It would allow Saddam Husseins, the Idi Amins and the like, the freedom to murder innocent people. Money, blood and tears are sometimes necessary expenditures in this world, to protect its citizens.