When is an invasion not an invasion? When it's a "humanitarian intervention", of course.
Some of the same folks who gave us Iraq, and want to give us Iran now want to throw in Myanmar, if we can find it on a map. The recent cyclone that killed thousands and made hundreds of thousands homeless, in their twisted minds, constitutes yet another opportunity for armed "charity."
“Humanitarian Aid” at Gunpoint Isn't Humanitarian
By Mel Reeves
The esteemed newspaper of record The New York Times ran an editorial last week, written by Robert D. Kaplan, entitled “Aid at the point of a gun.” It recommended a “humanitarian invasion” of Myanmar (Burma) by US military forces “...as part of a coalition including France, Australia and other Western powers...” The invasion's pretext would be to deliver badly needed aid to the victims of Cyclone Nargis, aid which that country's government has been reluctant to accept on the terms favored by its donors.
With the folks who say they want to help Myanmar declaring their willingness to use force to get it done, that country's government appears somewhat justified in its caution. Without a hint of conscious irony, the NY times editorial calls the Myanmar government “the most morally bankrupt on earth.”
The French initially proposed this idea, testing the waters. But Mr. Kaplan is quite serious and takes it a step further, insisting that a humanitarian invasion is “militarily doable” and that “...the challenge would be politics both inside Myanmar and internationally.” Kaplan suggests the deed be executed in coalition with France and others, with UN if possible. So while he should be given credit for checking with others, he left out the most important consideration: national sovereignty, the right of Myanmar's people to determine their own destiny.
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=635&Itemid=1