I'm all for the option of invading just about anyone, at least in the sense that I believe in a doctrine of conditional sovereignty. That's to say, there's no reason why a dictatorship should expect its sovereignty to be as respected as, say, New Zealand's.Easy for him to say, he's one of those Canadians who makes a living being more "American" than most Americans, yet he'll never be carrying a gun anywhere except to a photo session.
However, I'd be reluctant to send the boys into Rangoon on the say so of Time magazine. If we've learned anything from the past five years, it's that the media, the Democratic Senators, the think-tank experts and large numbers of other fast-molting hawks are on board only until the first setback, or the first "atrocity".Or until they realize they were lied to, & (what probably really made them change their minds) were stupid enough to believe the lies about "threats to our national security." (By the way, it's not just "the boys" in the services any more, though we realize Mr. Steyn thinks whitey isn't breeding enough to keep up w/ the brown hordes, & doubtless would like to set up some of those SS-style breeding houses for "the boys" when they get back from the latest adventure.) Oddly enough, another dipstick mentioned invasion of Myanmar/Burma & compared it to invading New Zealand in a recent item. Was that part of the talking point issued to all the droolers? Can't these fucks even do a rewrite?
Let’s see: first the Wall Street Journal says that Burma should be kicked out of the United Nations (why can’t the US be kicked out, so we would be able to stop funding their rampant anti-Americanism and support of human rights violaters [sic], dictators, and terror supporting nations?) [...] So, it is apparently OK in Liberal World to invade a sovereign nation that has no bearing on US security, is not trying to gain WMD, is not systematically torturing, maiming, raping, and slaughting [sic] its citizens on purpose, is not paying families $25k to have their kids blow themselves up in Israel, and is not in violation of 17 UN resolutions, not to mention firing on US forces in the No Fly Zones. Great. Maybe we could invade New Zealand next.What horseshit. First Mr. Rum, Sodomy & The Lash is decrying the U. N.; a paragraph later a U. N. resolution is good reason to invade a sovereign nation whose greatest bearing on U. S. security was as an oppositional force to Iran. Now, of course, the president of Iran makes announced visits to Baghdad & is openly welcomed, but Bush, Cheney, & Rice have to sneak into Iraq unannounced. Final quibble: There's no real desire to "send the boys into Rangoon" in the Time article, at the most there is talk of securing the flooded areas to insure supply of food, medicine, etc. Leave it to clowns like Steyn & "William Teach" to read the Time headline & get all squishy in the Depends™, rather than read the whole thing & comment sensibly. Oh. Unocal & their ilk already have most of the oil in Burma/Myanmar in their pockets, in coöperation w/ the generals, so there's no real reason to "invade." And there may be some sort of agenda, or instructions from Vast Right Wing Conspiracy HQ, as to the reaction to have (bash the U. N., the media, Democratic Senators & non-Heritage Foundation/AEI think-thank experts not on the non-stop war bandwagon).