I just don't think you invade other countries and get your own troops killed for mere morality.

OK, now we're getting somewhere. I wouldn't agree with that as a blanket statement. After the Holocaust the world agreed that such a thing must never be allowed to happen again. To stop a genocide basically means using your military for purely humanitarian purposes. We didn't do this in Rwanda, but many (myself included) feel we should have. We did do this to some extent in Somalia but when our troops started getting killed we got the hell out.

To me, it's a difficult moral question to decide how many of our own we should be willing to have killed to save a large number of "others". I agree the bar has to be set pretty high to consider such an intervention. But I wouldn't say they should never be done.

Just because something is morally justifiable doesn't necessarily make it a good idea. 'But I Was Right' is probably the world's most popular epitaph.

No responsible military leader would allow C130's to invade Burmese air space without first taking out their defensive capabilities. Remember Shock and Awe? And how can that be done without also taking out much of the government's capability to manage the distribution of dropped supplies. Without government control won't the biggest and baddest dudes in country simply loot the supplies and resell at a nice profit. What is the plan for after any supply drop?

It seems to me that it is all in or nothing for this situation. Are we prepared for Iraq, Part Deux at this moment in history?

Coercive humanitarian intervention? How can you use such a phrase?

Ratnesar uses it in his piece, although I believe it goes all the way back to Boutros-Boutros Ghali.

Invading Burma may not be the most effective way to help the Burmese people. But if it were, I have no doubt that it would be morally justifiable.

I don't disagree. I just don't think you invade other countries and get your own troops killed for mere morality. We've got a humanitarian interest in helping the Burmese people but not a national security interest worth the risk of American lives.

Coercive humanitarian intervention? How can you use such a phrase? The key point is this: The people receiving humanitarian assistance are not the ones being coerced!!!

We wouldn't be helping them against their will, we'd be helping them against their government's will! And the people have already rejected their government: They voted them out, but were ignored; they rose up in defiance, but were crushed.

Invading Burma may not be the most effective way to help the Burmese people. But if it were, I have no doubt that it would be morally justifiable.

So, which is more sacred, life or sovereignty?

for who? and why?

Also, if we don't recognize the Junta as the valid government of Burma, why are we even asking them for permission?

I smell a strong odor of hypocrisy on this one. I guess liberals consider it alright to unilaterally invade another country as long as it's for liberal causes. Bill Clinton used the army to overthrow the government of Haiti and install our puppet leader, for instance.

So, which is more sacred, life or sovereignty?

You're asking the wrong question. What you should be asking is whether or not it's in our national interest to do so.

Careful with this clear moral thinking -that might allow any one to destroy us because of our abortion mills.

Damn their ain't nothing like a liberal talking about change to get the ball rolling and nothing like it in the history of the world that COMES CLOSE TO GETTING SOMETHING IMPORTANT DONE!!!

What's more interesting is whether China will end up doing it, at the "invitation" of the government like USSR's entry into Afghanistan. If the Chinese military goes in to "help," I doubt they will be leaving any time soon. Or is China happy enough with the existing government? Feel free to correct me, I'm no China-Burma expert.

Or when the Iranians failed to respond adequately after the Qom earthquake? Or when the Chinese do worse to their own citizens in the name of preserving harmony over, say, the period of the last 60 years?

Also, if we don't recognize the Junta as the valid government of Burma, why are we even asking them for permission?