Is It Time to Invade Burma? [A Just War?]

[jaxson]

When you say “navy and air force”, the assumption is that you are speaking of their military craft & capacity only. When the navy uses cargo ships and drops cargo off at ports, that is not typical “navy” behavior.

 

[gilliam]

When you say “navy and air force”, the assumption is that you are speaking of their military craft & capacity only. When the navy uses cargo ships and drops cargo off at ports, that is not typical “navy” behavior.

I can see where your coming from. By the way, the Navy tends not to use cargo ships for this work, instead opting to utilize amphibious assault ships and hospital ships for this sort of activity. The navy is currently sending: USS Essex (LHD 2) , USS Juneau (LPD 10) and USS Harper’s Ferry (LSD 46). These ships can carry helicopters and landing ships that can carry supplies to and from remote areas. They also utilize C-130s from the Air Force that can carry large amounts of supplies from bases in the area and don’t require extremely long run ways.

 

[jkatpc]

When you say “navy and air force”, the assumption is that you are speaking of their military craft & capacity only. When the navy uses cargo ships and drops cargo off at ports, that is not typical “navy” behavior.

From this post and your previous one, I think you don’t know much about the U.S. Navy. I do. I’ve been in it for nearly 26 years. Virtually all humanitarian assistance we provide (and it is A LOT, by the way–you normally don’t hear about it) is through transport of food and emergency supplies via warships (not cargo ships–we don’t have many of them, and they have another mission). We also have the ability to protect our own supply lines bringing in those supplies (whether via helo or ground). Humanitarian assistance is one of the missions we train for.

This cyclone, like Katrina, is front page news. When it’s page ten stuff, like a small earthquake in Ecuador, you won’t hear about the Navy ship that supplied blankets, MREs and drinking water because it happened to be operating close enough to make a difference. Likewise, you don’t hear about the hospitals built, schools wired for electricity for the first time, roads repaired and wells drilled by our Seabees or the humanitarian aid provided in distressed areas by Navy Sailors during the annual West African Training Cruise (WATC), which has been occurring for two decades. Relying on the MSM to form your opinion of the military is like relying on People magazine to form your opinion of the Catholic Church.

 

[jaxson]

From this post and your previous one, I think you don’t know much about the U.S. Navy. I do. I’ve been in it for nearly 26 years. Virtually all humanitarian assistance we provide (and it is A LOT, by the way–you normally don’t hear about it) is through transport of food and emergency supplies via warships (not cargo ships–we don’t have many of them, and they have another mission). We also have the ability to protect our own supply lines bringing in those supplies (whether via helo or ground). Humanitarian assistance is one of the missions we train for.

This cyclone, like Katrina, is front page news. When it’s page ten stuff, like a small earthquake in Ecuador, you won’t hear about the Navy ship that supplied blankets, MREs and drinking water because it happened to be operating close enough to make a difference. Likewise, you don’t hear about the hospitals built, schools wired for electricity for the first time, roads repaired and wells drilled by our Seabees or the humanitarian aid provided in distressed areas by Navy Sailors during the annual West African Training Cruise (WATC), which has been occurring for two decades. Relying on the MSM to form your opinion of the military is like relying on People magazine to form your opinion of the Catholic Church.

All and nice, but, which part of the Constitution says our navy’s job is to do humanitarian missions?

 

[Tsuwano]

I voted other. The reason is that I don’t think a military invasion would serve the people of Myanmar (Burma) very well at this time, but if I was the President I would be asking if there were ways to overthrow the current regime without resorting to military intervention. Having said that, the present Government in Burma has proven itself illigitimate by its callous disregard for its own people. The generals are little but tyrannical thugs who deserve the wrath of the world community. The world has let them get away with their tyranny far too long and it is time to do something about it.

 

[John_Higgins]

Okay, first, I replied no, because “No, are you goofy?” was not one of the choices.

Let’s go back to Southeast Asia again. Goodness!

Not every question has a military answer. And the poster who said the Navy and Air Force aren’t doing much right now needs to read up on what has been happening in our military since I got out of the Air Force in '74. We seem to be getting closer and closer to the Canadian model of joint forces. Everybody has to be able to do everything. My brother-in-law is a Naval Reserve senior chiet who was in Iraq and Kuwait on the ground. He is currently (still) on active duty at an army fort doing processing of those to be deployed. Everyone’s in the war effort.

Now if you had said how 'bout a Berlin Airlift (Air Force, BTW) kind of operation, I’d have said yes.

John

 

[CreosMary]

I think it is time to Bring in “aid with force”.
Can we stand by and watch millions starve because of an uncaring Government.
There is tonnes of aid waiting at the border but the Burmese authorities want to distribute aid to only those they feel deserving of it.

 

[jkatpc]

All and nice, but, which part of the Constitution says our navy’s job is to do humanitarian missions?

Of course, the constitution doesn’t delineate any of the responsibilities of the Navy. It empowers Congress to do that: “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.” So, if Congress legislates the responsibilities and missions of the Armed Forces, which they have, then those missions and responsibilities are Constitutionally supported.

 

[jaxson]

Of course, the constitution doesn’t delineate any of the responsibilities of the Navy. It empowers Congress to do that: “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.” So, if Congress legislates the responsibilities and missions of the Armed Forces, which they have, then those missions and responsibilities are Constitutionally supported.

Oh please, we cannot allow ourselves to interpret rules like that so liberally. What you are saying then is that it could technically be constitutional for our armed forces to dance in clown suits at birthday parties or drop nukes on orphanages just because our congress decides to do so. If we allow the government to decide what it can and cannot do, then we should not be surprised to see it grant itself unlimited power, destroying our republic and creating an empire. Governments by their own nature will grow and will become more evil in time, that is why the founders demanded a vigilant populace armed with guns and many checkpoints which have now eroded over time.

 

[jkatpc]

I think it is time to Bring in “aid with force”.
Can we stand by and watch millions starve because of an uncaring Government.
There is tonnes of aid waiting at the border but the Burmese authorities want to distribute aid to only those they feel deserving of it.

Exactly. The military can provide this assistance without impact on our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we are trained to conduct humanitarian assistance. I wonder how many people in our country would be opposed to providing aid to Western European country, which if struck by a disaster of this magnitude, still refused outside assistance? Burma is a long way away, a different culture, and overwhelmingly Buddhist. It’s easy to distance ourselves from them, but we shouldn’t.

If we walk away from this, we will be like the first two travellers who passed by the beaten and robbed man in the Good Samaritan parable.

 

[jkatpc]

Oh please, we cannot allow ourselves to interpret rules like that so liberally. What you are saying then is that it could technically be constitutional for our armed forces to dance in clown suits at birthday parties or drop nukes on orphanages just because our congress decides to do so. If we allow the government to decide what it can and cannot do, then we should not be surprised to see it grant itself unlimited power, destroying our republic and creating an empire. Governments by their own nature will grow and will become more evil in time, that is why the founders demanded a vigilant populace armed with guns and many checkpoints which have now eroded over time.

Sigh. OK, I’ll do your homework for you. U.S. Code Title X deals exclusively with the Armed Forces. Subtitle A, Part I, chapter 20, section 404: The President may direct the Secretary of Defense to provide disaster assistance outside the United States to respond to manmade or natural disasters when necessary to prevent loss of lives or serious harm to the environment.

 

[jaxson]

Sigh. OK, I’ll do your homework for you. U.S. Code Title X deals exclusively with the Armed Forces. Subtitle A, Part I, chapter 20, section 404: The President may direct the Secretary of Defense to provide disaster assistance outside the United States to respond to manmade or natural disasters when necessary to prevent loss of lives or serious harm to the environment.

That code contradicts the constitution, and if you believe that the constitution is the supreme law of the land, then clearly this code should be scrapped since you cannot have 2 laws which contradict each other.

 

[jkatpc]

That code contradicts the constitution, and if you believe that the constitution is the supreme law of the land, then clearly this code should be scrapped since you cannot have 2 laws which contradict each other.

Where were you educated, or were you? The U.S. Code is law, passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. Its constitutionality, like any law of the land, is monitored by the judiciary. It fits hand in glove with the constitution. How can you say they contradict each other? Are you saying the constitution is complete in its prescription of what is the law of the land and what isn’t (i.e., sola scriptura consitutiarium)? Of couse it’s not! The constitution is a framework, a guide, with which we can formulate our laws. If the laws don’t fit within the parameters and restrictions of the constitution, the judicial branch can nullify that law.

 

[jaxson]

Where were you educated, or were you? The U.S. Code is law, passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. Its constitutionality, like any law of the land, is monitored by the judiciary. It fits hand in glove with the constitution. How can you say they contradict each other? Are you saying the constitution is complete in its prescription of what is the law of the land and what isn’t (i.e., sola scriptura consitutiarium)? Of couse it’s not! The constitution is a framework, a guide, with which we can formulate our laws. If the laws don’t fit within the parameters and restrictions of the constitution, the judicial branch can nullify that law.

In other words you believe in the modern day liberal idea of a “living document”, correct? I don’t care if Congress, the President, and judges like this law and pass it… The writing in the Constitution is clear as day. Didn’t you read what i said before? Government will always find some excuse to grow beyond what are supposed to be its natural limits. Why should we trust our government with interpreting what it can and cannot do? Would you trust a robber to decide what is and is not theft?

 

[jkatpc]

In other words you believe in the modern day liberal idea of a “living document”, correct? I don’t care if Congress, the President, and judges like this law and pass it… The writing in the Constitution is clear as day. Didn’t you read what i said before? Government will always find some excuse to grow beyond what are supposed to be its natural limits. Why should we trust our government with interpreting what it can and cannot do? Would you trust a robber to decide what is and is not theft?

Liberal is the last thing anybody would accuse me of being. So tell me, what are the responsibilities of the Navy as defined in the Constitution? If it’s as clear as day, I can’t see anything either prescriptive or proscriptive in the Constitution regarding the use of the Navy.

Obviously, you distrust government. A lot. It isn’t perfect, but it’s what we have, and it’s better (IMO) by a long shot than anything else out there. If you don’t like the laws Congress passes (of which the U.S. Code is one, among many others) or the President signs, then cast your vote accordingly. But, you not agreeing with what is the law of the land doesn’t make it otherwise.

 

[Santi2]

If the government doesn’t want help, then their people need to get a new government.

They did that. Aung San Suu Kyi is the democratically elected Prime Minister of Burma. She has been under house arrest and has not been allowed to assume that office despite winning the general elections in 1990. Please do not be under any illusion that the military junta of Burma could be pressured into relinquishing power by ballots. The military junta could not care less about international pressure and will continue to keep Burma a closed country.

My brother-in-law was born and raised in Burma but was allowed to leave in the '60’s because his wife is British. She had to leave Burma because the military junta expelled/repatriated the non-Burmese. He still has family there and time stands still for the Burmese people. Apart from trade sanctions and boycott of tourism, what more can be done short of invading the country. But, is invasion the answer? I hope not. The Burmese people are already weary from decades of suffering under tyranny. War will just add to that. China is Burma’s greatest ally. Opium is Burma’s import, the revenue which undoubtedly fills the pockets of the military. Deal with either one of those, then perhaps something will move towards the benefit of the Burmese people.

Incidentally, religious vocations in Burma is on the rise. We offer prayers that it continues to be the case despite the circumstances in the country.

 

[saylo]

This is the silliest idea I’ve heard in a long time. About as silly as posing the question Is it time to invade the US after Katrina?

And we have had some very “silly” ideas for remedying unfortunate conditions. Many of the “remedies” point at war/military intervention/threats.

“…Invade Burma?” Wouldn’t that bring on more death? Destruction? Enmity? It would be another “deja vu all over again” not dissimilar from Vietnam.

When does the U.S. begin to use diplomacy in its dealings with other nations?

I can’t help stray to the current drumbeat for attacking Iran. Last week Amb. Bolton was making the rounds on all the major networks to promote the destruction of Iran. Where is he on Burma? I wonder.

 

[deb1]

Not true. We have a Navy and Air Force that are virtually unused. Not that we should do anything in Burma, but we have plenty of assets if we wish to do something.

I agree that Time Magazine’s title is silly. I didn’t invent it, that is what the article is entitled, and I ran with it. Seems to be starting some discussion here.

So if you don’t call it an “invasion” if you think we should do something, what? People are, after all, dying at an appalling rate.

I know a lot of Air Force members who have gone to Afghanistan and Iraq, my husband, sister and brother-in-law are among them. Even those military members who do not physically go to a foreign country to fight still do necessary support for those who do. For example, a soldier in supply might not go overseas but he makes certain that the necessary equipment is shipped to those who need it.

I think that someone who is not in the military might not understand that the different branches are connected to one another. My hubby is in the Air Force but the army does not train weathermen. My husband was in Afghanistan to support the Army.

 

[gilliam]

I know a lot of Air Force members who have gone to Afghanistan and Iraq, my husband, sister and brother-in-law are among them. Even those military members who do not physically go to a foreign country to fight still do necessary support for those who do. For example, a soldier in supply might not go overseas but he makes certain that the necessary equipment is shipped to those who need it.

Yes, I also have friends in the Air Force and Navy who have been deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. The point I was making is that while you can argue that the Marines and Army are still “strained” because of current deployments, neither the Air Force nor Navy are “strained” because of Iraq and Afghanistan, which is what the poster I was responding to was inferring. These services still have excess capacity to be engaged elsewhere, say for humanitarian reasons, if necessary.

 

[Brendan]

All and nice, but, which part of the Constitution says our navy’s job is to do humanitarian missions?

“Promote the general welfare”