OJ, you can sign up first, OK?

Sure, my 8 year old can work the joystick.

Don't know much about Burma do you?

brilliant strategy, oj. commit other people's money to be spent, and other people's children to die, so you can feel like a superhero, saving the world from everyone who might not care to suckle at the capitalist teat of the american hegemon.

it sounds like your capacity for critical thought never got past the eight year-old mark.

if you think the 'insurgents' out there in the desert are the least bit pernicious, just wait till you see how your vaunted american videogamers fare in the jungles of burma.

The military junta isn't in the jungle. Why send troops?

Let's do Iran first. Then Syria. Or maybe Syria first, then Iran. And then North Korea? Maybe Iran, then North Korea and then Syria. Although if we do Syria, then we'll have Iran surrounded and it might even take care of itself, so Syria, North Korea, then Iran if necessary. And there's always Cuba. So, Syria, North Korea, Iran and Cuba. But if the PRC thinks we're distracted, they'll try to do Taiwan, so we probably have to preempt them first. So, Syria, North Korea, the PRC, Iran and Cuba. Although if you do the PRC, you might just get North Korea thrown in for a twofer. So, Syria, the PRC, North Korea, Iran and Cuba. But, if we're going to take on the PRC and North Korea, do we really need to worry about Syria? So, the PRC, North Korea, Syria, Iran and Cuba. Then Burma.

Why not just do them all at the same time? Our nukes aren't getting any younger.

Oh. Well, that's all right, then.

Once one of the wealthiest nations in Southeast Asia, Myanmar is now one of the poorest.

The country is mostly isolated from the outside world. There are none of the McDonald's, Starbucks or KFC outlets here that have become ubiquitous in Southeast Asian cities.

Sounds like an eco-tourism paradise, especially for those who want a change of pace from proping up Castro with their tourist Euros (and Loonies).

As for "who's next", let's make it a game show on Fox, where countries compete to not be the next to suffer "forcible regime change." Call it "American Target".

i think david and raoul are onto something, although you better put california and new york at the top of your list.

and, as it turns out, burma is a lovely place to visit; it's a wonder the people there have been able to survive for several thousand years without mickey d's, starbux, and the colonel.

Burma is an awful place but isn't a threat to its neighbors and certainly isn't harming American interests in any cognizable way. The SLORC is bloody awful, frighteningly corrupt and incompetent. The infrastructure is a shambles, educational and economic opportunity quite limited.

They don't have KFC but they do have the shortest life expectancy in East Asia and the people do get diseases which are a faint memory elsewhere in the region. I guess lonbud didn't get to visit the refugee camps and prisons when he was there, or get to observe the SLORC's campaign against tribal peoples like the Karen and Shan. Don't mistake traditional Hinayana Buddhist passivity for contentment.

Since a coterie of generals runs the place, the military is quite well-equipped and relatively well-trained. The Royal Thai Army has indicated that it has little desire to tangle with them and the RTA is a pretty serious military.

IOW, there is little to be gained by fighting in Burma and the cost of a war in men and materiel would be frightening.

No need to fight in Burma. Decapitate the regime in charge, and the only people who will complain will be the selfish Leftists of the world who think other people should live in misery so they can have a cheap place to go on vacation and pretend to live like a commisar.

Raoul,

How do you decapitate the regime without fighting without resorting to the stuff of bad spy novels?

People thought the regime would fall when Ne Win got bounced a decade ago. The old generals died off and new ones took their place. Any purported decapitation would have the same result. There is no shortage of vicious gangsters ready to take the place of the existing regime.

Bart states my position exactly.

David: If Bart agrees with you, what other proof do you need that you're wrong?

Oj didn't (at first anyway)say the US should change it. He merely said that since we weren't using force, we (the world actually) were not serious about our opposition. How can anyone really say that we are serious? We just imposed feel good sanctions that only hurt the people, not the regime.

Bob: OJ's position is that the US is morally obligated to change any evil regime that we could change easily and cheaply. As "cheaply" seems to include the use of nuclear weapons, this collapses pretty quickly into an obligation to change any evil regime.

As for the other thing, I try to tell myself that the logical validity of an argument is independent of its source.

I was thinking of Bush the Elder's operation against Pineapple Face in Panama. But that was a highly centralized regime run by and for one man.

All we need is a hundred million Predators, and some patience. The gangsters would eventually give up and let some democrats take over.

Of course, we could also develop some low-yield nukes, to reduce the collateral damage.

My preferred order: Iran, Syria, North Korea, China, Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Vietnam (for payback), France, Libya, Egypt, Canada, Sudan. Then Burma.

David: I really don't think the US should use force in Burma. Burma is no threat to the US. However, if the world is serious that the junta should be out of there, the only serious response is force. Since no one is going to use force, it proves that the world is just making useless gestures.

among the useless gestures being made, we can put W's adventure in iraq at the top of the list.

also the cowboy bluster of you clowns on this blog who feel the united states has the right or obligation to use force to change any government anywhere that doesn't conform to your limited idea of what constitutes "freedom" and "democracy."

no, i didn't visit refugee camps or prisons in burma -and would never try to justify, condone, or accept the SLORC's draconian rule.

on the other hand, millions visit the u.s. and never go to a prison or an indian reservation and yet they often leave here thinking it's a lovely place anyhow.

i wonder how the life expectancy of the burmese compares, say, with that of black american males born in urban areas with populations greater than 100,000.

life expectancy?

Ionbud - Life expectancy at birth, Burma: 56.22 years (54.31 years for males), according to the CIA Factbook http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/bm.html.

Black American life expectancy: 72 years.

But if your point is that we should overthrow some urban mayors and city councils before taking on Burma, I'm with you. First step, strengthen the Patriot Act to let Predators be used domestically.

pj,

If people are not free, we shall have to nuke them till they are free. How Rousseauian!

I would agree there are large sections of the US incapable of self-government. The District of Columbia and the State of New Jersey come to mind.

Your list is interesting but I would start with El Tirano Castro.