highthief

I wanted to ask the question as it is an interesting contrast to situations in which various powers, Western or otherwise, have interceded with military and political force. We have spoken about or actually invaded nations at various times in order to remove regimes on the premise, in whole or more commonly in part, that the regime was evil and fatally detrimental to its citizens.

Burma's complete mishandling of the aftermath of the cyclone is leading to many more thousands of dead from further floods, dissentry, malnutrition, exposure, etc - all due to the fact that the regime is just this side of North Korea in terms of reclusiveness and xenophobia and every bit as corrupt as any banana republic you'd care to name.

Would you be in favour of taking military action against nations who are, without doubt, causing death and suffering to it citizens. And not suffering because the nation is dirt poor - but rather suffering because, like Burma, they just don't want the UN, the Red Cross, or any other body helping its dying people?

Or do you think that the destabilizing effect of outside intervention would be worse than suffering through the regime's corruption and inefficiency?

I'm a little torn here - to some extent I think a quick "mercy mission" to deliver supplies and fix up a few water sources - might be worth doing in this specific situation, but with a very finite timeline and very specific goals.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.