Couldn't we "liberate" them, instead? 100.000 dead in Myanmar

and more than 2 million living in appalling conditions even by television standards, which makes it horrible indeed.

But "logistical bottlenecks" are slowing down the distribution of aid... whatever part of that aid is destined for its original recipients, that is. And in the face of this, the local regime does not look kindly upon "foreign goody-goody do-gooders", while more people are poised to, just to drive the message home, to die, to croak, to kick the bucket. AND THEY ARE NOT ALLOWING ANY AID to GO IN (but a trickle).

How affirmative and assertive of them. How good for us, to be so far away from all the fracas, too!

Since the Myanmar junta we once liked is not dancing to our tune any more and I think we don't like therefore and since, by the time I finish writing this, a few more people will have died and a few more body-masters will have set up shop to soon start shipping boatloads of refugees... couldn't we save them, in a jiffy???

I.e. instead of sending help to buy our sleep, why not invade the place instead and thereby liberate them.

We are saving Iraq et alia in this way, and they did not even have a cyclone.

In the old times, the Soviets entered a country and saved and liberated its inhabitants. Now that they gave up on such charity, it is up to the West to do the job.