Well sadly, Myanmar is something the US should have got involved in long ago (other than buying the heroin that keeps the junta in power).

The country has a democratically elected leader that has been held prisoner since the election. So a well funded new government would have real authority.

The surrounding countries are still an issue even if mostly stable, but sending troops may destabilize things. (There are rebels, there are southern Thailand Islamic insurgents, and China which may support the junta, take territory, march in after the US leaves, or just jam/harass the US forces.)

China and Thailand should be negotiated with beforehand, but if bush desperately wants to win a war, this is a much more 'moral' war than any they have tried so far. Heck, if the right politics are played(which is beyond bush), the UN would support it.

Ron Paul has been consisten in his position of non-intervention over the decades and has applied it consistently even when the application was unpopular, even when many didn't even see a problem. That is neither morally equivalent or functionally equivalent (as stated) to the described Bill Kristol position.

Did I miss the point?

--""Why is it that a guy who thinks U.S. military action is always the answer is any more credible than the peacenik who thinks it never is?" He's completely right. Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul will never be regular panelists on major weekend talk shows."--

Ron Paul does not think "US military action is never the answer". He voted -for- the war in Afghanistan as a response to the attack on our country on 9/11.

He voted against the attack on Iraq because Iraq did not attack us.

I think it's important to point out that Ron Paul is not a peacenick. The key difference is he expects the American people though congress to call for War, not have the president fool the american people into supporting a war against a country that's no threat.

well......i think war is not an answer for Burma...but certainly, surgical strikes would be beneficial to move this brutal regime to reconciliation table because Burmese Military regime is pretty much run only by a few leaders such as Than Shwe and number two man, Maung Aye. The rest just follow their orders. secondly, the military regime rules the Burmese people by guns, which the ordinary Burmese people don't have. limited Air strikes or missile attacks will give much needed moral support for Burmese people, and will definately create de-moralizing effect on the military structure which could seperate and encourage the more pragmatic commenders to rise up against the self-centered hardliners.
Thanks

International community definately need to do something efeectively for this time for the people of Burma who are crying out for help.
It is very obious that the military regime will not move forward unless somebody can touch them directly. As such, limited air strikes or missile attacks on regime's new capital called "Nay Pyi Daw" will be the best answer for the current situation. This kind of action was a long time hope by Burmese people and I can say that they will cry out of happiness for the help and their moral will strongly rise up again.
Most importantly, please do help something for this time and do not leave them alone and let them suffer as helpless like previous circumstances. It is not Burma's internal affair! We all are the only human society on the earth.

I agree with A supporter and Bill. I am one of Burmese people. If US come and bomb to new capital city or direct action to Top Leaders or War, Our people will welcome and say Thanks God.
Is that reach the point?

Kristol's The Weekly Standard'promotes M.E. wars. It's foreign policy is to protect Israel by destroying Muslim soverign states. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), pays approx. 1/2 of each US Congress member's campaign financing if they vote for Wm. Kristol's/
AIPAC/Zionist/LIKUUD wars ...which they all do, including Nancy Pelosi.

The majority of Jewish people do not want war, these folks DO!!

Hop into the handbasket, as they take the world into the screaming bowels of HELL.

No Jonathan, you shouldn't have just stuck to Kucinich, because he isn't comparable. Kristol's ideas have consistently proven disastrous, while the worst you can say about Kucinich's ideas is they haven't been tried. It looks like you buy into the beltway notion that it's a crime to be right too soon. You have to get it as completely wrong as the majority to have any credibility.