Time magazine recently suggested that the US should consider invading Burma in "Is It Time to Invade Burma?" For humanitarian reasons, of course.

Did they suggest we invade Iraq after hundreds of thousands died there under Saddam Hussein? Nope.

Time did think Clinton's war over Bosnia was a good idea though. But, those hundred's of thousands that supposedly died at the hands of the Serbians never really happened did it? I haven't checked, but I suspect the magazine also thought invading Haiti was a peachy idea too.

How about Somalia? Did Time like that one? Of course they did. Nary a word was said either when the Clinton administration expanded the mission to "catch a warlord" from the previous mission of "provide humanitarian relief."

Should we invade Zimbabwe, where President Mugabe is using his thugs to stay in power, despite being voted out? Time hasn't said.

But the bottom line remains. The use of military force overseas, that is putting our blood and treasure at risk, should never be in order to provide "good stuff" to people. It should only be to defend our country.

Altruism is a seductive mistress. Time, long seduced by it, is more than willing to suggest Burma is a valid reason to expend our kid's blood and lives.

Disgusting.