President Bush used the word "genocide" to describe the situation in Darfur, then promptly did nothing about confronting it.
In Burma the population is striving for democracy but being brutally repressed by, of all things, the "State Peace and Development Council".
President Bush has indicated that he is troubled by the trouble, but when are nations obligated to act?
This is a thorny question for a state, which likes to reserve the right to brutally repress dissent with waves of free-swinging, billy-club toting, tear-gas fogging police, for instance. How does one condemn brutality abroad without undermining the home-made variety?
Sir Thomas Moore, in his classic "Utopia" laid out 3 conditions for war.
1. When your nation is attacked.
2. When an ally (or trading partner) is attacked.
3. To free a People from tyranny.
Our war in Iraq might have met the third condition, but we overstayed our welcome in the form of an occupation.
What about Darfur and what about Burma?
Is it worthwhile to fight a war in a land without oil simply to free a People from tyranny?