George W Bush and Tony Blair crushed Saddam's Iraq in 2003 because of the purported existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). However there was no evidence that Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMD at the time of the Iraq invasion. The moral underpinning of the invasion was placed into question.
In Burma, the Junta has largely refused the international aid to cyclone Nargis victims. Aid has been seized at the airport, the Burmese authorities have refused visas to aid workers. Millions of Burmese are in risk for dying of infectious diseases unless food and medical aid reaches them.The Burmese Junta is in a state of xenophobia that is destroying their own people.
The UN has been pressed into action. It has tried persuasion and later condemnation of the Burmese regime but to no avail.
The Security Council had authorized military interventions "police actions" in the past. If the powers need to it can be conveniently ignored like what the Americans and the British did in 2003.
But is it morally legit to invade Burma and crush the Junta and deliver aid to the victims? It is an age old question. It was asked when Hitler began gassing the Jews. But what are the value of Jews? or Irrawaddy Burmese?
Has any sovereign state invaded another due to humanitarian concerns alone?