I implied nothing on your view in that matter. Yes, the US is sticking its nose in other peoples' business. Take issue with that if you like. I was merely stating the view that overthrowing Saddam will shed less blood in the long run than leaving him in power would have.
I am merely stating MY view of the situation. The US government may have put a higher priority on Iraq, but I am of the VIEW that help in Sudan and elsewhere is warranted.
I was under the impression that the UN is supposed to provide a place to discuss conflict, and provide peacekeeping troops in messes exactly like Sudan- for a JOINT effort to resolve such issues (Bosnia, anyone?). If you are going to question us about why we aren't "helping" other countries, we can assume that helping those countries might actually be warranted (for the sake of argument anyway). So assuming that Sudan needs help, and that we should help, then the international community should do it's bleeping share. Hold everybody to the same standard.
Or, if the rest of the world honestly doesn't care about the black pits in this world, I simply question why we should bother. Or maybe you should ask the people that Saddam tortured, why we should bother, or the people in Darfur starving and on the run, why we should bother. Wouldn't Sudan's government count as "stable" under your definition?
So which is it? Leave everybody to rot? Or do something about it? Because if you're waiting for unanimous approval for any military action, that isn't going to happen. |
