I don't think you've advocated rape rooms yet, but what do you think of my (apparently cloaked....) second-amendment absolutist, anti-UN idea above? Are you for it or against it in Darfur (let's ignore Iraq for the moment)? Which one? Should the victims remain disarmed, or should the UN be forced to admit that "gun control" is as stupid an idea in Africa as it is in Europe, Asia, and America?
JMR

Rupert, its not just the resources in Iraq (and to make the claim its all about oil makes you stupid) its about tactics and preservation of the union.  We can not afford to take out every thug and dictator, nor do we have the right.  We can however without lost of sleep take on Iraq because of the perceived threat to our security as well as it gives us strategic position over Iran.  We gave WhoseInsane plenty of notice of what we required to avoid a war.  He thumbed his nose at us.  Eventually after calling someone out, you have to do the dirty deed and follow through, otherwise your word means nothing.

By allowing the Iraq people to taste freedom, the people of Iran may become more willing to stop their own tyrant.  For example to you know that a union spokeman had his tongue slowly flayed and cut out by the Iran officials because they didn't like what he was saying to his union?  Iran is a bunch of butchers and thugs.  But its like playing chess, you have to play it carefully and skillfully.

The funny thing was, Reagan wanted to give the rebels down in the contras support, and you bleeding heart liberals were set against it.  You want to help Darfur?  Then allow Iraq to grow.  Freedom is our number one weapon against thugs and dictators...the more we allow freedom to grow the more the people are willing to take the risk to fight against the tyrants.

If you call "Save Darfur," or read the press releases, you will discover that George Bush has been a driving force in the world to do something in Darfur. Most of our nation's major newspapers have often had to admit the same thing. And so it shall be that without doubt, Save Darfur and many others are calling on Bush and others to do more.

For the record, there is oil in the Sudan. Additionally, one should also reflect on past inaction by many (including the US, the UN and "wash our hands Europe"), in places like Rwanda (where the Clinton admin. actively worked not to intervene), the Congo (from 1998-2001, where some 2.5 -3 million died), the ivory coast, Nigeria, Afghanistan (where 60,000 were murdered as the Taliban took over in a vacumn left that the world cared little of), Sierra Leone – Between 1996 and 2002, some 75,000 lives were lost in the conflict. In Jan. 1999 alone 6,000 civilians were brutally killed in one city. Many may remember the army, often comprised of young boys who went around raping and chopping off people’s arms – “short sleeves or long sleeves sir?” The list is long - that list of looking the other way.

As Sen. Robert Byrd said on the senate floor - in his past role of partisanship leadership:

Unilateral action in Iraq on September 6, 1996: “To those who would doubt the necessity of the actions by the president, one should pose the question as to what the consequences would be in the face of American inaction. First, clearly, no other country would take the lead. The signature of the current era is such that response to aggression will not be taken up by other powers in the absence of American leadership, unfortunately. This was the case in the invasion of Kuwait. It was the case in Bosnia when, after several years of Western inaction in the face of ethnic atrocities in Bosnia, only the United States, only the United States, could bring about a credible, effective implementation of peace in that sorry part of Europe. . . . It is American leadership which is decisive to the peace in these regions, and I commend President Clinton for his decisive action. It was necessary to weaken the Iraqi leader's ability to intimidate his neighbors, and to make it clear that he will pay a price for his aggression.”

And Byrd did not even like Bill Clinton - not in the least.

So effectively the US really is the only "world police"?  That's a little scary, BD.  All the more does it make me parsimonious about sending our troops - our men and women - anywhere in the world.

I know you are kidding, but really, how do we get those Apache's there?

The leftists who rrun those commercials just do not understand our capabiities and limitations.  They assume stupidities such as the fact that "Well, we can just fly them from CONUS actoss the Atanic and over threee or four neutral countries....