Quote:
Originally posted by transplant99@Sep 19 2004, 10:19 AM
The US is trying to get some pressure (diplomatically...the answer for everything apparently) put on the Sudanese leaders through that wonderful UN body that so many clamor for to do ANYTHING worldwide.
Once more...it isnt working.
UN drags its feet
So, would the leftists/anti-war crowd be upset if the US unilaterally went into Sudan and removed the rebels and allowed humanitarian aid to flow again, while ending the genocide that has been occuring?
Or, as we were told in the last week, should the US just wait by idly waiting for UN approval, because after all, we wouldnt want to impose "our" way of life on a people that know no other way of life, so it aint all that bad.
And another landmine...IF the US did go in to help, would they again be chastised if they wanted to help re-build the oil fields of Sudan? Or would this one be OK?
|
I would not be mad at that at all Tranny.
I only get mad whe the U.S. government lies to it's people and the world about the reasons for going into a country. I'm not a fool. I watched that whole U.N. meeting at home where Powell was trying to convince the world these three boxes where decontamination trucks. (was out of work at the time and addicted to CBC newsworld) I didn't believe it the very first day I saw it and it has come out that I and other 'leftists' were right.
If they had said they were going in for humanitarian reasons I would have backed that. But they did not. They lied. And I don't care if your a family member or 'the leader of the free world' I'm not going to support a lie.
Just leaves more questions about motive anyway.
Don't think I am or anyone else 'leftist' is necessarily anti-conflict. We're just against it for the wrong reasons. Don't lie to us, we are not uninformed idiots.