Just as I find it disgusting that you would prefer the Iraqis be back under the murderous regime of Saddam Hussein. You say that Bush should not have invaded Iraq, which removed a genocidal dictator. Yet at the same time, we should be playing a part in the Sudan, because there is genocide occuring? It seems to me that you prefer to attack whatever Bush does, and the fact that this can lead to some inconsistencies in your positions doesn't seem bother you in the least.

As for my opinion on the Sudan, the world must obviously do something to end what is occuring. Perhaps the vaunted U.N. should start doing something in the area beyond sending a few workers to "assess" what is happening, since the U.S. military is rather occupied in Iraq at the moment. After all, isn't the U.N. supposed to be the group that helps to solve situations such as this? [/b][/quote]I disagree with the fact that we entered Iraq to get WMDs, not to end genocide. One has to read the Resolutions to see that Bush wanted to go into Iraq for genocide. Now that we know Iraq had no WMDs, Bush is trying to use genocide as the excuse. He cannot switch it. He said WMD and like I said, someone must have read the Resolutions to find that genocide was happening.

DMC, I have donated pocket change. -Pat