Quote:
You don't know how long I've been waiting to do this.

SHOW ME AN UNBIASED SOURCE
Ok, the last 3 were biased, but the first one definetly wasn't. Here's another one, though.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041101/wl_sthasia_afp/us_vote_india_041101134503
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111287,00.html

Quote:
Logistically, strategically, and fundamentally suicide to war on three fronts with our military being as overburdened as it is. To send troops into Sudan is, in the above ways, like sending a guy to a gunfight with a pocketknife.
Ok. You don't seem to be understanding what I'm saying. I'll post it again:
Since there are no WMDS, we are in there right now strictly to get in a new President who 'won't commit genocide,' yet we don't want to help the Sudanese where there is genocide now.

When I say help RIGHT NOW, I don't mean immediately send in troops. The US should definetlly pouring money into them right now though.

Quote:
If this is mass genocide, then the international community should be sending in troops to support the army (that does/does not exist, according to you). They should not be sending money and, in traditional european fashion, hoping America makes the problem go away.
Ofcourse they have a small army. If there army could defend its' country, then we wouldn't be having this debate right now. -Pat

"After every dark night, there's a bright day right after that. No matter how hard it gets, stick your chest out, keep your head up, and handle it." -Tupac Shakur