We* started the Iraq war. Iraq did nothing to percipitate it. Darfur, on the other hand, is rocked by genocide, to repeat, over 300,000 people have died in a very short time... all because they have the wrong skin color. GENOCIDE.
*WE* did NOT start the Iraq war. Saddam Hussein did. I know this is difficult for the lefties to admit, because it shoots so many holes in their arguements. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait (starting the war). We drove him out and as part of the cease fire, he agreed to certain terms. When he broke the terms, even though we gave him multiple opportunities, he broke the cease fire agreement. WE enforced it.
Iraq has nothing to do with the "war on terror", nor, according to our dearest president in a statement today, is it a civil war. If there are any links to terrorism in Iraq right now, it is mostly because of us attacking them. Even our government admits that. Want to fight the true war on terror? Why not actually go back into Afganistan and ... erm... find the person in charge of the terrorist organization that we are all supposed to be quivering in fear of? Oh right, our dear president stated that he is not worried about Bin Laden. I forgot.
Iraq had WMD's. Used them on a few occasions. We (and the rest of the world) thought he still had them and/or was very capable of starting up a program soon. Iraq was also providing cash to families of suicide bombers. Iraq is part of the war on terrorism. Again, WE didn't attack them. The majority of IRAQIS are not fighting us - it's a small, well armed, group of terrorists being supported by the remnants of Saddam Hussein's supporters and insurgents from Iran and Syria who don't want us to succeed there. This is not rocket science. Does it really matter whether it's labeled a "civil war" now? Does that mean we should just let the elements in Iraq who are pro-America and pro-democracy hang out to dry or should we continue to help them fight the common enemy?
When was the last time we actually heard from OBL? Odds are he's dead. But, even if he is (or not), there is still a fairly strong heirarchy that we're taking care of. They're not on TV daily, like our president. They're not in a government building. They don't have "offices". They're HIDING. It's pretty easy to go after the leader of a "real" country because they're out and about. When someone is being hidden and afraid to be out in public, it's a little hard to find them. Especially when there are countries, like Iran, Syria, Pakistan that are willing to protect them. Would you like us to invade Pakistan, Iran, Syria to find OBL and start WWIII, or would you prefer we continue to do it cautiously and deliberately? Again, not rocket science.
It is no longer a "social" problem and is instead one of those "crimes against humanity".
"Crimes Against Humanity" is exactly what Saddam Hussein was tried and executed for. Or, doesn't that count because the Kurds and Iranians aren't the right "skin color" as you previously mentioned.
ETA: I highly doubt the rest of the world would call us bullies for stopping genocide. Somehow I think the world can see intentions in what we would do there. Besides, were we to go into Darfur, we would certainly take the lesson of Iraq and actually have one of those... what was that again? Oh... a plan!
Yeah, there's no plan. Nice try. Plans have to change when they aren't working. The enemy's job is to make sure of that. Do you REALLY think there was no plan in Iraq?!? Do you REALLY think that the "plan" in Darfur will go perfectly?!? Get your head out of the sand! And, the rest of the world, led by Hollywood and the lefties ARE calling us bullies for supporting the current government in Iraq against their enemies.
).
