In spite of all the hand wringing over the US' damaged reputation in the world coming from the left, the NY Times actually stumbled onto something. In an op-ed
criticizing the lack of progress in Darfur, from Khartoum's broken promises to the UN's inept handling of world crises to member nations' foot dragging, they highlight the one nation that's actually stepped up:
Quote:
|
The United States has already flown in troops for the new force, promised $40 million in equipment and offered to pay 26 percent of the total cost of the operation. If others don’t step in quickly, Washington will need to twist their arms or do even more itself.
|
Imagine if the Times, every other Bush bashing media outlet, entertainer and others that find a cause célèbre in Darfur could find the same passion for say, Iraq? You know, former home to a genocidal dictator that engaged in ethnic cleansing, use of WMD's, oppression, torture, environmental disasters, broken promises, threatened peace and stability elsewhere -another one of those colossal UN failures?
Why should the U.S. be criticized for doing what the UN failed to do in Iraq - while being expected to provide the equipment, manpower and financing to intervene in Darfur - while the world again drags their feet? Is there some reason the Iraqis don't deserve the same kind of support as Darfur?
Linear Mode
