http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3918765.stm
but if the information is true that is available from a wide range of sources and is collected together in the blog that began this thread, and in a number of others--not to mention from other sources readily available---that the sudanese government is actively arming and supporting the janjawid---then what is the u.s. doing?
here you have an actual humanitarian crisis.
but in this case the administration chooses to accept at face value pronouncements they know to be false from the sudanese government.
it looks like--again--a direct consequence of the pointless colonial war in iraq. resources stetched thin for no good reason, political consequences of the iraq war blossoming the world round--uk, australia, the us--and yet somehow there is no wolfowitz to create and sell fantasy scenarios about flower-strewing locals greeting their liberators.
and here we are: since we now know that every other justification for war in iraq has turned out to be false, what we are left with is the human rights argument.
the americans invaded iraq because of their great concern for human rights.
and yet here we sit.
the americans, such stalwart heros in the defense of human rights, do nothing.
in this case, a un sanctions regime, should it be implemented, will be perfectly fine. in this case, there will be no alternative sources of "intelligence" to call it into question.
george w bush, who were were told on television was willing to risk everything politically to rescue the iraqi people from oppression, has his secretary of state being as mollifying as possible in this situation.
how do you explain this discrepancy?
it cant be oil--the sudan has LOTS of it.
then what is the problem?
no wonder most of the planet hates this administration.