It would appear from last night's telecast that George W. Bush's administration is (at least tacitly) supporting the genocide in Darfur.

So, the killing of Kurds and Shiites by Saddam Hussein's regime was grounds for an invasion and occupation, but the wholesale killing of ethnic africans by the Sudanese dictatorship is somehow acceptable to the Chimp-in-chief?

Boy! I'd sure like to hear an explanation of that kind of logic!

The tired old bull-shit about the Sudanese government's cooperation in fighting terrorists is beyond ridiculous. Funding and active support of Al Qaida has been a staple of the Sudanese government since before the 9/11 attacks occurred.

For those who already considered George W. Bush and his henchmen as war criminals, this pretty much seals the deal. The World Court should demand Bush's arrest once he leaves office, and Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice too!

I haven't heard McCain saying this was Bush policy that he wouldn't continue, so it would seem he too supports the genocide in the Sudanese desert.

What is going on in Darfur is not genocide, its a fight of locals over water; it needs DEVELOPMENT to solve it, nto sanctions.

So, one group of "locals" rides into a village on camels and horses, killing men, raping women, destroying the villages, then dumping dismemberd bodies into the water sources to make sure the villages would be abandoned.

All of this goes on while Sudanese government's "locals" sit outside of town and pick off those who run to escape the attacks inside the village.

And, the survivors are sent ot refugee camps where they can be gathered up and killed by other "locals" at will.

Does that sum up your astute assessment of the situation, candoxx?

It sure sounds like genocide to me.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck.....

institutional "speed bump" that makes it extremely difficult to invoke. To whit: once the U.N. has officially recognized a specific set of events as "genocide", it is required to act immediately, forcefully, and precipitously, to forestall the genocide. Therefore....the U.N. has to convince one of the major powers - one that is actually capable of such action - to take action, before they can call it genocide. And to clarify....I'm not saying the action comes before the designation. I'm saying that said major power has to commit to taking the action immediately following the designation. This explains why the U.N. never got around to designating the Rwandan genocide as "genocide". None of the major powers was willing to step up to the plate. To Clinton's credit, he at least acknowledged his failure in this regard.

So then....this does lead to some confusion, as people are inclined to thinking that since the U.N. hasn''t called it genocide, it must not be genocide.

When he wants war, he can ignore the UN, but when it comes to doing the right thing he has to go by the wishes of the UN?

Sounds like Bush reasoning to me!

Why do you think the country is so deep in shit right now?

To the extent that American power and righteousness derives from democratic consensus, the U.N. is bound by these realities in spades. George and his have proven time and again, that these concepts are well over their heads.