I had seen the smiley, Sam, but had mis-interpreted it as a sign of your political "leaning" more than as a joke. Sorry!

I also agree that Darfur is one very complicated situation and that the biggest part of the problem is that the country refuses to have certain countries involved and keeps limits on U.N. peacekeepers there.

One reason that I though the U.S. *might* try pulling some strings regarding Darfur is to help to offset the perception that it has a anti-Muslim streak in it these days. And, of course, the U.S. is a NECESSARY player in such efforts, if only to provide logistical support.



>Jim. I was just joking.
>
>Besides if other countries think it's so bad there (and I think it is), they're perfectly capable to "handling" it themselves, aren't they? Or do they have to be led by the United States all the time.
>
>If they choose to intervene I'm sure the Bush administration would be more then happy and supportive. They'll have our moral support... which is more then what they've gaven us lately.
>
>So lets go rest of the world do something about it. As you know we're busy with Iraq. So you take the lead.... for once. You needn't wait on US.
>
SNIP