Just to get the record straight, the current administration has been pushing for action on Darfur from the UN. It was our government that called the killings genocide in 2006 (and the only one) and pressed the UN to act. The U.S. has pushed for UN action in Darfur continously. This mess cannot be put on this country, but solely on the UN. It is another example of the irrevelence or incompetence of the UN.



>(resequenced back into chronological order)
>
>>>>I think the whole legal authority for the 'no fly zones' was wrapped in that and that included more thoroughgoing intervention.
>>>>
>>>>But of course international 'authorization' - like God - is on the side of the most artillery <s>
>>>>
>>>
>>>In this case it wasn't. France and Germany (most prominently) would not go along with UN authorization unless and until WMDs were found. When they were not found soon enough to suit the Bush administration, the U.S. invaded unilaterally.
>>>
>>>In hindsight -- which of course is always easy -- I think the "go slow" nations were proven wise.
>
>>Just like Darfur?
>>
>
>Darfur? I thought we were talking about the invasion of Iraq. If your point is that the international community should be doing more in Darfur, I'll agree with you. (Hmmm, is there any oil there?) It's a sad state of affairs when actors seem to be doing more about it than countries. Back to Iraq, though, what I meant is those who wanted to wait until WMDs were found appear wiser than those who barreled in on the assumption that they were there.