(Untitled)

[moocowzrock]

My own opinion: Why is it that neither candidate has a plan for the issue in Sudan. How can both of them veer so much off the issues, that they allow hundreds of thousands of people starve to death. Forget about what happened thirty years ago, forget about medals, and the guard, and flip-flopping, and oil, and who is corrupt an who is not, for

Comments

[mr_sniffles]

I disagree, I found both of them displayed their plans competently. Obviously you had to read between the lines that the scars of Somalia still show and that the American military is severely strained for any new engagement involving in a deployment. Honestly, no offense but Americans suck at peacekeeping though Kerry's offer for logistics is heartening. These situations usually have the standard effect of working with the UN (I know as a conservative how much that scares you) and us pansy liberal countries like France, Germany and Canada to set up the infrastructure, and let the old imperial nation to mount a taskforce of neighbouring peacekeepers. I know it's not the flashy shock-and-awe but it's worked for Liberia and Sierra Leone.

[moocowzrock]

No, it does not scare me. Though I dont believe that the UN is aggressive enough to handle things like Iraq, and terrorism, non-militaristic situations are their strong suit. A situation such as the one in Sudan, is the type they have achieved things in. But when it comes to war, or anything that may cause huge conflicts, politically and militarily, they have been useless. To threats to the world, all they have been willing to do, and all previous systems similar to the UN, is place sanctions, which do nothing but hurt the poor people within the country. Though this problem may cause some conflict, it is a situation, that I believe the UN is fit to handle. This is all just my opinion, however. It is just how I feel about the UN. I am willing to argue it with you if you disagree.