So George Clooney is demanding that something be done by the UN to stop the bloodshed in Darfur. I guess it takes a year or so for a cause like this to become fashionable among the rich and famous- it wouldn't have hurt to have people like him clamouring for such action when Bush went against the UN on this very same topic in June last year to declare that it was a genocide.
Clooney remember is the same genius who says, "You can't beat your enemy anymore through wars." Of course not, George, so what are we supposed to use to stop the mass slaughter in Darfur? Harsh language?
What strikes me about this is that Clooney, and people like him, who are so intent on saving lives in Darfur- an action that desperately needs to take place- are the very same ones who protest so vigorously against the American overthrow of dictator Saddam Hussein. In Darfur the death toll so far is a staggering 200,000 lives lost. During his reign Hussein oversaw the deaths of well over a million.
So tell me again George- why is sending troops to Iraq wrong, but sending troops to Darfur right?