Oh, I understand coalition, but did the UN authorize the coalition to go into Iraq on it's behalf? No. It was purely an American operation with whatever suckers it could gather with distortion of facts and outright lies.What part of coalition do you not understand?
The illegal, and imoral aggression has begun. Obviously under orders from their masters at Haliburton, a french fighter jet fired on a Libyan vehicle. This naked act of aggression against the property of a legitimate, independent nation's vehicle is just the opening move. Have we not learned the lesson of no blood for oil. The world cries out for Britain, Canada and France, Historical war mongers (well, except for maybe canada) and colonial powers to desist this unlawful action. Who knows what the death toll for this illegal and imoral action may be.
Oh, stuff it already.
There is a mandate from the UN security council, which makes these actions entirely legit. Things like this is why there is a UN. This is not about political or economical interests, but stopping a genocide which will flood neighboring countries with refugees. Perhaps that is why it feels so weird to you. It's a new experience for you to actually have a good reason to let the military bomb the **** out of someone.
Besides, every US president needs to have a war.
You are right. Darfur is a tragedy. Sierra Leona as well.
One of the main differences is that noone in the security council vetoed the intervention or tried to stall.
I feel areas like Sierra Leone are intentionally left to their own devices because way too many governments are making a killing. Sierra Leone is one of the richest countries in the world in terms of raw ores, diamonds, etc. Yet for reason they can't pull themselves out of the misery. Too many people are profiting from the misery.
Remember, Obama the peacemaker? Do you think he is going to send back his nobel peace prize? I am curious, not being a student of Indian history, which countries did Ghandi attack?