But Bush and Cheney continue pressing in with Iraq and Afghanistan much to the joy of our local neoconservative lunatics.

"But Bush and Cheney continue pressing in with Iraq and Afghanistan much to the joy of our local neoconservative lunatics."
And funded by the Democrat-controlled Congress, don't forget.

This is an issue a superpower faces constantly. Where do you go in and help, and where do you stay out and let them resolve it? Which one will result in actual humanitarian efforts, and which one will result in world war three?

It's happened again and again, over the years, with many various countries. (Rwanda, Kuwait, Bosnia, etc.) They expect, or hope, or want, America to come to the rescue. Sometimes we do. Sometimes we don't.

Sometimes they don't want us there. Sometimes we go anyway.

We took the Taliban out of Afghanistan and stopped a lot of suffering there. But was the resulting war and losses worth it? Maybe, maybe not.

I don't know when we should go and when we shouldn't. I can't even pretend to know. God bless the people of Darfur and I pray the conflict ends sooner rather than later. (That's all I really can do right now, seeing as how all the NGO's I could give money to can't even get to the people suffering, due to the warlords. It's so hideous.)

How a country that claims the virtues of a "free and caring democray," based on religious values, like the U.S. can not help is "sick!"