Darfur proves liberalism is a mental disorder

The Dallas Morning News published a column written by Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times in New York City. This column proves the weakness of being a liberal as liberals are all emotion and void of all rational thought. Remember now The New York Times has aided terrorist by continually publishing the United States of America's secrets in relation to combating terrorism. The American news media finds fault when the American military is used to protect American interest which is constitutional. These liberals want the American military to be used for humanitarian missions. This column urges the U.S. to get involved military in Darfur, Sudan. The military stragist at The New York Times recommend that when Sudan sends its bombers to civilians, not to interfere. However when the bombers land back at their base after killing innocent civilians in Darfur, wait a day or two, then bomb the bombers while they sit idle on the ground. So they want the U.S. to take action after the civilians have been killed, not to act to prevent civilians from being murdered. Also Darfur should be addressed by a United Nations Peacekeeping force (U.N.), however whenever the subject comes up at the Security Council, it is Communist China which veto's the idea, thus allowing the genocide to continue in Darfur.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Darfur
• Sudan
• war
• Antonov
• bomber
• commentary
• analysis
• news
• propagandabuster
• propaganda
• buster
• NYT
• New
• York
• Times
• UN
• Security
• Council
• China

[fahs]

AS AN AMERICAN INDIAN.....

I find your statement offensive. Don't tell us we have been oppressed, when you are an ancestor of the oppressors.

We love our country, and are proud to be Americans. It is only Indians of watered down genetic stock and white liberals telling us we are oppressed to absolve themselves of white guilt that bring that crap up. People like you are keeping reservations poor by telling us we cannot make it in life b/c of the past. Mind your own biz.

[midgety1]

Fuckin necons what a bunch of sick fucks. you act like united states taking on Darfur is a bad thing. woman and children are being murdered there and burned alive you sick freak show piece of shit. as for China they are making a great deal of money off the oil there and are the ones supplying the arms for the genocide so of course they are going to veto it .. fuck them

you support the Iraq war Why are we there .. WMD's no i mean ... al qaeda. ..wait noo I mean Iraqi Freedom?

what the fuck

[conservativeco]

Everytime a liberal opens their mouth it's proof that liberalism is a mental disorder.

[Darkrunner1975]

The U.N. is the most gutless, ineffective turd of an organization ever founded.

[jciemielewski]

China was vetoing the UN's attempt because they were suppling arms to the oppressors and were profiting from colonizing africa....

[zTiamaTz]

I'm sick of us having to stick our necks out for 'peace keeping' and helping other countries out after natural disasters.

The rest of the world openly hates us, we shouldn't give them a fucking thing. We should stop spending money to help ungrateful countries and sending troops to fight wars that don't concern us.

The UN is completely worthless, all it's trying to do is get us involved in this 'world government' crap. No thanks.

[HolyHellPreacher]

"Also Darfur should be addressed by a United Nations Peacekeeping force (U.N.), however whenever the subject comes up at the Security Council, it is Communist China which veto's the idea, thus allowing the genocide to continue in Darfur. "

Tony, I thought the U.N. was for weak? Bush wanted to go assault Iraq and asked for U.N. help. He didn't get it. So, he just did it anyway. Why not defy the commies by doing something good?

[CapitalExchange]

Just curious as to why the Europeans didn't stop Darfur?.

Because they have become ineffectual.

They would rather sit on their lazy communist liberal ass's and complain why we didn't do anything, then actually taking action themselves.

[jacobins3000]

Ya its a lot fucking easier to destroy combat aircraft on the ground than it is in the air. Seeing as the U.S. has done absolutely nothing to stop the genocide for the last 7 years, I hardly think it matters too much whether or not Sudanese planes are able to get in one last bombing run.

[LonelyJudd]

What don't you understand? I'm calling out your irrational claim and explaining why your arguments are fallacious.

[PropagandaBuster]

Huh?