All this talk of "condemning" Sudan is nothing but that, talk. The Bush administration don't care what they are doing, so long as they can "help us":
Sudan has secretly worked with the CIA to spy on the insurgency in Iraq, an example of how the U.S. has continued to cooperate with the Sudanese regime even while condemning its suspected role in the killing of tens of thousands of civilians in Darfur.
President Bush has denounced the killings in Sudan's western region as genocide and has imposed sanctions on the government in Khartoum. But some critics say the administration has soft-pedaled the sanctions to preserve its extensive intelligence collaboration with Sudan.
The relationship underscores the complex realities of the post-Sept. 11 world, in which the United States has relied heavily on intelligence and military cooperation from countries, including Sudan and Uzbekistan, that are considered pariah states for their records on human rights.
A few points. First off, how can we justify taking out Saddam because of how he treated his people, when we are in fact supporting another regime guilty of the same thing?
Another, and more interesting point. What can we expect 20, 30 or 40 years down the road from this? I am talking about people who suffered at the hand of the Sudanese government? We very well could be breeding new terrorists from this action. In other words, history has taught us nothing.
Finally, I would like to know if this action is in violation of any U.N. resolutions. Numerous have been passed regarding Sudan, and I wouldn't be shocked if we were in violation of one some where. If that is the case then the Bush administration must be held accountable for this.