My point is - the US Congress has no influence on the United Nations. And the US is not the only nation in the world here - where are the Japanese, French, Australians, Germans, South Africans, Russians, Algerians, Brazilians, Spanish, Pakistani, Irish, Jamaicans, Egyptians, Belgians, Koreans, Turkmenistani, Iranians, Gaboni, Panamanians, Malaysians, Cubans, Saudi, Argentinians, Thais, Greeks, Peruvians, Danes, and so on, and so on? How much concern is shown by the rest of the world towards the activities in Chad, Ethiopia, Eritrea, The Sudan, the Central African Republic, Uganda and Kenya?

The last US involvement of note on the African continent was Somalia - and how well did that turn out?

Don't get me wrong. Ethnic/religious killings, whether in what used to be Yugoslavia, or Laos, or Iraq, or Belfast/Londonderry, or East Timur, or India/Pakistan border, or Ethiopia/Eritrea, or a hundred other spots is reprehensible. However, as long as there is government-endorsed ignorance, people willing to kill based on religious conviction (or at least use that as an excuse), or leaders who find that skimming the aid provided by well-meaning folk is a sure route to a hefty Swiss bank account, the Darfurs go on and on.

Hollywood (to include its European, Canadian and Hong Kong cousins) is self-serving. How much of what is shown is the truth is always debatable, versus how much of the truth ends up on the cutting-room floor. The bottom line is that an investment was made to make this film, and a profit is expected from the investment. To accept a Hollywood product as "objective journalism" is wishful thinking.