"In Darfur, [Sudan] there is no hunger," the Sudanese foreign minister told the Washington Post. "There is no malnutrition. There is no epidemic disease." Widespread hunger, he claimed, was "imagined" by members of the press.

One only wishes. In reality, it is Sudanese government officials, as documented in today's Post, whose imaginations have run wild.

In Sudan, there are more than a million displaced persons, vestiges of slavery, and several hundred-thousand dying of starvation or disease. Arab goons have destroyed 56,000 homes and killed 10,000 people in the last year and a half. A civil war has raged since the '80s. Be glad you don't live there.

I would be interested to know what you think should be done in Sudan to ease the crisis? Do you believe that those people should be left to die because they are not Americans? Do you believe that humanitarian aid should be sent at the US taxpayers expense? Do you think the UN should foot the bill? Or perhaps you believe that the US should intervene millitaraly, and set up a new government that won't let things like this happen. I'm sorry Mr. Flynn, but for a man who earns his keep writting about politics, I can hardly accept that "be glad you don't live there" is a tenable or respectable response to the death and impending death of so many.

I don't believe the members of our armed forces should be used as social workers. They're great at winning wars, not at rebuilding countries.

America should provide humanitarian aid in crisis situations like Sudan. The UN was partly established for this purpose too. America should impose economic sanctions, as we are doing. We should encourage neighboring African and Arab countries to do what they can to police their own region. We should not act as the world's policeman.