Save Darfur!!

[BuckNaked]

The only reason we invaded Iraq was for oil and revenge. Hussein was not a real and present threat. If we were honestly seeking world stability and protecting ourselves from threats, we would have invaded North Korea and/or Iran. They actually CAN hurt us and cause major problems in the world.

Yep, the rest of the world should do something about Darfur too, but gee, since we have made ourselves out as the world police, shouldn't WE take the first step instead of sitting back and using the excuse that the world needs to step in instead? Oh, right, because we could care less about Darfur. They have nothing we want. Got it.

So you're saying that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq because we had no national interest there (in your opinion), but we should go into Darfur, even though we have no national interest there?

 

[magicmato]

So you're saying that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq because we had no national interest there (in your opinion), but we should go into Darfur, even though we have no national interest there?

No, I am saying that it is rather silly to state that we had some sort of humanitarian reason for going into Iraq (which is what a lot of the pundits try to say) and then turn around and say we have no reason to head into Darfur. No, I do not feel there was any reason for us to invade Iraq at the time we did. The intelligence made it clear that there was no real and present danger and the people who were actually on the ground asked, no... they BEGGED... us to give them more time to do their jobs.

In Darfur, the reason to invade is completely seperate from Iraq. We should go in and make a change in the situation because it is the right thing to do. We vowed as a country, as a world, to never let genocide happen again, yet here we are sitting on our hands playing "no, you go first" games while people die by the thousands. I saw somewhere where they say upwards of 300,000 people have already been killed in a very short period of time.

What happened to the vows that genocide would never be allowed to occur ever again, following the end of the Nazi regime and the realization of exactly what had happened? Why suddenly is it just "social" now? Exactly when would it be right for us to step in? When we, ourselves, are threatened? That does not speak highly of us, does it?

 

[BuckNaked]

Exactly when would it be right for us to step in? When we, ourselves, are threatened? That does not speak highly of us, does it?

Unless they pose some kind of threat to us, I don't think we should step in militarily. The military isn't supposed to be a social service program. Economic sanctions, diplomatic sanctions, fine, but no U.S. military involvement.

 

[magicmato]

Unless they pose some kind of threat to us, I don't think we should step in militarily. The military isn't supposed to be a social service program. Economic sanctions, diplomatic sanctions, fine, but no U.S. military involvement.

And what threat did Iraq pose? If you mean the destabliization of the Middle East, what about the fact that this genocide can and is spilling over into other areas of Africa and has the potential of starting a larger-scale conflict? Or since none of them has nukes, is that still not our problem?

Funny, I bet if there was massive genocide somewhere in Europe, it would be our concern.

ETA: I still find it hard to believe that people keep referring to genocide as a social issue.

 

[BuckNaked]

And what threat did Iraq pose?

The fact that Saddam Hussein was in power in Iraq was a threat to the U.S., one that had been recognized for year and across administrations of both Democrats and Republicans.

If you mean the destabliization of the Middle East, what about the fact that this genocide can and is spilling over into other areas of Africa and has the potential of starting a larger-scale conflict? Or since none of the has nukes, is that still not our problem?

Having nuclear weapons would of course change the equation, but short of that, no I wouldn't see a large scale conflict in Africa as being of any particular threat to the national security of the United States.

Funny, I bet if there was massive genocide somewhere in Europe, it would be our concern.

Probably so, because we have a huge national interest in a stable Europe.

 

[Oreo Cookie]

1) There was genocide in Iraq. Ask the Kurds.
2) There was WMD's in Iraq. Ask the Kurds. Ask the Iranians.
3) There was murder and rape in Iraq. Ask Kusay & Uday. Oh, wait... Ask the families of those afflicted.

If you're for military action in Darfur, you should DEFINATELY be for military action in Iraq. Same stuff, except that Iraq controls oil (the lifeblood of the world economy), Iraq was at least indirectly involved in the war on terrorism, Iraq is situated in a VERY favorable location in the middle east, Iraq invaded Kuwait, Iraq was repeatedly defiant of UN resolutions, Iraq did not recognize basic human rights for women, etc, etc, etc.

MILITARILY, Darfur is of no consequence to us. Iraq was (and is). Should something be done to halt the atrocities in Darfur? Absolutely. But, regieme change in Iraq, from the standpoint of the greater good to world peace, was and is more important right now. Since the left perceives that we're going it alone in Iraq, that leaves the entire rest of the world to step up and take care of Darfur.

I agree that there was genocide happening in Iraq, just looke at the Anfal Campaign mounted by Saddam Hussein in 1988 (and we should have done something about it). Hussein was a ruthless dictator, and I do believe that Iraq will be better off with him gone. He was convicted of crimes against humanity and received his sentence.

The current civil war now in Iraq is religious based, and I don't claim to be an expert on Sunni or Shiite religions, but their hatred towards each other is not something that the US can fix. I wish it was, and I truly hope for peace. I don't believe that we should just pull out of Iraq and leave the country in a state or turmoil, but I do think we need a better plan, and a successful exit strategy. The current administration, IMO, does not have a plan that can succeed. I truly hope that it does, but it just looks very doubtful.

I think that to allow a modern day holocaust to occur under our watch is horrific. To just stand by, is awful. If the UN isn't going to do something, why shouldn't America approach its allies and formulate a plan to go into Darfur and save the people. It is NOT a civil war in Darfur, read up on Darfur for a better understanding. It is a genocide, not a civil war, a genocide.

I've got to say your last paragraph is such a sad commentary. Too bad the people of Darfur aren't dying on top of oil field, because then, in your eyes, they would be worthy of saving.

 

[BuckNaked]

It is a genocide, not a civil war, a genocide.

I believe the UN disagrees.

 

[Oreo Cookie]

No it doesn't.

Is every single issue in the new today about the left and the right?

Only because some posters want to make it about left and right.

I think if we ask the people in Darfur, they would care less about left and right, they just want to live and be safe.

 

[Oreo Cookie]

We vowed as a country, as a world, to never let genocide happen again, yet here we are sitting on our hands playing "no, you go first" games while people die by the thousands. I saw somewhere where they say upwards of 300,000 people have already been killed in a very short period of time.

What happened to the vows that genocide would never be allowed to occur ever again, following the end of the Nazi regime and the realization of exactly what had happened? Why suddenly is it just "social" now? Exactly when would it be right for us to step in? When we, ourselves, are threatened? That does not speak highly of us, does it?

This is worth repeating.

 

[Oreo Cookie]

I believe the UN disagrees.

In a previous post you sad the UN is useless, but now you are using their definition to prove your point. Which is it?

The US Government has even said that Darfur is a genocide. Former Sec of State Powell used those terms to describe Darfur.

 

[beachblanket]

1)Since the left perceives that we're going it alone in Iraq, that leaves the entire rest of the world to step up and take care of Darfur.

Couldn't have said it better. The left kept saying we needed to have full world support and involvement before entering Iraq.

But here they are now saying it's "our" job to lead the charge with or without that support. Yes, if it comes down to it, it's OUR sole job to support "never again." France? Nope, not their job. Nor Germany, or Russia , or China. Yep, per the left, it's not O.K. for us to be a cowboy in Iraq - but that's perfectly fine in Darfur.

Which by the way will continue to be a non-event in the major U.S. media. Or put differently, I'm willing to bet 98% of the citizens of this country (O.K., maybe 75% in Hollywood, since this "issue" is the fashionable anti-Bush agenda du jour there) couldn't point out the place on a map even if their life depended on it.

 

[BuckNaked]

In a previous post you sad the UN is useless, but now you are using their definition to prove your point. Which is it?

I believe that the UN is useless, so I'm not using them to make my point - even a stopped clock shows the correct time twice a day. I'm just pointing out that many of the same folks (not necessarily on the DIS, but in general) that think the UN is the all-knowing body of the world obviously forget about that when it comes to Darfur.

The US Government has even said that Darfur is a genocide. Former Sec of State Powell used those terms to describe Darfur.

Yes he has, and I know that the U.S. government has labeled it a genocide as well, which I believe it to be. But stating that there is no civil war is ridiculous - the genocide is taking place as a piece of the civil war.

 

[Oreo Cookie]

I believe that the UN is useless, so I'm not using them to make my point - even a stopped clock shows the correct time twice a day. I'm just pointing out that many of the same folks (not necessarily on the DIS, but in general) that think the UN is the all-knowing body of the world obviously forget about that when it comes to Darfur.



Yes he has, and I know that the U.S. government has labeled it a genocide as well, which I believe it to be. But stating that there is no civil war is ridiculous - the genocide is taking place as a piece of the civil war.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Crankyshank]

A significant percentage of Americans can't point out several US states on a map, should they not have an opinion on combatting issues here? Oh, and I can point out Darfur on a map thank you very much

I would think that those who support the war in Iraq as a natural progression of the war against terror would be in favor of a military presence in Darfur, particularly considering the area's ties to Bin Laden and the fact Al Qaeda have made threats that they will attack any UN peace keepers that get involved in Darfur. Last year wasn't there BL tape urging AQ soldiers to start traveling to Darfur and prepare for a crusade?

 

[magicmato]

Couldn't have said it better. The left kept saying we needed to have full world support and involvement before entering Iraq.

But here they are now saying it's "our" job to lead the charge with or without that support. Yes, if it comes down to it, it's OUR sole job to support "never again." France? Nope, not their job. Nor Germany, or Russia , or China. Yep, per the left, it's not O.K. for us to be a cowboy in Iraq - but that's perfectly fine in Darfur.

Which by the way will continue to be a non-event in the major U.S. media. Or put differently, I'm willing to bet 98% of the citizens of this country (O.K., maybe 75% in Hollywood, since this "issue" is the fashionable anti-Bush agenda du jour there) couldn't point out the place on a map even if their life depended on it.

Not surprisingly, you are avoiding the real point. We did not invade Iraq for humanitarian reasons. We did not invade Iraq to stop Hussein slaughtering well over 300,000 people. We invaded for a reason that even our government can't quite define. How many times has their reasons changed? There was NO clear and present danger to anyone at that specific time, other than our government WANTED to invade just at that moment. There was no reason not to give the process that was in place more time to complete itself.

But you are right, that is the same thing to sitting and waiting as hundreds of thousands of human beings are brutally murdered in a mass genocide.

And what exactly is the point in saying that since our citizens are woefully poor at geography then it does not matter? What does that have to do with anything?

Going in and stopping genocide is *not* cowboying it. It is called being a compassionate human being and giving a darn about human life. The fact that we can sit and just shrug and say that it is someone else's responsibility while we police every other part of the globe is just insane. Human life should be more important than oil or anything else and given the choice, I would rather we dumped the billions of dollars we are spending to further destabilize the ME (since it is worse now than it was before we invaded) into actually making a difference and saving people who would otherwise wind up in mass graves. But what do I know? I am just one of those damned liberals, right?

 

[User Name]

I've got to say your last paragraph is such a sad commentary. Too bad the people of Darfur aren't dying on top of oil field, because then, in your eyes, they would be worthy of saving.

Please note that I AM in favor of the US doing something in Darfur.

I just wanted to point out that it's not a MILITARY issue, it's a social issue. Both important, but different. You're right, if Darfur was on top of a major portion of the world's oil, or water, or air, or food - we'd be in there already. Sad commentary, but true. There's no MILITARILY reason for the US to risk our troops. There IS a humanitarian reason for us to get involved.

I also believe that the US, being the moral (and military) leader in the world should take the lead if the UN doesn't - JUST like in Iraq. We have that ability and the responsibility.

I also VERY MUCH believe that many of the "save Darfur" crowd are COMPLETE hypocrites on this if they are not 100% for us being in Iraq. There are the same reasons to be in Iraq (plus MANY more) as Darfur. The only reason these hypocrites are anti-Iraq is because they're anti-Bush.

 

[Darth Cupcake]

For goodness gracious, don't make this a conservative vs. liberal argument. So what if celebs are taking up the cause. So what if it is currently PC to want to end this genocide. So what if you and I disagree about Iraq. So what if it isn't happening nearby. People, families, children are suffering beyond comprehension. We are blessed nation. To those whom much is given, much is required. We have a moral obligation to do as a nation all that we can. And so far, I don't see this happening. Shame on conservatives and liberals in power who have not stood up for these people. Another place to look for information and possible donation opportunities is www.worldvision.org.

 

[JennyMominRI]

I . The only reason these hypocrites are anti-Iraq is because they're anti-Bush.

That's total bull.. I voted for Bush in 2000. I supported him after 9/11. I supported him in Afghanistan.. It was his action in Iraq, among other things that led me to be Anti-Bush. The Anti-bush feeling did not come first.

Frankly,I am just as critical of Clinton for not intervening in Rwanda as I am of Bush not intervening in the Sudan

 

[BuckNaked]

That's total bull.. I voted for Bush in 2000. I supported him after 9/11. I supported him in Afghanistan.. It was his action in Iraq, among other things that led me to be Anti-Bush. The Anti-bush feeling did not come first.

Ffrankly,I am just as critical of Clinton for not intervening in Rwanda as I am of Bush not intervening in the Sudan

Jenny, in your case, I believe you are telling the truth and being sincere. But I believe you are the exception to the rule as stated by User Name.

 

[JennyMominRI]

Jenny, in your case, I believe you are telling the truth and being sincere. But I believe you are the exception to the rule as stated by User Name.

I don't doubt that it's true in some cases..But I don't think it's any more a fair assesment of the situation than to say that people who support the was in Iraq simply do it because they love George Bush..I think that's way to simplistic an assesment of both sides.