Does the world even care about Darfur?

rterthjgh wrote:

The two situations are not parallel. We opened up the Pandora's box in Iraq without sufficient planning or preparation. And things have reached a point there where the question must be asked, will more troops do anything to stop the inevitable descent of Iraq into chaos? Say we do stick around and create some semblance of government. Who's to say Iran won't simply take over the reigns once we leave? As it stands, our supposed allies, the Shiites, are allied with Iran. Who do you think they are going to listen to when we leave?

Darfur, on the other hand, is not directly of our making, nor is it clear that an intervention woudl fail. Whether we should intervene is an entirely different discussion altogether. But to say that Iraq and Sudan are identical is misleading.

Your sure we won't open a pandora's box in darfur? Most peacekeeping mission do nothing but open pandora's box. Doesn't matter how it started, do we have the balls to end it? We did not in vietnam, beruit, bosnia and now, unfortuntely Iraq.

Here's the problem with Iraq and darfur. You have to pick a side and have to have the will to follow through with your mission. You have to get your hands dirty.

I agree with Bush's goals in Iraq but I'm frustrated that he did not have the will to follow through. The surge is a good idea but again I'm afraid that he will not have the will or poltiical capital to follow through.

As far as Darfur is concerned, the mission has to be to stop the Government's genocide of black muslims. That means, kill Arab muslims until they stop. It really this simple and nothing else will work.

The world is a violent and dangerous place and many radical muslims want us dead. They want our way of life dead. They don't wants deals or foreign aid.

This happens every few hundred years and when the christian world has had enough, we will have a crusade to put down the muslim extremists.

Question is why do we have to wait until half the poster are this board are dead from terrorist attacks. Do not deny what is happening, take off the gloves and get serious!

Nothing against you, but I don't think your definition of "Christian" works.

yeah, let's just drop the bomb on the entire arab world. yeah! that's the ticket. just eradicate half the planet before they eradicate us! take off the gloves and let it rip!

The U.S. doesn't have a large presence in Darfur right now, but they do just about everywhere else on the planet. Why doesn't the rest of the world try to implement a plan to help out if there's so much concern? For all the criticism heaped on the Americans, you can't really fault them for not trying (both with money and personnel). It would be nice to see some of the global humanitarian concerns be acted on rather than just tossed about in speeches and at fundraisers.

A very similar case (much closer to our time) was Indonesia in the 1990's. In 10 years 250,000 East Timorese were killed by a nation that gets a free pass because it is an emerging market. These genocides expose the fact that the Religious Right in America actually doesn't care about Christians. (They care much more about Oil and Israel than poor, Black, Asian and Latin Christians).

it depends how you define..... wrote:

The US still doesn't care that Turkey denies the Ottoman Empire's genocide of the Armenians before WWI.

wfwfewevgcwe wrote:

yeah, let's just drop the bomb on the entire arab world. yeah! that's the ticket. just eradicate half the planet before they eradicate us! take off the gloves and let it rip!

Your sacrasm suggests you're in deep denial. The radical muslim world would drop a bomb on us if they had one. They have killed thousands on our soil, did you forget? You probably think it is a one-off event never to be repeated.

Fact is, they are coming again, it is the stated goals of states like Iran. Go actually read what Ahmadinejad tells the Iranian people. He has repeated stated he wants to destroy israel and the United States. They are activately trying the get a nueclear bomb. They have a goal of doubling their population in the next 30 years. He said these people are needed to occupy isreal and the U.S. after they have killed every infidel in these countries. You think he's kidding?

They need to be stopped before they come.

You view of the world is so screwed up that if we do have an other large scale terrorist attack, you gut instinct will be to blame George Bush and not the terrorist.

Get a clue

No, you "get a clue." An independent commission on Iraq led by James Baker acknowledged that what we have done in Iraq has only worsened the terrorist threat.

As awful as 9-11 was, it was an operation carried out by 19 guys with box cutters. The fact is, as long as there are 19 guys, there is the risk of terrorism. It will be impossible to completely eradicate the threat, no matter how many bombs you drop.

So what do we do? No, we don't bomb the hell out of the Arab world. We get intelligence agents on the ground, improve our intelligence, make sure our port security and other security in this country is solid (read up on port security and what a sieve it still is) and work our diplomatic ties. Resort to bombs as the last possible alternative when none other exists.

Keep thinking that we needed to invade Iraq, that we had no choice. But the fact of the matter is, we'd be a lot better off if we hadn't. Just like now if we declare an all-out war against the Muslim world we are only going to unleash unbelievable carnage.

Don't even bother to respond. I know what you're going to say. Intelligence doesn't work; diplomacy doesn't work. Bombs are the only thing that work. Well, I disagree, and I cite Iraq as a prime example.

Let's try to keep this thread an open discussion on the situation in Darfur.

Here's a good link to a recent ICG report on the UN's failure to act in Darfur. You can navigate around the ICG site and find many more informative publications on Sudan, or any conflict in the worl.

John Prendergast is one of the most knowledgable Americans on the Sudan. I've spoken with him a couple of times. He was on the NSC staff in the Clinton Administration. But he has spent most of his career working in the NGO world. He currently works for ICG.

Why don't all the people who claim to care about Dafur go over there and try and help the situation. Obviously they will do nothing. Just as the UN which was formed to stop these types of situations from happening has done nothing.

It just makes people feel good to say that they care about Dafur,and how they wish something could be done.

)))) Diplomacy never worked on Iraq. Diplomacy led to an incestuous relationship with the UN, eighteen violations of UN sanctions, genocide of the Kurds, and subsidization of the homicide bombings in Israel. As long as you have nations like China trying to secure long-term oil supplies, diplomacy is always going to be compromised.

Sorry to veer off topic; but wanted to enlighten "Anti-Chiliast" and his broad stroke comments about the Relgious Right.....

"There is no evidence that the Jibla hospital, which provides vital services in an impoverished country, had been proselytising. It opened 35 years ago and has not made a single convert, Mr Saqqaf said. "

http://www.guardian.co.uk/yemen/Story/0,2763,866948,00.html

RunDaddy wrote:

Let's try to keep this thread an open discussion on the situation in Darfur.

Here's a good link to a recent ICG report on the UN's failure to act in Darfur. You can navigate around the ICG site and find many more informative publications on Sudan, or any conflict in the worl.

John Prendergast is one of the most knowledgable Americans on the Sudan. I've spoken with him a couple of times. He was on the NSC staff in the Clinton Administration. But he has spent most of his career working in the NGO world. He currently works for ICG.

RD:

All this stuff is BS. Here is the situation briefly:

* Genocides are NOT random acts of violence like the save dafur crowd wants to believe. They are deliberate acts by one group to wipe out another group.

* Genocides are usually sponsored by Governments, as in the case of the Sudan.

* To stop a genocide, one must declared war against the offending Government.

* This means killing the government side, it means losing a lot of our soliders, it means collateral damage (innocent people dying).

It wishful thinking that showing up with bags of wheat and singing songs will solve this problem. This is why the UN does nothing, it does not have the political will to send blue helmets to their death.

Their are only two possible outcomes in Dafur, kill the Arab muslims that are killing the black muslims or arm the black muslims to defend themselves.

The arab muslims have no incentive to "deal." They only will once their objectives are achieved.

Bottom line - stopping a genocide is literally deciding that we want to kill the other side as we are tired of them killing.

[quote]brllc wrote:

RD:

All this stuff is BS. Here is the situation briefly:

* Genocides are NOT random acts of violence like the save dafur crowd wants to believe. They are deliberate acts by one group to wipe out another group. AGREE

* Genocides are usually sponsored by Governments, as in the case of the Sudan. AGREE

* To stop a genocide, one must declared war against the offending Government. NOT NECESSARILY.

- The offending entity must become convinced that it is in their interest to cease the genocide or like activity. This can and has been done through means short of declaring war or even initiating hostile measures against offending entity.

* This means killing the government side, it means losing a lot of our soliders, it means collateral damage (innocent people dying). NOT NECESSARILY.

- Serbia ceased its ethnic cleansing campaign in Kosovo and withdrew its Army, police, and paramilitary units after a 78 day NATO bombing campaign. NATO lost exactly 0 lives in that air campaign. Milosevic finally complied when NATO's bombing made life so miserable in Belgrade that Milosevic and his cronies became worried that the population would rise up against them.

It wishful thinking that showing up with bags of wheat and singing songs will solve this problem. This is why the UN does nothing, it does not have the political will to send blue helmets to their death.

- The NGO community and the some UN workers (UNHCR) have been on the ground in Darfur since 2004. Food is getting delivered to the refugee camps. The issue is forcing the parties to agree to and comply with a real settlement so the displaced can return and rebuild their villages

Their are only two possible outcomes in Dafur, kill the Arab muslims that are killing the black muslims or arm the black muslims to defend themselves.

- These are not the only two possible outcomes. That is a very simplistic way to look at very complex problems of international security.

brllc wrote:

It wishful thinking that showing up with bags of wheat and singing songs will solve this problem. This is why the UN does nothing, it does not have the political will to send blue helmets to their death.

This sums it up nicely. Excellent posts brllc; for what it's worth I totally agree with you.

There is no magic pixie dust to be sprinkled around and make everything rosy. I think some people have a hard time grasping there are some very evil people out there. Hopefully there aren't that many. People in North America try to apply our way of thinking to people on the other side of the world living in conditions we cannot even fathom. At some level, you have to realize you got to be nasty to deal with nasty.

RunDaddy wrote:

- These are not the only two possible outcomes. That is a very simplistic way to look at very complex problems of international security.

Perhaps you are right, but I'd sure like to see the alternatives delineated. Unfortunately, diplomacy is rooted in rational thought and experience, but these Islamo-fascist morons are not accessible via rational means.

I think it's great you guys are this passionate about a situation. Just think how productive you could be and how much better your lives would be if you were this passionate about your job, your training, your wife, your family and so on.

It's bad that people are suffering. Realistically though, I'm more concerned about what I'll have for dinner than what happens in Darfur. We should be more like China anyway. Bring all the troops home, close the borders and let the rest of the world take care of the messes they create.

Thanks, your own citation proves the point:"But, coupled with US policies towards Iraq and the PALESTINIANS (my emphasis), it has inflamed Yemen's Islamist militants."And what could this policy towards Palestine be that has inflamed the militants? A US supported Zionism that is fueled by Chiliasm. Specifically a pre-millennial dispensationalist strain of Chiliasm that the vast majority of Christians (conservatives included!) reject as false.Looks like three more Christians were killed in retaliation for our Nation's blind support of an illegal Israeli state to me. It happens eevery day.

Fact-checker wrote:

Sorry to veer off topic; but wanted to enlighten "Anti-Chiliast" and his broad stroke comments about the Relgious Right.....

"There is no evidence that the Jibla hospital, which provides vital services in an impoverished country, had been proselytising. It opened 35 years ago and has not made a single convert, Mr Saqqaf said. "

http://www.guardian.co.uk/yemen/Story/0,2763,866948,00.html

Fine, lead the way by getting rid of your car(s) and anything in your house marked with "made in China."

Jim Kidwell wrote:

I think it's great you guys are this passionate about a We should be more like China anyway. Bring all the troops home, close the borders and let the rest of the world take care of the messes they create.

Anti-Chilean wrote:

"These genocides expose the fact that the Religious Right in America actually doesn't care about Christians. (They care much more about Oil and Israel than poor, Black, Asian and Latin Christians)."

I suspect the Religious Right in America funds the Baptist hospital located in Yemen which seems to contradict Anti-Chileast' statement above. I didn't comment on why the people at the hospital were killed; but was intending to point out that the hospital existed and where it was located. I suspect the hospital doesn't generate oil revenue and doesn't benefit Israel.