Does the world even care about Darfur?

take it 4 the team wrote:

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

ha. good response. but i think darfur is a much different situation than anywhere we have oil interests, or the next world superpower. maybe the guy you were responding to was exaggerating a bit...but i think the main point is there is no reason for him to care so much about darfur.

Of course what is happening is awful and it would be wonderful if we could stop it, but we can't. unless our troops are going to march into the country and just beat down the clowns killing everyone, nothing will change now. and even if they did that, the country would still end up a hell-hole (see the Iraq situation...many people may want peace, but they don't hold the guns and money)

you simply can't help people who aren't ready to help themselves. it doesn't work. and to those who "care" so much about darfur, please, as other posters have said, by all means get over to Africa and become involved. Or go lobby at the U.N yourselves, whatever...but don't guilt trip people because they aren't willing to spend time attending little meeting and rallies in bum-f*** Michigan about how awful everything is and how much we should "care" and how evil out government is for caring so much about oil.

oil is critical to our country's own interests, and we are still a people who, for the most part, are willing to try to better our position in the world. i know, i know...bush and the rest of our wonderful politicians do a shit job of this, but it's up to us to change the people we put in leadership roles...and at least they don't send out death squads to roam our streets looking for democrats to torture.

anyway, the point is that no, most people don't care about darfur on more than a superficial level because there is nothing we can do without ending up trying to run that country (in addition to the shit we're bogged down in in the middle east) for at least ten years. and forget about the U.N. getting anything done.

While I appreciate the "antithetical" summary at the end of this statement I have to take issue to what looks like a pinning of the Holocaust exclusively upon Christians. By the time of the first World War, Germany was only nominally (in name only) a "Christian Nation." Traditional Christianity (as a moral force) had been dealt its death blow already in the late 19th century. By the time of the 3rd Reich, the only small remnant of Christianity that still remained had been put through the sequential meat-grinders of 18th century rationalism and 19th century existentialism.But it's easier to blame Christianity for the 3rd Reich than to take a sober look at the secular, humanistic, Darwinistic and even quasi-"New Age" influences that drove the death machine.

mobile9 wrote:

It's important to note that Darfur's genocide of Muslim on non-Muslim is akin to the Holocaust's genocide of Christian against non-Christian: in the widely accepted view of their faith, it's antithetical.

Not another liberal schmuck wrote:

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.

When you're dealing with the Sudanese government today lead by Omar Bashir, you're dealing with some bad dudes who are perpetuating a racists policy aimed at solidifying Arab control of the Sudan. But, it also a somewhat pragmatic government that sidelined the Islamists. The Islamists in Sudan fell out of favor in the mid 1990s.

The National Islamic Front (NIF) came to power in 1989 after overthrowing the Nimieri regime (a military dictatorship). In the early 1990s the NIF was dominated by radical Islamists led by the eminence grise of political Islam, Hassan el Turabi. During this period Sudan gave sanctuary to Osama Bin Laden and what became Al Qaeda. But, in 1996 after Sudan was implicated in a failed assassination attempt against Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak on a trip to Addis, more practical forces (relatively) in the NIF eased out Turabi and others. Bin Laden and his group were expelled. Turabi was placed under house arrest.

Today Turabi is easing himself back into the fold. He has moderated his extreme views somewhat. Remember, after 9/11 the Sudanese were very cooperative with the US. They turned over tons of great information on AQ - information they had collected on Bin Laden & co. when they were in Sudan.

Lots more to tell if I had time. But the government in Sudan, while reprehensible in many ways, is not the Taliban.

RD:

I don't think the vast majority understand that "doing something" means massive acts of violence against Arabs.

Remember that during the 78 day campign in Bosnia we accidentally killed 1,500 innocent people. Remember the refugee train with 178 women and children? Remember that we bombed the Chinese Embassy by accident, and they were pissed? Remember the errant missle that blew up in Bulgaria and killed a bunch of people? War is a dirty business and to stop the genocide, it has to get dirty.

As you note above, The Sudan Government is Islamic. If the Christian West starts raining bombs on their head to stop the genocide, the arab world will go nuts. I don't care if Bush has the support of Kofi Annan and Pelosi et al, it won't matter. They will go crazy.

In this part of the world, their is a religious war and Dafur is just another front in it. It is similar to Iraq as I noted above.

"Doing something" in Dafur means we need to show the will to follow through when it gets unpopular and hard. We cannot bail like we did in Somalia. Unfortutely we are showing we don't have the will in Iraq, like Somalia. Until we can prove we can finish something hard (Iraq), we cannot do anything in Dafur.

Yes it is a problem with only two solutions, get he arab muslims stop (by force) or let the black muslims defend themselves. If we could talk our way into a solution, this would have never started in the first place. Once genocides start, only force stops them.

Bottom line, sorry black Muslims, you soon won't exist. We'll have to read about you in history books. You can blame the weak kneed Americans that cannot see the problem in the world or have the will to do anything about it.

They want to pretend radical Islamism is merely a political statement against George Bush. So, you will die at the hands of radical islam becuase of their ignorance and lack of will.

brllc wrote:

Bottom line, sorry black Muslims, you soon won't exist. We'll have to read about you in history books. You can blame the weak kneed Americans that cannot see the problem in the world or have the will to do anything about it.

They want to pretend radical Islamism is merely a political statement against George Bush. So, you will die at the hands of radical islam becuase of their ignorance and lack of will.

Some of us can see it, but we have a generational outlook, rather than a time frame measured in mere months. I would agree that Islamo-fascists exploit the "weak-kneed" Americans, but, once again, how is it that America is called upon to deliver the goods and the rest of the world gets an "attach your cart to the strongest horse" pass?

Not another liberal schmuck wrote:

Some of us can see it, but we have a generational outlook, rather than a time frame measured in mere months. I would agree that Islamo-fascists exploit the "weak-kneed" Americans, but, once again, how is it that America is called upon to deliver the goods and the rest of the world gets an "attach your cart to the strongest horse" pass?

You know the answer to this question. The U.S. is the only country (with maybe the U.K., which if the same thing in this case) with the capability and the moral authority to do this (yes, moral authority!). We are the leaders of the planet and as such, have a heavier burden and higer expectations that everyone else.