Something everyone should do (Save Darfur)

[rpp]

Thanks for posting something about Darfur. Like many of you it has been on my mind for a while. Now here is the problem I have.

There are a lot of US citizens and politicians who want the US to get involved. The Darfur issue is that there are a lot of people being killed. Now here’s where it may upset a lot of the posters who want the US to get involved.

For the US to get involved it would have to send troops there to take care of the militant groups who are causing all the problems. Now. Supporters of Darfur say we should help or send aid, yet they want the troops out of Iraq. Sounds a bit hypocritical to me. Go help Darfur and let the Iraqis fend for themselves. Does that seem fair? Look There are people who want Bushs’ head on a platter for the Iraq issue. Now what if he does what the people think is right and something goes wrong and more troops die? Guess what, the people will all turn on Bush, just like they did with the Iraq war.

There is no way we should get involved with Darfur until the Iraq situation is stablized. Which may never happen.

First, I support intervention in Darfur (surprise) and your post did not upset me in the least. It raised some very practical issues.

While I am not sure about your concluding line, I will agree it is a difficuit choice.

Hoswever, like what happend in Indonesia a few years ago, it was not the USA that sent troops to help, it was Australia with sanction of the UN. Why? It is close to Australia.

A couple of African nations have sent troops, but they are under-manned, and not well equipped. I support intervention, but not necessarily US intervention. In fact, I think respectable neighbors, like Ethiopia, who are willing to help would be best. It is their region and they have a real stake in a stable Sudan. The USA, Canada, Australia, and other countries can help (supplies, equipment, humanitarian aid, etc.) but preferably the intervention, “boots on the ground”, should come primarily from Sudan’s neighbors and with UN approval and monitoring.

 

[onmywayagain]

First, I support intervention in Darfur (surprise) and your post did not upset me in the least. It raised some very practical issues.

While I am not sure about your concluding line, I will agree it is a difficuit choice.

Hoswever, like what happend in Indonesia a few years ago, it was not the USA that sent troops to help, it was Australia with sanction of the UN. Why? It is close to Australia.

A couple of African nations have sent troops, but they are under-manned, and not well equipped. I support intervention, but not necessarily US intervention. In fact, I think respectable neighbors, like Ethiopia, who are willing to help would be best. It is their region and they have a real stake in a stable Sudan. The USA, Canada, Australia, and other countries can help (supplies, equipment, humanitarian aid, etc.) but preferably the intervention, “boots on the ground”, should come primarily from Sudan’s neighbors and with UN approval and monitoring.

My last statement was that the stabilization of Iraq may never happen. I agree with you that the neighboring countries should be the main source of help with the UN also helping. But what the American people want is for the US to step in. That’s what I’m hearing and reading. Its just not adding up to me. Why Darfur and not Iraq? The Iraq issue is more of a worldly issue, while Darfur is regional. That’s what I think anyways.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

You want to deny them rights, deny them a constitution, when THEY DID NOT ATTACK US. That’s exactly what every domination-minded empire ever did. Tell me what the Iraqi people have done to deserve us calling their shots.

Germany and Japan were on a march to take over the world. Japan attacked us, Iraq did not. You’re comparing a genuine evil empire to a country sadly in the thrall of extremists. Now if you want to go over there and stamp on extremists blowing up schools and churches, well, they kind of asked for it. But to deny the rest of the country rights while we remake it in our image is NOT justifiable.

I want to stress that I am not saying we’re using Nazi tactics now, nor calling Mr. Doyle here a Nazi, since it seems to have been interpreted that way. But to deny freedoms to someone whose country we occupy is something Nazis would have done, just as the British Empire did, just as the Monguls did, and we are not that kind of empire.

We’re supposed to be a light for the world to find a better way. We aren’t supposed to shove it down their throats with our boots. We haven’t got that right.

Saddam’s was a corrupt regime; I think we can agree on that. The country without Saddam is not ready to govern itself. That is evident now and should have been evident before the war to the administration. The solution is not to not remove Saddam from power and let a vaccuum ensue: The solution is to remove Saddam from power, create peace in the country through martial law, and then create a government when the people of Iraq are ready for civil discourse.

Martial law is required to do this. I think its a lengthy process, but even if it is not the order of events should be like this:

1. Stop Genocidal Dictator
2. Secure the area
3. Create a civil governemt
4. Retrain a self defense force
5. Gradually lift martial law
6. Cede power to the civil authorities gradually
7. Send our troops home (Traditionally this takes a while)

Step 2 was never done. Without that, it is an uphill battle and we need to go back and get step 2 done. Step 2 also includes building up the infrastructure and improving living conditions.

Liberties are returned to the populace gradually throughout the steps as the society proves stable and peacable. Indeed, the populace is the determining factor on how long it takes to progress through the steps.

I don’t think we are as far apart as it seems. One other note is that outside factions also require Step 2 to be particularly thorough in the case of Iraq since Iran and Syria are actively destabilizing the region.

peace LiberalSaved

michael

 

[vern_humphrey]

Of course. And the two world wars are in no way justification to go in and step on whoever we want in the name of peace. Germany, italy and Japan wanted to dominate the world. There’s a slight difference.

Now there’s an irony for you!!

After the war, people pointed out that Hitler told us exactly what he planned to do, in his infamous “Mien Kampf.” But statesmen and even ordinary people of the Interwar Period ignored the warning. They didn’t stop him when he could have been stopped.

Now look at the pronouncments of militant Islam – look what Bin Laden and others say their goal is.

Do you say they don’t want to dominate the world?

 

[Robert_Bay]

WARNING

Please stay on the topic of Darfur

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

WARNING

Please stay on the topic of Darfur

I believe it is on topic. Darfur, some believe, requires military intervention. The Iraq occupation is a valuable case to examine what we could, should and would do to relieve the problem of Darfur.

If we do not have the will to enter into these places it may be that we are complicit in genocide as a country. Guilt by silence? by inaction? And how many more places will or will not spring up if we do not or do intervene?

 

[rpp]

Darfur, some believe, requires military intervention. The Iraq occupation is a valuable case to examine what we could, should and would do to relieve the problem of Darfur.

If we do not have the will to enter into these places it may be that we are complicit in genocide as a country. Guilt by silence? by inaction? And how many more places will or will not spring up if we do not or do intervene?

Well said. From a practical point of view, the USA is probably unable to send significant troops to a third region. Even if we were, that would leave the USA is a very tenuous military situtation.

However, the USA, among others, is also pretty good at organizing things. That is where regional powers come in.

We cannot be complicit in a genocide as some on this thread have suggested we be.

 

[djamu]

man thats sad. it is just unthinkable they did to the innocent women and children. and it is unthinkable that I don’t have the intellect of organizing or persistence to do any thing about it.

 

[kitten]

I just happened upon this forum a while ago. As it happens, I am Catholic. I chose to become Catholic as an adult. Yes, this is a little OT, but please bear with me. I read a post in this thread that stated :

“Actually, it is a mostly Catholic area. The Moslems in the area by-and-large support the Janjuweed and thus are usually left alive and in their homes. It is the Christians and other non-Moslems who are being slaughtered, raped and driven from their homes.”

I take exception to Catholics not being called Christians. Or have I gotten that wrong? That is what the above sentence appears to state. I am also assuming that this was written by a Catholic.

Perhaps I have just made a mistake, but Like I said, I find it offensive that someone can think a Catholic is non-christian, as most southerners seem to. Yes, though I no longer live in the USA, I am from the south and that was everyone’s biggest problem with me choosing Catholicism, they thought Catholics weren’t Christian.

That aside, I agree that far more should be done about the Sudanese. It is shameful! Where I now live in Australia, many many Sudanese have come to live as refugees and it is wonderful to see Australians embrace the locals from Sudan and their culture. GO Australia:thumbsup:

 

[Carrie_Andrews]

I was visiting my friends parish this weekend and was delighted to see they had a table set up with a sign up for prayers for Dafur!!! The word is getting out, that’s half the battle!!!