Something everyone should do (Save Darfur)

[Liberalsaved]

If anybody tries to do any serious intervention, you will have bands of hooligans in the streets of Washington, San Francisco and New York screaming about another “unnecessary war” and pundits on television seizing on every flaw in our intelligence to proclaim the President “lied.”

And they know that. They know we lack the political fortitude to do anything about it.

What Michael suggested isn’t fortitude. It’s conquering a nation that did nothing to us and acting like Nazis about it. America isn’t America because we’re the most powerful nation on earth. We’re the most powerful nation on earth because we’re free. To take over another country, no matter what they’ve done, and deny them those freedoms is to lose what makes us American.

And you really beleive that would stop the killing? You’re not really considering all the angles, if you do. The British conquered, Rome conquered, the Mongols conquered; and every “empire” that ever decided the world would be better if they owned it fell so totally that only the vestiges of their accomplishments remain to remind us of their glory. And a fleeting glory at that, for it was gained by subjugating people.

That’s not justice, it’s state-sanctioned terrorism. Who are you, who are we, to deny any country a constitution for any length of time? I’ve seen the soft word “pacify” used, but conquer and subjugate are truer words for this.

And even if all this worked, this is about Darfur, and African nation. How does this solve their problems? By more violence you’ll eventually end violence? That argument has never worked and it isn’t going to start now.

We solve things like this through charity, through love and through understanding the cultures that occupy our world. That’s the horrible thing about this; if anyone in the west actually bothered to understand what life is like in Africa, they might care. They just might.

But we’d sooner just go in and stomp on them, because darn it, we’re America!

That’s not my country.

 

[rpp]

If anybody tries to do any serious intervention, you will have bands of hooligans in the streets of Washington, San Francisco and New York screaming about another “unnecessary war” and pundits on television seizing on every flaw in our intelligence to proclaim the President “lied.”

And they know that. They know we lack the political fortitude to do anything about it.

You are so right.

Lost in the debate about Iraq is the fact that Saddam Hussein had somewhere in the neighborhood of 1 million people killed after the Gulf War. He gassed tens of thousands of Kurds in the 1980s. He was a mass murderer. Yet we are the criminals for stopping the murder. Too bad we did not know that other murderers would strp up to the plate. I guess we just believed the “religion of peace” propaganda.

 

[rpp]

Roosevelt would be too smart to do that nonsense you mentioned.

Reminds of an old rock song. “Don’t know much about history…”

Don’t you know how Theadore Roosevelt got US control of the Panama Canal Zone? I believe the press at the time called it “Gunboat Diplomacy”.

He was the man who said “Speak softly and carry a big stick.”

No, President T. Roosevelt would be too smart **not **to have a more all-out war on the terrorists.

 

[rpp]

What Michael suggested isn’t fortitude. It’s conquering a nation that did nothing to us and acting like Nazis about it. America isn’t America because we’re the most powerful nation on earth. We’re the most powerful nation on earth because we’re free. To take over another country, no matter what they’ve done, and deny them those freedoms is to lose what makes us American.

And you really beleive that would stop the killing? You’re not really considering all the angles, if you do. The British conquered, Rome conquered, the Mongols conquered; and every “empire” that ever decided the world would be better if they owned it fell so totally that only the vestiges of their accomplishments remain to remind us of their glory. And a fleeting glory at that, for it was gained by subjugating people.

That’s not justice, it’s state-sanctioned terrorism. Who are you, who are we, to deny any country a constitution for any length of time? I’ve seen the soft word “pacify” used, but conquer and subjugate are truer words for this.

And even if all this worked, this is about Darfur, and African nation. How does this solve their problems? By more violence you’ll eventually end violence? That argument has never worked and it isn’t going to start now.

We solve things like this through charity, through love and through understanding the cultures that occupy our world. That’s the horrible thing about this; if anyone in the west actually bothered to understand what life is like in Africa, they might care. They just might.

But we’d sooner just go in and stomp on them, because darn it, we’re America!

That’s not my country.

Are you proud that in WWI your country, after much struggle and sacrifice, helped halt the wholesale murder of Jews, Slavs and Chinese?

 

[OriginalJS]

I’m not suggesting that our affluence is inherently evil of itself.

I wonder sometimes if it isn’t or, if not inherently evil, if it doesn’t have the power to sap some of us weaker persons of much of our empathy for others. Yesterday, I received an e-mail attachment from a friend about a movement to buy nothing for Christmas as a means of getting away from commercialism. I have to admit that on reflection my first thought was, “Yes, but if everybody did that, what would it do to my portfolio?”

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

What Michael suggested isn’t fortitude. It’s conquering a nation that did nothing to us and acting like Nazis about it.
.

Wow! You are slandering me! Stop it now for both our sakes!
I said PACIFY! To make peaceful, not conquer, not oppress, not put our boots on their necks.

Don’t envision our military as NAZIs! Our military is NOTHING like that! If we pacified a nation, it would bring PROSPERITY and peace. Remove the guns and bombs, build housing, feed the children.

To bring the good you need to pacify the area, that requires boots and will!

The USA did it for W Germany and for Japan.

THAT is my country! A country with heroes in the military, not NAZIs.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Quote (Originally by Liberalsaved)—
What Michael suggested isn’t fortitude. It’s conquering a nation that did nothing to us and acting like Nazis about it.

Wow! You are slandering me! Stop it now for both our sakes!
I said PACIFY! To make peaceful, not conquer, not oppress, not put our boots on their necks.

Don’t envision our military as NAZIs! Our military is NOTHING like that! If we pacified a nation, it would bring PROSPERITY and peace. Remove the guns and bombs, build housing, feed the children.

To bring the good you need to pacify the area, that requires boots and will!

The USA did it for W Germany and for Japan.

THAT is my country! A country with heroes in the military, not NAZIs.

There are those who say, “I oppose the war, but I support the troops.” Having been a victim of that sort of thing in my time, I assure you that they hate the troops.

 

[a_priori]

The problem is all these cases (Dafur is not the only one) are traceable to one issue – they are countries run by corrupt, brutal dictators, often with tribal connections.

The situation in Dafur (and Zimbabwe and many other nations) is not due to drought, nor blight, nor lack of charity on the part of the rest of the world. It is due to deliberate, brutal exploitation and brutality.

I agree completely. There is really no way to create anything even remotely resembling a middle class in societies such as these. Much relief money is also siphoned off by dictators in these countries. My contention is only that we should try to keep people alive by feeding them and providing basic services where possible and to apply pressure where we can to improve the lives of these people. It can be a day by day endeavor in some of these areas. I agree that the real problem is the sin that resides in the heart of men and there’s really only One who can fix that.

 

[a_priori]

I wonder sometimes if it isn’t or, if not inherently evil, if it doesn’t have the power to sap some of us weaker persons of much of our empathy for others. Yesterday, I received an e-mail attachment from a friend about a movement to buy nothing for Christmas as a means of getting away from commercialism. I have to admit that on reflection my first thought was, “Yes, but if everybody did that, what would it do to my portfolio?”

My wife and I talk about this a lot. If we achieve a certain amount of affluence I suppose we can then be more of a help to those in need. Affluence is probably a little like fire. It can heat your house or burn you up. It doesn’t seem to bring people closer to God though and that can’t be good.

We have ourselves by the tail. If we stop spending, the economy will tank. I agree about the portfolio. Mine is probably more important to me than it should be.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I agree completely. There is really no way to create anything even remotely resembling a middle class in societies such as these. Much relief money is also siphoned off by dictators in these countries. My contention is only that we should try to keep people alive by feeding them and providing basic services where possible and to apply pressure where we can to improve the lives of these people. It can be a day by day endeavor in some of these areas. I agree that the real problem is the sin that resides in the heart of men and there’s really only One who can fix that.

When it comes to feeding them, the problem is if the power structure (government, dominant tribe) wanted them to live, there would be no need to feed them. But the power structure wants them dead.

The best we can do is set up refugee camps – and as we have seen, this often results in concentrating people and making it easier to kill them en masse.

In the end, this is not a problem that can be solved by charity or diplomacy – this is a task for military action. And since that’s off the table, we are left with mere tokenism in the face of mass death and suffering.

 

[Liberalsaved]

Are you proud that in WWI your country, after much struggle and sacrifice, helped halt the wholesale murder of Jews, Slavs and Chinese?

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.

 

[Liberalsaved]

Wow! You are slandering me! Stop it now for both our sakes!
I said PACIFY! To make peaceful, not conquer, not oppress, not put our boots on their necks.

Don’t envision our military as NAZIs! Our military is NOTHING like that! If we pacified a nation, it would bring PROSPERITY and peace. Remove the guns and bombs, build housing, feed the children.

To bring the good you need to pacify the area, that requires boots and will!

The USA did it for W Germany and for Japan.

THAT is my country! A country with heroes in the military, not NAZIs.

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.

 

[Liberalsaved]

I agree completely. There is really no way to create anything even remotely resembling a middle class in societies such as these. Much relief money is also siphoned off by dictators in these countries. My contention is only that we should try to keep people alive by feeding them and providing basic services where possible and to apply pressure where we can to improve the lives of these people. It can be a day by day endeavor in some of these areas. I agree that the real problem is the sin that resides in the heart of men and there’s really only One who can fix that.

Therein lies a problem. Many people want to handle such problems like a tank rolling over everything and imposing our will. But Africa and the Middle East present a conundrum; you cannot take out most of the dictators without completely destroying any semblance of quality of life the innocent people may have had, as in Iraq.

 

[rpp]

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.

Okay, if they only want to commit mass murder, that is no reason to interfere. It is only if they want to commit mass murder here, or perhaps in England, should we try to stop the murder.

It sounds like you want to feed them, get them into some refugee camps and have them kept comfortable while they wait for the Janjuweed to come and kill them.

Or perhaps you think they should just give up their ancestral homes, and quite a few members of their families, and leave the country? Basically you want the victims to give in while the murderers go free.

That is not justice. I cannot say what it is, but it is not justice.

Not everyone works with the same logic or morality as a faithful Catholic, or even, on the other end of the spectrum, an East Coast (USA) liberal. The Government in the Sudan is an example.

 

[Liberalsaved]

Okay, if they only want to commit mass murder, that is no reason to interfere. It is only if they want to commit mass murder here, or perhaps in England, should we try to stop the murder.

It sounds like you want to feed them, get them into some refugee camps and have them kept comfortable while they wait for the Janjuweed to come and kill them.

Or perhaps you think they should just give up their ancestral homes, and quite a few members of their families, and leave the country? Basically you want the victims to give in while the murderers go free.

That is not justice. I cannot say what it is, but it is not justice.

Not everyone works with the same logic or morality as a faithful Catholic, or even, on the other end of the spectrum, an East Coast (USA) liberal. The Government in the Sudan is an example.

See above. It’s one thing to take out fanatical murderers, it’s a whole different thing to deny freedom to the entire country because of it.

I don’t beleive for a moment that we’re in Iraq for the right reasons. Maybe we’ve taken out Saddam, which he deserved, no doubt. But take an unfiltered look at their country now. We haven’t been doing all we can to get them back on their feet. And if we really cared about peace in the world, and doing the right thing, we wouldn’t buddy up to to other nations that are as bad as Saddam was, and we’d do something about Darfur.

And the bottom line is, of we free a country from a dictator only to impose on them a system of doing what we say, that doesn’t make us the good guys. It makes us one evil cancelling out another.

 

[rpp]

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.

So denying them the freedom of mass murder is a bad thing.

Do you really think we would deny them freedoms? While Iraq is a mess, because of religious civil war, they have a constitution. So does Afghanistan. Those people there get to vote. You are the oinly person who has suggested that stopping mass murderers requires the remoival of freedoms. Your claim is a canard and so basless does great harm to your credibility.

As does your use of the word “Nazi”. I also interpreted that as a direct accusation. Your “clarification” eroded your credibility sonsiderably.

Christians are the light of the world. We should not hide it under a bushel as the scripture says. But there are other ways the people do not see the light, such as being blidfolded by a persecutor.

I would suggest you read up on what St. Thomas Aquinas and other after him, wrote on the topic of “Just War”.

 

[onmywayagain]

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.

 

[rpp]

See above. It’s one thing to take out fanatical murderers, it’s a whole different thing to deny freedom to the entire country because of it.

I don’t beleive for a moment that we’re in Iraq for the right reasons. Maybe we’ve taken out Saddam, which he deserved, no doubt. But take an unfiltered look at their country now. We haven’t been doing all we can to get them back on their feet. And if we really cared about peace in the world, and doing the right thing, we wouldn’t buddy up to to other nations that are as bad as Saddam was, and we’d do something about Darfur.

And the bottom line is, of we free a country from a dictator only to impose on them a system of doing what we say, that doesn’t make us the good guys. It makes us one evil cancelling out another.

Wow. You would sacrifice hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people on your Altar of Hatred of current policies. You are lost.

 

[Liberalsaved]

Wow. You would sacrifice hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people on your Altar of Hatred of current policies. You are lost.

You keep repeating something I never said. I don’t think we’re really having a conversation here, and I’d rather excuse myself from a potential battle of oneupmanship.

 

[Liberalsaved]

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.

Bush went into Iraq under the guise that we were doing it to protect ourselves, which was a bold-faced lie. That is the problem rational people have. I don’t think most sane people would have a problem if we sent help to Darfur, if we did it for reasons we were up front about, and if those reasons were not selfish, as the reasons for outsting Saddam were.