The Devil in Darfur :Reasons to doubt the new peace deal will hold is a good piece that I would encourage you to read. What do you think of the way the situation has been handled? What would you do differently?
A larger problem is the unwillingness of the international community to treat Sudan as the outlaw state it is. While unsparing in his criticism of Khartoum, Mr. Egeland is at pains to emphasize violence “by all sides.” When the U.N. Security Council voted to sanction four Sudanese individuals, two of them were rebel leaders. More broadly, the Darfur crisis is a reminder that the very institutions that, prior to the Iraq war, were said to be the only legitimate arbiters of international intervention turn out to be the least helpful when intervention is most needed.At a regional level, the African Union has done what it can to broker peace and has sent a poorly equipped and operationally limited 7,000-man force to police Darfur, an area the size of France. The AU’s efforts are at least well-intended. This is more than can be said for the Arab League, which held its most recent summit in Khartoum and has backed Mr. Bashir to the hilt.
America’s allies in Europe have rejected an Administration proposal to deploy NATO forces to Darfur. The U.N.’s humanitarian agencies have done yeoman work to feed and shelter refugees. But the Security Council has been unable to impose broad and effective sanctions on Khartoum thanks to Chinese and Russian opposition.
This leaves the United States, the only country in the world with the capability and, potentially, the will to aid Darfuris and every other group threatened with genocide or brutal oppression. President Bush has certainly been engaged with the crisis in Darfur, more so than any of his alleged moral betters in places such as France and Sweden. Yet having endured so much opprobrium and resistance to his last two acts of international hygiene–the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq–it’s no wonder he’s reluctant to carry another burden, particularly when American interests are not directly at stake.
There’s a lesson here for all of those liberal internationalists who now demand the Administration “do something” in Darfur: If you want to stop genocide, don’t shackle the world’s only policeman.
the sad fact is the people of the third world want mass Genocide and most can’t think, becuase most hate us so much its almost funny, the people of the third world kill each other for race and culture, reason and do it with a grin and smile and love it all to much. what do you think will happen when this nation become just like mexico? do you think it can’t happen to you?, just look at history.:cry:
“boys mass Genocide”, is all to normal a-way of “life in all third world counties”. may the USA WIN And may you all live a long life, but i don’t think that will happen:cry:
Now the liberals, who have been lampooning Bush for Iraq, want us to go into Sudan, where there are NO U.S. interests?
We should tell Europe that it is in their neighborhood, it’s their problem, end of story. Let all those EuroSocialists, who have been so bigmouthed criticizing us, solve it their way.
Robert, I think we should be involved as much as we can with Darfur. Militarily, we really can’t afford the troops, but we can and have offered other means of help. I can not abide genocide. It must end. We need to help them!
What I find hypocritical isthe fact that those calling for the US to do something, are the very same people that didn’t feel that we should have removed Saddam. How many Iraqis did he kill?
What’s a country to do? The head of Sudan has soundly refused ANY and EVERY offer of assistance to stop the Genocide in Darfur. He just recently refused to allow UN peacekeepers into his country. Now if the African Union wanted to do something effective, it would set up a secure perimeter around a corner of the region only as large as it can control, have the neighboring countries send troops to secure their borders along the edge of the AU controlled bubble, and send out heavily armed combat patrols preferably with helicopter gunship support to retrieve as many darfuri resident as possible and bring them back into the secured area. Once fed, trained and armed, these Darfuris could then be used as additional troops to expand the AU controlled area and help rescue as many more Darfur residents as possible. They would make excellent guides because they would be more familiar with the area than foreign AU troops. This secure bubble would also allow the refugee organizations a place to operate in relative safety. With 7,000 men the initial area may only be a couple dozen square miles, but it’s a start and is better than nothing. Of course if the area has a lot of hills with large wide valleys, that area could be expanded because the terrain would be easier to defend.
#3 I don’t think genocide should stand either. Saddam murdered more than 500,000 Iraqis and that’s just the ones who have beem found in the mass graves. How many went into the shredders God only knows.
But that was okay with the anti-war crowd and the Left, because it wasn’t their decision. Now that they have decided we should act; why, what the heck is Bush doing? WHY isn’t he helping?
Robert..who cares about that…George Bush is the only terrorist on the planet…and he dosen’t care about black people.