Darfur

[XIX]

Exactly. Not all opposition to the war is brainless liberal opposition. Not even all liberal opposition to the war is clueless. But there is a disturbingly high number of people who oppose the war only because they can not think outside of their own liberal Democrat orthodoxy. It's annoying, especially since they are passing up on perfectly legitimate reasons that I'd like to hear more of.

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1099815' date='Oct 24 2006, 08:12 AM']
I am not a liberal and I disagree vehemently with the war in Iraq. Please note that I didn't disagree at first. When the invasion began I was happy. I've lived nearly all my life in Saudi Arabia, Iraq's next-door neighbour, and I know a lot of people - primarily Kuwaitis - who really suffered as a result of Saddam's invasion in the first Gulf War. Saudis and expatriates alike were very aware of Saddam's atrocities when the second Gulf War began. But as events unfolded, I came to believe that the motives of the 'liberating' forces weren't so pure as I had thought at the beginning. For one thing, why did it take bin Laden - a Wahabbi purist who had nothing to do with a decadent Saddam - to spur the West into action? Saddam had been gassing Kurdish villages and persecuting the Shi'a marsh-dwellers for years. Why wasn't he removed at the end of the first Gulf War? Why did nobody care then?

For this reason, I believe the situation in Darfur is different. The genocide there is still relatively new. If the West responded now, its response might still be seen by the Sudanese people as an immediate and welcome reaction to the problem. If the West waits for over a decade before making its move, as happened with Saddam, any intervention will have something fishy about it.
[/quote]
Thank you.

[Mercy me]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1099209' date='Oct 23 2006, 05:48 PM']
Waht Countries or group of Countries CAN do anything?
Why should the US stay out? Because we're mostly a white population so have nothing in common with black persons?
[/quote]
The African Union has been in there but they are vastly out numbered and outgunned. In my opinion, the US can't go in alone because it is not in our national interest. That is not to say that the US could not go in as a part of an international coallition. The UN is the obvious one to go in but they are useless ie Rwanda, Serbia, etc. The African Union is currently in there but are scheduled to pull out shortly. If I recall it is a funding issue. We should fund and arm them. Perhaps we could augment them with more troups.

There are a plethora of NGOs that are already working in there. I am sure that CRS is one but the majority that I am aware of are out of Europe. They are providing mostly medical and humanitarian relief. NGOs do great work but lack the size and resources that governments have.

I don't believe that the race of the victims has anything to do with the reason that we are not going in. There is a racial issue here but it has to do with ethinic Arabs vs. blacks. If the Sudanese north were to say invade another country then things might change but "civil ethnic cleansing" is not so clear as to who has an obligation to act.

Morally I believe that we as humans as Christian have a obligation to act.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1099815' date='Oct 24 2006, 09:12 AM']
I am not a liberal and I disagree vehemently with the war in Iraq. Please note that I didn't disagree at first. When the invasion began I was happy. I've lived nearly all my life in Saudi Arabia, Iraq's next-door neighbour, and I know a lot of people - primarily Kuwaitis - who really suffered as a result of Saddam's invasion in the first Gulf War. Saudis and expatriates alike were very aware of Saddam's atrocities when the second Gulf War began. But as events unfolded, I came to believe that the motives of the 'liberating' forces weren't so pure as I had thought at the beginning. For one thing, why did it take bin Laden - a Wahabbi purist who had nothing to do with a decadent Saddam - to spur the West into action? Saddam had been gassing Kurdish villages and persecuting the Shi'a marsh-dwellers for years. Why wasn't he removed at the end of the first Gulf War? Why did nobody care then?[/quote]
Bin Laden was our Pearl Harbor in the war on terror. We had been taking action before 9/11, but terrorism was treated as a law enforcement issue, not a military one. When 9/11 took place, U.S. policy changed. We could no longer treat terrorists simply as criminals as the previous administration did. That strategy had very little effect. Read the 9/11 Commission Report or watch The Path to 9/11 for the full scoop.

Saddam gassed the Kurds and came under international condemnation for it. Was it enough? If the response was insufficient, then that gives more justification for the action we have taken in Iraq today. We can't ask "Why didn't we do anything?" and then when we do do something ask "Why are we doing this?"

If we had not intervened in Iraq, many human rights abuses carried out by the Saddam regime would be taking place today.

We did not take him out in the first Gulf War because it wasn't the objective. The objective was to root him out of Kuwait and get him off the border. This also gave Saddam a chance to change. Qaddafi did. Why not Saddam? But, Saddam was obdurate and constantly thumbed his nose at the UN and the inspectors. 9/11 taught us it was too dangerous to allow Iraq to be a playground for terrorists or to acquire WMDs.

All in all, I think people cared about the people of Iraq. I think the solution to the problems is where people disagree. People want the benefits of ousting Saddam, but without the blood, sweat, and tears it takes to make it happen.
[quote]For this reason, I believe the situation in Darfur is different. The genocide there is still relatively new. If the West responded now, its response might still be seen by the Sudanese people as an immediate and welcome reaction to the problem. If the West waits for over a decade before making its move, as happened with Saddam, any intervention will have something fishy about it.[/quote]
Or, it could be another Somalia. Are you willing to stomach potentially another black hawk down? If things start to get hairy, are we going to come back on our leaders asking why they got us into the mess?

War is ugly. As Patton said, war is hell. Once you commit to it, you have to see it through. Victory is to be your mindset.

I believe the Iraq situation would be going a lot better with overwhelming public support. Sadly, some politicians want to score political points by dividing America. So much for "United we stand; divided we fall."

What we are seeing in Iraq is really not new in history. I think if people knew history, support would follow, and the transition would be more peaceful.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1099815' date='Oct 24 2006, 08:12 AM']
For this reason, I believe the situation in Darfur is different. The genocide there is still relatively new. If the West responded now, its response might still be seen by the Sudanese people as an immediate and welcome reaction to the problem. If the West waits for over a decade before making its move, as happened with Saddam, any intervention will have something fishy about it.
[/quote]
The serious fighting has been going on in and around Darfur since 2003. The deaths from the actual fighting, in addition to the deaths caused by starvation and disease to those displaced, are calculated to be about 400,000. Taking into consideration that Sudan didn't even let releif agencies to begin helping unitl 2005, it is believed that number is low.
So the world has sat on it's hands because the political forces in Sudan didn't let aid agencies in (and still restricts their access). Hundreds of thousands have died and will die soon.
The UN has done NOTHING. The African countries have been stymied by regional politics. The Sudanese people die as political pawns because the powerful nations that CAN do something have been convinced they are too evil and greedy to legitimately do something.
Of COURSE if the US waits until we have 'National Intrests' to justify us doing anything it will make us look self-servinng, because that's what it is.
If the US pushed for other Countries to form a new coalition, (and bypass the bottleneck of the UN's politics of self-serving small countries), that would get results. Of course the political fall out is the arabs and muslims would call them 'crusaders', but wouldn't it be better to be hated and save hundreds of thousands of lives?

Those of you who claim to be "Catholic" may want to read this short and practical explanation of the 'Just War Doctrine' from Catholic.com [url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Just_War_Doctrine_1.asp"][b]Just War Theory[/b][/url]. It's linked available through the Defense Directory. After you read it [b]all[/b], provide justification for Countries who CAN do something to stop the genocide, but not. (For those of you who are all about the 'sovreignity' of nations, read the article twice.)

Edited October 25, 2006 by Anomaly

[Mercy me]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1100683' date='Oct 25 2006, 08:30 AM']
The UN has done NOTHING. The African countries have been stymied by regional politics. The Sudanese people die as political pawns because the powerful nations that CAN do something have been convinced they are too evil and greedy to legitimately do something.

Of COURSE if the US waits until we have 'National Intrests' to justify us doing anything it will make us look self-servinng, because that's what it is.

If the US pushed for other Countries to form a new coalition, (and bypass the bottleneck of the UN's politics of self-serving small countries), that would get results. Of course the political fall out is the arabs and muslims would call them 'crusaders', but wouldn't it be better to be hated and save hundreds of thousands of lives?

[/quote]
The UN hasn't done nothing. They made gave Sudan chairmanship of the the Commission on Human Rights WHILE THEY WERE CONDUCTING GENOCIDE AND KEEPING RELIEF AGENCIES OUT.

Agreed, it is the problem national interest is that it means that we are by definition self-serving. The US has its fair share of isolationists. Historically that is what we have been. This has been shanging of late.

The US pushed aid into the areas impacted by the tsunami. The UN weenies got their noses out of joint. How dare a country bypass them but it had to be done and we, the Aussies and a few others bypassed them to get the job done. We would need the political will to do the same in Sudan. This is not a short relief thing but would be rather long term. The biggest problem would be the reaction from the muslim world. They already hate us.

Wasn't Sudan a country that sheltered Bin Ladin? Could be wrong on this.

[Anomaly]

Yes, they did, many years ago, but the 'government' is now being attacked by radical Muslims.

[Anomaly]

just a bump for catholicinsd.

Any opinion for the questions raised on page 1?

[RezaMikhaeil]

I'd like to note that the president of Darfur has said that the so called "satalite images" that the US has gathered on the "burning" in Darfur are no more credible then those about Iraq's WMD that Colin Powell presented.

It's also a common misconception that it's "the white arabs VS the Black Sudanese", that isn't exactlly the case. The so called "Arabs" aren't white, as a matter of fact seeing them face to face, you can't really tell the difference in skin tones.

[Anomaly]

I guess catholicinsd doesn't really care about discussing a solution in Darfur. I guess he doesnt' really care about the people in Darfur, but they make a convenient political weapon in other conversations or politcal schemes.

But who's to blame him. Most Catholic Clergy do the same thing. Iraq, Darfur, and the Sex Scandal, are merely political platforms for other agendas. Iraq was convenient to bash Bush, Republicans, and the US, but who cares about Just War Theory once war had started and the US is in the middle of a problem they helped create. Who cares what the Pope said if it's not politically expedient now.

Darfur? Too far. Why even talk about it, there's little or no political gain. It's a proven failure of a too soft, leave it to the UN, purely political approach while hundreds of thousands die. Heaven forbid that force may ever be used in any circumstance.

Sex Scandal. The root of the problem is the Bishops claim to follow 'fraternal correction' since only the Pope has authority over them, but meanwhile, dissenting Bishops can block, stymie, and ignore what the majority has agreed is a good course of action, and Bishops, even if removed from the Diocese, still are members in good standing at the Bishop meetings.

Edited April 1, 2007 by Anomaly

[RezaMikhaeil]

I dont know why people are giving Darfur so much attention, there are other african nations with much worse situations that are completely ignored.

[desertwoman]

If there is no gain in going to war, then it would not be done. Sadly, war is about big business as it is about defending oneself.

If Darfur had anything relating into a loss of money for other countries, then we would be all over this bad boy. If there isn't, then we leave them to their own peril and let the "humanists" take over and help.

[Winchester]

Use special forces to make surgically precise excisions of certain individuals, coupled with psyops and covert social engineering. (assassination, subversion, conversion.)

[Red Knight]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1226059' date='Apr 1 2007, 05:02 PM']I dont know why people are giving Darfur so much attention, there are other african nations with much worse situations that are completely ignored.[/quote]


Having been to Africa myself, please elaborate on your statement. Which nations? Compare to Darfur please.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Red Knight' post='1229484' date='Apr 4 2007, 09:07 AM']Having been to Africa myself, please elaborate on your statement. Which nations? Compare to Darfur please.[/quote]

Congo... over a million have died with no talk, while Darfur is like only like 300,000 or something.

Reza

[Anomaly]

That's a good excuse to do nothing. Things are worse in Congo...