Bush, Darfur, and Genocide

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » June 1, 2005, 1:27 pm

Bush just now said the word "Darfur"

Yesterday in the NYT, Bill Kristof had written a somewhat scathing editorial of the administration's position on Darfur.

We know Bush doesnt read the paper (by his own admission), but i thought it was kind of interesting.

What was more interesting is Bush just also said that Darfur was a "genocide", and that Sec. of State Powell had said as much when he visisted there last(?) year - with the president's concurrance.

That is about exactly the opposite of how I remember it.

thought it was wierd.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » June 1, 2005, 2:43 pm

What a surprise.

Let's just ignore Darfur Voronwe, unless they have oil and/or threaten or don't our security.

They are only black people after all!....................

Homercles · Post by **Homercles** » June 1, 2005, 3:01 pm

the US is butting out of the Darfur fiasco. Isnt that the foriegn policy the world wants from the US?

If we went into Darfur we would just be extending our murderous hands into yet another country. Why would you wish for the US to go to Darfur and murder more people? Would Darfur intevention be acceptable? Do you want the US to go in and murder the ruling warlords and there henchmen? As a result of such action, the US Murderers would undoubtledly murder more innocent civilians. We're murderers! Why are you upset that we're not out murdering Darfurians!!

miir · Post by **miir** » June 1, 2005, 3:13 pm

the US is butting out of the Darfur fiasco. Isnt that the foriegn policy the world wants from the US?

The first Gulf war.
Almost unanimous worldwide support.

Flushing out the Taliban in Aghanistan.
Unbridled worldwide support.

Invading and occupying Iraq under false pretenses.
Well, I think you know what happened there.

Intervention in Darfur would go a long way to improving the standing of US foreign policy.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » June 1, 2005, 3:27 pm

Never happen, no resources:

Darfur's economy is primarily based on subsistence agriculture, producing cereals, fruit and tobacco as well as livestock in the drier north.

You couldn't go in there as a peacekeeper, you'd have to go in and crush the current regime and start from scratch. No one's going to support that, it'd end up being Somalia v2.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » June 1, 2005, 3:37 pm

Someone should start selling "Ignant and Proud" bumper-stickers for you folks.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » June 1, 2005, 4:02 pm

Questions for those who want the U.S to intervene in Sudan:

1. How? That is, with a military force? A peacekeeping force? A diplomatic force? A token presence or a threatening presence? A broad or a limited mandate?

2. Against whom? Will we ally with one particular Sudanese entity against another? Why? Will we be a 'neutral' party injecting ourselves into a dispute?

3. For what purpose? To protect people who are getting killed? Which people? For how long? To bring stability to Sudan? To give one particular group authority?

4. What is our long term plan? Leave once the genocide stops? Will it remain stopped? Return control to the old government? Set up a new government? On what grounds?

5. What evidence do we have that we are capable of stopping the violence?

It's not as simple as "go fix it." And that's ignoring questions like "how will the United States logistically deal with another intervention" and "why is it the responsibility of the United States to intervene" and so on.

Please note that I'm not against intervention. I'm for well thought out, intelligent intervention.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » June 1, 2005, 4:17 pm

Who said anything about stand alone US military intervention?

Surely a UN Peace keeping force would be better.

The long term goal is at least to stop people being murdered and displaced for no good reason other than hateful ignorance of one particular extremist entity hellbent on its own hegemony (ring a bell? j/k).

Innocent people on the levels of Iraq do not need to die, that is a shitty excuse that is not valid at all.

It is a totally different issue, with totally different consequences.

In conclusion, we should side with the innocent poverty stricken people being fucked over, since the Sudanese government isn't doing enough at all and are essentially a bunch of fucking assholes.

Saying the US would be a neutral party is funny. On track record at least. Although I am just being bitter.

A shitload more practical aid is a good idea, considering the amount of aid currently being given is nowhere near enough to do ANY real good.

Again, I don't think anyone mentioned that it was the US's responsibility to intervene, more the responsibility of the richest nations. The fact that the US has pretty much ignored the situation along with the other countries (apart from useless shitty token gestures) is probably what is annoying people....and causing deaths and suffering that could be stopped.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » June 1, 2005, 4:43 pm

To give one particular group authority?

Who will promptly begin butchering the last group who was in charge. The AU wants to deal with it, I'd say support them in that effort and see what happens.

From what I read it was the institution of Sharia by the Sudanese govt on the Dafur region that started this round. "Arab" muslims vs. African muslims.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » June 1, 2005, 5:06 pm

Teeny wrote:Who said anything about stand alone US military intervention?

Miir wrote:Intervention in Darfur would go a long way to improving the standing of US foreign policy.

Miir. At least I interpreted it that way.

Teeny wrote:The long term goal is at least to stop people being murdered and displaced for no good reason other than hateful ignorance of one particular extremist entity hellbent on its own hegemony

Do you really think that's why there's a genocide in the Sudan? Your explanation is the "hateful ignorance of one particular extremist entity?" What exactly is this entity? If we (the universal 'we,' not the United States) destroyed this entity somehow (either through military victory or diplomatic sanctions or assassinating its members or whatever) would we have solved the problem in Sudan?

Teeny wrote:In conclusion, we should side with the innocent poverty stricken people being fucked over, since the Sudanese government isn't doing enough at all and are essentially a bunch of fucking assholes.

Sure, you're right. But how should we side with them? What actions should we take? Is it even possible for us to prevent them from being fucked over?

Teeny wrote:Saying the US would be a neutral party is funny. On track record at least. Although I am just being bitter.

That's why I set off the word 'neutral.' The United States would simply be an intervening entity pursuing a particular agenda, as would any other state or organization which might see fit to intervene. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but does raise a number of logistical complications when it comes to actually making a positive difference.

Teeny wrote:A shitload more practical aid is a good idea, considering the amount of aid currently being given is nowhere near enough to do ANY real good.

Certainly. Of course, throwing money at a problem has never really been a particularly good method of solving it, especially when one of the parties that would certainly have some control over the money is the corrupt government itself. Practical aid, like nurses and doctors and whatnot, would be very useful, but a preponderance of high-quality philanthropic medical specialists is not really one of the United States strengths. We have money and military power and are most effective in situations where those resources are effective.

Teeny wrote:Again, I don't think anyone mentioned that it was the US's responsibility to intervene, more the responsibility of the richest nations. The fact that the US has pretty much ignored the situation along with the other countries (apart from useless shitty token gestures) is probably what is annoying people....and causing deaths and suffering that could be stopped.

I still don't see any reason to believe that it could be stopped, by the United States or any other actor. Granted, you never know until you try, but it's stupid to try without a plan.

Do you think we could have stopped the genocide in Rwanda, had we wanted to?

A wrote:
To give one particular group authority?
Who will promptly begin butchering the last group who was in charge.

Exactly.

miir · Post by **miir** » June 1, 2005, 5:42 pm

Miir. At least I interpreted it that way.

Definately not my intent.
I'll try to be more succinct in the future.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » June 1, 2005, 5:49 pm

My misinterpretation then. Your comment didn't imply what I got out of it.

It's not really all that relevant though, the same qualms about intervention hold true regardless of what entity is performing it.