This has gone for three pages since I last posted and seems to be getting no where although some slight of mind my saying the US should stay out because this was an African problem, with Jews and Nazi Germany.

I still maintain that Darfur is not a US our Western problem and we should not be dragged into this conflict, which frankly appears to be more of a conflict of Arabs with Black Africans which is nothing new.

Looked at another way the various conflicts that are going on in Africa is part of Nature's way of keep the population in balance, but this may be a hard thing for some here to accept or stomach.

Why does the US always keep slagging of the UN and keep demanding that the UN does this and does that as the UN is not a separate sovereign entity it is nothing more than a Global club which is dominated by the US. How many times has the UN tried to do something about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict only to have the US block any action, the UN only works when the US allows it to do so.

The UN does not have any standing military forces and can only call upon UN members to provide Military personnel when needed and in the main only the US has sufficient transportation resources to move those military units into the areas required.

When UN members put units into the field then in the main those members also fund those units not the World Club (UN) and that places a great drain on National budgets, which why those nations rightly ask the question is such a cost worth making and the answer is often NO.

As far as Iraq is concerned the members of the World Club (UN) did not see that they could support the Bush Administration in making a regime change in Iraq, only Britain was daft enough to listen to Bush and his cronies. Now the US has got itself bogged down again this time in Afghanistan and once again Britain has been dragged into the hot war as have the Canadians, but most other NATO partners are more canny and refuse to be dragged into the shooting war of the US.

If you look at the fiscal burden that all these US conflicts place upon the US Treasury, let alone the human burden, then you have to ask the very serious question, is it all worth that cost and what are we getting for that expenditure.

Why is the US in Iraq?

Why is the US in Afghanistan?

Why should the US enter into conflict in any part of the African Continent?

Why is the US still based in Europe?

Why is the US seeking bases in Central Asia?

What is the gain per dollar spent?

It does not serve our interests to spend one cent, much less an American life, in Darfur. Let the genocide continue.

The right to express an opinion does not mean the opinion has to be taken seriously. This appallingly hateful and brutal remark is a perfect example of that principle.

Anyone who appaluds the continued rape, mutilation, torture and murder of innocents is too extreme and preposterous to be taken seriously. Perhaps if the victims were not Black Africans, the poster's sentiments might be different. Then again, perhaps because the victims are Black Africans explains the poster's depraved indifference to their fate.

Really? Well then if that is the case, what is the rest of the world waiting for? And Iraq was not unilateral. Several countries joined the coalition.


The distinction is without merit. Essentially its a cop out clause for Kerry and Obama because they knew there was no way the US could afford to allow the UN to fritter away military victory against Iraq for that is what would have happened. The UN is an obsolete institution that has become corrupted and biased. Its leadership allows its troops to be bullied time and again and as we saw happening to the Pakistani UN troops in Somalia, Islamic terrorists do not hesitate to kill soldiers wearing blue helmets, even if they are fellow Muslims.

In other words, even if Kerry and Obama had gotten what they claimed they wished for, it would have made no difference.


So what are you saying? That Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe is more admirable than the USA under George Bush?


Actually, the world does not revolve around the USA. Darfur is a problem caused by the people who live in and around that region and the world does not expect the USA to come rushing to the rescue. People are not so stupid that they hold the USA to account for every single atrocity the USA does not manage to prevent, no matter what Clinton lamented.

The United States may have a problem with its own self perception, and it may be held to a higher account because Americans have dared to believe in their own perception of freedom, but there is nothing wrong in that. I'll take American style freedom over Mugabe style autocracy any day!

I find it odd that freedom from tyranny in Darfur is considered a worthy cause where as freedom in Iraq is not. In Europe's socialist circle's for example Darfur is bandied about so often one might be forgiven for thinking it was a sacred talisman, but in truth I believe it is merely a pretext for attacking the American right wing government. A way of criticising the decision to attack Iraq by asking, what about these people in Darfur? Don't they deserve freedom also?

The answer is yes they do, but given the opportunity, no left wing government in Europe would send troops to Darfur without American military strength to back them up. Regardless of what the UN might say. The indignation is just a pretext. The people who today ask what about Darfur would be the same people protesting against a war in Darfur had the USA sent in military forces to prevent the massacre's there.

And whats the difference betwen Darfur and Iraq anyway? When I pose this sort of question I get many different answers but essentially they can all be applied to either conflict. Iraq suffered decades of post colonial tyranny under Saddam Hussein, its people lost all they had built up as that dictator took his country further and further into confrontation. There is no moral imperative that says the people of Darfur are more deserving of help than the people of Iraq. There is merely political necessity and the reality of logistics.

Today Iraq is a left wing buzz word for US 'imperialism' and it is conveniently forgotten how the left fawned over Saddam Hussein back in his glory days, how they admired his Arabian socialism and described him as a great leader. By comparison, Darfur is a bush war turned nastier than usual with very little to do with post colonial politics. It is an internal affair that has gotten out of hand. One flare up among so many on the African continent and I wonder at where all the eagerness for military intervention would be had the USA chosen to intervene in Darfur instead of Iraq and US troops were now dying in Africa instead of Iraq.


edited for grammar

Darfur is a genocide, Iraq is an occupation. Are you honestly telling us you cannpt see the difference between the two? To assume people in the 'socialist' (please) Europe are only worried about human genocide because it gives them a reason to attack Bush is a horrifyingly cynical comment, and hardly worthy of serious consideration.



Again, so you presume: that 'those leftie Europeans' sit around all day and thunk up pretexts to attack the US, and don't care at all about genocide. Seriously Moif, that is what you are saying. I can't believe even you believe that.




WHAT are you talking about? The RIGHT fawned all over him in his glory days, loved him for cracking down on Communists in his country. He was a right-wing folk hero for a decade. Where on earth did you get the idea the opposite was true?



Moif, you are an intelligent, well spoken person, and I am astonished at this post. Commend intervention in darfur, oppose intervention in darfur, whatever you want I suppose. But to assert that anyone who talks about the horrors of genocide doesn't really care and is just using it as an excuse to attack Bush jr: I can't believe you would even say that.

Actually it's a very good point that many shy away from. The war in Iraq has become a nice sound bite of how things go bad when the evil empire "unilateraly" attacks (when it's far from it). Yet many of the same people cry out to help in Darfur. (note : example below)



Really? Well what about the Iraqi's that were raped and tortured under Saddam? I predict another talk about "waiting for the UN" but remember what about Darfur? What's the UN doing there? Should we send the US military to Darfur, if so then why not Iraq?

So should there be military intervention or not in countries with dictators that slaughter the masses?

While perhaps I would use different language, I have to echo the sentiment of Vampiel and moif. Interventionist policies have to have some sort of consistency. Should the US go around the world displacing dictators and bringing freedom to oppressed peoples? Many would argue that that is an idealistic crusade that is unachievable. Well i would ask how it is any different than stopping genocide whenever it occurs. It sounds "mean" or amoral..but we have to look at these situations with some sense of reality. Will simply sending troops to Darfur enough to stop the genocide? Its possible. But its also possible that it becomes a Vietnam-like quagmire. Would it still be supported then?

I think the American forces deployed could bring an end to a massacre of people that is currently being conducted in darfur. The raping of children is a regular occurrence amongst all the other negative realities of darfur currently. We would not have to engage so much in a quagmire I think in darfur. Iraq is different in the fact that for one, we never deployed enough troops, and two for what its worth there was no post mission accomplished plan, this does not have to be the case in darfur. No it would not be an end all to the violence there. We could however secure the people being killed and force a change via protection and show of force, its rather simple really, a broker deal with after the fact a U.N emplacement that could hold the peace while infrastructure and a stable society is built that that can circumvent the reason for the violence in the first place, that would be the quagmire issue, but initially yes, the U.S military by presence could end a genocide, much like what occurred with the Jewish peoples along with others like homosexuals in WW2.

That charge is total garbage, Moif and it shows how little you know or understand the motivations of those of us opposed to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. There is a vast difference between a military incursion into Iraq based upon faulty (or fabricated) intelligence about fictional "weapons of mass destruction" and a humanitarian mission to prevent the ethnic cleansing of a entire race. Or do you actually believe the Left is so jaded they look at the tragedy of Darfur as an opportunity to savage politicians they don't like? "Oh boy, there's a bunch of Africans getting raped and killed! It's all George Bush's fault!"

No one is trying to overthrow the government of Sundan. Nor is anyone trying to "free" the people from the Jangaweed. This is a rescue mission and the world needs to step up and save innoncent people from murderers. Trying to draw a correlation between the circumstances that got the United States into Iraq and what is keeping us there and the Darfur genocide is spurious. If you can't figure out the difference, Moif I think your conservative cynicism is overruling your common sense.

There is no "pretext" needed to suggest the Bush Administration has not made stopping the genocide a major priority for the U.S. I don't advocate the U.S. sending troops to Africa to resolve a situation Africans need to resolve themselves. Still, there is no doubt the U.S. could do more to get the United Nations to act with greater dispatch and alacrity.

Bush supports point with great pride to the fact that he has appointed a Black man and a Black woman to consecutive stints as Secretary of State. If they don't make ending the slaughter of Africans a personal commitment then the symbolism of their appointments is meaningless. America is the world's only remaining superpower. That does not mean it can solve all the ills of the world, but neither does it mean it can totally remove itself from them either.



The cynical answer to your question of what is the difference between Darfur and Iraq can be summed up in three little words: oil. Iraq has it. Darfur doesn't. At least not enough of it to make it a priority. Sucks for Darfur because it's only blood, not oil being spilled.



I can't speak to the "left-wing buzz words in Denmark, but over here in the U.S. no responsible person of influence "fawned" over Saddam Hussein, expressed admiration over his "Arab socialism" or described him as a great leader. Maybe Don Rumsfeld exchanged toasts with the despot and Haliburton under Dick Cheney helped rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure after Desert Storm, but you'd have to take that up with them.

Despite your minimizing Darfur as "one flare up among so many" there is a definite need for the leadership of the U.S. to get the world community mobilized and actively addressing the crisis in Darfur.

Some of us on the Left are motivated not by political calculation but by simple humanity and charity for others who are suffering a great evil. How unfortunate you don't understand that.

But it is the same. Hundred's of thousands of Iraqi's were killed during Saddams rule including the use of those "Weapons of Mass Destruction" on people that lived in his own country. Saddam did everything he could to wipe out the Kurds aka genocide and did a lot of ethnic cleansing. Fortunately our planes were in the north so he couldn't do as much as he wanted. So what's the formula your going on here Nighttimer? Does 10 Kurds = 1 Black person? And since weve lost around 3,500 troops does 1 US soldier's life worth 10 brown peoples? What's the formula your going on here?

Remember these brown people?

http://www.state.gov/g/wi/rls/18877.htm



So some people in the government were "card carrying" rapists literally, what about these people Nighttimer?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=5773



The prisons are starting to get overcrowded, let's kill them off that will take care of the problem.

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html



Over 100,000 Kurds simply "dissapeared". And despite sitting at home in our safe little bubble let's ask the Iraqi's what they think.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259405...=fnc.world/iraq

Vermillion

Cynacism is not a crime, nor even morally indefensible. It is born of familiarity and contempt but remains an observation and as such is not equal to an act of hatred. Whether or not it is worthy of serious consideration is your free decision.

Can I see the differences between Darfur and Iraq? Yes, but I can also see the smiliarities and that seems to be something of a problem for you and nighttimer. Why is that? Why am I not supposed to voice my observations? Do you really think a US intervention into Darfur would be any different from Iraq? Please try to disassociate your own stance from your answers because I'm not asking how you feel about Darfur or Iraq, I'm asking you whether or not you truly believe a US intervention in Darfur would have evolved any differently from the US intervention in Iraq. Wether GW Bush would be thought of more favourably if 3,218 US service men and women had died in a prolonged action in Darfur instead of Iraq.

I am of the opinion that any stick will do to beat a wicked dog and were US troops in Darfur right now fighting African Muslims instead of Arabian Muslims the European left wing would be just as vocal in its accusations of dubious motivations as it is with regards to Iraq.

There is an apparent assumption that Darfur would be over quickly if the USA sent in its military forces, that Darfur, being described as a justifiable action to liberate people from murderers would some how throw a light of invulnerability over US forces and grant them immunity from retaliation and counter attack. This blind assertion of Darfur being a 'good cause' as opposed to Iraq strikes me as similar to Rumsfeld's claim that the US would be greeted as liberators in Iraq and people would throw flowers at the US liberators. It is an assertion based solely on personal desires and not witness to the reality on the ground.

The reality is, no one wants to get involved in Darfur because it is a sticky mess where the different sides are almost impossible to tell apart. Various factions, almost indistinguishable from each other are carrying out attacks for reasons which care nothing for outside morality. Powerful weapons are freely available and if western forces intervened would no doubt become even more prolific. The international jihad which has its focus on Iraq would just as easily focus on Darfur. All the western governments know this which is why no one is sending troops. Then there is the logistical nightmare of operating in Darfur. It is as inaccessable as Afghanistan and politically difficult to access from the outside. It is surrounded by hostile and semi hostile nations, many of whom are complicit in the appalling murders taking place there. Further more, liberating Darfur would not solve anything in the long run, its people are poor. Iraq has oil the liberation of which could be used for practical purposes, rebuilding, revitalising its economy and building up strength. Darfur by comparison has nothing. Its liberation would be nothing but a heavy drain on whom ever undertook the burden. It is thus far easier to look the other way when the call goes out for intervention, or whine about the USA being in Iraq.

Why is the USA the only country considered capable of intervening?

Why can't you believe that? Do you suppose leftists are incapable of cynacism? or even racism?

My presumtion is born of familiarity. I know my own own people well enough to understand whats going on in Europe's socialist environment and in this case familiarity has bred contempt. I have become jaded and more right wing in recent years but its not because I hold to right wing ideology. It is because I am being pushed further and further to the right by left wing hypocrisy. Darfur is used as a pretext and the lack of action by left wing governments in Europe demonstrates this. Consider Spain for example. Its socialist government withdrew it from Iraq. Have they sent troops to Darfur? Why not? If DrewYorkTimes is correct and there is multilateral support for an action in Darfur, then where is it? Why has a UN force not been sent to Darfur?
Portugal, Italy and Germany are all governed by left of centre governments. None of them have sent troops to Darfur either. Actions, or in this case, inaction, speaks louder than words.


From reading what socialists have written.

The right wing western governments supported Saddam Hussein, that is true. They did so because he was a tool against the communists and against Iran. I have however never read of any right wing politician or intellectual 'fawning' over Saddam Hussein. To meet with a man, shake his hand and provide him with military assistance against a common enemy because he is useful is not 'fawning'. Fawning would be the actions of George Galloway, or the sentiments of Jan Guillou who described Saddam Hussein as a progressive statesman, who valued the welfare of his people, peace and democracy. Link. To date I am unaware of any right wing politician or intellectual who enthused of Iraqi socialism as a kind that would be indistinct from Swedish or West German social democracy. During the 1970's when Saddam Hussein was at the height of his powers and busy having opponents raped and murdered, many European socialists compared Iraq to a modern western social democracy. It may be I am ill informed and if so I invite you to demonstrate to me the error or my understanding, but untill I see evidence of that I shall maintain my opinion. Rumsfeld used Hussein, he did not fawn over him, whilst even to this day there are socialists here in Europe who consider Saddam Hussein to have been a great leader and will not speak out against his legacy.


Well, I didn't say that. I did not say anyone who talks about the horrors of genocide doesn't really care. I am specifically levelling my accusations against European socialists. Perhaps you need to ask yourself why you are being so defensive?

Personally I would like to see several thousand UN troops in Darfur. I am just not so stupid as to think that American troops in Darfur would be looked upon favourably by the vocal opponents of the USA in Europe's left wing. They wouldn't. The depths of hatred for the USA in Europe's left go right back to the days of Vietnam and have very little to do with who is in the White House. When Clinton was president the hail of criticism was endless. GW Bush is seen as even worse but removing him from office would not diminish the antagonism. Barack Obama could get elected, withdraw from Iraq and send US forces into Darfur and it wouldn't make any difference to Europe's left wing what so ever, there would follow a period of grace but the criticism would soon return as it always has regardless of actual circumstances.




nighttimer

Your quite fond of telling me how little I know nighttimer and sometimes, given your knowledge of things pertaining to race issue sin the USA I can forgive your testiness, but in this case I am uncertain why you are identifying with European socialists and as a consequence I'm not sure why it is you are accusing me of ignorance. What do you know of Europe's left wing that you can describe my post as 'total garbage'?

...or are you just flying off the handle on a misunderstanding?


Well, I'm not certain who you mean when you refer to 'the Left'. I usually try to make a distinction between American Democrats and European socialists since the two are only loosely linked. I honestly can't comment on the motivations of Democrat anti war protestors like yourself, or Paladin Elspeth, for whose opinions I have a polite respect. If on the other hand you are asking me if the European Left is so jaded they look at the tragedy of Darfur as an opportunity to savage America in general and GW Bush in particular, then yes. Very much so. Please note the absolute lack of any European initiative to send troops to Darfur independently of the USA.

There is no reason why those European nations not engaged in Iraq couldn't organise a multilateral UN force, cooperating with the African Union, to go to Darfur, even if only as a supporting party to AU ground troops. The fact that they have not tells me all I need to know about Europe's left wing opposition to US involvement in Iraq as opposed to Darfur.


This is an unusual logic. Since when does the colour of one's skin dictate where one's loyalties ought to lie?


Yes though there is more to it than just a cheasy sound byte about blood. Oil is the blood of nations. Without it the USA would not be able to act at all. Its foolish to think that any nation, even one thought of as a super power, can act against its own needs.


I'm not minimizing Darfur. I am simply pointing to the truth. Africa is rife with wars like Darfur and if you intervene in one then you must be prepared to intervene with the many. Can you afford that?

Do you know how long the conflict in Darfur, which is really the conflict in Sudan (which is really the conflict in the Horn of Africa) has been going on for? Decades! but suddenly now its become the cause celebré for the anti war crowd. Why? Why now? Why has this one conflict suddenly gotten so much attention when its many predesessors went unnoticed?

I'll give you three guesses...

No, its not the same, not even close. Frankly I am continually stunned by those who try and equate the invasion of Iraq to a potential intervention in darfur as if they were identical. I suppose there is no limit to the lengths right wing hawks will go to to justify the Iraq disaster...


Vampiel, you did a good job of listing out why Hussein was a very bad man, but you lecture on a point that was never in dispute. Ask the most pacifist of ultra-left-wingers if they think Hussein was a very bad man, and they will agree.Your point is technically true, and not at all relevant. Firstly, if you look at opinion polls, though many Americans opposed the war, it was a minority. The vast majority Americans oppose the conduct and outcome of the war and its complete failure. You list off all the Iraqi dead before the war, but oddly you stop there. Why did you not continue to list the dead after the war? Have Iraqi deaths stopped? No? have they been reduced at least? No? Have they actually INCREASED since the fall of Hussein? Why yes they have! Do you think that MIGHT have to do with why people so strongly oppose the war now? Why the planner and executor of the war has such a staggeringly low popularity rating?

Tell you what, if Bush jr sends an insufficient force of underequipped American troops into Darfur to stop the genocide, plans the whole operation terribly, and after FOUR YEARS of intervention the Genocide has increased, the region is LESS stable, Al Qaida sets up a branch there as a direct result of the intervention which was not there before, and 33,000 US citizens have been casualties over and above that, then I think you will find people will turn against the Intervention in Darfur as well.


The far right is trying to rewrite history, to pretend that those who oppse the war and demand a withdrawal from Iraq are somehow against all war and all intervention, and thus are hypocrites for wanting some kind of intervention in darfur. That is nothing but a convenient fiction. Thoygh there are many on the left who have opposed the war since the start, the cast majority of the US population only oposed the war when the gross mismanagement and idiocy of the conduct of the war became apparent, as well as the fact that by almost every measurable standard Iraq is worse off than it was, MORE iraqis are dying, Al Qaida has a foothold in Iraq they didn't before, tens of thousands of US troops have become casualties, hundreds of billions of US dollars wasted, Iraq reconstruction a complete and utter catastrophe (with no repercussions for the large US companies responsible), and that each year is WORSE than the previous one. Add to that, the best the Administration can say is 'hold the course', keep doing the same, and it will be fine'...


But let me take your point a step further Vampiel, and turn it around. Why are the right-wing hawks, who were SO eager to go into Iraq, and are still SO EAGER to justify THAT failed intervention, so reluctant to intervene in Darfur? Once the WMD and links to AQ turned out to be fiction, the right wing pumped out LOTS of statistics just like you did above, trying to justify the intervention on humanitarian grounds. Were those just hollow justifications on the part of the far right, or were they sincere? If they WERE sincere, why do those same arguments sudenly have no value in darfur? You accuse the left of inconsistency, when in fact the exact opposite is true.




Interesting how your desire to 'ask the Iraqis what they think' ended with that one question.

Why didn't you post polling asking the Iraqis wheither they want the US to stay in Iraq or to leave?
Why didn't you post polling asking the Iraqis wheither they believe the US is contributing to or hindering the insurgency?
Why didn't you post polling asking the Iraqis wheither they have confidence in the US troops to improve the situation?

I suspect because the answers to those polls are numbers directly contradicting your point, numbers you would rather not think about...




Again with the convenient rewriting of history. In fact Clinton was extremely popular in Europe and around the world. Pew Global research did a study on just that question in fact. It seems a defence mechanism of those who support Bush jr, responding to his massive worldwide condemnation, to pretend that this anti-Bush sentiment is really just Anti-Americanism (thus divorcing Bush's actions from the response) and pretend that it has always been there, when it plainly has not.
http://pewglobal.org/reports/print.php?ReportID=5

The world supported intervention in Somalia, the world supported (barring a tiny minority) the attack on Afghanistan. To pretend now that the massive unpopularity of Bush jr and the Iraq war in 2007 is just the result of permenant latent anti-Americanism is pure fiction.



Because the USA is one of the only countries capable of interveneing. I am always stunned by the people who (this isn't necessarily you moif, by the way) rant about the supreme power of the US military compared to the rest of the world, then ask why the rest of the world's militaries don't do more. Most countries on this planet do not have a military designed for nor capable of large scale foreign deployment; their militaries are for national defence, and thats about all. The number of countries capable of medium to large scale foreign intervention on this planet can be counted on the fingers of two hands, and those capable of RAPID deployment of any force are less than half of that number.

Yes it is the same Vermillion. The WMD was one of many justifications to invade Iraq, if you read back through GWB speeches before the war it was just ONE of many reasons, other's included all the atrocities that Saddam carried out. So why Darfur and not Iraq? Yes im talking about an initial invasion not the aftermath of the war, the initial justification to send troops into the country.

You can bring up facts and figures from the losses of the war in the aftermath all you want that still doesn't change a single thing about the initial justification for sending troops to Iraq.



Because the US DOESNT have the troops to send to Darfur Vermillion, they are all in IRAQ. Also I don't want to argue for right wing hawks, only for myself. Were they sincere? Perhaps, perhaps not.. I don't know.

Two problems with that:

Firstly, yes the atrocities of saddam were mentioned, but in terms of justifications for war, they came a distant third behind WMD and links to international terrorism. Polls taken at the time show clearly that the first two were the reasons why people supported the war, the atrocities under Hussein only became an issue when the first two turned out to be false. Furthermore, the argument of 'atrocities under Hussein' never carried much weight, as these atrocities had been going on for 30 years under the noses of the US, in fact part of that during a friendship with the US. So Bush Jr suddenly 'discovering' these abuses was completely implausible: hence the WMD and international terrorism justifications.

Secondly, EVEN IF the above were not true, at the time of the invasion the majority of the country was FOR it. Wheither they believed the WMD and International terrorism errors/lies, or weither they believed Cheney when he said the occupation wouldn't last 6 months, and the US would be greeted with open arms, I don't know. But it is the complete failure of the administration SINCE the invasion which has turned the large majority of Americans against him and against the war.

There is NO similarity either to the situation in darfur and Iraq, nor to the justifuiations for taking action.


Trying to equate the invasion and occupation of Iraq with humanitarian intervention to stop genocide in darfur is rediculous, and is pretty clearly just another attempt to justify the Iraq fiasco and discredit with invented associations those who oppose it.


Vampiel, if your argument is that the US is practically incapable of intervening in Darfur because it is overcommitted in Iraq; thats a perfectly good argument, and has merit to it. But attacking the 'left' because the oppose the fiasco in Iraq and are in favour of stopping genocide in Darfur is not.

Yes, this is it in a nutshell. I would generalize it a little more, and state that Iraq is important to us, whereas Darfur is not--there are many countries without oil that we would still consider important enough to us to intervene in their affairs. With the genocide going on there, what impact does that really have on anything in the U.S.? Not much. So, the broader question here is really whether or not the U.S. should insert itself into affairs in which it has no self interest. This gets tricky, because no matter which side of these arguments we get on, the ones on the other side will be upset, as in Bosnia. Personally, I would like to see us exert more influence in such matters. Not only would the fact that we could avert mass carnage be a good thing, but from a purely selfish motive, it would engender goodwill towards the U.S. I think we would all agree that that is something the U.S. could use more of right now.

1. Given the poor support the US got from the UN with Iraq (pre war) should we bail the UN out here and take the lead? Why or Why not.

We should only do so if it is in the best interest of US citizens to do so. That should always be the test. Defining this may be difficult, but we should try and then we should use this standard.


2. If yes should we expect US help in Iraq as a precondition? ie UN forces?

We should do what is in the best interest of US citizens. If tying these together meets this criterion, then absolutely we should.

3. Is there any “vital interest” here that would justify an already busy US military to take on this mission?

I am not sure about this one. We could argue that keeping Muslim nationalism in check anywhere in the globe is in the best interest of the US citizenry, but I am not sure I want to go that far.

4. Why does it take the US to make this happen in the UN? Why has the UN stood by again and watched 200,000 people die? Is this another Rwanda?

Again, I am not sure we need to "make this happen". The US should never engage in any combat, any foreign aid, etc., unless it is in the best interest of the US citizenry. Benefiting some special interest, corporate or otherwise, probably doesn't meet this test.

Thats a fair enough question and I suspect the answer has something to do with not wishing to appear to be in the wrong and maybe something to do with indifference. I suspect there are multiple reasons for differing American right wingers but foremost amongst them all is the understanding (right or wrong) that the fight in Iraq is a part of a bigger struggle against the rise of militant Islam and whilst Darfur can be seen as a symptom of militant Muslim aggression, its hardly a part of the global jihad against democracy.


Again?


The irony is that the Pew Global Research study was probably accurate. Clinton was popular in Europe. That didn't stop the criticism of the USA though. I don't need Pew to tell me how it was. It wasn't that long ago that I've forgotten the endless criticism of America's environmental stance, of Kyoto, of America's reluctance to intervene in the Balkans and when they finally did, the criticism of how they went about bombing with DU and cluster bombs. I distinctly recall the hostile atmosphere in the UK where I was living at the time, the daily onslaught of anti Americanism on the BBC and in the British tabloids or how that was echoed on the European mainland. Most Europeans did like Clinton, as a character, they even felt sorry for him when his sexual escapades became the focus of a national obsession. None of that made any difference to the criticism which was levelled against the USA for launching missiles at al Qaeda, or the lack of US involvement in Rwanda.

As I said and shall repeat; The depths of hatred for the USA in Europe's left go right back to the days of Vietnam and have very little to do with who is in the White House. It is a question of perspective and ideology. Europe's left wing despises the whole American style notion of freedom equatting it to capitalism and exploitation.


Support would indicate something tangible but the truth is no one rushed to help the USA in Somalia and that intervention did nothing in the long run. Somalia, like most of the rest of the Horn of Africa is still a region in conflict.

The escalation of unpopularity brought about by GW Bush is real enough, but that does not mean the anti Americanism of Europes left is a fiction.


Yes, but that is in part, my point. After the Cold War and the Balkans the European nations spoke of establishing just such a force. The Maastricht treaty of the EU established the framework and legitimacy for it and for a while the European media brought stories of the first inter-European units being formed. There was a lot of talk regarding the symbolism of German soldiers serving under French officers and how the logistical needs of the new force were to be met so that Europe would be able to deploy the new military capability to where ever it was needed. That was in the early 1990's. At least fifteen years ago. Today this unit is so forgotten I can't even recall its name any more.

My point is, the EU is rich, its member states are rich, by any comparison you care to consider the average EU nation has far greater resources than AU member nations. It may be the case that the EU nations do not have the ability to project military power into Darfur as the USA does, but they do have the ability to lend support to AU nations who are willing to intervene in Darfur.


Do you understand what your saying here? If Iraq's 30 years of misery was not sufficient to support military intervention then why is Darfur suddenly a cause celebré? WMD's and links to terrorism may have been the reasons why the public supported the war, but were they the real reasons for the war?


Why is it ridiculous? I fail to follow your logic here. You've not demonstrated in any way that Darfur would be the cake walk you appear to be suggesting it would be.

You brought up Somalia which is a case in point. Somalia is close to and similar to the Darfur region. It belongs to the same Horn of Africa greater conflict zone. All the combined might of the US marine corps was brought to bear against the Somali capital and for a short while brought a semblence of stability, just as the US military managed in Iraq. The UN was brought in with Pakistani troops in particular being deployed as a means of persuading the locals that they were not being pushed around by non Muslims, but the long term saw the same resumption of violence as we have seen in Iraq. Bringing in the UN made no difference, American superior fire power made no difference either. There are naturally differences between the two conflicts, how could it be otherwise? There are also similiarities though and you do your arguments a disservice to dismiss these.

Darfur would not be a simple operation. It is a region prone to violence and with a long and bloody history of guerilla warfare. With outside interference from jihadist and wahabbi groups, it could very quickly devolve into the same failure as Somalia did.

You seem to be arguing against other people but none of your post made any sense to me. Let me tell you why I joined the US military a few years ago. If there's one criminal I cannot stand it's a rapist. Now, in Iraq and through a lot of the muslim population women are second hand citizens. In Iran it take's the testament of three women to weigh as much as one man, and that's supposedly.

In Iraq, under Saddam, in SADDAMS government there were employee's that literally had cards that showed they had the proffesion of being a rapist. Imagine that in the US. Now there were also the cases of chemical warfare on the kurds and slaughtering of hunderds of thousands of people.

The guy with the rape card, I wanted that guy to be tied to a building and have a 5,000 lbs. munition dropped down his throught. I really didn't need the entire WMD justification to want to kill this guy and many other's like him. So I supported the war and put my money were my mouth is and joined the US Military with the full intention of being shipped overseas. Since then I met my fiance and so rather than doing everything I can to go I am simply waiting to be called up and if I have to I have to.

So with all of this in mind, how is this justification so much different than that of Darfur? Why were these same people not thinking about the Iraqi's that are calling for intervention in Darfur?

Or is it that brown people vs US soldiers vs black people equation that I don't know about...

EDITED TO ADD



Until you have been in the shoes of the generals running the war, or the president this is just a repeat of a nice sounding anti-war rant against the administration because you have NO IDEA what's it's like to be in a war, run a battle, or go against terrorists.

Armchair General Vermillion the first.

Well, I don't see it, I lived 7 months in France last year and have (apart from that) spent the last three years in the UK, and also lived here for a year in 99-2000, and I just don't see it that way. I can't ask you to prove something that ephemeral, nor can I disprove it. Yes, people react badly to nations that take stances on issues they disapprove with, such as Kyoto, but to turn an issue by issue case into 'anti-Americanism is unjustified in my opinion.



You are changing the rules now. here is an example where intervention by the US was popular in Europe, and was widely supported; that doesn't doevtail into your idea of widespread general anti-Americanism, nor criticising the US as a matter of course as opposed to issue by issue. Somalia was a failure in the end, but that also is beside the point.



Perhaps not a fiction, but grossly exagerated. many of the things you speak of prompting 'anti-American sentiments' were done under george Bush jr's watch. Kyoto, Iraq, ABM-treaty and so on: these were and are unpopular decisions, and it is possible for them to BE unpopular without it being symptomatic of some grand underground sentiment, as you state.




To be fair, that was the SDF or European defence Force, and it was dead in the water from day 1. It is impossible for the EU to have a common military if they do not have a common foreign policy, the EDF was never anything more than a pipe dream.




But thats what we are talking about here! popular support for the war! If Bush had couched the attack in the terms of humanitarian necessity, would it have been more popular? I don't know, and we never will know. Sadly nobody (especially the American public) likes being tricked, and the fact that the primary justifications for war turned out after the fact to be totally false left a VERY bad taste in a lot of peopkle's mouthes, and with good cause. And by the way, if you are implying that the 'real' reason for the Iraq was was humanitarian, (I'm not sure if you are implying that) then that's laughable.




No Darfur would not necesarily be simple, nor did I imply it would be. I'm not sure what the point of that is. Yes, if the objectioves become politicised, and the mission is badly handled, it is possible that it might turn into a failure. No military mission is a guarentee of sucess, espceially if badly handled from day 1. So does the potential difficulty mean we all turn into Deng, and say 'nothing to do with us, let the genocide proceed'?




Yes I am an armchair general, and probably one of the more qualified ones in the world, having a doctorate in modern military history, published dozens of times on the subject, having spent months working in and with active military forces of many countries and branches. deployed and not. I'm actually going to Baghdad with one of those units in about 6 weeks, thank you very much. (Though I don't expect I shall leave the green zone...)

NOT that ANY of that matters in this case, you do not need to be a four star general to recognise failure when it pokes you in the face. And since you didn't even bother to address any of the actual point, nor defend the list of failures and errors, but rather claim I can't know what I'm talking about: attack the author not the words. Nice.

It's not a 'nice sounding anti-war rant' it is a list of facts regarding the failures in Iraq. Oppose them if you can, but in a forum like this trying to play the 'you aren't a general so you can't know what you are talking about' card is obscene. Remind me to repeat that to you EVERY TIME you take a position on anything on this board: "Vampiel can't talk about health care as he isn't a doctor, Vampil can't talk about women's rightas cause he isn't a woman. Vampiel can't talk about the Senate as he isn't a senator..."

Well, there is a rich history of anti-americanism in Europe, despite your not noticing... I suspect our work ethic is enemy #1. None other than Fred Nietzsche once wrote "The breathless haste with which they (the Americans) work - the distinctive vice of the new world - is already beginning ferociously to infect old Europe and is spreading a spiritual emptiness over the continent." Pretty ironic that the man who wrote "God is Dead" was lamenting America's spiritual emptiness...

I vividly remember the anti-American "no nukes" protests in the 80's, which put today's anti-war protests to shame. To be fair those were against a specific policy, but there was a whole lot of anti-americanism wrapped up therein. First our nukes were going to end the world in nuclear holocaust, and now our (contribution to) global warming is going to end the world in a giant tidal wave. Same crap, different decade. I mean, what is "anti-globalization" if not "anti-USA" wrapped in a different package?

Guess the year of this survey result:

The numbers paint a depressing picture. Just a quarter of the French approve of U.S. policies, and the situation is only slightly better in Japan and Germany. Majorities in many countries say America's strong military presence actually increases the chances for war. And most people believe America's global influence is expanding.

Yep, 1983.

3. Is there any “vital interest” here that would justify an already busy US military to take on this mission?

We are signatories to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, so you can certainly argue that we should do something to enforce the treaty. The treaty says that those responsible for genocide "shall be punished." Shall is a pretty strong legal term. I vote for kidnapping the Sudanese leadership and dropping them off at the Hague. That would make a pretty strong anti-genocide statement.

Well then that is your experience. Mine has seen far more and from within. I don't know what sort of contact you have had with Europeans in general, but for my part I have found that most socialists are in denial with respects to their own anti Americanism.

The 'case by case' argument is a common one I've heard many times before. Its a classic variation of the 'I don't hate Americans but...' argument and is common in the more main stream left. In this respect one might say that the far left is more honest for they do not bother to hide their anti Americanism. They proudly march with banners and placards equating the USA to nazi Germany or Bush/Clinton/Reagon with Adolf Hitler. I've seen them burning the stars and stripes whilst leading members of the mainstream social democrat party openly attacked the USA at public demonstrations where Hizb'Allah's yellow and green flag flew proudly. I don't know what your definition of anti Americanism is but I'd be hard pressed to think of any expression of the sentiment more blatent than that.


My experience was the majority of Europeans were completely indifferent with regards to Somalia, a very vocal minoirity was against it and and even smaller minority was in favour.

The failure in Somalia is not a moot point if one is considering a military intervention in Darfur. Far from it. Somalia ought to be considered long and hard before any such move was made, and I'd not be surprised to learn that most nations who have considered Darfur have taken note of how the US & UN fared in Somalia.


And yet my memories of these sentiments go back to Reagan. I can remember high school teachers in the UK telling us the USA was responsible for the Cold War, that the Soviet Union was no doubt as peaceful as 'we' were. I recall the Greenham Common protestors and how they were supported by an under current of sympathy based on what I understood, even then, as an anger and distaste for the USA. I've grown up my whole life listening to people describing the USA in the worst possible light, time and time again, but always with the chorus 'I don't hate Americans but...'

The only people I've ever heard speak well of the USA have been public officials and the openly right wing. People who supported Thatcher (and in Denmark, Poul Shlüter), most every one else has either been completely indifferent, or vocally aggressive. I recal debates in Universirty, in the UK, where I would actually shock people by saying I liked Bill Clinton and that I thought the USA was a good ally. I remember many debates where Clinton was described as being 'as bad as Saddam Hussein' or worse.

I recall the night I heard GW Bush had been elected and laughing at how the news was going to go down amongst the Europeanleft wing and the next day reading in the papers the exact outrage and dismay I'd expected.

If I had a penny for every time I've heard some one describe American's as fat and stupid...


It coud have been the same. I seem to recall the name including the words 'rapid deployment', but I'm not certain. My point is though that this unit would have been able to help in Darfur had the Europeans been willing to pay for it, but they weren't.


I have no idea why the USA went into Iraq. I've played about with many different explanations but to this day I am in the dark as to what the real reason was. My best guess is that it was seen as being a logical step in some greater fight against militant Islam, but that this conflict, due to the inflammatory nature of its premise, could not be thus named so many other pretexts were used as a smoke screen. This is only my personal conjecture though.


Yes. As horrible as it is, that is the prudent course of action. Darfur offers nothing but disaster for a western intervention which is why I advocate the locals deal with it and Europe provides military and economical assistance.


Oh, and in my experience, historians are terrible generals as I've noticed when playing war games...

I shudder to think of how we could even think of intervening in Darfur or anywhere else for that matter. According to General Pace, we are "ill-prepared for other conflicts". We are short of the training, personnel and equipment that would be necessary to extend ourselves.

"U.S. military now lacks a large strategic reserve of ground troops ready to respond quickly and decisively to potential foreign crises." as per the article referenced below.

It's hair raising to imagine what we would do if challenged outright by any other of our potential "enemies".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/18/AR2007031801534_pf.html

Has the UN asked for troops? We wanted the UN to vote for the use of force in Iraq after non compliance to 1441 and it was clear that wasx not going to happen.

Bush is the reason weapons inspectors were there. They had time – I would have waited another 6 months but there was no sign that I saw of compliance by Iraq.
His attitude is irrelevant – the UN did squat from 1998 – 2002!


Exactly – so why would the US bail out the UN??? Sure it is horrible that people are dying but WE are not the world cop and WE own the UN nothing.



Great – let the EU and those nations pick up the cop duties. I can’t wait to see them move – Don’t hold your breath.



We have vital interests in Iraq and the ME. WE helped win the resolutions Iraq ignored. ½ the worlds oil is there and last I checked there were no WMD suspected in Darfur. Let the EU deal with it. In the 1880s France controlled 2/3 of Africa (and Indochina) – let them deal with Darfur.


Thus IMO given the poor support we have received for action against Iraq and the total corruption and inaction of the US – I say stay out of Darfur.



Daft enough??/ To enforce their own Resolutions after 12 years! Come on please. They did nothing to resolve Iraq – and would not vote to use force. Saddam thumbed his nose (and corrupted) the UN. They are worthless at dealing with conflict and we should just let them deal with Darfur – with the rest of the “club” – Less the US.

The atrocities in Darfur happen outside of our field of vision. Our fat, lazy and disinterested corporate media would rather obsess over fading pop stars shaving their heads or the deaths of bleached blonde gold-diggers than stories of murder, mutilation and rape.

I'm somewhat surprised that many of the same people who advocate a firm and swift response to Arab killers around the world seem to have no interest to them killing thousands in Darfur. But this is not one of those typical conservative-versus-liberal arguments we typically divide on here at . This is a reality issue and all this drama about "should we get involved or should we not" is not productive, it's only wasting time.

America is undergoing compassion fatigue. We went into places like Iraq four years ago with the best of intentions only to see them literally blow up in our faces. I fully understand the reluctance of others to get involved in Darfur.

But what makes America great is we do the difficult on a regular basis, and occasionally the impossible when we apply ourselves. This is the greatest and most powerful nation the world has ever seen. It cannot impose peace and prosperity to everyone who lacks it, but it can help plant the seeds for freedom to grow; it is up to others to nourish.

The world has turned it's back before in Rwanda because national interests were not involved and the complexity of the problem daunted the leaders of the world who might have minimized or prevented the genocide. But the failures of Rwanda and Somalia are not reasons for the world to turn away now. An Arab government is trying to ethnically cleanse its Black population. That is a human rights violation and the United States and its partners in the United Nations stand for the protection of human rights.

At least I thought they did. I might be wrong.

Ahh, but wouldn't the world be a better place if this were indeed true? But, alas, I think it is not. The UN is a collection of self-interests, no more oriented towards the global good than any of its entities. It's record clearly indicates this...how else could it fail to get involved in so many human atrocities over the years? In fact, I think it could easily be argued that the U.S. has a much better record in this area than the U.N., despite all the sentiment around the world to the contrary. Which isn't to say they shouldn't get involved...only that their motives aren't usually as pure as one would desire. That day is not yet here.

nighttimer.

I'm not aware of the depth of your understanding with regards to Darfur, but given your describing the conflict as Arabs versus Blacks I have to wonder if you've not lost sight of reality here. First of all, there is no great racial difference between the two sides. The locals refer to the Janjaweed as 'Arabs' because they speak Arabic and are Muslims. The Janjaweed (Muslim horse back riding warriors/bandits) are called Bedouin, but in fact they are mostly Baggara tribes people (Baggara means cattle herders) from Sudan and Chad and the term Arab is a very loose one. If you look at them you'll see they are practically all black Africans.
Image of Janjaweed 'Arab' commanders.
Image of Musa Hilal, the suspected leader of the Janjaweed.
Images of Janjaweed.

The two sides are almost entirely racially identical. Their ethnic differences spring from a cultural and religious divide.

With regards to American and/or western intervention, it has already happened in the past and it has not made any difference. Quite the contrary in fact.
Link.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the west shouldn't get involved. I'm just not certain that sending in western soldiers is the answer. Africa's been kicked around so long, it needs to find its own solutions. We should offer help to the AU.

Ted, you are the usual US blamer of all things UN, but what you and they never understand that the US is the Elephant in the UN room. Nothing happens in the UN unless the US wishes it to happen and it is about time people like you woke up and accepted that fact.

The US is, at present, the only military super power in the World today and no other nation is going to challenge that dominance in the foreseeable future.

Britain was stupid to back the US in Iraq and to back a US railroaded resolution to invade Iraq, especially as our forces were so unequipped for this venture and as they are for the Afghan conflict, yet another US venture.

Obviously not true – if it was we would not be in Iraq without the ‘UN” today. I agree we have influence and I agree that we are almost “expected” to take the lead as we did in Gulf War I. What I see is a UN that is glad to let the US do the heavy lifting in conflict unless, as in the case of enforcing their resolutions with force (Iraq), it conflicts with the economic plans of members of the SC (for example). IMO if the UN cannot support the US by, for example, voting to use force in Iraq when it is clear the Iraqi government would not comply – then those countries and the UN should not expect us to just rush to save the people of Darfur – especially now.

France has owned as much as 2/3 of Africa as late as 1885. Let France lead a coalition to save Darfur if that like. I tend to agree with moif. Outside forces cannot solve all the problems in Africa. Africa needs to do that.

Except it obviously IS true. The United States has more than double the projectable military power of the entire rest of the world combined. You can't act like the world's police, brag about being the world's police, and then complain when people ask you to be the world's police. Of course the US is expected to take the lead, it exceedingly difficult for any other nation to do so: of the half dozen nations that have ANY substantial projectable military power, none individually have more than about a tenth of the capacity of the US. And among them is the UK, fully committed to Iraq and Afghanistan as well, Canada fully committed to Afganistan, and so on. This has all been discussed before in this thread, and as I recall I suggested you learn something about the topic at that time...




Again, so many errors. Firstly, we will never know what the vote would have been in Iraq, the US sabotaged the process deliberately, cutting short any possible vote. Secondly, there you go again equating the Invasion and occupation of Iraq with the genocide in darfur as if they were exactly the same. Is it so impossible for you to fathom how somebody might in clear concience have opposed Iraq, and yet wish to stop the genocide in darfur?



AGAIN with the making things up. Firstly, at its height the french colonial empire may have covered slightly more than one quater of Africa, not even close to two thirds. Secondly, the only nation in all of Africa with ANY projectable power is South Africa, and possibly Egypt. Most of the rest of Africa can't even keep their own military in order, let alone stabilise Darfur.

Ted, you are very confused on how the UN works and which nations actually control most UN physical actions let alone the Global political ones.

The US is the only nation with the physical Heavy Lift capacity both by air and by sea.

As to France, she does and has frequently put troops and air units into her former colonial territories, but they are not stupid and can see no reason to commit their forces into the Sudan especially as it was never their baby.

The US will never now stabilize Iraq, they lost that opportunity once they had overcome all Iraqi miltary opposition and then disbanded the Iraqi army etc.

I hopefully think that the UK government has at last realized that it can do no more in Southern Iraq and has at last began to put in place an exit plan, but US has yet to wake up to the fact that the game is over in Iraq.

Toneboy

Do you actually have some contribution to the debate regarding Darfur, or are you just here to have a go at Ted for being an American conservative?


Vermillion

You don't need projectionable military power to be in a multi national UN peace keeping force. You only need to be willing to contribute. The AU currently operates a force of seven thousand in the Darfur region. None of whom are from South Africa or Egypt as far as I am aware. According to the AU itself, the only reason why they don't have more troops there is because they can't afford them. EU economic aid and French air cover (France already operates multiple air bases in Africa) could go a long way to helping the AU gain control over the Darfur region.

As Major General Collins Ihekire, the Nigerian who is AU Force Commander said; "If someone hasn't got wings and you say he has failed to fly - I don't think you can call that failure,"

Link.

I seriously doubt the Sudanese government, which employs the Janjaweed, spends 1 billion dollars per year on them. As usual contemporary wisdom informs us that the solution is to throw a vast amount of money at a problem and then scream mea culpa when it fails.

The real solution to this problem is staring us in the face, but we are too soft to take it. Let the Africans deal with this problem. Its their problem. By all means lets give the AU the money and the tools to help them, but under no circumstances should western soldiers be sent in to fight and die to protect yet another bunch of people who will ultimately turn on us, no matter how many people are dying. It is not in our best interest to undertake yet another failed UN mission in the third world.

edited to add:

According to Wikipedia, the African Standby Force will not be ready until 2010.

Does anyone care that the Sudanese govt has made the claims that for the US to involve itself and commit troops to the Darfur crisis would be an act of war, and act of war that al qaeda has sworn to counteract? The only concern I have when considering US military involvement is that it is unlikely that once this commitment is made on our behalf, that once our men and women's lives are again put at risk for the sake of the UN's mantra for peace and security, we will not be rewarded in kind. That when again our nation is asked to be the image and yes target for all those who oppose such meddling that the UN won't, as was shown with Iraq, have our backs when these actions inevitably reap their ill rewards. The UN nations are just fine with having us commit our troops, our lives and our national image on such campaigns of humanitarian needs. But when it comes time to defend ourselves for this extension of security that is not something we can be assured to have encouraged or even considered.

Also Sudan is an oil rich nation, who ever made the comments that the only big difference between Iraq and Darfur was oil was way off on comparisons. This war in Darfur is in fact a resource war and some very prominent and wealthy Western companies are directly involved in not only the crisis itself but it's recent intensifying.
The Junjaweeds are just surrogates for far larger, wealthier and more influential interests.

Operating in Sudan has become too great of a risk for most Western nations, finally. Canada's largest oil company faced legal accusations of assisting genocide in Darfur and reports of their human rights violations are longstanding. The Netherlands has seen companies being accused of international crimes by suppling fuel to Sudanese military. The Swedish company's "lundkin oil road" was accused to be built from the deaths of many, even children, and French companies have also seen accusations of military support. Yet this moral conscience, altho a bit too late, of Western nations has only allowed less concerned nations to enter the oil market in Sudan...namely China. This leads me to again reiterate my initial point.

If the US was to enter Sudan on the behalf of the UN for humanitarian concerns do we honestly believe the UN would support any needs or concerns we would have about security of our nation once China felt that their own national security and resources were being targeted and that the source of this is none other than the USA? I don't.

I also feel I should share this little historical fact with those who bemoan America's lack of "leadership" in dealing with the situation is Darfur/Sudan. The US has had sanctions on Sudan since 1997, and as a result other Western nations chose to not follow this lead and instead only saw strengthened and greater financial and commercial involvement in Sudan.

This is a tough question for me- I highly respect NT and Moif's ability to post rationaly yet passionately at the same time- and, being an individual- neither of your two experiance with Europe is the same as mine- of course.

I am an isolationist when it comes to intervention in foriegn countries outside of directly rescueing Americans in bad situations when a countries goverment goes bad.

I am not for intervention in Iraq OR Darfur, nor Rwanda, nor Bosnia, Somalia or anywhere else. Trade with them, keep them at arm's lenght, only intervene when they cross into stable democratic countries borders. This would not include Kuwait- another totalitarian goverment no better than Saddam's IRaq, just like Saudi Arabia- the real masterminds and FUNDING behind 9/11.

If the muslim world doesn't come up with a REASONABLE demand that allows them to live in harmony with the rest of the world- the equation ceases to become a gray area and goes into "us vs them" in terms of survival- then, well, we wipe them out before they do the same to us. Horrible-but we have a right to defend our life as well you know!

Darfur, Rwanda, Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan and on and on have roots in American meddling in thier affairs in the first place. We all but actually created our enemy in Iran. And for what? Some intangible fear of the former soviet union?

NT- I respect and read everyone of your posts- and it is horrible what is happening in Darfur- but do we, as a nation, need to be the worlds savior? Why do we intervene in places where the local population despises us anyway-

if we go into Darfur- what is to keep it from being another fiasco, and making the whole situation worse? NT- you know as well as I do, that it is very, very difficult to find a SINGLE US intervention that has gone well for the population once we have "liberated" them- it usually involves installing someone in power even WORSE than before.

How do we go about this and not have it turn into a cluster-you-know-the-miltary-term?

Moif, I think Ted can look after himself and his politics have nothing to do with it, I was only pointing out that I believe that he like