OT - Please take 15 minutes (Darfur)

[NoMyths]

From time to time a lot of folks around here put out pleas for prayer, and its something that I respect--a call for people to come together in a time of crisis to lend support and understanding.

With this in mind, I would plead with everyone here to take fifteen minutes from your evening (or day, if you're reading this later) to peruse some of the following links and learn a little bit about the genocide that is currently taking place in the Sudan. At least 300,000 people have been systematically raped, tortured, murdered, or have died from starvation and disease -- and by some estimates the number is even greater. Another 10,000 people are dying every month.

You can still play a part in saving the lives of countless others who are currently doomed to the same fate without intervention. Educate yourself and others. Write your Congressional representatives, and the President. But please do all of us the favor of spending fifteen minutes in consideration of this horror. The living who are trying to do our part to prevent genocides such as the Holocaust and Rwanda from continuing to be a part of our world thank you. The dead no longer can. But they can act through us.

Links:
The Darfur Conflict (Wikipedia Entry)
Darfur: A Genocide We Can Stop
SaveDarfur.com

[Flasch186]

i bought 10 wristbands...and plan to give them out. Im not sure people will wear them but the money is theirs nonetheless. If somebody on here wants one and cant afford to buy them, Ill send you one, or whatever. just PM me your addy.

[HomerJSimpson]

I wrote both Senators, my congressman, and the President. Will it help? No. No oil, no one will care. I remember a time when I wasn't so jaded about politics. I don't think that will ever return.

[Scoobz0202]

Originally Posted by HomerJSimpson

I wrote both Senators, my congressman, and the President. Will it help? No. No oil, no one will care. I remember a time when I wasn't so jaded about politics. I don't think that will ever return.

When you were 15 and naive? I am only 17, and this is the first president I have actively followed. Great time period to start following politics....

[amdaily]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

At least 300,000 people have been systematically raped, tortured, murdered, or have died from starvation and disease -- and by some estimates the number is even greater. Another 10,000 people are dying every month.

You can still play a part in saving the lives of countless others who are currently doomed to the same fate without intervention.

Its odd how the same things were happening in Iraq under Saddam, but the left was silent. 300,000 in mass graves with more being uncovered everyday. Systematic rapes, torturings, and murders. But I guess human rights violations in Arab countries don't count...

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/w...raq-grave.html

Don't get me wrong here, something should be done immediately (U.N. anyone?), but the partisan double standard in Iraq and Sudan is troubling. Why is genocide alone enough reason to go to war in Africa, but in the Middle East we shouldn't bother unless there are WMD and an imminent threat?

[NoMyths]

There is oil in Sudan. Evidently most of it is exported China and Pakistan, members of the UN Security Council. Oil sanctions have been threatened as one part of dealing with the issue.

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by amdaily

Don't get me wrong here, something should be done immediately (U.N. anyone?), but the partisan double standard in Iraq and Sudan is troubling. Why is genocide alone enough reason to go to war in Africa, but in the Middle East we shouldn't bother unless there are WMD and an imminent threat?

Both sides have enough "partisan double standard"(s) to go around. I wish they both shut the F-up with the one-upmanship and try to do something right for the change.

[NoMyths]

dola...

Originally Posted by amdaily

Its odd how the same things were happening in Iraq under Saddam, but the left was silent. 300,000 in mass graves with more being uncovered everyday. Systematic rapes, torturings, and murders. But I guess human rights violations in Arab countries don't count...

The "left" wasn't silent. If the case for war had been based on the human rights aspect, many more from the so-called left would have supporter war than the right would have. Introduce a perceived military threat and we watched that flip-flop.

Also, the perpetrators of the genocide are Arab.

Don't get me wrong here, something should be done immediately (U.N. anyone?), but the partisan double standard in Iraq and Sudan is troubling. Why is genocide alone enough reason to go to war in Africa, but in the Middle East we shouldn't bother unless there are WMD and an imminent threat?

I believe it's a mistake to cast this tragedy in partisan terms.

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

There is oil in Sudan. Evidently most of it is exported China and Pakistan, members of the UN Security Council. Oil sanctions have been threatened as one part of dealing with the issue.

It must not either be in danger of being shut down, or is not feeding money directly to Haliburton. I have a feeling this administration would be real concerned if it were.

[Klinglerware]

Sudan is primarily Islamic (but not completely, as the years of civil war have demonstrated)--and yes, Darfur is in that part of the country that is majority Islamic...

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

dola...

The "left" wasn't silent. If the case for war had been based on the human rights aspect, many more from the so-called left would have supporter war than the right would have.

Please...

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Please...

You don't think that more people on the left support intervention for humanitarian reasons (rather than national security reasons) than folks on the right? Seems to me that would be a hard case to make.

That said, this is taking this thread in a different (and disappointing) direction. If you'd care to discuss these others issues, another thread would be best.

[Flasch186]

good point NM

[amdaily]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Please...

Indeed. I don't think anyone could provide one transcript of a Bush/Cheney speech in the run up to the war that mentioned WMD without also mentioning rape rooms, torture chambers, or slaughtering of his own people.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

You don't think that more people on the left support intervention for humanitarian reasons (rather than national security reasons) than folks on the right? Seems to me that would be a hard case to make.

That said, this is taking this thread in a different (and disappointing) direction. If you'd care to discuss these others issues, another thread would be best.

Agreed on both accounts. It's shameful what some of the posts in this thread have been. Shameful, but not surprising, however, which is even more pathetic.

Thanks for the links.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

You don't think that more people on the left support intervention for humanitarian reasons (rather than national security reasons) than folks on the right? Seems to me that would be a hard case to make.

Not to anybody who has paid attention to them for, oh, the past 40-50 years or so.

The left will support whatever it sees fit to serve its own means, no more & no less. I don't believe for a single minute the "organizational" left gives a damn about anybody in The Sudan, except as a lever against the current administration. Any hue & cry they raise is ultimately motivated by nothing more than even a slight chance to eventually provide more body count stories & body bag photo ops to use as political fodder.

FTR, I used the phrase "organizational" in an attempt to differentiate from your personal concern and those expressed by various more "national" personalities and/or groups. I'm willing to accept, at face value, that your concern is genuine, but I don't believe it's representative of "the left" as a group.

And, unfortunate though it may be, I believe all of this IS relevant to your initial plea. The reality is that this is a political situation, or at least a situation with potential political ramifications, and as such I believe it's impossible to have a meaningful discussion of the subject without also addressing those.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The left will support whatever it sees fit to serve its own means, no more & no less. I don't believe for a single minute the "organizational" left gives a damn about anybody in The Sudan, except as a lever against the current administration. Any hue & cry they raise is ultimately motivated by nothing more than even a slight chance to eventually provide more body count stories & body bag photo ops to use as political fodder.

FTR, I used the phrase "organizational" in an attempt to differentiate from your personal concern and those expressed by various more "national" personalities and/or groups. I'm willing to accept, at face value, that your concern is genuine, but I don't believe it's representative of "the left" as a group.

I don't disagree that in most cases this is representative of both sides of the political aisle, and it's both apt (and appreciated) that you specify "organizational" concern. Lord knows I'm not representative of the left as a group either.

And, unfortunate though it may be, I believe all of this IS relevant to your initial plea. The reality is that this is a political situation, or at least a situation with potential political ramifications, and as such I believe it's impossible to have a meaningful discussion of the subject without also addressing those.

This is probably true, and I'd be happy to address them in a separate thread. But the potential for this one to get out of hand is pretty large, and I took pains to set this up as more purely educational than the alternate would entail.

[JPhillips]

This is hardly a right vs. left issue. Some of the major groups pushing intervention are evangelical Christians who see the killings as another in a series of Arab persecutions of Christians.

Military intervention is out of the question. As the Myers report showed, we don't have the resources to engage in another conflict unless its a national emergency. What we can do is push for sanctions both in Congress and at the UN. I think the reluctance on Bush's part comes from his worry that it will give the Chinese leverage close to the Middle East. I agree with a carrot/stick approach, but right now we aren't punishing the Sudanese government at all.

We also need to step in forcefully with our European allies and get a stronger African military force in place. If need be we can arm them and supply them. Cam's essay on arming the Darfurians may work, but it took a lot of years, a lot of money and a number of strong native leaders for that approach to work in Afghanistan. We also have to worry about weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. Providing the Afghans with surface/air missles sounded great in the eighties, but I don't know if I'd want to give those out to unstable militias in today's climate.

This really could be the next Afghanistan and if we really want to clean up the swamp as Bush says, we need to at least put some effort into controlling the situation.

Jon, I won't get in an argument, but your insane ramblings about the "LEFT" are ridiculous. Everything you throw about about the "LEFT" I could throw right back about the "RIGHT". Why, isn't the "RIGHT" only serving its own means by claiming to stand up for the oppressed in Iraq, but coddling up to a dictator in Uzbekistan? At some point it would benefit you if you could look at issues without always obsessing over the "conspiracies" of the "LEFT".

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

This is hardly a right vs. left issue. Some of the major groups pushing intervention are evangelical Christians who see the killings as another in a series of Arab persecutions of Christians.

Military intervention is out of the question. As the Myers report showed, we don't have the resources to engage in another conflict unless its a national emergency. What we can do is push for sanctions both in Congress and at the UN. I think the reluctance on Bush's part comes from his worry that it will give the Chinese leverage close to the Middle East. I agree with a carrot/stick approach, but right now we aren't punishing the Sudanese government at all.

We also need to step in forcefully with our European allies and get a stronger African military force in place. If need be we can arm them and supply them. Cam's essay on arming the Darfurians may work, but it took a lot of years, a lot of money and a number of strong native leaders for that approach to work in Afghanistan. We also have to worry about weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. Providing the Afghans with surface/air missles sounded great in the eighties, but I don't know if I'd want to give those out to unstable militias in today's climate.

This really could be the next Afghanistan and if we really want to clean up the swamp as Bush says, we need to at least put some effort into controlling the situation.

Very well said.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

At some point it would benefit you if you could look at issues without always obsessing over the "conspiracies" of the "LEFT".

Who's obsessing? I actually responded to a pretty specific comment that NM made.

You don't think that more people on the left support intervention for humanitarian reasons (rather than national security reasons) than folks on the right?

It isn't like I'm the one who brought up the subject, I just swung at the hanging curve ball that was offered. It was about six inches off the plate & I could have let it go by without swinging, but I'm not much for just standing there with the bat on my shoulder, especially on such a fat pitch.

[st.cronin]

I don't know much about Sudan, but I know it's a horribly scarred society (as is much of Africa) and it is my most fervent hope that the future is much, much brighter than the present.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

You don't think that more people on the left support intervention for humanitarian reasons (rather than national security reasons) than folks on the right? Seems to me that would be a hard case to make.

That said, this is taking this thread in a different (and disappointing) direction. If you'd care to discuss these others issues, another thread would be best.

Seems you should direct your dissapointment at those who are using Darfur as another reason to attack President Bush.

[st.cronin]

By the way, I also don't even understand some of the digressions here... the genocide is supposed to be proof of Republican's cynicism or something? Or maybe it means that the left just doesn't get it... well, none of us probably know enough to really know what's going on or what it means.

Anyway.

[Flasch186]

right or left, doesnt matter, dont care who is in office...Genocide is bad and the whole world should do whatever it takes to stop it period.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The left will support whatever it sees fit to serve its own means, no more & no less. I don't believe for a single minute the "organizational" left gives a damn about anybody in The Sudan, except as a lever against the current administration. Any hue & cry they raise is ultimately motivated by nothing more than even a slight chance to eventually provide more body count stories & body bag photo ops to use as political fodder.

To some extent, it is true that some on the left will use just about anything to attack or embarass the Bush administration. That being said, it seems a bit over the top to believe that the people in these "leftist" organizations don't care about real suffering and only do what they do to embarass Bush. In the early 90s when I went to school, there was quite a bit of campus organizing over Serbian atrocities in Bosnia--being that Clinton was in office at the time, I doubt that the activists primary motivation was to embarass Clinton...

[Arles]

Originally Posted by amdaily

Its odd how the same things were happening in Iraq under Saddam, but the left was silent. 300,000 in mass graves with more being uncovered everyday. Systematic rapes, torturings, and murders. But I guess human rights violations in Arab countries don't count...

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/w...raq-grave.html

Don't get me wrong here, something should be done immediately (U.N. anyone?), but the partisan double standard in Iraq and Sudan is troubling. Why is genocide alone enough reason to go to war in Africa, but in the Middle East we shouldn't bother unless there are WMD and an imminent threat?

The problem is that some on the left only want the US involved in stopping genocide that has no strategic value to western interests. It's quite an interesting stance, even noble in some ways. The problem is it's not a great ideal on which to base US policy decisions. I mean, I don't understand why people would be up in arms about having US intervention in the Sudan, Bosnia and Somalia, but not want the US involved with Iraq - a country with human rights atrocities that dwarf the other three.

But I will also agree that something should be done in regards to this - I just don't see the US having the manpower to lead it. As many have said here, the UN should take the lead and get together a group to help these poor people. Then, if the US doesn't want to join (a la France and Iraq), I will be right with you guys in criticising them.

Originally Posted by NoMyths

The "left" wasn't silent. If the case for war had been based on the human rights aspect, many more from the so-called left would have supporter war than the right would have. Introduce a perceived military threat and we watched that flip-flop.

I would go back and read what the president said then. There's just as much on the human rights violations as there is on WMD.

Originally Posted by Bush to the UN

Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human rights found that Iraq continues to commit "extremely grave violations" of human rights and that the regime's repression is "all pervasive." Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating, burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands; children in the presence of their parents — all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary-General's high-level coordinator of this issue reported that Kuwaiti, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for — more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them.

Events can turn in one of two ways.

If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The regime will have new power to bully, dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear. The region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom and isolated from the progress of our times. With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.

If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time.

Neither of these outcomes is certain. Both have been set before us. We must choose between a world of fear and a world of progress. We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand. Delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand as well.

I believe it's a mistake to cast this tragedy in partisan terms.

I agree to a point, but blaming the US on this is a little short-sighted. Again, if there ever was a perfect situation for the UN to take the lead on (and the US should follow), it's Sudan. I mean, if the UN can't deal with what is going on in Sudan, what's the point of having the organization at all?

Right now, the UN is akin to a left-handed specialist who allows left-handed batters to hit .400. While it's nice to have a lefty in the pen, it doesn't make a lot of sense to keep him with results like that.

[Solecismic]

As a stamp collector, I'm impressed with the quality of philatelic material generated by the United Nations.

The UN is useful in many non-controversial areas. Unfortunately, for reasons related entirely to its power structure, it is next to useless as a peace-keeping force.

Something needs to be done here, but it's also clear that the US can't go in alone. The situation is terrible, but at least on the political front, it's improving. Too much pressure from the US might have the opposite effect from what's desired.

I wish the UN had more use here. That it doesn't is more a negative reflection on the countries neighboring Sudan than on the US. Our best bet is to help fund organizations like UNICEF (under the UN, of course) which are actively trying to help the displaced people.

[ISiddiqui]

The UN really can't do anything militarily unless the Security Council acts. That is its peacekeeping arm. Though it has tried its best to work through the structure. They did get any refer the Sudan crimes to the Prosecutor of the ICC (stumbling block being the US). And the executive leadership of the UN have spoken out about it, but without the Security Council authorizing anything, their hands are totally tied.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

That being said, it seems a bit over the top to believe that the people in these "leftist" organizations don't care about real suffering and only do what they do to embarass Bush.

Then you give them more credit than I do. {shrugs}

[Tigercat]

Rwanda happened while Clinton was in office, genocide isn't a partisan issue. Clinton dealt in Iraq, elder Bush dealt in Iraq, and George W. dealt in Iraq. None of them were motivated primarily by genocide, even though they probably should have been. Yes, Republicans have turned a blind eye to genocide when it doesn't trouble US interests but so have Democrats.

Why isn't this on the news every night? WHY? Why wasn't Rwanda on the news every night when the news began to filter out? The media has a fucking obligation here, they had an obligation, and they are failing miserably. If I was a member of the main stream media I am not sure I would be able to look at myself in the mirror at night right now if i wasn't proposing a story on this every single night. There are a few occations where the media needs to lead the charge to the moral high ground. I don't know how comfortable I am with that, but the moral high ground here is easy, people are being killed in massive numbers, so we should at least be fully concerned as a nation, period. And it we aren't paying enough attention someone should be slapping us in the face and telling us to be concerned.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

Why isn't this on the news every night? WHY? Why wasn't Rwanda on the news every night when the news began to filter out? The media has a fucking obligation here, they had an obligation, and they are failing miserably. If I was a member of the main stream media I am not sure I would be able to look at myself in the mirror at night right now if i wasn't proposing a story on this every single night. There are a few occations where the media needs to lead the charge to the moral high ground. I don't know how comfortable I am with that, but the moral high ground here is easy, people are being killed in massive numbers, so we should at least be fully concerned as a nation, period. And it we aren't paying enough attention someone should be slapping us in the face and telling us to be concerned.

The media simply tailors its coverage of events to what the people want to see. Now, each issue gets its base coverage, but the "24-hour" coverage is based on what people will want to watch. And it appears that US citizens are much more interested in Michael Jackson, Iraq and Scott Peterson than some poor citizens in the Sudan or Rwanda getting slaughtered. It's certainly unfortunate, but the media is a business and it doesn't make sense for them to harp on something the US people (as a whole) care little about. It's not the media's job to make sure we care about certain issues, it's their job to make sure the issues get explained to the American people and then they react to our overall interests.

I can't believe I just defended the mainstream media - what's this world coming to...

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The left will support whatever it sees fit to serve its own means, no more & no less.

You say this like the right is the beacon of humanitarianism and political integrity, whose every action is for the greater good.

Not that I disagree in any way with your statement aboveubstitute the word right for left in the above sentence, and you also have a true statement. That's exactly why we are mired in the political mess we are - the two sides that control our government both have as their primary goal keeping power and money from the other.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Samdari

You say this like the right is the beacon of humanitarianism and political integrity, whose every action is for the greater good.

Nope, I didn't say that, you read it that way. I'll even go ahead & agree that the two have this characteristic in common on the whole.

The only difference is what the two want/hope/try/would like to accomplish with said power. And for me, that's all the difference in the world.

[KeyserSoze]

C´mon people. Left ... Right, does it really matter??? 300.000 humans already killed,

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by KeyserSoze

C´mon people. Left ... Right, does it really matter???

This goes back to what I said earlier -- I don't believe you can discuss this, in terms of the U.S., without considering the political ramficiations.

Because, yes, it does matter. Bottom line, I'm not much into the whole "global citizen" thing, my primary political concern is the U.S. And the potential of handing the left something that they could use for political gain matters more to me than whether the entire Sudan vanishes tomorrow. They are, quite literally, the greater evil AFAIC.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Because, yes, it does matter. Bottom line, I'm not much into the whole "global citizen" thing, my primary political concern is the U.S. And the potential of handing the left something that they could use for political gain matters more to me than whether the entire Sudan vanishes tomorrow. They are, quite literally, the greater evil AFAIC.

Yowza.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Subby

Yowza.

C'mon Subby, that can't even be particularly shocking. You've seen far more direct statements than that concerning my feelings for the left.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

This goes back to what I said earlier -- I don't believe you can discuss this, in terms of the U.S., without considering the political ramficiations.

Because, yes, it does matter. Bottom line, I'm not much into the whole "global citizen" thing, my primary political concern is the U.S. And the potential of handing the left something that they could use for political gain matters more to me than whether the entire Sudan vanishes tomorrow. They are, quite literally, the greater evil AFAIC.

Jon

Of all the things youve ever said on here, at least since Ive been here, this is by far the most assinine statment ever. As a matter of fact, it may rank up there as the most assinine said by anyone. Its a good thing that the internet isn't so prevalent in the Darfur region of Sudan considering your "coming clean" thread wherein you "came clean". How on earth do you at one moment act so unselfish, and then act like this? I'm afraid that this line of thinking is so prevalent in your brain that you can't see out of the cloud your head swims in.

Its a shame you feel that the left (Americans) are more evil BUT you worry more about Americans than anyone else....are you sure? Cuz in the above, you sound evil.

Perhaps I misunderstood, would you like to take a moment to explain how I did?

[Subby]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

C'mon Subby, that can't even be particularly shocking. You've seen far more direct statements than that concerning my feelings for the left.

I know, but I just can't and won't believe you are so jaded in real life. Regardless of your feelings for the left in this country, I know you feel empathy for those suffering in the Sudan. I mean come on...do you think God cares if we are Americans or Sudanese or...whatever? In the end, we are all human beings. We need to look out for each other. We have a responsibility to each other that transcends partisanship.

And no, I don't have any answers...just abject frustration at the horrors that are going on in this world.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Perhaps I misunderstood, would you like to take a moment to explain how I did?

I don't see much you got wrong, maybe one point that deserves/needs minor clarification.

I'm not, for one moment, "encouraging" a single death in The Sudan. I can see where that might be inferred though, if not by you then by someone.

I'm also not discouraging actions, within a range of political safety, that might at least curb the violence in The Sudan.

What I am saying, just as honest as I can, is that if the choice is doing nothing or doing something that might put a single leftist in a greater position of power in the U.S., then I'd go with "do nothing" without hesitation, even if it ultimately meant that the entire population of the Sudan vanished tomorrow.

I still haven't quite abandoned all hope that the U.S. might ultimately be saved from the influence of the left, if I had, I'd almost certainly be of the mind to say "what the hell, let's do whatever to save them since there's no hope for us". But I'm not there yet Flasch, not quite. But I do believe we're at the most critical point in the future of this country, one that will determine whether there IS a future for this country. And that means the risk, IMO, isn't worth the benefit.

Maybe that's better than how you read me originally, maybe it's worse, most likely it's so close to the same as to make no real difference. But at least, I think, it's a little clearer in any case.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Subby

I know, but I just can't and won't believe you are so jaded in real life. Regardless of your feelings for the left in this country, I know you feel empathy for those suffering in the Sudan. I mean come on...do you think God cares if we are Americans or Sudanese or...whatever? In the end, we are all human beings. We need to look out for each other. We have a responsibility to each other that transcends partisanship.

And no, I don't have any answers...just abject frustration at the horrors that are going on in this world.

Based on his record, I have no doubt he is that jaded. I don't think he feels much emphathy for those suffering in Sudan, and his statements pretty much back that up.

I don't read much of Jon's stuff that isn't quoted because I can't see it, and I'm not much of a religious person, but I feel extremely bad for him. I can't imagine what it's like to go through life with that much blind hatred corsing through one's veins. I've never met Jon, but it would seem from his statements over the years that he hates me and a lot of other people on this board. I think that's sad, because when you aren't so blinded by ideology you can see that the world isn't black and white but rather many shades of grey. I really feel sorry for him. It's a shame someone chooses to go through life feeling that much pain. And what's worse, the empathy I feel for him will make him hate me that much more.

For what its worth, I'm pretty much coming to the similar conclusion that Jim presented. Unilateral U.S. intervention probably would do as much long-term harm as good, although clearly it would at least knock off this nonsense long enough to save some lives. Between a combination of a lack of spine possessed by the rest of the global community and our best efforts to weak the UN from the inside, the UN as a peacekeeping force is impotent at best.

The sad thing is that this is just a highlight of things to come. Africa is going to be the site of the next global conflict. For all the talk about the Middle East, China and North Korea, those conflicts are largely cold wars, Iraq aside. Africa is a hotspot. The massive poverty, rampant disease and AIDS, finite resources and lack of education will only fuel ethnic, tribal and religious strife in the continent until eventually most of the area will be engulfed in war. I'm not sure what we can do to unplant the seed.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I don't see much you got wrong, maybe one point that deserves/needs minor clarification.

I'm not, for one moment, "encouraging" a single death in The Sudan. I can see where that might be inferred though, if not by you then by someone.

I'm also not discouraging actions, within a range of political safety, that might at least curb the violence in The Sudan.

What I am saying, just as honest as I can, is that if the choice is doing nothing or doing something that might put a single leftist in a greater position of power in the U.S., then I'd go with "do nothing" without hesitation, even if it ultimately meant that the entire population of the Sudan vanished tomorrow.

I still haven't quite abandoned all hope that the U.S. might ultimately be saved from the influence of the left, if I had, I'd almost certainly be of the mind to say "what the hell, let's do whatever to save them since there's no hope for us". But I'm not there yet Flasch, not quite. But I do believe we're at the most critical point in the future of this country, one that will determine whether there IS a future for this country. And that means the risk, IMO, isn't worth the benefit.

Maybe that's better than how you read me originally, maybe it's worse, most likely it's so close to the same as to make no real difference. But at least, I think, it's a little clearer in any case.

yup, i had you pegged.

I feel the Right's intent to invade our personal lives and control with absolute power (except when it comes to guns and opening the borders to everyone) is dangerous as well, ie. Terri's act, Patriot Act, owning the supreme court, killing filibusters, etc. is equally dangerous. We stand on equal and opposite sides there BUT I will not say that we, as leaders of the free world, should not STOP genocide, like we swore to do after WW2 along with the allies. Jew, iraqi, Palestinian, etc. It shouldnt matter, we should stop it.

The greatest threat to this country and world is fundamentalist Islam (including their bent to acquire nuclear weopanry), and if you and others dont recognize that AND want to politicize everything (which you admit to in your fear of the left) than our/your paralysis is what risks our country, future and world

booyah

[JonInMiddleGA]

Subby,
That may be the best post you've ever addressed to me, seriously. You're ... searching, trying, to understand what I said and/or why. So let me try to answer at least a point or two, you certainly deserve an effort (even if we aren't likely to send each other Christmas cards afterwards).

Before I say anything else, I think this is a point I can't emphasize enough -- anything I say in this isn't designed to be "nasty" or "for effect", we're down to me trying to find ways to clarify meaning/intent/reasoning/whatever. If I don't manage that, then I'll accept the blame for not finding the right words.

No, I'm not a monster. Of course I feel empathy for what they're going through, at least as much as I can given the differences in situation & circumstance. I hate it, it's awful beyond the ability of words to describe it, and I wish it wasn't so. That's a wholly inadequate description of how I feel about it, but since there aren't adequate words for the horror of it, I'm not much on pulling out a thesaurus only to still come up far short.

It'd be right & fine & good to bring every ounce of influence we have to bear on this situation ... IF it weren't for the law of unintended consequences. We'd have our "hearts in the right place", as the old saying goes, but at what cost?

To me, it's potentially the cost of this nation. Not from anything diplomatic, economic, or military failure in The Sudan, but at the hands of the left who most certainly could make political hay from anything we (at the instruction of the current administration) do there.

I'm realistic, if the situation were reversed I'd make the same political usage of it that I anticipate from them, so I'm not condemning them in the slightest for doing so. Hell, I'd probably condemn them even more harshly for not doing so, if they knew it would help their cause(s).

But that's the cost of getting involved deeply in The Sudan. And in the cost/benefit analysis, it's not even close AFAIC.

Originally Posted by Subby

We have a responsibility to each other that transcends partisanship.

Hmm ... I'm not sure if we disagree there so much as we're not looking at the landscape from the same perspective.

From a narrow angle, I'm sure it seems very appealing to take a "whatever we can, whatever we must" approach to The Sudan. If only the situation existed in a vacuum, there's a decent chance I'd be right there alongside you pushing for a much greater involvement.

But it doesn't exist in a vacuum, it co-exists, even competes with other concerns, other responsibilities. And I believe our responsibility to save this nation outweighs any responsibility to The Sudan. That's why I am where I am on this, and why I say what I say.

It's often blunt, it's often harsh, but it's an honest opinion boiled down to bare truth. I hate double-talk, it serves little purpose, and I try not to engage in it consciously, so you get the bare essentials that I used in this thread & elsewhere - all the protein without the fat, so to speak.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I don't see much you got wrong, maybe one point that deserves/needs minor clarification.

I'm not, for one moment, "encouraging" a single death in The Sudan. I can see where that might be inferred though, if not by you then by someone.

I'm also not discouraging actions, within a range of political safety, that might at least curb the violence in The Sudan.

What I am saying, just as honest as I can, is that if the choice is doing nothing or doing something that might put a single leftist in a greater position of power in the U.S., then I'd go with "do nothing" without hesitation, even if it ultimately meant that the entire population of the Sudan vanished tomorrow.

I still haven't quite abandoned all hope that the U.S. might ultimately be saved from the influence of the left, if I had, I'd almost certainly be of the mind to say "what the hell, let's do whatever to save them since there's no hope for us". But I'm not there yet Flasch, not quite. But I do believe we're at the most critical point in the future of this country, one that will determine whether there IS a future for this country. And that means the risk, IMO, isn't worth the benefit.

Maybe that's better than how you read me originally, maybe it's worse, most likely it's so close to the same as to make no real difference. But at least, I think, it's a little clearer in any case.

That's a very good explanation. I reckon I can't really blame you (though I can be scared of you ) for thinking that way, because if you substitute the word "left" for "right" in your post, I almost feel the exact same way, though quite a bit more moderately, at least for now...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

The greatest threat to this country and world is fundamentalist Islam (including their bent to acquire nuclear weopanry), and if you and others dont recognize that AND want to politicize everything (which you admit to in your fear of the left) than our/your paralysis is what risks our country, future and world

I'd rank 'em #2, right behind the liberals, so you aren't far off.

Aside from the political differences though, your last phrase really seems to highlight something that sort of makes our differences on this specific subject pretty predictable even if you omitted all of the details.

You're still looking at it backwards from me -- you think I'm politicizing it. I've realized that, when our politics are determined and defined by our core values, everything is political.

I don't have to introduce politics into the equation, they're already in the equation on their own.

And, foolish though I may be to do so, I actually think you understand that. Somewhere deep down, you "get this", not just intellecutally or theoretically,
I think you really understand the nuance better than you'd like to admit.

The difference in us, on that point, is that I'm comfortable enough with the notion to acknowledge it outright, whereas it runs so contrary to how you'd like things to be that it's difficult or even impossible to concede.

I'd say you're being polyanna & that I'm a realist.
You'd probably say I'm a cynical pessimist & that you're the realist.
It's why we aren't going to agree, it's like it's too paradoxical for us to be so polar on so many things that it's impossible to agree on such a core point.

But I'm still right

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

That's a very good explanation.

Thank you, sincerely, for that.

... at least for now...

By your profile, I'm about 7 years older than you ... give it time

[Raiders Army]

So what is the United States supposed to do?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

The greatest threat to this country and world are fundamentalists

With just a little bit of editing (the italics), I think you've hit the nail on the head. I've said it once and I'll say it again: fundamentalists are fundamentalists are fundamentalists. I don't care which incarnation of God they worship, they are, together, IMHO, one of the greatest threats to this country and the world.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Thank you, sincerely, for that.



By your profile, I'm about 7 years older than you ... give it time

Well if things keep goin' like they are now, I'm sure it wont even take that long, old man.

[Arles]

Here's the main problem with everything going on:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/afr...193541?mode=PF

UNITED NATIONS --A U.N. panel concluded that the Sudanese government and militias carried out mass killing and probably war crimes in the Darfur region, but stopped short of agreeing with a U.S. charge of genocide.

The commission urged that that suspects be tried before the International Criminal Court, accusing the government and militias -- as well as rebels -- of widespread abuses including torture, rape, killings of civilians and pillaging.

"The conclusion that no genocidal policy has been pursued and implemented in Darfur by the government authorities ... should not be taken in any way as detracting from the gravity of the crimes perpetrated in the region," the report said.

The United States has accused Sudan's government of directing militia who attack civilians in what Washington has called a genocidal campaign in the western region.

The United Nations has called Darfur the world's worst humanitarian crisis, saying the conflict between the government, rebels, and the government-backed Janjaweed militia has claimed 70,000 lives since March -- mostly from disease and hunger. It now affects 2 million people, up from 1.8 million in September.

Sudan received an early copy of the report and said it refuted the U.S. contention of genocide.

"We have a copy of that report and they didn't say that there is a genocide," Sudan Foreign Minister Mustafa Osman Ismail said on the sidelines of an African Union summit in the Nigerian capital, Abuja.

The UN had it's chance (with the US sticking its neck out to get ball rolling), but it passed the buck by not even admitting genocide is occuring in the Sudan. Heck, if the US went in militarily, there's a good chance the UN would want to bring the US into international court on charges. Until this body gets its head out of its ass, there's really not much the US can do.