At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
In spite of all the hand wringing over the US' damaged reputation in the world coming from the left, the NY Times actually stumbled onto something. In an op-ed criticizing the lack of progress in Darfur, from Khartoum's broken promises to the UN's inept handling of world crises to member nations' foot dragging, they highlight the one nation that's actually stepped up:
Quote:
The United States has already flown in troops for the new force, promised $40 million in equipment and offered to pay 26 percent of the total cost of the operation. If others don’t step in quickly, Washington will need to twist their arms or do even more itself.
Imagine if the Times, every other Bush bashing media outlet, entertainer and others that find a cause célèbre in Darfur could find the same passion for say, Iraq? You know, former home to a genocidal dictator that engaged in ethnic cleansing, use of WMD's, oppression, torture, environmental disasters, broken promises, threatened peace and stability elsewhere -another one of those colossal UN failures?
Why should the U.S. be criticized for doing what the UN failed to do in Iraq - while being expected to provide the equipment, manpower and financing to intervene in Darfur - while the world again drags their feet? Is there some reason the Iraqis don't deserve the same kind of support as Darfur?
Perhaps it was the other way around. Because the US intervened in Iraq and defended its right to do so so staunchly, the rest of the world expects them to do the same in Darfur. Anything less is simply double standards. What makes the people of Sudan any less important than the people of Iraq. If liberating Iraq and ridding it of a horrible tyrant who guilty of oppression, torture, genocide etc. was so important to the US, why not in Darfur. Little or nothing has been said or done. We all know the reasons why too.
Mugabe in Zimbabwe is in the same hat. Where is the intervention there?
Rwanda. Canada led the way there.
Perhaps the problem the media has with the invasion of Iraq is the fact that Bush lied about why he went in. And now the media will seize any opportunity they can to call him on his lies.
Its a half ar$ed effort and its too little too late. Thats where the problem lies, and not with the medias spin on it. I don't really agree with your view on it Steve.
Perhaps all the ignoring of Darfur and Zimbabwe will change soon Steve. Perhaps thats why a delegation has been sent. Bush has heard about the oil!!!!!
Perhaps it was the other way around. Because the US intervened in Iraq and defended its right to do so so staunchly, the rest of the world expects them to do the same in Darfur. Anything less is simply double standards. What makes the people of Sudan any less important than the people of Iraq. If liberating Iraq and ridding it of a horrible tyrant who guilty of oppression, torture, genocide etc. was so important to the US, why not in Darfur. Little or nothing has been said or done. We all know the reasons why too.
Mugabe in Zimbabwe is in the same hat. Where is the intervention there?
Rwanda. Canada led the way there.
Are you kidding me? The "rest of the world" did NOTHING about Hussein just like they've done NOTHING about Darfur. In fact, "the rest of the world" -including the UN - was in bed with Hussein and they criticize Bush for going into Iraq for oil? The hypocrisy is astounding - and I'm still wondering just where the US has gotten anything out of Iraqi oil.
Is Khartoum using chemical weapons in Darfur? Are they invading other countries for oil? Threatening their neighbors with destruction? Rewarding the families of suicide bombers? You mean "the rest of the world" can't take care of one crisis in an impotent third world country? No, "the rest of the world" sends peacekeepers to rape the innocents instead.
Quote:
Perhaps the problem the media has with the invasion of Iraq is the fact that Bush lied about why he went in. And now the media will seize any opportunity they can to call him on his lies.
Exactly which lies are these? I read that line over and over and over and nobody ever seems to tell me what lies we're talking about here. The reasons are here, I've known them all along.
Quote:
Its a half ar$ed effort and its too little too late. Thats where the problem lies, and not with the medias spin on it. I don't really agree with your view on it Steve.
I bought this up months ago.
Actually, I don't think you enough about my know my view on Darfur to comment on it.
Steve if the situation were reversed and we had intervened in Sudan then the left would've been calling it a quagmire and asking why we did not intervene in Iraq where hundreds of thousands were murdered by Saddam and Sons . What ? It wasn't genocide ? Tell that to the Marsh Arabs ;tell that to the Kurds .
George Clooney ,Mia Farrow ,Don Cheadle ,Bill Maher and the ususal suspects don't see their hypocrisy on this issue.
It's a no-win situation. No matter where the US chooses to intervene, there will be nay-sayers and whining babies galore to armchair-direct the whole thing.
Personally, I think a lot of the b!tching and moaning is simply a smokescreen to cover their own lack of action.
The same people who say that the US doesn't have the capability to police the entire world are the same ones perfectly willing to send legions of troops to safeguard their choice of a "diplomatic mission."
But thats where i disagree. There is a win-win. Do both or neither. Either rid the world of horrible dictators and terrorists or dont claim that thats what your doing when you actually arent. Im not arguing whether it was right or wrong to go into Iraq. Different thread.. What i am saying is that the way the world sees it, is that if Hussein required stopping, then why not this guy.
The US does have the capability to police the world. Elliot has given the numbers before in another thread explaining how many troops there are on the ground in Iraq and how many more there are back home. He has said that Iraq hasnt put a strin on the military.
Therefore why hasnt anything substantial been done to put and end to slaughter of innocent civilians like it was in Iraq.
Thats what i am asking? Im not US bashing at all. Just looking at it form a different perspective than Steve is. Whether the US has done a good job in Iraq is not in question. Whether they should be doing more in Darfur is? And my answer is, if the reasons they gave for going in to Iraq were to rid it of Hussein then why isnt the same priority given to Darfur?
Comments on this post
speechlesstx agrees: I wonder how many of these armchair generals demanding our intervention in Darfur have complained that Bush should send his daughters to Iraq?
Certainly not me! I have never brought his daughters into any argument!
Actually, I don't think you enough about my know my view on Darfur to comment on it.
I didnt agree with your view outlined in the original post. Not your view on Darfur because as you say i dont know what it is. Nice way of twisting my words though!!!
Are you kidding me? The "rest of the world" did NOTHING about Hussein just like they've done NOTHING about Darfur. In fact, "the rest of the world"
But they are consistent. The "rest of the world" didnt claim it was top priority to rid Iraq of Hussein whilst ignoring Darfur. Im just talking about double standards.
For the record our small military down under here has been occupied in Afghanistan, Iraq, Timor, Fiji and Papua. I'm sure we would love to help the people of Darfur but unlike the US our military is strained to the limit at the moment through helping you guys and helping our neighbours.
The fact that you bristles so easily suggest to me that perhaps you think it true that more should be done in Darfur.
Linear Mode
