[speechlesstx]

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:

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?

[Skell]

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 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.

It's a half ar$ed effort and its too little too late. That's 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.

[Skell]

Perhaps all the ignoring of Darfur and Zimbabwe will change soon Steve. Perhaps that's why a delegation has been sent. Bush has heard about the oil!!

Oil in Africa - A special report by The Boston Globe - Boston.com

[speechlesstx]

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 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.

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.

It's a half ar$ed effort and its too little too late. That's 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.

[tomder55]

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.

[kindj]

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."

[Skell]

But that's where I disagree. There is a win-win. Do both or neither. Either rid the world of horrible dictators and terrorists or don't claim that that's what your doing when you actually aren't. 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.

Omar al-Bashir Sudan: The World's Worst Dictators--2007 | PARADE Magazine

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 hasn't put a strin on the military.

Therefore why hasn't anything substantial been done to put and end to slaughter of innocent civilians like it was in Iraq.

That's 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 isn't the same priority given to Darfur?

[Skell]

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!

[Skell]

Actually, I don't think you enough about my know my view on Darfur to comment on it.

I didn't agree with your view outlined in the original post. Not your view on Darfur because as you say I don't know what it is. Nice way of twisting my words though!!

[Skell]

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" didn't 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.

[jillianleab]

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."

I think you have a point, and I've seen it demonstrated in real-life (my own!). I used to work with several South African citizens who were as liberal as they come; who HATED the war in Iraq and everything Bush ever thought. They thought we had no business going into another country and "bossing them around". BUT, in the same breath they would condemn the US for not intervening in Rwanda, in Darfur, or other African nations in need. :confused:

[speechlesstx]

But that's where I disagree. There is a win-win. Do both or neither. Either rid the world of horrible dictators and terrorists or don't claim that that's what your doing when you actually aren't. 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.

I agree that "this guy" in Darfur should have been stopped as well, but where the U.S. is concerned there is no win-win... at least as long as a Republican is in the oval office. And the way I see it is the world is bunch of lazy hypocrites for demanding our intervention in one but condemning the other while sitting on their hands, dealing under the table and fretting publicly. The U.S. does have capabilities no one else has, but the rest of the world needs to pull their weight as well. I don't expect those with lesser capabilities to take out a Hussein, but they can contribute to taking back the Sudan.

Therefore why hasn't anything substantial been done to put and end to slaughter of innocent civilians like it was in Iraq.

That's 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 isn't the same priority given to Darfur?

That's why I posted a link to the reasons for going to Iraq. Iraq was a direct threat to the U.S. and in violation of the cease-fire, the Sudan was not. You take care of the threats first, and seeing as how we were engaged in two wars at the time why didn't someone else with the capability step up and say "you're a little busy, we'll handle this one?" Why should say, France, Germany, Italy, Greece sit back and expect the U.S. to handle Darfur when they're really not doing much at the time? Did I say France??

[speechlesstx]

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.

Skell, I know the Aussies have been busy, they've been staunch allies and we are grateful. There are others as I pointed out before that aren't so busy. And, I'm talking about double standards, too - we just don't seem to see the same double standard. Oh, and problems with Iraq came about long before the Darfur situation - back when everyone DID agree they had WMD's and that Saddam was a bad man. The Darfur conflict was just getting ramped up in March of 2003, precisely when we engaged Saddam in Iraq.

[Skell]

I certainly see your point. There are many hypocrites out there that no doubt have the ability to stand up and be counted. France.. for sure. And the rest of the countries you mentioned as well.

Whether there is no win-win for the Oval Office or not shouldn't matter. That politics. There was no win-win in going into Iraq either but it didn't stop us. Why does it matter now?

I guess the problem for the US is that it IS perceived as the world police. To many, the self appointed world police. Many don't want them to be, and some will deny they are. But rightly or wrongly the world (or at least many of its leaders) to an extent looks to the US for leadership. I guess that is because the US seems hell bent on leading the world. To many that is a somewhat scary proposition given your current leader. The fact is that the US through its actions has bought this on themselves. It has to decide whether they want to continue in that role or get out and mind there own business. Pointing the finger and blaming others for inaction is not the actions of a strong leader that the US wants the world to believe it is, and indeed a leader we may very well need (im undecided on that at the moment).

And ill certainly give you that Darfur has come along a little later than Iraq, but still no reason not to nip it in the bud early. And Zimbabwe is no better. We just can't have a little each way as far as I'm concerned and at the moment that's what it appears we are doing.

Hussein was a threat. A terrorist. This is the War on Terror. Bashir is a terrorist too, perhaps not as big a threat but still a terrorist. Then lets get him too in this war on terror if that's our claim.

[ETWolverine]

Skell,

There is a win-win. Do both or neither. Either rid the world of horrible dictators and terrorists or don't claim that that's what your doing when you actually aren't.

One dictator at a time. Our military numbers about 1.4 million... we can't be everywhere at once. We have to prioritize our efforts. And unlike Iraq, Sudan has not been shooting at American planes for the past 12 years. Iraq gets priority because it was perceived as a threat to the USA. Sudan is not.

But from my point of view, you are correct. We SHOULD be eliminating dictators throughout the world. I think that Ford's Executive Order 11905 (section G) prohibiting assassination by employees of the American government should be rescinded. I think that it is true that getting rid of one dictator is as important as getting rid of another.

But if we did start offing the warlords of Sudan, if we did take action there, would the rest of the world sit idly by and allow us to do so? Or would they complain about it as bitterly as they do about Iraq?

Is there anything the USA can do that people won't complain about? Is there anything that we can choose NOT to do that people won't complain about?

Face it, Skell, the USA is the big boy on the block. That means that everyone wants to knock us off our pedestal... not because we're bad or wrong or evil, but because we're there. It has happened throughout history... the biggest guy is attacked politically and militarily because they're the biggest and most powerful. The British Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the Roman Empire, the Greek Empire, the Persian Empire. All were attacked from within and from without because they were the big boys, and someone wanted to knock them off their pedestal. That's the position the USA finds itself in today.

Elliot

[Skell]

But if we did start offing the warlords of Sudan, if we did take action there, would the rest of the world sit idly by and allow us to do so? Or would they complain about it as bitterly as they do about Iraq?

Is there anything the USA can do that people won't complain about? Is there anything that we can choose NOT to do that people won't complain about?

Elliot

No you cant. You will always have your detractors, but that's politics. Being the big boy on the block comes with baggage and responsibility.. The US is big enough and smart enough (hopefully) to deal with this.

I'm glad you agree with the call for consistency as I think you'll find that may silence many of the critics.

The problem will be that there will always be a dictator to oust. When ones gone there will be another to take his place. It will be hard to be consistent!

[speechlesstx]

No you cant. You will always have your detractors, but thats politics. Being the big boy on the block comes with baggage and responsibility.. The US is big enough and smart enough (hopefully) to deal with this.

I'm glad you agree with the call for consistency as i think you'll find that may silence many of the critics.

The problem will be that there will always be a dictator to oust. When ones gone there will be another to take his place. It will be hard to be consistent!

Skell, for the record I do also agree with the call for consistency. :)

[Jennifer Purdy]

Ummm... the US _invaded_ Iraq. Iraq DID NOT have WMD. Iraq DID NOT train nor provide the terrorists for 9/11 (contrary to Fox and whatever other networks). The US invaded Iraq for pure economical reasons, please do not try to justify to yourselves or to the rest of the world that it was done for humanitarian reasons. Before the invasion, Iraqi citizens knew the rules, and for the most part, if they abided by them, they stayed alive. Now, whether the US is willing to call it that or not, it has helped Iraq descend into civil war. It did not "liberate" Iraqi citizens. It is not a welcome force. But now, the US had damned well better stay and clean up the mess it has made.
Now, Sudan, oh Sudan. In contrast to Iraq, Sudan unfortunately lacks the oil and the geography (ie near Israel) that Iraq possesses. So... not even a decade after the US said "never again will we allow another Rwanda to occur"... you guessed it. It delayed calling the Sudanese genocide exactly that. Sure, it sent some resources there, but nothing in the way of manpower.
Ethically, sorry. It's not fair to talk about the ethics of the US foreign policy, because there is none. The US has an ethical responsibility, but instead, its neo-conservative government went for oil and power. History will, and is already judging, the Bush regime.

[speechlesstx]

Ummm... the US _invaded_ Iraq. Iraq DID NOT have WMD. Iraq DID NOT train nor provide the terrorists for 9/11 (contrary to Fox and whatever other networks).

Arguing this point is well, pointless.

The US invaded Iraq for pure economical reasons, please do not try to justify to yourselves or to the rest of the world that it was done for humanitarian reasons.

LOL, what is the proof we invaded Iraq for "pure economical reasons," all that cheap oil we're now getting? At least when I make an argument I provide facts, not conjecture, rhetoric, talking points, assumptions, etc. Iraq, "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?

I never said we went for humanitarian reasons, but we are there now, what's done is done, and the Iraqi people are as deserving of peace, protection and freedom as those in Darfur.

Before the invasion, Iraqi citizens knew the rules, and for the most part, if they abided by them, they stayed alive.

Now there's some rules we can all live by, eh? Being executed for writing slogans, delivering speeches, criticizing the government. Having your habitat destroyed, forced evacuations, homes burned, bulldozed or doused with chemical weapons, public tortures and executions. The rules were particularly attractive for women, "honor killings," dates with "professional rapists," beheadings for suspicion of being a liar or prostitute. I guess if you were subjected to any of this it was your own fault for not obeying Saddam's reasonable "rules."

Now, whether the US is willing to call it that or not, it has helped Iraq descend into civil war.

You apparently haven't read the news lately?

It did not "liberate" Iraqi citizens. It is not a welcome force. But now, the US had damned well better stay and clean up the mess it has made.

I'm sure everyone would like us to be out of Iraq, but not everyone has the same opinion.

January 2007:


July 2007:

Now, Sudan, oh Sudan. In contrast to Iraq, Sudan unfortunately lacks the oil and the geography (ie near Israel) that Iraq possesses. So... not even a decade after the US said "never again will we allow another Rwanda to occur"... you guessed it. It delayed calling the Sudanese genocide exactly that. Sure, it sent some resources there, but nothing in the way of manpower.

Um, why was it that Steven Spielberg pulled out of the 2008 Beijing Olympics? As for manpower, we are waiting on the UN to solve this crisis aren't we? Isn't that what we're supposed to do, just like Iraq, Iran, North Korea and on and on and on and on?

Ethically, sorry. It's not fair to talk about the ethics of the US foreign policy, because there is none. The US has an ethical responsibility, but instead, its neo-conservative government went for oil and power. History will, and is already judging, the Bush regime.

The U.S. Government (USG) is the leading international donor to Sudan and has contributed more than $2 billion for humanitarian programs in Sudan and eastern Chad since FY 2004, including nearly $775 million in FY 2006 alone.

Since Bush has been in office, the number of Africans receiving antiretroviral treatment for HIV has increased from less than 100,000 to nearly a million and half people.

If you'd been paying attention to the news lately you'd know that Bush has been quite successful - and popular - in Africa. As for the oil and power grab, looks like he'll be out of power in about 10 months and over 70 countries have approached the Iraqi oil ministry about opportunities, including China, Russia, India, Brazil, Spain, Norway and British giants Royal Dutch Shell and BP.

[Jennifer Purdy]

Iraq, "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...
You know, until I realized that you were talking about genocide and Iraq, I was thinking of a completely different country... as far as I know, the States has engaged in torture, environmental disasters, broken promises, has actually broken peace and caused instability elsewhere. Interesting parallels there.
And regarding the money that the USA is putting into Africa, again, please note that there is a genocide going on. Money alone will not end that; troops will. Finally, if you were reading the news, you would see that many are now suggesting that paying millions for retrovirals is somewhat irrelevant, given that the big killers in Africa are malnutrition and mostly, a lack of potable water. Oh, and of course, one wouldn't need as many retrovirals if the Bush administration hadn't killed funding to any African clinics that so much as mention contraception (let alone offer it, my goodness!).
It seems that we'll have to agree to disagree, but I suggest you may want to tune in more often to PBS' Bill Moyers more often and the main American national "newscasts" less. He has a free vodcast (available on iTunes) that is somewhat depressing but a good eye opener about current issues.