Darfur

[adamark]

Archbio, regardless of whether or not Iraq is justified, we are tied down in that country. It is eating up our manpower, money, and attention. Even if it *is* the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, we are there. We don't have the resources to be everywhere at the same time. That is my point. Other countries who aren't fighting any wars could easily gather together some troops and send them to Sudan.


The UN is content to sit by and allow genocide to carry on. In Sierra Leone when the RUF rebels were killing 10,000 people with dull machete blades the UN made it a point not to use the word "genocide" in their meetings because that would require them to take action. They stayed silent -> people were murdered. The only thing that saved the people of that country was actually a 60-man American mercenary unit that literally fought a war for a price and won. After that group had stabilized the country the UN forced them out and spend 50 times as much money with 20 times as many people on the ground and the UN couldn't stop the violence from starting back up.

[Archbio]

Even if it *is* the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, we are there.

But a choice was made to get into it, with full knowledge of how much the manpower could be used elsewhere, for humanistic [The word is "humanitarian", better luck next time] reasons. So depending on how much it was the "wrong war", it shows how low stopping mass murder is in US interests. Mass murder is not a new thing.

But yes, if you consider only Darfur, the US couldn't do a thing. Even if they would have (which I find doubtful).

The only thing that saved the people of that country was actually a 60-man American mercenary unit that literally fought a war for a price and won. After that group had stabilized the country the UN forced them out and spend 50 times as much money with 20 times as many people on the ground and the UN couldn't stop the violence from starting back up.

The UN can stop violence too, the hard part really is stopping it from coming back. All blaming aside, is there really usually a way to pacify these kind of situations without having a permanent occupation as a result?

[adamark]

The UN can stop violence too, the hard part really is stopping it from coming back. All blaming aside, is there really usually a way to pacify these kind of situations without having a permanent occupation as a result?

the answer in that situation would have been to allow the EO to continue "mopping up" ie. killing the rest of the rebels or so many of them that they wouldn't pose a threat anymore. instead the UN chose to stop the killing (the killing of the murderers) but then they couldn;t stop the murderers from starting the violence back up again. the UN failed in every respect of the word.

But a choice was made to get into it, with full knowledge of how much the manpower could be used elsewhere, for humanistic [The word is "humanitarian", better luck next time] reasons. So depending on how much it was the "wrong war", it shows how low stopping mass murder is in US interests. Mass murder is not a new thing.

The choice to go in may be shady, but if the US pulled out now a civil war could start and cause many innocent deaths, that would be irresponsible. so for better or for worse we are in Iraq. i don't understand what you're trying to say, though. do you expect the US to allow Iraq to simply collapse so we can help Darfur (a legit humanitarian purpose) when so many other countries are doing nothing? you sound like you believe the US is the world policeman.

[Archbio]

i don't understand what you're trying to say, though. do you expect the US to allow Iraq to simply collapse so we can help Darfur (a legit humanitarian purpose) when so many other countries are doing nothing? you sound like you believe the US is the world policeman.

Looks like I'm going to have to quote myself! About what the US could do about the Darfur crisis: But yes, if you consider only Darfur, the US couldn't do a thing. I agree that the occupation of Iraq is now more troublesome matter.

My point was that the US has chosen to get into Iraq (a choice was made to get into it), above whatever humanitarian causes there were at the time. And also before it, since the manpower obviously wasn't recalled from any crisis to get to Iraq).

So no, I'm not saying they should pull out of Iraq now, but that since Iraq is (you might not agree with that) a situation of their own creation that it shows an order of priority that makes the US being able or not to carry out humanitarian interventions meaningless, since it was never on the "to-do list"). It was predictable that it made them less versatile, even if for only a short time (by then, Congo was still being played out, I think. I really should look that up).

World policeman? No, but I won't get into that.

the answer in that situation would have been to allow the EO to continue "mopping up" ie. killing the rest of the rebels or so many of them that they wouldn't pose a threat anymore. instead the UN chose to stop the killing (the killing of the murderers) but then they couldn;t stop the murderers from starting the violence back up again. the UN failed in every respect of the word.

Maybe I shouldn't discuss that, since I have no idea about the specific situation, but it seems to me like the UN could have stopped the EO for humanitarian reasons. In these situations (machete genocide), the distinction between "murderer" and "innocent person that happens to belong to the same population (ethnic, cultural or political [political probably shouldn't be in there, but I'll leave it there. Editor.]) than the murderers" is more or less easy to establish, especially by a mercanry force occupied by "mopping up". They could have easily pursued with a genocide of their own, if only by accident and good intentions.

[adamark]

Looks like I'm going to have to quote myself! About what the US could do about the Darfur crisis: But yes, if you consider only Darfur, the US couldn't do a thing. I agree that the occupation of Iraq is now more troublesome matter.

My point was that the US has chosen to get into Iraq (a choice was made to get into it), above whatever humanitarian causes there were at the time. And also before it, since the manpower obviously wasn't recalled from any crisis to get to Iraq).

So no, I'm not saying they should pull out of Iraq now, but that since Iraq is (you might not agree with that) a situation of their own creation that it shows an order of priority that makes the US being able or not to carry out humanitarian interventions meaningless, since it was never on the "to-do list"). It was predictable that it made them less versatile, even if for only a short time (by then, Congo was still being played out, I think. I really should look that up).

World policeman? No, but I won't get into that.

The point that the US chose to get into Iraq is irrelevant because the Darfur genocide wasn't occurring in March of 2003 when the war was launched.

Also the war does have humanitarian outcomes. Saddam was killing on average, 10,000 people per year. saddam's rule has been cut short by a number of years, and his sons will not inherit his power. on a projected scale the US may have saved as many as 100,000 people. but that is another issue which i can't summarize in this post, so i don't expect you to swallow that whole.

my other point, that i failed to make clear, is that by the US mearly continuing its presence in Iraq it is preventing a civil war for the time being, therefore it is preventing mass killings of innocent people that usually happen in civil wars, therefore the occupation is humanitarian a round-about way.

believe me, i don't like it either.

my whole point is, that france or germany or japan or russia could easily send 1,000 troops to sudan. it wouldn't take that many, even, to stop the violence, as the EO proved to the world in Sierra Leone with only 60 men and 20 million dollars.

[Archbio]

The point that the US chose to get into Iraq is irrelevant because the Darfur genocide wasn't occurring in March of 2003 when the war was launched.

It's not directly relevant for Darfur, but my point was that the Iraq war was preceded by similar humanitarian crisis, which can serve for comparative purposes: troops weren't sent for these crisis, and were ready to be sent to Iraq. If the Iraq war hadn't started when Darfur began, why would it have been considered different than the Congolese crisis (or any other one of the numerous massacre's of the world)?

my other point, that i failed to make clear

It was actually clear.

my whole point is, that france or germany or japan or russia could easily send 1,000 troops to sudan. it wouldn't take that many, even, to stop the violence

I agree with the idea that they could act. But I disagree with the idea that the only thing keeping the US from doing the same is Iraq and the UN.

[adamark]

I agree with the idea that they could act. But I disagree with the idea that the only thing keeping the US from doing the same is Iraq and the UN.

Agreed. there are political and (shamefully) economic reasons preventing the US from spending the money and men to stop that genocide.

It's not directly relevant for Darfur, but my point was that the Iraq war was preceded by similar humanitarian crisis, which can serve for comparative purposes: troops weren't sent for these crisis, and were ready to be sent to Iraq. If the Iraq war hadn't started when Darfur began, why would it have been considered different than the Congolese crisis (or any other one of the numerous massacre's of the world)?

I would argue that the safety of the United States precedes any humanitarian effort we can contribute to. the very purpose of the existence of the government is to protect its own citizens. so the Iraq war was humanitarian because its purpose was to protect the American people from the perceived threat of Saddam Hussein.

but i see your point and agree, too.

[Feuermachtspass]

As far as I can tell, it hasnt really ever mattered what the US does in ANY situation. The world always hates us. And, forgive me if I'm mistaken, the war with Iraq has been brewing for a long time. Even under the Clinton administration we bombed Baghdad. I don't really remember much about it because I was too young to care at the time. Saddam has had it a long time coming, and the whole "Bush is just continuing what his daddy started" is ridiculous.

In other words, this war was not decided on in lieu of Darfur. We already had it in the works.

[Archbio]

In other words, this war was not decided on in lieu of Darfur. We already had it in the works.

I could just make a one word reply and write: "So?"
I'm sorry I brought Iraq into this, and I never said it had been chosen instead of an intervention in Darfur (since basic chronology of things seems to contradict that). How long the war has been on a drawing board doesn't change anything, I think, and the arguments I made before just hinges on the idea that it was a "frivolous war". That, in itself, is another argument altogether.

The world always hates us.

Convenient thing to think, isn't it?