Darfur

[Anomaly]

Considering the problems in Darfur that have been going on for many years, the tens of thousands of deaths, the many hundreds of thousands of displaced refugees, the atrocious crimes against humanity, the failure of the world community (UN) to do anything effective...

What should Christians in America be pressing their government to do?

(I've brought this up a number of times, but have never gotten a thoughtful response.) 60 minutes just did a piece on it so the mainstream media wil be bringing it up and put some sort of spin on it to bash the current US administration. Common sense will tell you 60 minutes and other news organizations have known about this for many, many years. They are as remiss as anyone in not getting public attention. It seems that it has finally surfaced in the news regularly the last few months so a public debate seems likely. What questions and parameters should guide practicing Christians?

[desertwoman]

I do know that myspace is also doing a concert to help raise funds in order to help the displaced people, but i don't know how much attention that that is garnering.

Things like Darfur and Rwanda makes me go back to my black militant mode for no one, no one lends a hand in order to help when it comes to Africans. Is it that thousands of people have to die because the UN and other countries don't want to help for they see no financial gain?!

As Christians, we should help, and this is for a just cause, but it will never happen for America will not get any thing out of the deal for helping them.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

I pray for the people of Darfur every night before I go to sleep. This is the best contribution I can make. Darfur has all but faded out of the British media, despite the public outrage that filled the newspapers when the atrocities first came to light, and everybody concentrates on Iraq and Afghanistan instead. I feel paralysed to help.

Leaflet campaigns in the street, designing Darfur-related websites, and gathering signatures for petitions are the best ways I can think of to make people sit up and take notice. As Christians, we need to bring the matter to the forefront of public consciousness again. If enough people are made aware of what's at stake here, world governments could be pressured into taking action.

And - of course - we must pray.

[Guest T-Bone]

[quote]As Christians, we should help, and this is for a just cause, but it will never happen for America will not get any thing out of the deal for helping them.[/quote]

Of course, if America did try some unilateral action, the liberals in Amercia would have the same reaction to our pressence in Iraq.

[catholicinsd]

We need to do more than just sitting and wining.

[Mercy me]

Darfur is a very interesting mix of issues that embody the trouble that we have in the west. Let's look at who is fighting. Muslims iare systematically annihilating Christians. There is a religious problem there. We have Arabs in the North fighting Blacks in the South. There is a racial component there. Let's not forget that the Muslims are also enslaving the Christians. And what is at stake? Oil. There has been oil discovered in the center of the country.

So we have a whole assortment of issues that we all agree are wrong. The best forum to deal with this would be the UN but they are useless. The only thing that the UN has done was to make the government, read the North, of Sudan the chairman of the United Nations Human Rights Commission. They did this a few years ago. I kid you not. While they were exterminating their own people, they were simultaniously chairing the UN Human Rights Commission. It is sick.

The African Union is the only organization doing anything of substance and the UN is still refusing to get involved. I do not see the US having a place in this. The situation is very squarely under the perview of the UN mandates. We really need to pressure the UN.

[Anomaly]

Waht Countries or group of Countries CAN do anything?
Why should the US stay out? Because we're mostly a white population so have nothing in common with black persons?

[ardillacid]

[quote name='T-Bone' post='1099096' date='Oct 23 2006, 02:07 PM']
Of course, if America did try some unilateral action, the liberals in Amercia would have the same reaction to our pressence in Iraq.
[/quote]
Unless a dem got into office. Then he would be a hero

[Guest T-Bone]

[quote name='notardillacid' post='1099259' date='Oct 23 2006, 03:29 PM']
Unless a dem got into office. Then he would be a hero
[/quote]

That goes without saying.

[Anomaly]

What are te moral implications of what's going on there.
Is there really a legitimate Country Government in existence?
Should the US attempt to get other strong countries to interceed with force since political avenues have not had any success?
Is the thousands who die monthly worth us doing nothing?
Even in Iraq, it took us years for 2,800 military deaths? Wouldn't that (3,000 soldiers) be worth 30,000 civillian lives?
Is the reality of US politics in the world that the US can't justify going there on humanitarian reasons, the US has to justify it to it's citizens that intervention must be for national security or economic reasons? What about going in because the US is strong enough and can use it's military to save lives.

[kamiller42]

It is sad the liberals have tied the hands of the United States. Their irrational disagreement with invading Iraq will make it much more difficult to assist countries like Darfur. The most we are allowed to do by their standards is to have peace talks and air drops of relief supplies. (Of course, the latter will cause more people to get killed than saved as the killers will defend the supplies and use them as currency.)

If there wasn't enough rational to go into Iraq, how could there be enough to go into Darfur?

WMD? Nope.
Threat to national security? Nope.
Threating valuable world resources? Nope. (That's not enough justification for them either.)

Liberal Solution: Let them die.

[Mercy me]

This is not something that is the fault of liberals or conservatives for that matter. It is a massive failure on the part of the international community. One nation does not have the authority, justification or mandate to go in. There is one organization that does, the UN. Thus far they have steadfastly refused to act to stop this. I don't know how to make them act.

I feel like this is a situation where the world is standing aside because it is the Christians that are being attacked by Muslims. No one seems to want to stand up to them.

Edited October 24, 2006 by Mercy me

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Mercy me' post='1099504' date='Oct 23 2006, 08:43 PM']
One nation does not have the authority, justification or mandate to go in. There is one organization that does, the UN. Thus far they have steadfastly refused to act to stop this. I don't know how to make them act.

I feel like this is a situation where the world is standing aside because it is the Christians that are being attacked by Muslims. No one seems to want to stand up to them.
[/quote]Quite a quandry. If, as a regular citizen, you saw someone getting beat up and you called for help and if nobody else came, aren't you morally obligated to do something because the legal authorities cannot or is not responding in that circumstance? Isn't that the same case here? How many innocents must die at the hands of evil aggressors before something is done? 1,000? 10,000? 100,000? 250,000? Those numbers have been surpassed already.

Mercy me,
Given the circumstances now, in your opinion, what is the PROPER JUSTIFICATION needed before the international neighbors do something?

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote]It is sad the liberals have tied the hands of the United States. Their irrational disagreement with invading Iraq will make it much more difficult to assist countries like Darfur.[/quote]

I am not a liberal and I disagree vehemently with the war in Iraq. Please note that I didn't disagree at first. When the invasion began I was happy. I've lived nearly all my life in Saudi Arabia, Iraq's next-door neighbour, and I know a lot of people - primarily Kuwaitis - who really suffered as a result of Saddam's invasion in the first Gulf War. Saudis and expatriates alike were very aware of Saddam's atrocities when the second Gulf War began. But as events unfolded, I came to believe that the motives of the 'liberating' forces weren't so pure as I had thought at the beginning. For one thing, why did it take bin Laden - a Wahabbi purist who had nothing to do with a decadent Saddam - to spur the West into action? Saddam had been gassing Kurdish villages and persecuting the Shi'a marsh-dwellers for years. Why wasn't he removed at the end of the first Gulf War? Why did nobody care then?

For this reason, I believe the situation in Darfur is different. The genocide there is still relatively new. If the West responded now, its response might still be seen by the Sudanese people as an immediate and welcome reaction to the problem. If the West waits for over a decade before making its move, as happened with Saddam, any intervention will have something fishy about it.

[Guest T-Bone]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1099815' date='Oct 24 2006, 07:12 AM']
I am not a liberal and I disagree vehemently with the war in Iraq. Please note that I didn't disagree at first. When the invasion began I was happy. I've lived nearly all my life in Saudi Arabia, Iraq's next-door neighbour, and I know a lot of people - primarily Kuwaitis - who really suffered as a result of Saddam's invasion in the first Gulf War. Saudis and expatriates alike were very aware of Saddam's atrocities when the second Gulf War began. But as events unfolded, I came to believe that the motives of the 'liberating' forces weren't so pure as I had thought at the beginning. For one thing, why did it take bin Laden - a Wahabbi purist who had nothing to do with a decadent Saddam - to spur the West into action? Saddam had been gassing Kurdish villages and persecuting the Shi'a marsh-dwellers for years. Why wasn't he removed at the end of the first Gulf War? Why did nobody care then?

For this reason, I believe the situation in Darfur is different. The genocide there is still relatively new. If the West responded now, its response might still be seen by the Sudanese people as an immediate and welcome reaction to the problem. If the West waits for over a decade before making its move, as happened with Saddam, any intervention will have something fishy about it.
[/quote]

Your disagreement with the war in Iraq is not irrational. What is being refered to here is the mindset of the liberals that have an irrational oposition to the war.

[XIX]

Exactly. Not all opposition to the war is brainless liberal opposition. Not even all liberal opposition to the war is clueless. But there is a disturbingly high number of people who oppose the war only because they can not think outside of their own liberal Democrat orthodoxy. It's annoying, especially since they are passing up on perfectly legitimate reasons that I'd like to hear more of.

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1099815' date='Oct 24 2006, 08:12 AM']
I am not a liberal and I disagree vehemently with the war in Iraq. Please note that I didn't disagree at first. When the invasion began I was happy. I've lived nearly all my life in Saudi Arabia, Iraq's next-door neighbour, and I know a lot of people - primarily Kuwaitis - who really suffered as a result of Saddam's invasion in the first Gulf War. Saudis and expatriates alike were very aware of Saddam's atrocities when the second Gulf War began. But as events unfolded, I came to believe that the motives of the 'liberating' forces weren't so pure as I had thought at the beginning. For one thing, why did it take bin Laden - a Wahabbi purist who had nothing to do with a decadent Saddam - to spur the West into action? Saddam had been gassing Kurdish villages and persecuting the Shi'a marsh-dwellers for years. Why wasn't he removed at the end of the first Gulf War? Why did nobody care then?

For this reason, I believe the situation in Darfur is different. The genocide there is still relatively new. If the West responded now, its response might still be seen by the Sudanese people as an immediate and welcome reaction to the problem. If the West waits for over a decade before making its move, as happened with Saddam, any intervention will have something fishy about it.
[/quote]
Thank you.

[Mercy me]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1099209' date='Oct 23 2006, 05:48 PM']
Waht Countries or group of Countries CAN do anything?
Why should the US stay out? Because we're mostly a white population so have nothing in common with black persons?
[/quote]
The African Union has been in there but they are vastly out numbered and outgunned. In my opinion, the US can't go in alone because it is not in our national interest. That is not to say that the US could not go in as a part of an international coallition. The UN is the obvious one to go in but they are useless ie Rwanda, Serbia, etc. The African Union is currently in there but are scheduled to pull out shortly. If I recall it is a funding issue. We should fund and arm them. Perhaps we could augment them with more troups.

There are a plethora of NGOs that are already working in there. I am sure that CRS is one but the majority that I am aware of are out of Europe. They are providing mostly medical and humanitarian relief. NGOs do great work but lack the size and resources that governments have.

I don't believe that the race of the victims has anything to do with the reason that we are not going in. There is a racial issue here but it has to do with ethinic Arabs vs. blacks. If the Sudanese north were to say invade another country then things might change but "civil ethnic cleansing" is not so clear as to who has an obligation to act.

Morally I believe that we as humans as Christian have a obligation to act.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1099815' date='Oct 24 2006, 09:12 AM']
I am not a liberal and I disagree vehemently with the war in Iraq. Please note that I didn't disagree at first. When the invasion began I was happy. I've lived nearly all my life in Saudi Arabia, Iraq's next-door neighbour, and I know a lot of people - primarily Kuwaitis - who really suffered as a result of Saddam's invasion in the first Gulf War. Saudis and expatriates alike were very aware of Saddam's atrocities when the second Gulf War began. But as events unfolded, I came to believe that the motives of the 'liberating' forces weren't so pure as I had thought at the beginning. For one thing, why did it take bin Laden - a Wahabbi purist who had nothing to do with a decadent Saddam - to spur the West into action? Saddam had been gassing Kurdish villages and persecuting the Shi'a marsh-dwellers for years. Why wasn't he removed at the end of the first Gulf War? Why did nobody care then?[/quote]
Bin Laden was our Pearl Harbor in the war on terror. We had been taking action before 9/11, but terrorism was treated as a law enforcement issue, not a military one. When 9/11 took place, U.S. policy changed. We could no longer treat terrorists simply as criminals as the previous administration did. That strategy had very little effect. Read the 9/11 Commission Report or watch The Path to 9/11 for the full scoop.

Saddam gassed the Kurds and came under international condemnation for it. Was it enough? If the response was insufficient, then that gives more justification for the action we have taken in Iraq today. We can't ask "Why didn't we do anything?" and then when we do do something ask "Why are we doing this?"

If we had not intervened in Iraq, many human rights abuses carried out by the Saddam regime would be taking place today.

We did not take him out in the first Gulf War because it wasn't the objective. The objective was to root him out of Kuwait and get him off the border. This also gave Saddam a chance to change. Qaddafi did. Why not Saddam? But, Saddam was obdurate and constantly thumbed his nose at the UN and the inspectors. 9/11 taught us it was too dangerous to allow Iraq to be a playground for terrorists or to acquire WMDs.

All in all, I think people cared about the people of Iraq. I think the solution to the problems is where people disagree. People want the benefits of ousting Saddam, but without the blood, sweat, and tears it takes to make it happen.
[quote]For this reason, I believe the situation in Darfur is different. The genocide there is still relatively new. If the West responded now, its response might still be seen by the Sudanese people as an immediate and welcome reaction to the problem. If the West waits for over a decade before making its move, as happened with Saddam, any intervention will have something fishy about it.[/quote]
Or, it could be another Somalia. Are you willing to stomach potentially another black hawk down? If things start to get hairy, are we going to come back on our leaders asking why they got us into the mess?

War is ugly. As Patton said, war is hell. Once you commit to it, you have to see it through. Victory is to be your mindset.

I believe the Iraq situation would be going a lot better with overwhelming public support. Sadly, some politicians want to score political points by dividing America. So much for "United we stand; divided we fall."

What we are seeing in Iraq is really not new in history. I think if people knew history, support would follow, and the transition would be more peaceful.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1099815' date='Oct 24 2006, 08:12 AM']
For this reason, I believe the situation in Darfur is different. The genocide there is still relatively new. If the West responded now, its response might still be seen by the Sudanese people as an immediate and welcome reaction to the problem. If the West waits for over a decade before making its move, as happened with Saddam, any intervention will have something fishy about it.
[/quote]
The serious fighting has been going on in and around Darfur since 2003. The deaths from the actual fighting, in addition to the deaths caused by starvation and disease to those displaced, are calculated to be about 400,000. Taking into consideration that Sudan didn't even let releif agencies to begin helping unitl 2005, it is believed that number is low.
So the world has sat on it's hands because the political forces in Sudan didn't let aid agencies in (and still restricts their access). Hundreds of thousands have died and will die soon.
The UN has done NOTHING. The African countries have been stymied by regional politics. The Sudanese people die as political pawns because the powerful nations that CAN do something have been convinced they are too evil and greedy to legitimately do something.
Of COURSE if the US waits until we have 'National Intrests' to justify us doing anything it will make us look self-servinng, because that's what it is.
If the US pushed for other Countries to form a new coalition, (and bypass the bottleneck of the UN's politics of self-serving small countries), that would get results. Of course the political fall out is the arabs and muslims would call them 'crusaders', but wouldn't it be better to be hated and save hundreds of thousands of lives?

Those of you who claim to be "Catholic" may want to read this short and practical explanation of the 'Just War Doctrine' from Catholic.com [url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Just_War_Doctrine_1.asp"][b]Just War Theory[/b][/url]. It's linked available through the Defense Directory. After you read it [b]all[/b], provide justification for Countries who CAN do something to stop the genocide, but not. (For those of you who are all about the 'sovreignity' of nations, read the article twice.)

Edited October 25, 2006 by Anomaly

[Mercy me]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1100683' date='Oct 25 2006, 08:30 AM']
The UN has done NOTHING. The African countries have been stymied by regional politics. The Sudanese people die as political pawns because the powerful nations that CAN do something have been convinced they are too evil and greedy to legitimately do something.

Of COURSE if the US waits until we have 'National Intrests' to justify us doing anything it will make us look self-servinng, because that's what it is.

If the US pushed for other Countries to form a new coalition, (and bypass the bottleneck of the UN's politics of self-serving small countries), that would get results. Of course the political fall out is the arabs and muslims would call them 'crusaders', but wouldn't it be better to be hated and save hundreds of thousands of lives?

[/quote]
The UN hasn't done nothing. They made gave Sudan chairmanship of the the Commission on Human Rights WHILE THEY WERE CONDUCTING GENOCIDE AND KEEPING RELIEF AGENCIES OUT.

Agreed, it is the problem national interest is that it means that we are by definition self-serving. The US has its fair share of isolationists. Historically that is what we have been. This has been shanging of late.

The US pushed aid into the areas impacted by the tsunami. The UN weenies got their noses out of joint. How dare a country bypass them but it had to be done and we, the Aussies and a few others bypassed them to get the job done. We would need the political will to do the same in Sudan. This is not a short relief thing but would be rather long term. The biggest problem would be the reaction from the muslim world. They already hate us.

Wasn't Sudan a country that sheltered Bin Ladin? Could be wrong on this.