Would You Approve Of Sending Troops To Darfur?

[cali]

I would, and I don't care whether they're under the aegis of the UN or US troops or Canadian or whatever. I'm so damned tired of genocide. We never seem to care about it until the blood is all spilled, and then we gnash our teeth and bemoan the terrible loss of life and swear never again. What a horrific cycle.

[htuttle]

1. Only as part of a legal, UN-lead force

Not unilaterally or with our own homebuilt 'coalition'. That would undoubtedly just make things worse.

[Horse with no Name]

3. absolutely agreed.

We cannot trust those in power in our country to do anything but rape and pillage.
It would have to be with sane men leading the way.

[Arkansas Granny]

10. Absolutely. If we did not go in as part of a UN peacekeeping

force, I don't think anyone would believe that we were there for humanitarian reasons. The credibility of the U.S. has been so damaged by the current administration that our motives would be suspect.

[TheBaldyMan]

15. it would probably mean the US would be providing the logistic

support with the bulk of the ground troops made up of other UN members armed forces.

The only problem is the US is so heavily committed to Iraq that they aren't able to support large scale humanitarian efforts elsewhere. The 'co-alition of the clueless' can't even control Iraq.

I hate to say it but it looks like the Sudanese govrnment can only be persuaded by diplomatic channels for the forseeable future. Perhaps a UN/EU humanitarian force could be provided but I don't know if the international commitment or political will exists.

[RepublicanElephant]

2. i get nervous when neo-cons claim to care about human suffering...

and what do you think about this article from mike whitney warning about the true motives of neo-cons using the un, not to save the people of darfur, but to secure the oil of sudan:

"Americans don’t have a good grip on the problems facing Sudan or why US-backed “peacekeepers” should be banned from the region.

The situation is analogous to the man who discovers that he has prostate cancer but refuses to let Jack-the-Ripper perform the surgery.

The United States won't do anything to reduce the carnage in Darfur and it has no credibility as far as “humanitarian intervention”. Just look at the mess in Afghanistan or Iraq and see how the violence has flourished under US occupation. In Afghanistan the administration has made no effort to establish security beyond the capital of Kabul and Iraq is in the throes of civil war. The scenario is bound to be repeated in Sudan. The military may dispatch a few F-16s to Darfur to blast-away at fleeing tribesmen, but the situation on the ground would remain unchanged. Neither the US nor the UN will do anything to stop the bloodshed in the hinterland.

The eagerness of the UN, and particularly Ambassador John Bolton, appears to be aimed at putting boots on the ground to secure Sudan's lavish oil and natural gas reserves. If that’s not the case, then why hasn’t the UN intervened in nearby Congo where millions of civilians have been butchered in the last decade?"

http://www.palestinechronicle.com/story.php?sid=03280665708

i wish the repubs in congress genuinely cared about human rights,
but we know better.

[cali]

6. You do know that there

are plenty of liberal dems who recognize that what is happening in Darfur is genocide?

[RepublicanElephant]

11. i have no prob with lib dems, because their hearts are in the right...

place.

it's these neo-cons who hide behind the labels: "freedom", "democracy", "human rights". they only express concern when such issues are raised in oil-rich countries. and even then, their responses are half-assed, as far as helping human suffering.

[Orangepeel]

4. as part of a true coalition and with UN support

and I would be in favor of the US taking the lead on making that happen

[bryant69]

5. Interesting question

I think we should do something - but it's unfortunate that we really can't. We lack the moral authority to lead because of our invasion in Iraq. We lack the military power because we are tied up in Iraq. And even if we did invade, i have little faith that we would actually improve things.

But doing nothing is painful as well.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Rose Siding]

7. Yes, but I don't trust this admin to use troops in any way

Fleshing out a plan and figuring it into the Dems 'redeployment' language might be a good idea. -but it's really hopeless to think that the bushbots would do anything competently.

[OKNancy]

8. I would because I still believe in the hope

and philosophy of the USA. For all those who think we are an evil country, I don't think this.
I think that most the PEOPLE of our country are actually pretty giving.
When we think about using our vast military and wealth what would be a better choice than to help Darfur? If it were up to BushCo, no. If it were up to the people, then yes, I think that most people would approve of humanitarian action.

[TheBaldyMan]

16. the rest of the world doesn't hate Americans, we hate Bushco

and although I can only speak for myself on this matter, I do get the impression that other people have a lot of sympathy with Americans because you have to live under that hideous regime.

Especially stuff like not having universal healthcare in the richest country in the world and the fact that you've had two elections stolen by thieving schemers.

[5X]

9. I would if we as a country had any legitimacy left.....

Read this article by Chomsky and you might come to the same
conclusion I have, the US has no business being the worlds'
keeper.

<http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0404-30.htm>

[Klukie]

12. Yes!

What a truly honorable cause. So very sad that our nation doesn't know what battles are worth our soldiers lives.

[TreasonousBastard]

13. Something has to be done in Darfur, and...

other places where the violence has destroyed nations.

But, the African Union has been there for years and is pulling out because they have gotten little support from the rest of the world and are overwhelmed by the extent of the problem and their own internal politics.

I'll add to the chorus of not trusting the US to lead the charge in there with guns blazing-- even in better times with more adult leadership we have rarely been wholely humanitarian in our adventures. With this crew, there's little doubt we'll leave the place a bigger mess than it is now.

[shenmue]

14. Yes

:graybox:

[The2ndWheel]

17. Only if we can build a base there

The next time a center of power, especially a global superpower, does anything to help a thrid party without it being for reasons of its own interest, will be the first.

[Katherine Brengle]

18. UN peacekeeping troops, yes.

I would not support "going to war with Sudan" however, because I oppose war.

I think this could stop the violence and get things running normally there, but I would never support trying to do so through more killing...

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. That depends.

Is there oil in Darfur?

That's the prerequisite for troop deployments, isn't it?

[FrenchieCat]

20. Yes, I would....and it should have happened YESTERDAY....

Although it has to be in concert with either a NATO or U.N. Coalition.

Those people are dying! 300,000 to 450,000 approx as of last count, maybe more.

We have already waited too late. The Cons have already fucked this one up for the many, many already gone!

As Clark did about Rwanda, Bosnia and Kosovo, he has been advocating that we should intervene in Dafur; multilaterally, of course. However due to Bush's "excuse" of "helping" those who were terrorized under Saddam as a reason to have invaded Iraq, Bush has made it much harder for anyone to trust his motives, and this has hurt the cause of those who believe that, at times, intervention of the military kind....can be of some good, in particular for peacekeeping purposes as opposed to instigating war.

Bush has done much to sabotage the issue of military Intervention, even for a noble purpose. The fact that Bush is starting to stir on this one really is totally unimpressive. After Invading Iraq, Bush used the 1991 (poisoning of the Kurds) Genocide justification ....yet he has been unwilling to do anything to date in Darfur...all the while the killing goes on. That is one of the reasons that I Bush is such an evil one....apart from so many other reasons!

Again, as in Rwanda and Bosnia, where over 1 million (those two countries combined) lost their lives and we still didn't find the courage to act. Here we are repeating again our slow motion reaction of waiting until it's too late to intervene. Genocide prevention is meant to occur BEFORE Genocide occurs....not after the fact. Kosovo is really the only place we acted accordingly, and even there, we could have done a better job if we would have acted less timid and not only bombed from high altitudes (Clark's insistence of putting Boots on the Ground and using low flying Apaches is what got him "retired" early back then).

http://www.eamedia.org/2005/nr05/01.php
US FORCES SHOULD INTERVENE IN DARFUR, SUDAN – GEN. WESLEY CLARK
Almaty, Kazakhstan, April 23 – The United States should intervene militarily to stop the killing in the Darfur province of Sudan, General Wesley Clark told a media conference in Kazakhstan.

“US forces with a mandate and adequate cover should go in and stop the ethnic cleansing and genocide in Darfur,” he said in answer to a question. “It has gone on long enough. Enough is enough. It must stop.”
http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/USATODAY/2004/07/06/501055?extID=10026

Out of time in Darfur
By Wesley Clark and John Prendergast | Jul 06 '04
For the past year, the international community has shamefully acquiesced to the crimes against humanity occurring daily in the Sudanese province of Darfur.

"Janjaweed" militias, Arabs backed by the Sudanese government, are continuing to conduct mop-up operations against non-Arab villagers in a massive ethnic-cleansing campaign in the region. The current conflict flared early last year when two rebel groups in Darfur attacked government forces. The swelling crisis could leave hundreds of thousands dead in the coming months.


And here's some information on the Rwanda-Time line, and some comments about Wes Clark's long time involvement in attempting to get something done about it to stop the killing.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/4018.html

[noonwitch]

21. Yes, in a UN-led operation

The slaughter going on there needs to be stopped. But we can't act alone (or just with the brits and aussies), otherwise it will be seen as US going after muslims by those who don't know the whole story.

[mdmc]

22. if we use the Powell doctrine, sure

:kick:

[recoveringrepublican]

23. Nope, but only because I know they would be doing it because there

was something in it for them. Not saying something doesn't need to be done, but I feel if WE get involved we will just fuck it up worse with our demands.

[maveric]

24. Yes. If ever there was a place for humanitarian, military intervention...

Its Dafur. But there's no oil there so the great US of A wont waste their time saving children from an evil and opressive regime. Whats in it for bu$hsco?