Originally Posted By woody I wonder why there is complete inconsistency in this rally for Darfur. They want the US to act unilaterally. What!!! No United Nations support??? Maybe because the UN has already failed? How about an international coalition? haven't tried this yet!!! Funny how Iraq is wrong, but the LEFT just loves Darfur as the latest cause. ------------ <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12531663/" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12 531663/</a> Celebrities, activists rally for Darfur in D.C. National Mall protest meant to urge White House to act on crisis in Sudan Jonathan Ernst / Reuters Actor George Clooney stands alone and bows his head Sunday during opening prayers at a rally to stop the crisis in Darfur, on the National Mall in Washington. Updated: 7:58 p.m. ET April 30, 2006 WASHINGTON - Thousands of people joined celebrities and lawmakers at a rally Sunday urging the Bush administration and Congress to help end genocide in Sudan’s Darfur region. “Not on our watch!†the crowd chanted as a parade of speakers lined up for their turn on a stage on the National Mall, the Capitol serving as a backdrop. --------- I guess President Bush, who is not apolgetic on his Iraq policy, yet is chastised by the experience really wants a new military adventure in Darfur. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. The Left will have to change it's rant on Iraq before Bush can act. The inconsistency is a mile wide. There is a bigger crisis in Iran BTW.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder Make my words- within 15 years, for better or worse, we could be looking at Senator and/or President Clooney. And before people start guffawing, there are, of course, two words for them- Ronald Reagan.
Originally Posted By imadisneygal Oh, and "BTW", there is not a bigger crisis in Iran right now. People are dying - no, not dying - being murdered by the 10's of thousands in Darfur. And it's not a new cause, although there has been recent attention due to the march and celebrity involvement. Our Temple has been raising money and awareness about the genocide in Darfur for over two years. We have been calling the President's "comment line" (a big joke, as if he listens to it!)daily to ask him to get involved and stop the killings. What's happening with the genocide in Darfur is criminal and to stand by and do nothing is nothing less than criminal, too. Think of all the nations, including our own, who knew about the holocaust and did nothing. Criminal. If anyone wants to make the case that we were saving the people of Iraq from an awful dictator (and I don't disagree, he was and is an awful, hideous human being) then the same case can and should be made that it's our responsibility to get involved and save thousands and possibly millions of lives in Darfur. What could possibly be the reason that we wouldn't want to stop the murdering? Oh, right...what sort of resources do they have that would help us? Not much... Iran trying to develop a nuclear weapon is not presently more important or deadly than what's happening in Sudan. Important? Certainly. Important in lieu of saving lives that are being lost as I type? No. Whatever you do, please don't make the mistake of thinking or saying that the "left" is picking a "cause du jour." This has been happening for a long time and those of us who think it's criminal for the United States to stand by and be silent know it's not new - and it's not going to go away on its own. At least not until everyone there is dead. Bush can't have his cake and eat it, too. We're saving those who can't save themselves - so what do we say about Darfur? Those of us who realize this isn't a new thing, or a cause of convenience, are waiting for the answer from Washington and I think they know it. Unilateral action, maybe not. But get on board and lead the solution. We can't say we're for saving lives and protecting people from opression when we stand by and do nothing about Darfur.
Originally Posted By woody >>If anyone wants to make the case that we were saving the people of Iraq from an awful dictator (and I don't disagree, he was and is an awful, hideous human being) then the same case can and should be made that it's our responsibility to get involved and save thousands and possibly millions of lives in Darfur.<< Asking for Bush to be consistent rather than asking for the celebrities to be consistent is good idea since the celebrities are in a poor position to ask for anything at all. But I think you undermine your own argument by not acknowledging the threat from Iran who has openly threatened Israel with a nuclear bomb. There's no mistake about the threat that Iran has posed. What happened to international cooperation? Did this disappear?
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 I have a question, why do we and to an extent England always have to step up to the plate when it comes to affairs like this? Come on France, Russia, China you're all so-called superpowers. Man up and prove your worth.
Originally Posted By imadisneygal No, international cooperation did not disappear. But if we want to be seen as leaders and not as the richest country in the world that stood by through two holocausts then we should keep doing what we're doing. Sure, the world should be involved in the solution. But no one else has stepped up and we can - so why don't we? And yes, Iran has threatened Israel on more than one occasion with annihilation. And yes, we should be working with Israel to stop the threat. That said, anyone who thinks Israel can't turn Iran into a big smoking hole in the ground in a matter of minutes is not thinking clearly. It's not about Iran vs. Darfur. Or Iran vs. North Korea for that matter. North Korea has also made overy nuclear threats. When is the last time we thought about invading North Korea to stop their nuclear development? Nope, all we've tried there is diplomacy. And why? OIL...North Korea and Sudan have none. But Iraq does. And do does Iran. Genocide is genocide. Was there genocide in Iraq? Arguably headed in that direction, lots of deaths, but not genocide when we went. And yet, there we are. International cooperation is all well and good, but if we want to be the big kid in the sandbox we need to step up and stop this now. To respond to DDMAN26's point about other countries - I totally agree. However, with France's record of hatred of Jews I wouldn't expect to see them invading Iran by our side (if we decide to do that) anytime soon. It's unfortunate but we are on our own. I'd like to know where they are, too. But I don't want more people to be murdered in Sudan while we sit around and wonder why no one wants to help us.
Originally Posted By ecdc Um, I don't know what this is talking about. I saw Clooney on Bill Maher on Friday and he very specifically said the U.N. should be taking action with the U.S. as a part of it. But the African Union needs to be a part of it too. It's a complicated situation, and at least Clooney realizes that.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj I don't see any inconsistency in our country's lack of interest in Darfur. There's no big oil money to be made for friends of the administration there -- so why would they be interested? There's so much more money to be made by saber rattline in the Middle East.
Originally Posted By imadisneygal ^^^Exactly. It's not about saving people from oppression or fighting injustice. It's about oil. Who cares if hundreds of thousands of Sudanese are being murdered? We might if they were sitting on top of a bunch of oil.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe President Clooney would certainly solve the immigration problem (we'd have a billion people by 2016) but there would be a mass emigration as I think a lot of us would move to another country, maybe down under?
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I'd like to see Clooney as President. A lot of these actors seem to have all the answers and I, for one, would like to see one of them step up to the plate with all of their bravado. Let's see if things seem so easy once they have to solve the problem instead of complaining about the problem.
Originally Posted By imadisneygal I don't think it's so much about solvign the problem for the celebrities as much as it is about bringing the problems and the lack of action to stop a genocide into specific relief. It's about time America started talking about this and if it takes a celebrity to get it into the public eye so that people who don't pay attention otherwise will know that this is going on in our world. I don't want to be part of the generation that has to explain another holocaust to my children.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper But it is easy to point out problems. I can sit around and do that all day long. Heck, that is what the media does so it is hardly necessary. At issue is the fact that in many cases there are no easy answers. We can all get on the "something should be done" bandwagon. But, what exactly should be done?
Originally Posted By imadisneygal In my opinion? Even if it means a unilateral military operation we need to get in there and stop this genocide. We stood by during WWII and did nothing to stop the genocide even though our president at the time was well aware of the crematoria, etc. in Europe. We didn't bomb those places. It makes me sick to think about us standing by when this is going on. It may not be solely our responsibility but if not us, who? We have the resources and we should get in there before another generation is wiped out. It's not right to stand by and do nothing. Diplomacy is not going to stop it. It's sad, but true that we are in the position to be the only ones who might help. We can't sit by and say, "well, we're forming a committee to study the long-term effects of military action in Sudan." People are being killed now and we need to do something about it. If we stand by and do nothing we're complicit in the genocide ourselves.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper This could go down a bad path here but...I'll point out the uncomfortable obvious. American's aren't really happy that our soldiers are dying for brown people right now. How do you think they are going to respond when our soldiers start dying for black people? I'm not advocating a position one way or the other nor am I speaking from my own heart. But, that is the often unspoken truth about much of what is happening in the world today.
Originally Posted By imadisneygal I don't disagree that there is some truth to your statement. I do, however, think that the resistance in Darfur would be different in its firepower. What you wrote is a sad statement on our society. But I still can't see sitting around while this happens and then having to explain it to our kids.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Who pays Ima? Our kids don't have schoolteachers in Sandwich Mass. and we pay > 10K a year in property taxes. How about the genocide in N.Korea? Look what happened in Iraq trying to stop that quasi genocide. Should I go on? We CAN'T afford to save everyone
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <American's aren't really happy that our soldiers are dying for brown people right now. How do you think they are going to respond when our soldiers start dying for black people?> We stopped the killing in the Balkans while losing only a handful of soldiers in Bosnia and zero, I believe, in Kosovo.
Originally Posted By woody >>People are being killed now and we need to do something about it. If we stand by and do nothing we're complicit in the genocide ourselves.<< If this is the way you feel about it, then why are we still rehashing the reason to invade Iraq? Saddam's killings resembles a small scale genocide, yet the same leftists who hate the Iraq War want our involvement in Darfur. Give me a break. Genocide is wrong, yet anyone in this political climate would be scared off of another military adventure. Another thing, the talk about the Iraq War for Oil also implies less than noble reasons for invading Iraq. I think the potential for Saddam's WMD programs are the justification for the war because the failure to fix the problem means the potential for more genocide in the future. You have the leftists still not acknowledging the problem with Iraq so why should we take them SERIOUSLY with Darfur? BTW, how do they propose we fix the problem without military casualities? It won't be long before Kerry and Dean will start crying about GETTING OUT OF DARFUR for their failure to elect a government. Hmmmm... Darfur has a government. Let them govern.
