Why Don't We Care About African Genocide?

Interesting how we're blamed if we do and if we don't eh? I do consider the sanctions the worse of two evils (obviously :wink:). I believe that sanction wrought suffering does little to harm leadership other than ripen the climate for an overthrow. It's the old fashion BS manipulation you despise, no? Overthrow by making the economy scream. The UN, interestingly enough pulled the story I reference out of it's own archives, so now I have to point to it through CNN.

It's tough to know the truth, I agree, but mostly because it's difficult to weigh just how much Anti-American sentiment has driven up the numbers. Human rights organizations and charities tend to place the "murdered by Saddam" numbers somewhere between 300,000 and 500,000 (not including the million plus war with Iran deaths of course), but then they turn around and push the number over a million if the slant is Anti-Sanction instead of Anti-Saddam. How can this be? Saddam first resisted the OFF program and then robbed it blind. Why would he get a pass on the sanction-starvation deaths? His favorite attorney, our former Attorney General Ramsey Clark pushes the numbers to 1,500,000 dead with 750,000 dead kids 5 and under. It's truly a world gone mad when I'm forced to take the UN Children's Fund's word over a former U.S. Attorney General... because I think he might be exaggerating Saddam's guilt… but what can you do. That report is here.

Dispite knowing so many of you, (respecting many and loving more than a few) who believe taking out the Sovereign leader was wrong, I am utterly incapable of understanding how you look past the million bodies that had already piled up. Would 1,000,000 civilians have died if Bush I had pushed on to Bagdad? I think not. I think it's much harder this time around because we backed off then. Bush dropped the ball in Iraq and now his boy is dropping it in the Sudan.

Who is blaming you if you do or don't?

Also - why do you always seem to take everything as a criticism of the US only?

Much of the stuff I have posted is absolutely clearly giving at least equal weight to GB (and ought, morally, to us - if we do or if we don't).

The Sudan/Darfur thing is clearly a world responsibility - like Rwanda...

Thanks Deb for consistently being the one here to actually enrich this thread with facts and info thats, moreover, actually about Sudan. Very helpful.

You Deb... along with my sister, John Kerry, most charities and virtually every liberal minded person I know. More on that in a minute.

I don't. Sometimes I'm just too lazy to add "and friends" and sometimes its in recognition of my belief that we deserve the lion's share of the criticism because, after all, we are the lion.

That's fine and good on paper but we all know who's contribution means the most in military situations... and consequently who is guiltiest of apathy when it rears it's ugly head. Ability comes with responsibility. The day I was certified to be a life guard, my responsibility to help a drowning person increased.

True, but no one's going to blame the Congolese if they can't kick in much help.

Blame: The UNICEF statements first blamed us for the deaths in Iraq brought about by sanctions and then blamed us for the deaths brought about by war. In Sudan they are (rightly) blaming us (us, not just U.S.) for doing nothing, but you know damn straight if we go in and start kicking a$$ we're going to be blamed for the deaths that causes too. Like so many A2Kers they don't seem to get it that sometimes you have to kill the killer… and if the killer uses the cowardly tactics of hiding among the woman and children; there is going to be collateral damage.

Woman and children are going to die, either way. If you choose to not go after him because he hides among the woman and children, you may as well stay home because that's where they'll all be. If you choose to go after him then you'd better accept that soldiers are going to kill innocent people too. It's an ugly truth, but the alternative isn't any prettier.

The U.S. takes the most heat when an A-hole like Omar and Saddam goes on (stays on?) a killing spree… and rightly so since we are most capable of doing something about it. (Big props to the Aussies and others for kicking in what they can.) Then we take the most heat for sanctions that anyone with a sixth grade education can tell you is going to hurt the masses more than the leader. In my book, again, rightly so. This is generally the preferred method of Chirac & Friends; to play the appeasement game while the killing continues… but we've proven so many times that the suffering is staggering when this option is chosen it is sickening. Then, when we finally give up on these strategies; we go to war. Here again, we, not our enemy find ourselves the target of hate and blame for doing the work that's needed to be done since day one. By now, the people we're supposedly fighting on behalf of hate us with a passion because they can rightly say we played a role in starving some of their friends and/or family to death.

The UN Children's Fund, like so many others (you know who you are :wink:), for all their good intentions; still blame the stronger countries every step of the way for every body bag that gets filled. (Don't misunderstand me; UNICEF still gets plenty of dough from me and I don't hold this idealistic foolishness against them… any more than I do others.)

But the simple fact remains; murderers like Saddam and Omar are most responsible for the deaths that are ultimately caused by their actions. This is the obvious fact that is so often glossed over by the do-gooder in his haste to condemn the more powerful, bully nations, who's re-action caused that last wave of death. Seemingly absent the do-gooder's mindset is the realization that collateral damage, too, except in exceptionally careless circumstances is still the byproduct of the A-hole's actions… even more so than those who are charged with stopping him.

When confronted with the harsh reality of questions like what's better 200,000 innocents dead or 1,000,000; the do-gooder will usually become uncomfortable and evasive because the obvious truth goes against every fiber of his being. Imagine the weight of that decision on your shoulders; knowing your decision on a matter will likely result in one of those two numbers being realized. It's a wonder that everyone who ever sits behind the desk in the Oval Office doesn't go stark raving mad from the awesome responsibility of it all.

It paralyzed Carter into inaction. Here sat one of the most benevolent, caring, intelligent men ever to be elected, helpless under the weight of the office. Reagan hated it so much he set out to make the U.S. omni-potent in hopes of eliminating the possibility of opposition. King George the first, despite having spent years in the war business still suffered a form of paralysis not unlike Carter's. Then came Slick Willy who, like Carter, was intimidating intelligent… but the pressures of taking care of business in North Korea and Iraq proved so overwhelming he sought some other distractions.

Enter King George II. A man who rose through the ranks by name recognition alone. A rose by any other name may smell as sweet, but this man by any other name would never be President. If you've seen Fahrenheit 911, then you've seen every ounce of the oval office's weight sitting on young George's shoulders as he sat in a class room full of children. You could see his mind fighting for sanity as the minutes passed. We'd all like to think we'd have sprung to our feet and started barking orders… but who among us could really know? Like his father, and so many other good men before him, he was paralyzed by the awesome weight upon him.

We all cried as they played the American National Anthem during the ceremonial changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace. And we all cheered defiantly when King George announced that not only was he going after the murderer of so many in Manhattan but that he was declaring war on terrorists everywhere and the countries that support them. Who would have guessed he meant it? Iraq was such a country. Iran and Syria are such countries. Perhaps when we're done there, we can turn on Saudi Arabia if they haven't yet fallen into line (though I suspect they will have made serious progress by then). For all George's shortcomings, this second rate Caesar is the first President in a very long time to ignore the criticism and live up to his convictions… even while knowing that his decisions may result in even more death. The last President to show such resilience in the face of such criticism was murdered for his trouble.

Now we have yet another A-hole in Africa murdering people by the truckload. Many a do-gooder will use this tragedy as an excuse to label King George a hypocrite, if he doesn't find a way to put a stop to it. Personally, I think the lack of possible ulterior motives puts this in the same category as Tsunami relief and he is missing a tremendous opportunity to purchase goodwill without rewarding bad behavior. Am I wrong in thinking that Americans who fall in Darfur would be a testament to good will to thinking people in Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc.? Unlike the defeatists, I don't believe our enemies in the ME have an ideologically predestined fate to oppose us. They're not all just religious nuts… they're human, too.

It is my opinion that the A-holes in Khartoum should be shaking in their shoes in fear right now. Not only do the Darfuris deserve our help by virtue of being helpless human beings; the fact that the vast majority of them are Muslim presents an incredible opportunity to demonstrate that we are not the baby-eating Muslim haters we're rumored to be. If George is really trying to rid the world of terrorists, this could prove to be a crucial step in winning the hearts and minds of those he means to convince. All that politics aside however; the U.S remains the guiltiest party of apathy because of our tremendous might and it is a stain on us all that the average American probably doesn't even know there is "something happening in Darfur".

OB, It seems to me we have the wrong guy sitting in the white house. You seem to have all the right answers for world peace. You should run in 2008.

Gee, thanks CI.

Does anyone else find it significant that Qadhafi is actually down there trying to negotiate a peace?

I find the AU involvement in general to be significant. Here's to hoping that throwing our support behind them will be enough to resolve the situation. Actually, here's hoping that they can resolve it with or without us. That would certainly be the best outcome for everyone, IMO.

OB, I addressed your complaint about your Picasso on that thread -- why it was brought up here eludes me other than you need sympathy for using a wholly personal sentiment to prove some elusive point about the value of art (particularly a Kinkade).
Let's call the sentimental platitude, "I wouldn't sell it for..." a pet peeve.

I believe we've both been guilty of attempted mind reading on this confrontation also. I will admit to baiting you into proving your point about 5M children dead at Saddam's hands and I haven't found anything on the Web or elsewhere to verify that (and you say you can give a link but did not).

It wouldn't matter if it were 2,000 dead (I'll pick a figure out of the wind like the $2,000. for the Picasso copy), it would be unacceptable. You brought up the Iraq/Iran war as additional statistically dead because of Hussein when, in fact, the US supported that war and assisted in it (could that mean the US is an accessory?). I dare not bring up the apparition of a strawman as you still don't believe I know what that is. It's suspiciously close but as I don't what you to believe that I am baiting you, I will discontinue using it.

Lastly, we've never gotten into this kind of confrontational snipping before except with an aura of good natured humor. Mr. OB, tear down this barbed wire wall.

I also think everyone has to admit that the Iraq situation has been a political mine field ever since Reagan and I don't think trying to compare it to the Sudan situation gets anyone anywhere. If there are 10,000 troups headed there, I'm wondering how many of those will be American.

The Bush administration wields maximum secrecy with minimal opposition. The White House press is timid. The poor, limp Democrats don't have enough power to convene Congressional hearings on any Republican outrages and are reduced to writing whining letters of protest that are tossed in the Oval Office trash.
February 27, 2005

W.'s Stiletto Democracy

By MAUREEN DOWD

WASHINGTON

It was remarkable to see President Bush lecture Vladimir Putin on the importance of checks and balances in a democratic society.

Remarkably brazen, given that the only checks Mr. Bush seems to believe in are those written to the "journalists" Armstrong Williams, Maggie Gallagher and Karen Ryan, the fake TV anchor, to help promote his policies. The administration has given a whole new meaning to checkbook journalism, paying a stupendous $97 million to an outside P.R. firm to buy columnists and produce propaganda, including faux video news releases.

The only balance W. likes is the slavering, Pravda-like "Fair and Balanced" coverage Fox News provides. Mr. Bush pledges to spread democracy while his officials strive to create a Potemkin press village at home. This White House seems to prefer softball questions from a self-advertised male escort with a fake name to hardball questions from journalists with real names; it prefers tossing journalists who protect their sources into the gulag to giving up the officials who broke the law by leaking the name of their own C.I.A. agent.

W., who once looked into Mr. Putin's soul and liked what he saw, did not demand the end of tyranny, as he did in his second Inaugural Address. His upper lip sweating a bit, he did not rise to the level of his hero Ronald Reagan's "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." Instead, he said that "the common ground is a lot more than those areas where we disagree." The Russians were happy to stress the common ground as well.

An irritated Mr. Putin compared the Russian system to the American Electoral College, perhaps reminding the man preaching to him about democracy that he had come in second in 2000 according to the popular vote, the standard most democracies use.

Certainly the autocratic former K.G.B. agent needs to be upbraided by someone - Tony Blair, maybe? - for eviscerating the meager steps toward democracy that Russia had made before Mr. Putin came to power. But Mr. Bush is on shaky ground if he wants to hold up his administration as a paragon of safeguarding liberty - considering it has trampled civil liberties in the name of the war on terror and outsourced the torture of prisoners to bastions of democracy like Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. (The secretary of state canceled a trip to Egypt this week after Egypt's arrest of a leading opposition politician.)

"I live in a transparent country," Mr. Bush protested to a Russian reporter who implicitly criticized the Patriot Act by noting that the private lives of American citizens "are now being monitored by the state."

Dick Cheney's secret meetings with energy lobbyists were certainly a model of transparency. As was the buildup to the Iraq war, when the Bush hawks did their best to cloak the real reasons they wanted to go to war and trumpet the trumped-up reasons.

The Bush administration wields maximum secrecy with minimal opposition. The White House press is timid. The poor, limp Democrats don't have enough power to convene Congressional hearings on any Republican outrages and are reduced to writing whining letters of protest that are tossed in the Oval Office trash.

When nearly $9 billion allotted for Iraqi reconstruction during Paul Bremer's tenure went up in smoke, Democratic lawmakers vainly pleaded with Republicans to open a Congressional investigation.

Even the near absence of checks and balances is not enough for W. Not content with controlling the White House, Congress, the Supreme Court and a good chunk of the Fourth Estate, he goes to even more ludicrous lengths to avoid being challenged.

The White House wants its Republican allies in the Senate to stamp out the filibuster, one of the few weapons the handcuffed Democrats have left. They want to invoke the so-called nuclear option and get rid of the 150-year-old tradition in order to ram through more right-wing judges.

Mr. Bush and Condi Rice strut in their speeches - the secretary of state also strutted in Wiesbaden in her foxy "Matrix"-dominatrix black leather stiletto boots - but they shy away from taking questions from the public unless they get to vet the questions and audiences in advance.

Administration officials went so far as to cancel a town hall meeting during Mr. Bush's visit to Germany last week after deciding an unscripted setting would be too risky, opting for a round-table talk in Mainz with preselected Germans and Americans.

The president loves democracy - as long as democracy means he's always right.

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

I brought it up because your behavior is inexplicable on that thread as well. This was my original post there. As you can see, I had no problem, no illusions about the paintings value and no pet peeve. You imagined something to argue about in the post that wasn't there and eventually insulted me for no reason at all. Check yourself, dude. "Sentimental platitude" is another unnecessary undeserved insult for nothing for simply sharing something that matters to me. What is your real problem?

You never asked for it, but are mistaken anyway because I already provided a reference here.

WTF is your problem with the $2,000 figure? It was arbitrary when I first used it. I provided you a link that defines Strawman; so your complaint there is meaningless as well. Please stop sniping with idiotic non-issues and tell me what your problem is.

That's because you've never before sniped at me with inexplicable inanities before. I don't understand where it's coming from.

The Sudan has been bad for just as long but too few people care about what happens in Africa. If you don't care for the comparison, tough luck. Over the last 50 years; apathy has resulted in millions dying unnecessarily in both places. I couldn't care less what you think of the comparison as you are obviously to distracted by something else to comment reasonably.

Go back and look at the other thread with your usually reasonable, open mind... and then look at the continued foolishness here and see if you don't think owe me an apology.

I apologize for damaging a sensitivity that I would not ordinarily attribute to you. You admit throwing in an arbitrary comment about your Picasso copy and I didn't see that it belonged in the context of the thread.

Thanks for the link -- I did miss it.

There's no need for a complicated (ridiculous, I might add) explanation of strawman -- it's in the dictionary:



Main Entry: straw man
Function: noun
1 : a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted
2 : a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction

You've somewhat explained what looked like a strawman and I will keep it to myself whether or not you've adequately explained it.

You damaged no sensitivity, LW. One need not be inordinately sensitive to take offense when a personal revelation is rudely rebuked and subsequently dismissed as "pointless." You insulted me in apparent error, however, so your apology is accepted.

My definition for Strawman is hardly ridiculous. Stick to the dictionary if you want to continue hurling it like a sophomoric insult. When you tire of being accused of such (like I did) you can learn a more detailed knowledge of logical fallacies by clicking here and/or here. (Thanks again for the references Master Joe.)

We're not going to agree what qualifies as a strawman or not but you did read into my statement about the loss of life something that was completely erroneous, it was not what I meant at all. If you believe you are always rational and never wrong, you are emoting enough to get the Oscar or at least a nomination.

Which reminds me that I have to leave as I'm on the planning committe for an Oscar party in Hollywood and I'm late.

Good luck, I do hope you win.

ROFL - the great strategic geniuses here concur we should send troops to Sudan where 100,000 dead are confirmed due to genocide.

Would anybody like a map of the Congo, where estimates for the last decade's genocide victims start at 1,000,000, and where at least half a million are still living in the jungle in order to avoid getting added to the previous number?

Does anyone have the missing plan for Rwanda? Were we wrong in not intervening there and if yes what could we have done? Anybody wants to hear about Amazon tribes, to change scenery a bit?

Without maps, plans, and financing, the noble sentiments ventilated on this thread are so much waste of cyberspace.

Yes - it is very interesting. However, I read somewhere that they are finding themselves in the same bind as the UN in the Balkans - (and Rwanda??) - very tight rules of engagement - and they have not a large number of troops.

It is a damned interesting phenomenon - potentially - though.

I have to speculate on how easy it will be for them to discipline their troops too.

Which geniuses have so concurred?

I, for one, have said no such thing.

Am I to wilt and faint because you do not consider me a genius?

Pardon me? My only point about America, and the UK and Oz for that matter, here, is to point out the hypocrisy in maintaining (post fact) that the Iraq invasion was done for humanitarian reasons - when immense humanitarian horrors are occurring daily elsewhere, which receive no such invasion.

I have no sense that the US ought especially to be stepping up to this plate. (It is a huge plate - and stepping up to it seems to me an immensely complex and fraught undertaking for anyone) I think this is a burden you are largely placing on yourself.



I don't. Sometimes I'm just too lazy to add "and friends" and sometimes its in recognition of my belief that we deserve the lion's share of the criticism because, after all, we are the lion.[/quote]

Lol - ok - see above - just recall - usually the lion does little, or no, hunting.

That's fine and good on paper but we all know who's contribution means the most in military situations... and consequently who is guiltiest of apathy when it rears it's ugly head. Ability comes with responsibility. The day I was certified to be a life guard, my responsibility to help a drowning person increased.[/quote]

Well, now I absolutely rest my case!

True, but no one's going to blame the Congolese if they can't kick in much help. [/quote]

Indeed - but there are a few options in between the Congolese and you guys - if anyone is feeling life-guardish!

Blame: The UNICEF statements first blamed us for the deaths in Iraq brought about by sanctions and then blamed us for the deaths brought about by war. In Sudan they are (rightly) blaming us (us, not just U.S.) for doing nothing, but you know damn straight if we go in and start kicking a$$ we're going to be blamed for the deaths that causes too. Like so many A2Kers they don't seem to get it that sometimes you have to kill the killer… and if the killer uses the cowardly tactics of hiding among the woman and children; there is going to be collateral damage.[/quote]

Hmmm? In my reading the UN sanctions were blamed (and by some depleted uranium shells used by you guys and the Brits - we don't use them, but I suspect a fair amount of the uranium used prolly came from one of the biggest uranium mines in the world - which is here in me own little state).

I think it fair that people invading a country are held responsible for the deaths they cause.

As far as I know, there were two and a fraction countries in there killing, no?

Yes - you are right - the countries with reasonable sized armies ARE gonna be damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

This is one of the burdens of the global cop thing.

Aargh - I don't have time to address more. Later.



Woman and children are going to die, either way. If you choose to not go after him because he hides among the woman and children, you may as well stay home because that’s where they’ll all be. If you choose to go after him then you’d better accept that soldiers are going to kill innocent people too. It’s an ugly truth, but the alternative isn’t any prettier.

The U.S. takes the most heat when an A-hole like Omar and Saddam goes on (stays on?) a killing spree… and rightly so since we are most capable of doing something about it. (Big props to the Aussies and others for kicking in what they can.) Then we take the most heat for sanctions that anyone with a sixth grade education can tell you is going to hurt the masses more than the leader. In my book, again, rightly so. This is generally the preferred method of Chirac & Friends; to play the appeasement game while the killing continues… but we’ve proven so many times that the suffering is staggering when this option is chosen it is sickening. Then, when we finally give up on these strategies; we go to war. Here again, we, not our enemy find ourselves the target of hate and blame for doing the work that’s needed to be done since day one. By now, the people we’re supposedly fighting on behalf of hate us with a passion because they can rightly say we played a role in starving some of their friends and/or family to death.

The UN Children’s Fund, like so many others (you know who you are :wink:), for all their good intentions; still blame the stronger countries every step of the way for every body bag that gets filled. (Don’t misunderstand me; UNICEF still gets plenty of dough from me and I don’t hold this idealistic foolishness against them… any more than I do others.)

But the simple fact remains; murderers like Saddam and Omar are most responsible for the deaths that are ultimately caused by their actions. This is the obvious fact that is so often glossed over by the do-gooder in his haste to condemn the more powerful, bully nations, who’s re-action caused that last wave of death. Seemingly absent the do-gooder’s mindset is the realization that collateral damage, too, except in exceptionally careless circumstances is still the byproduct of the A-hole’s actions… even more so than those who are charged with stopping him.

When confronted with the harsh reality of questions like what’s better 200,000 innocents dead or 1,000,000; the do-gooder will usually become uncomfortable and evasive because the obvious truth goes against every fiber of his being. Imagine the weight of that decision on your shoulders; knowing your decision on a matter will likely result in one of those two numbers being realized. It’s a wonder that everyone who ever sits behind the desk in the Oval Office doesn’t go stark raving mad from the awesome responsibility of it all.

It paralyzed Carter into inaction. Here sat one of the most benevolent, caring, intelligent men ever to be elected, helpless under the weight of the office. Reagan hated it so much he set out to make the U.S. omni-potent in hopes of eliminating the possibility of opposition. King George the first, despite having spent years in the war business still suffered a form of paralysis not unlike Carter’s. Then came Slick Willy who, like Carter, was intimidating intelligent… but the pressures of taking care of business in North Korea and Iraq proved so overwhelming he sought some other distractions.

Enter King George II. A man who rose through the ranks by name recognition alone. A rose by any other name may smell as sweet, but this man by any other name would never be President. If you’ve seen Fahrenheit 911, then you’ve seen every ounce of the oval office’s weight sitting on young George’s shoulders as he sat in a class room full of children. You could see his mind fighting for sanity as the minutes passed. We’d all like to think we’d have sprung to our feet and started barking orders… but who among us could really know? Like his father, and so many other good men before him, he was paralyzed by the awesome weight upon him.

We all cried as they played the American National Anthem during the ceremonial changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace. And we all cheered defiantly when King George announced that not only was he going after the murderer of so many in Manhattan but that he was declaring war on terrorists everywhere and the countries that support them. Who would have guessed he meant it? Iraq was such a country. Iran and Syria are such countries. Perhaps when we’re done there, we can turn on Saudi Arabia if they haven’t yet fallen into line (though I suspect they will have made serious progress by then). For all George’s shortcomings, this second rate Caesar is the first President in a very long time to ignore the criticism and live up to his convictions… even while knowing that his decisions may result in even more death. The last President to show such resilience in the face of such criticism was murdered for his trouble.

Now we have yet another A-hole in Africa murdering people by the truckload. Many a do-gooder will use this tragedy as an excuse to label King George a hypocrite, if he doesn’t find a way to put a stop to it. Personally, I think the lack of possible ulterior motives puts this in the same category as Tsunami relief and he is missing a tremendous opportunity to purchase goodwill without rewarding bad behavior. Am I wrong in thinking that Americans who fall in Darfur would be a testament to good will to thinking people in Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc.? Unlike the defeatists, I don’t believe our enemies in the ME have an ideologically predestined fate to oppose us. They’re not all just religious nuts… they’re human, too.

It is my opinion that the A-holes in Khartoum should be shaking in their shoes in fear right now. Not only do the Darfuris deserve our help by virtue of being helpless human beings; the fact that the vast majority of them are Muslim presents an incredible opportunity to demonstrate that we are not the baby-eating Muslim haters we’re rumored to be. If George is really trying to rid the world of terrorists, this could prove to be a crucial step in winning the hearts and minds of those he means to convince. All that politics aside however; the U.S remains the guiltiest party of apathy because of our tremendous might and it is a stain on us all that the average American probably doesn’t even know there is “something happening in Darfur”.[/quote]

Well.... I must admit, there's not a lot of outrage voiced in the mainstream media here. I don't know about the situation in the US.

Here is what the EU is saying on their official website:

old europe, Thanks for bringing us up to date on what the EU/EC is doing in the Greater Darfur region. Media coverage in the states is none to very few on Europe's involvement.

Looks like a good ole standoff by both sides of the pond. Who's gonna move first?