Save Darfur

It is an ongoing conflict where Muslims are raping, beating and killing other Muslims. Arab and Muslim countries prevent effective action. Chinese & Russian firms are making money and those countries will block any Security Council action that can upset business. “World opinion” feigns outraged. Celebrities pontificate. Television spots create a feeling of guilt, but nobody does much. Sounds like Saddam’s Iraq, but it is Sudan.

Maybe we can blame George Bush. After all China & Russia are blocking a report and they prevent even a listing of firms involved in Sudan. Surely they would stop doing that if Bush just asked them. I am sure if we were just nicer, they would cooperate as they do everywhere else. We have so much leverage with Sudan too. No doubt they unleased Janjaweed militia because they felt dissed by the U.S. and anticipated George W. Bush so they organized during the 1990s just to be ready to respond to the "dissin'".

This is a good example about how things do not work in the international realm. Marches, rock concerts, candlelight vigils are fun for the participants, but they do not do much for the victims as long as they are faced with armed opponents. You can sign all the petitions you want and be outraged, but what happens?

So wear the wristband. That is enough to show your solidarity. Who could ask for anything more? Mabye somebody can organize a song of peace or make a movie that everybody can show solidarity by going to see.

Any suggestions?

Posted by Jack at March 16, 2007 9:48 PM
Comment #212423

Now Jack, don’t ya know that the folks that march, go to rock concerts, and hold candlelight vigils care so much more than you and me. Besides how else do ya expect folks with otherwise empty and boring lives to get that warm and fuzzy feeling so they can feel fulfilled.
Once again the UN is proving just how ineffective it is. If it’s so great and powerful then why aint they doing something about Darfur?
O yeah! *smack forehead* I forgot. That evil Bush is stopping them with the help of the even more evil Rove and Haliburton.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 16, 2007 10:42 PM
Comment #212428

Are the two of you enjoying your ficticious agrument with each other? Now that you’ve created your paper tigers and straw men and blamed the left for blaming Bush, you can lie back self saisfied and and laugh. Ha. Ha.

We used to call that a circle-jerk

Posted by: gergle at March 16, 2007 11:07 PM
Comment #212431

There’s no straw men, paper tigers or fiction about how woefully ineffective the UN is. It has never stopped genocide, war, hunger, brutal dictators, or anything but actually getting something done. Resolutions and corruption are the only things they’re capable of. And we all know how well there resolutions work. The corruption thing they have down to a science.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 16, 2007 11:17 PM
Comment #212432

Gergle called it. Don’t feed the troll.

Posted by: Max at March 16, 2007 11:20 PM
Comment #212436

Ron said,

Once again the UN is proving just how ineffective it is. If it’s so great and powerful then why aint they doing something about Darfur?

Why doesn’t it prove how ineffective the United States is? Mind you, I don’t disagree with you except your holier-than-thou attitude and love of straw men.

the celebrities, the concerts, etc. are not a solution but they never were supposed to be. They simply use their power to bring any attention to this humongous crime. Quit creating straw men.

We are limited in what we can accomplish in other countries but let’s not turn our backs until the world can find the political will.

I am not blaming the Bush administration for the atrocities in Darfur and I don’t know of any liberals who have. However, don’t you wonder how much more influence in the world we might have on this issue if it wasn’t for Bolton the Bully, the Iraq War, making Colin Powell the sacrificial lamb at the UN arguing the case against Iraq and WMDs? Face it, our standing in the world isn’t what it was since this administration took over.

Posted by: chris2x at March 16, 2007 11:27 PM
Comment #212439

Chris2x, why should “our influence” on this issue be diminished because the Iraq war, Colin Powell and the rest of the things you name?

I actually think you’re probably right about that, but that just further demonstrates the nature of the UN. Their feelings about Bush should have nothing to do with addressing a problem like the large-scale atrocities and genocide in Darfur, and that it does says something very sad about the UN’s priorities.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 16, 2007 11:56 PM
Comment #212441


I think we would have as much influence as we did with the UN and Iraq from 1992-2002. The context is very similar. China and Russia can block anything they consider effective. The Muslim world not only turns a blind eye, it covers it with a veil.


What is the answer to the Darfur dilema? If we wait long enough, the problem will solve itself. Is it “our” problem?

Re blaming Bush, I have been seeing TV spots and billboards re Darfur. They always feature a line saying something like “Tell George Bush …” Bush is aware of the problem. It is just that the weakness of the UN, the perfidity of the Russians & Chinese, and the craveness of the Muslim world is preventing action.

Posted by: Jack at March 16, 2007 11:59 PM
Comment #212444


“It is just that the weakness of the UN, the perfidity of the Russians & Chinese, and the craveness of the Muslim world is preventing action.”

Instead of blaming the UN for being ineffective, why don’t you just call a spade a spade?

The entire world doesn’t seem to give a rat’s ass about Darfur.

Posted by: Rocky at March 17, 2007 12:10 AM
Comment #212447

You are right Rocky. They do not. But there is sure lots of talk. I submit the world would be a lot more interested if they could blame the U.S. The world is outraged over Iraq and does not give a rats ass about Darfur and that is a big reason.

At least some people have noticed Darfur. Think of those poor guys in Zimbabwe. They are beaten, tortured and murdered. Nobody cares. They are too busy watching a couple hundred terrorists getting fat down in Guantanamo.

Posted by: Jack at March 17, 2007 12:22 AM
Comment #212449


It is a travesty that the UN will do nothing besides provide relief. At least they are on the ground. My point is not to say the UN does nothing because of Bush, it is just our position of leadership in the world has fallen.

We are in little position to help militarily, you can thank the Iraq war for that. We are busy fixing our own broken pottery and the tragedies there. May we be successful. Not that this administration would consider Darfur a cause worth risking American lives on. I’m not sure what Jack is suggesting if not some muscle behind our revulsion. We were lucky to have some very concerned (about their own interests) Ethiopians go into Somalia recently with our help against the Islamists there, many sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

We basically made one of our most storied if not admirable leaders a water boy if not a liar in front of the world. Colin, always the good soldier, turned out not to be the best leader after all.

We promoted the arrogant Bolton to the UN who proceeded to cajole and threaten others who did not share our position. Hardball is all he knew, hardball is all he got.

I don’t have the answer on Darfur either except to continue working on world to act instead of waiting for it to change.

Posted by: chris2x at March 17, 2007 12:34 AM
Comment #212452


The UN has not been very cooperative. China and Russia would block any serious action, just as they did in Iraq. The UN went bad way back in the 1960s and it was not very effective before that.

The Darfur situation just shows how the world works. Thousands of Muslims killed; nobody cares. Where is the outrage?

Posted by: Jack at March 17, 2007 12:48 AM
Comment #212453

Jack said,

I submit the world would be a lot more interested if they could blame the U.S. The world is outraged over Iraq and does not give a rats ass about Darfur and that is a big reason.

Name me something hate or distrust of the Bush administration actually motivated the world to do? It is not like you to play the martyr. The world is culpable but since when did that leave anyone off the hook? You must admit, lump the U.S. into the pot of “do nothings”. The greatest military in the history of the world can do nothing but say “it isn’t our problem?”

On the other hand, we had lots of help and sympathy after ‘911’ from the world. Most of the world didn’t say boo against us about going after the Taliban in Afghanistan. Too bad we had to have the military adventures in Iraq of a bunch of idealoques lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands more than would have died without our help.

We can’t be the world’s policeman, much less save the world from every despot. We can actively work towards a solution and not let the people of the world forget what is happening in Darfur. We can be the light of the world again. Many still admire the US. We have lots of admirers in those countries helped after that great Tsunami. I appreciate living in the US every day, every time I hear about what people (it’s hard not to think of them as the worse animals)are willing to do to each other in Iraq, or Somalia, or Zimbabwe, or Northern Ireland, Rwanda, etc, etc.

Don’t stop shining the light because it is somehow embarrassing.

Posted by: chris2x at March 17, 2007 12:59 AM
Comment #212454


I wish I knew where the outrage was. I guess I’m an optimist concerning the human race, much evidence to the contrary.

That said, I’m not about to quit my job and family, and run off to Darfur. Let’s not bash those trying to shine a light on the situation, however.

Posted by: chris2x at March 17, 2007 1:06 AM
Comment #212455

What name do we have for the doctrine in foreign policy that liberal democracies should actively attempt to change areas of the world where such atrocities take place?

Why, neoconservatism of course. Luckily, we’ve pretty much drummed them out of government now. So lets put on those wristbands, slap a few bumperstickers on our Volvos and forget about it. The UN will handle everything. Just like they did in Rwanda.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 17, 2007 1:18 AM
Comment #212456


In one paragraph you chide the U.S.for not acting militarily in Darfur. And in the next paragraph you chide the U.S. for using the military in Afganistan and Iraq. And then, as if this were not funny enough, you start the very next paragraph saying we can’t be the world’s policeman. You damn the country if we do, and damn them when we don’t.

Would you please make up your mind!

If you could just condense your platitudes down to a manageable level, you could make a fortune in left leaning bumper stickers. Though, I would not give up your day job just yet.

Posted by: Beirut Vet at March 17, 2007 1:26 AM
Comment #212462
I submit the world would be a lot more interested if they could blame the U.S. The world is outraged over Iraq and does not give a rats ass about Darfur and that is a big reason.

Ah, could this be real motivation behinds Jack’s post. I suspect his posting was motivated more by his outrage over what he believes are the seemingly disparate principles the World and non-Republicans hold this Administration up to, than any feelings for the people in the Sudan.

I will remind Jack that there once was a case of ‘nation-building’ that took place during Clinton’s years in the White House. Clinton was able to call upon a world’s body whose charter (unlike the UN’s;) would allow an intervention into a sovereign nation, NATO. Then after separating the warring factions, he got the UN to become involved to stabilize the peace. In other words Clinton didn’t screw things up, unlike this Administrations bumbling in Iraq.

The unfortunate losers in all of this, besides our soldiers and the innocents that die in Iraq everyday, are the innocents in Sudan whose lives may have been saved if our President had any credibility left in the world.

Posted by: Cube at March 17, 2007 3:19 AM
Comment #212465

The only way to solve Darfur is to do it ourselves. I would like to thank Jack for this article. The UN is indeed useless. The only solution is to send the US Army into Sudan and save those people!!!

I must admit to being amazed that Jack proposed American Military involvement. Kudos to you, Jack!!!

Posted by: Juan dela Cruz at March 17, 2007 5:12 AM
Comment #212471


This post is poignantly hypocritical. You mock people for participating in marches and vigils, suggesting that they are useless. What about blog posts then? Isn’t writing an indignant blog post about something pretty much the definition of futility? It doesn’t take effort, either.

I don’t mean to give you a hard time, but you establish standards that set yourself up for failure. Apparently those of who aren’t in the administration or Congress should shut up about this topic, because anything we do is going to be just futile action meant to make us feel good.

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 17, 2007 7:42 AM
Comment #212479


Are you talking about Somalia? That did not work out so well for Clinton.

And maybe you do not see that your Bush bashing is also America bashing. In Darfur Arab Muslims are killing non-Arab Muslims. China and Russia are actively blocking solutions. Muslim countries are fending off criticism. Non-American firms (especially Chinese) are investing in the country and propping up the government. The UN does nothing. The EU talks. Yet you imply it is Bush’s (and America’s) fault because we cannot overcome all these bad guys.

Of course I know you are trying to talk about Kosovo. You may recall where that is and how big it is. In that case, we were more at the service of the Europeans, so they were a bit more supportive. But that also was done w/o a UN mandate. Those who seek legality will not find it here either. War is essentially an extra legal affair.

Juan & Woody

It will probably take a military intervention. It is not an American military problem, however.

I am mocking the protestors not for what they doing, but for the fact that most of them as just silly. Those that are trying to get aid into the country are doing good, but since the problem is political, it really cannot be solved by aid. I would disagree with those who call for military intervention, but at least they are thinking clearly. The others are just being self indulgent.

I can make a decent prediction of what will happen in Darfur. People will talk. The Chinese & Russians will block action. Protestors will blame Bush. Eventually the conflict will just burn out after enough people are killed or displaced. There is no happy solution to this problem.

Posted by: Jack at March 17, 2007 10:45 AM
Comment #212481

As it currently stands, the UN already passed a measure to send a UN peacekeeping force to Darfur; it’s just that the Sudanese Gov’t is preventing the force from entering.
Sure the Chinese and Russians may be at fault to some degree, but so is America, the world’s only superpower, at fautl just for its apathy of the whole genocide.

Posted by: greenstuff at March 17, 2007 11:24 AM
Comment #212486

Why doesn’t it prove how ineffective the United States is?

Was the United States set up as an organization to ‘end all wars’?
Does it’s charter require it to police the world?
Wasn’t this what the UN was set up for?
Why do y’all think that the US should be the ones to go to Darfur instead of the almighty UN y’all love so much?
Is it because ya know totally corrupt and ineffective it is?
And if the US went over to Darfur, wouldn’t y’all use that to further attack Bush?
And why do y’all think we should be interfering in a local problem? I remember y’all saying we shouldn’t be back in the 60’s.
And why do y’all take every chance ya get to bash the great country ya live in?
I know we’ve made and still make mistakes. We’re in the middle of one now. But y’all never mention the good things about this country.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 17, 2007 11:43 AM
Comment #212488

Let’s see. Muslims raping, beating, and killing other Muslims. And this is the religion of peace? They’re killing each other because of differences in the way they believe. And there are those that want me to believe they don’t want to kill us? We don’t believe the way they do. What makes y’all think we’ll get a free pass from them when they’re that intolerance of each other?

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 17, 2007 11:57 AM
Comment #212511


You and the protesters are two sides of the same coin. They march, you blog. They blame Bush (or say you say), you blame the UN.

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 17, 2007 2:28 PM
Comment #212524


Isn’t this always the trouble? The UN passes something that it cannot enforce. I do not even think they should get credit for good intentions. This is what happened with the 17 UN resolutions against Iraq, if you recall.


Actually, the Darfur thing is mostly what we would certainly call racism in any other situation.


I am not blaming the UN, just saying that we cannot rely on it to establish peace or keep peace if anybody wants to fight.

My criticism is aimed at those who say they want to let the UN do such things and then are repeatedly surprised when it does not work.

Posted by: Jackj at March 17, 2007 3:56 PM
Comment #212552

If Darfur had oil reserves you can bet your bippy we would be more involved. Hell, if they had a first class hotel the press would be more attentive.Short of that celebrities and public hand wringing will have to do.

Posted by: BillS at March 17, 2007 9:06 PM
Comment #212554


Funny that you mention Somalia and that it didn’t work out too well for Clinton. But as you already know, Bush Sr. was the one who ordered American troops into Somalia. Leaving of course the mess for the President who followed. Perhaps leaving American troops in harms way is a family trait? On the positive side, while imperfect, Clinton did stay long enough to stabilize the situation and to turn the mission over to others, and estimates suggest 100,000 lives were saved.

The U.N. charter specifically states that it cannot interfere with a sovereign’s nation internal affairs, unless specifically asked by said government. As much as people here are complaining, remember the United States helped create this charter.

I don’t blame Bush for the bad guys; I blame us for electing an inadequate President.

Posted by: Cube at March 17, 2007 9:26 PM
Comment #212555

Beirut Vet,

I never chided the military. I think going into Afghanistan in the months after 911 to have been necessary and successful. Iraq is what holds our military hostage today. My position is that presently we can’t go militarily into Darfur nor should we. It is a job for the international community of which we are the most powerful member. The U.S. should keep working, whether thru the U.N. or other means, to a solution for the people of Darfur. It is not our problem but with great power comes great responsibility. It’s a good platitude if you will.

Jack is right the U.N. is an unholy mess. I’m not an expert on it but I can see that much. Still, they are the ones working the major relief campaigns there. I just don’t know why you guys are bemoaning the U.N. and the blame Bush crowd at the same time. It’s starting fire where none existed.

Ron Brown,

What can I say when you just make up stuff? I don’t bash my country. I’ll quote myself from above I appreciate living in the US every day… I don’t love the UN. I wouldn’t bash Bush if he sent troops to Darfur., etc.

The UN is failing. My question is why this post? Why bash celebrities, concerts, the UN, and drag in a lament about anti-Bush sentiment at the same time?

It reminds me of the speech by Canadian Gordon Sinclair in 1973 that went around the email loops, especially with conservatives, after ‘911’ while many of us were asking “why do they hate us?” The speech praises the U.S., but mostly by trashing the rest of the world. It’s good to appreciate what makes our country special but I don’t need to trash others for that. It certainly doesn’t lead to understanding or save Darfur.

Jack is saying it’s pathetic to be deluding ourselves that speeches, concerts, and celebrities will save Darfur but I don’t think anyone thinks that. I am saying let’s keep shining a light on the problem and work with the world on a solution with the resources the US has. Of course it is way more difficult than it should be but it is the right thing to do.

Posted by: chris2x at March 17, 2007 9:42 PM
Comment #212556

Wellguys, just look thru this afternoon’s headlines

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Four years after he began the Iraq war, a diminished President George W. Bush has sacrificed much of his domestic agenda and eroded U.S. credibility abroad in pursuit of the sort of nation-building he once scorned, analysts say.
Posted by: chris2x at March 17, 2007 9:51 PM
Comment #212567


Sudan has oil reserves. That is why the Chinese are so enthusiastic about blocking action.


The saving part was at first (i.e. Bush 1) and problem was the second part.

I do not recall just now. Did we have a UN mandate for military action in either Kosovo or Bosnia? Sorry, not need to be silly. Of course I know we did not. Did it matter?

Posted by: Jack at March 17, 2007 11:47 PM
Comment #212572

I’m curious exactly what you are doing, other than making jokes, to help the situation in Darfur.

Perhaps you could find some other ways than ridiculing Americans attempting to raise awareness in America, or using the deaths in Sudan to justify your rage against those who find GW completely inadequate to the job of President.

Perhaps you could sponser some Darfur immigrants to come live in your forest.

Perhaps you could use your European ties to travel to China and convince them to intervene.

Maybe it’s just me, but I find the cynicism of your post somewhat disturbing in the face of atrocity.

Posted by: gergle at March 18, 2007 1:46 AM
Comment #212588


Any suggestions?

Sure Jack. How about we just sit back in our comfy lazy boys and wait for George and Dick in the wake of their stellar handling of world affairs to talk about how horrible the situation is for a few more years. After all they are fairly good at rhetoric but poor at best when it comes to obtaining acceptable results in world affairs. I do not believe anyone is honestly expecting this administration to take any measures. And in light of their lacking abilities should anyone be hoping for or expecting them to step into a situation that they probably would only make worse. It is not difficult to see that they are not particularly proficient at their jobs. No I do not blame Bush, nor would I trust him to take the proper steps. Whatever they may be.

Your distaste for organized protests is obvious from this and previous posts. It quite simply Jack is a means of keeping awareness alive. It is their way of voiceing opinion much the same as this blog is yours.

Perhaps if the situation in Darfur had been approached at its inception the developing scenario with China and Russia would be a moot point. But then some cowboy from Texas decided, against the advice of most of the rest of the world, it was much more important to liberate Iraq. We all know all too well just how great that plan has played out.

Posted by: ILdem at March 18, 2007 11:32 AM
Comment #212597

I wouldn’t bash Bush if he sent troops to Darfur.

That is until the first GI dies. And there’s no doubt some will. Then he’ll be even more incompentent and should never have sent troops there.

I’m not making things up. Just read what y’all’ve been posting just on this bolg. Go back and read history. Jusy obseve. If you’d do any one of thse you’ll see what I’m talking about.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 18, 2007 1:51 PM
Comment #212653


No, it would be after his first set of lies and bungled policy. The complaints before the first soldier dies would come from Republican circles, you remember, like Kosovo. Wag the dog, anyone?

Posted by: gergle at March 18, 2007 11:55 PM
Comment #212669


I am not doing anything. In that respect, I am being as useful as the protestors. The difference is that I admit it.

My point in the article was not only to bash protestors. That is just an added benefit. The idea is to show that sometimes “peaceful” means do not create peace in fact.

The similar dynamic, although more dangerous situation, was at work in Iraq. Had we done nothing, something still would have happened and it probably would not have been peaceful.


There are interests at work here. The Russians and Chinese have an interest (as they did in Iraq) in keeping the bad guys in power and happy.

Posted by: Jack at March 19, 2007 9:47 AM
Comment #212722

The reason we are not leading a solution for Darfur is that (a) Bush has no respect in (or for) the rest of the world and (b) our military and money is being wasted in Iraq. The reason no one else is leading a solution for Darfur is there are no other leaders with the bandwidth to resolve external issues of this gravity.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at March 19, 2007 3:53 PM
Comment #212742


Bill Clinton was supposedly more popular. Rwanda worked our real well, didn’t it?

Posted by: Jack at March 19, 2007 5:38 PM
Comment #212776

Rwanda happened over a period of weeks. Darfur has been happening for years. Kosovo etc… worked out quite well, despite the republican protestations, no? Perhaps if you people had been willing to work with Clinton rather than constantly demonize him things would have gone better in Rwanda (better for todays America too), especially since Willie at his worst day was absolutely more respected and competent than the Chimp.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at March 19, 2007 9:06 PM
Comment #212853


Well, when I called you on it you admitted it. Previously, you ridiculed them.

I know, I know, “mistakes were made”. Yadda, Yadda.

Posted by: gergle at March 20, 2007 11:58 AM
Comment #212862


“You people”. I supported President Clinton in Kosovo. I thought he made some mistakes, but generally it worked out well.

Re being willing to work with President Clinton, you may want to learn from your own advice. Calling the current president a “chimp” etc, is unlikely to foster a sprit of cooperation.

I know that as a Bush hater you cannot see anything but that. The Clinton haters felt the same way then as you do now. You are both wrong. You can legitimately disagree with your president w/o demonizing him. Republicans who so hated Clinton that they lost sight of their country’s goals were unpatriotic, just as Bush haters are now.

Posted by: Jack at March 20, 2007 1:07 PM
Comment #212863


I can still ridicule them. There are some things I cannot do anything about. The protestors are calling for things that just cannot be done and they are often doing it with dishonest motives. It makes little sense to bash Bush re Darfur. A proper target would be the Chinese, Russians, some international companies and the Arab League. These are the guys standing in the way of a solution. By bashing your own president in this case, you weaken his hand in influencing them. They are more than happy to have the protests. The protestors are doing the bidding of the bad guys when they bash Bush. I think the term used to be useful idiots.

So, I do nothing; they do harm.

Posted by: Jack at March 20, 2007 1:11 PM
Comment #212876

“you people”

Bad habit. It should have read “your people” As for calling me unpatriotic… think of what was deleted from Nixon’s tapes.

As for hating Bush, it took me several years and a great deal of incredulity that he and his administration could be so cravenly ignorant in their policies before I transitioned from an “opponent of the conservative agenda” to a “hater of: an abuser of power, proponent of a unitary presidency, violator of the Constitution, torturer, war mongerer, liar, etc…”
I din’t start out hating Bush, but I have come to hate his policies, his politics, what he has done to our nation (and Iraq), and nearly everything he stands for. He is the image of what is wrong with the country its ruling oligarchy and as such is the object of my anger and loathing. I will continue to point out what is wrong in order to make it better. We will win by being open and honest, not by being lying pieces of monkey crap who torture to get discountable confessions from broken shells.

Thanks, I feel better now. Maybe you’re the one who needs to wake up to the reality and admit your mistakes and the failures of your vacuous lame duck master. By defending him you do tremendous harm, but I doubt you are willing to look honestly that deeply inside.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at March 20, 2007 2:08 PM
Comment #212956

The protestors are doing the bidding of the bad guys when they bash Bush. I think the term used to be useful idiots.

Gimme a break here, will ya? Mouthing Dick Cheney doesn’t suit you. I guess they are just traitors. Next you’ll call John Edwards a faggot.

Well, since you’ve admitted to doing the same thing they are…if the shoe fits….

Posted by: gergle at March 21, 2007 1:43 AM
Comment #212974

Will the US boycott 2008 olympic games if China continue to block every UN attempt to deploy a peacemaking force in Darfur?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 21, 2007 6:41 AM
Comment #269028

Ha Ha, you lose

Posted by: Bob at October 31, 2008 9:18 PM
Post a comment