A question concerning Darfur?

Question

I actually find it quite interesting, some of the answers concerning Darfur from questions I read. One that really provoked thinking was this one by Leogirl: "Hey? People are whining about war? Let the liberals go and fight this one. Or France, or Russia, or someone else. "

Now, the reason I found it interesting is that a similar event happened in Rwanda; a genocide in which several innocent Tusis, over half a million in fact, were killed by Hutus. Now the president who was in command at the time was Bill Clinton. Oddly enough, he is continuously criticized for his inaction regarding Rwanda.

Now, in Sudan currently is a group called the Janjaweed, led by a man named Joseph Kony. In Sudan, Darfur to be exact, they are trafficking girls as young as 14 for sex to their soldiers, they are putting boys as young as 12 on the front line to kill and be killed. Yet the same people who criticized Clinton for his inaction state how it isn't our concern. Can someone explain to me this logic?

Amazing how many people attack me for speaking my mind, it isn't even funny. Guess I should've kept my own opinions to myself.

Hold Clinton responsible for everything, Bush for nothing.

Answer 1

I think that the reality of it all is that no one wants to take the blame. Despite the fair idea of "If we blame Clinton for Rwanda, you blame Bush for Sudan", everyone seems to believe that, contrary to popular belief, Clinton hasn't NOT been in the White House.

My stand is that, when something like this is going on, it's terrorism. It's genocide. When someone stockpiles weapons of mass destruction, it's terrorism. We have one of the strongest armies in all of the free world, if we're going to be the police of the World, let's do it right!

Answer 2

In Rwanda, there already was a UN military mission. Many weeks prior to the mass killings, the commander of the UN military mission called Kofi Annan, who commanded all UN peacekeeping mission at the time, to tell him of the brewing trouble. This information was not kept secret from then President Clinton.

But no action, no speeches, no nothing was done to stop the slaughter, however preventable it was. That's Kofi and Bill for you. And precious Bill then went to Africa years after and bit his quivering lip and apologized.

But the situation in Darfur is different. A UN force, unlike Rwanda, would not be welcomed - in fact, it would be considered an invasion and act of war.

Also, the Bush Administration had been trying for years to get Kofi Annan to even recognize there was a problem and a genocide going on. Even in the face of the human suffering taking place, Kofi has done nothing.

We cannot act alone, especially when such an act would be considered an act of war. And such an act by the US would probably cause all of northern Africa to ignite into belligerence in support of their Muslim brethren.

None of these catastrophic factors were present in Rwanda.

Significant differences.

Answer 3

Democrats are smart of their foreign places insurance objectives. they have not in any respect reported that they would not in any respect intervene in any foreign places u . s . a .. extremely, they might use the military really even as needed and really even as there's a defined project with realistically available objectives. sensible global family individuals or monetary sanctions would have prodded the authorities of Sudan to end the conflict in its southern aspects. Or, failing that, the U. S. would have executed a constrained project hostile to the Muslim protection rigidity and then left the section to the African peace-protecting troops. In any journey, there is not any question that the U. S. would have provided extra humanitarian help to the ravenous refugees. regardless of the shown shown actuality that, as a results of actual actuality the U. S. is overextended in Iraq and Afghanistan and optimal liberals understand there is not any carry about sight to the U. S. dedication, there are really some those who're pushing for us to get entangled in Darfur at modern-day. in diverse words, that is all about helping the position you will be able to make a large difference. there's a wide evaluation between what liberals counseled for the Darfur disaster and what the U. S. is doing in Iraq. in case you do not see that for the length of the present day, then there is not any convincing you.

Answer 4

Nothing will be done about the Sudan. The Sudanese government has signed oil deals with China and France and an arms deal with Russia. This guarantees that any UN action will be blocked.

Now the nations of the world are demand tha the US do 'something' about Sudan.

They demanded that we do 'something' about Iraq - and called us war criminals when we did.

They demanded that we 'do something' about Kosovo and then called us 'war criminals' when we did.

If what want somebody to 'do something' about Darfur - they need to look in a mirror.

Answer 5

The US stands for something and we should help in times like this. I don't care if there is no benefit to us, it is whats right. I mean Iraq is a disaster and we need to get out but the republicans are right we cant just leave. We are extended beyond belief with our wars. The rest of the world makes me sick. They should have cleaned this situation up a long time ago.

Answer 6

NATO is bogged down in sectarian violence in Afghanistan. The UN is bogged down in sectarian violence in Bosnia and Kosovo. The Coalition is bogged down in sectarian violence in Iraq.
Who would you send to stop the mayhem in Sudan?
No disrespect intended, but you cannot tell the good guys from the bad guys. So, who would you fight?
If you want to go to Sudan to help out, please do. Take all of the liberal media people you can round up. As I remember it, it was the bleeding heart liberals in the media who stirred up angst over conditions in Somalia; then got a bleeding heart liberal president to go in to help the people.
After things went bad, the bleeding heart media types were no where to be found. To a lesser extent, they are doing the same thing with Sudan.

Answer 7

You sure Joshep Kony is "commanding" the Devils on Horseback?

Do you think that maybe the Sudanese government is in control of the Janjaweed?

Might want to double-check.

As far as Clinton is concerned, Sierra Leone occurred under his presidency, as did the horrors of Rwanda.

Never forget it was Madeline Albright who said to the world that to intervene in Rwanda would be "FOLLY".

How many millions died, while the world looked on, under Clinton and Kofi's watch?

What's happening in Sudan now is allowed to go on because of the UN's inaction------------- again.

Answer 8

well the USA is called by that name because the name "almighty God" is not a fit description of this country.
The world is full of evil doers, small and big, and the US government is interested in governing the US for yet another time. if the US took on itself the task of being world savior, it would soon become the world pauper.

Answer 9

It has nothing to do with the United States. If Darfur wants to blame anyone they shoul blame the United Nations, thats whose problem it is not ours.

Answer 10

Very informative. To conclude, our foreign policy sux and it needs a check and balance with congress (the way it should be).