Would you support a U.S. led military intervention in Darfur?

[mikelewis]

Before you answer, read what Bush had to say:

"The genocide in Sudan is unacceptable," Bush said. "There will be rallies across our country to send a message to the Sudanese government that the genocide must stop. ... I want the Sudanese government to understand the United States of America is serious about solving this problem."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060428/ap_on_go_co/us_darfur_protest

[wtmusic]

1. We made a wrong turn at Ankara

If any, this is the country we should have locked down three years ago.

[0007]

5. Absolutely! Bring the troops home from that worthless fucking

bullshit in Iraq and do something worth while.

[Finder]

2. Figures...

Bush needs to have a win for the history books it seems.

[SoCalDem]

35. We would be the LEAST effective at intervention there

Our leaders have proved time and again that they lack any sensibilities or sensitivities. They are clueless about any culture that is not Texan. We apparently know NOTHING about most places on the planet, so sending a bunch of soldiers or dropping bombs is not a great idea.

The UN "could" intervene anytime it wanted, but for some reason they have sent only people with cameras and paperwork.

Force cannot get people to accept each other, no matter how hard we push. One look at the middle east should give us a clue there. The arab states are not very accepting of a fellow nation that's been in existence for a very long time.

And the bigger reason we will not, is that the US government, for all its lip-service, does not really see Africa as "worthy" of intervention, or they would have acted sooner, and in other "wars" and atrocities. Apologizing for not intervening in Rwanda was easier than actually intervening, so that's the tack we took.

Hateful, tribal genocide is nothing new and as ugly as it is, unless we (or the UN) are prepared to sit on that area for decades, and or overthrow some governments and take over, there's probably nothing that will stop it.

The crew occupying the White House is not all that interested in Darfur..they are not the "base".:cry:

[Finder]

38. The refugees need to be protected...

and we CAN do a lot in the humanitarian area. The UN cannot interfere in civil wars according to the charter. Ethnic cleansing is another matter and the UN through the security council needs to vote on it.

[Raksha]

3. I voted yes, but I should qualify that.

I understand that it's a humanitarian crisis, but I would not want a military intervention while Dubya is still president. I just don't trust that gang of criminals to do anything right.

[serryjw]

7. This is worse than Bosnia

than Bosnia, have to do something.

[smitty]

15. No, we don't. Why can't the EU do something? Why can't the UN

do something? Why can't China or Japan or India or Saudi Arabia do something? We did "something" in Somalia and look what happened---doing "something" means taking sides and then the trouble begins.

[serryjw]

18. This is a war of ethnic cleansing

I would have no problem to go in under the UN flag with the 'coalition of the willing'

[etherealtruth]

40. I would like to see the AU far more aggressively involved ...

They, however, have done very little to stop the genocide ... This is an horrific situation and it continues.

I would have no problem with US troops working for the "blue" helmets

[mikelewis]

9. Those are my thoughts exactly and maybe the biggest tradgedy...

to come out of this administration. How can we throw our hearts into a fight alongside people whose sole purpose has been to exploit, torture and degrade human life. If he truly believed we needed to help the people of Darfur, he should step down and let someone more than half the country doesn't hate lead the charge. The people of Darfur would be better off hoping Europe will step in and help though oddly enough, the EU is making absolutely no steps to resolve this situation.

I really, really, really don't like Bush.

[Yupster]

23. Yes with qualifications here too

I realize Sudan has a radical Muslim government, and when our troops set foot there, it will be IED's and suicide bombers all over the place and the goal would be what?

To arm the Christians in the south suitably so they can hold their own in a Civil War?

Or to stay there forever to keep the Muslim militias from ravaging the desolate south?

Or to at least keep the Muslim militias from ruining Chad too?

It's a mess, and I don't see us having any easy way out of there once we get in.

[Acebass]

4. something must be done ...

But we've led enough, we need the rest of the world to agree to help...

[stillcool]

6. I would trust the UN...more than the US...

this administration has not failed, to make whatever they involve themselves in, a catastrophic disaster for all but they and theirs.

[readmoreoften]

8. Yes, the US allied with the UN, but not under Bush. /nt

[brokensymmetry]

10. I voted no.

We need to bring the troops home - and not just from Iraq.

We need to attend to our own problems - and they are countless in number.

Just yesterday, a homeless woman, her mother, and her two children
were taken into custody in the city where I live. They were living
in an SUV - the younger child, really just an infant, had life
support removed today. Apparently a combination of malnutrition
and heat stress caused the child's death. That's America today...
but it isn't a unique or even unusual story.

Let's get to work fixing America. Once we've got our act together
here, then we can go out trying to repair the rest of the world.

[smitty]

11. Too many American soldiers have died for nothing.

Remember Somalia, the best of intentions can lead to the worst results. If we send troops to Sudan, both sides will eventually, inevitably, turns against us. Meanwhile the cynical world will stand by and watch us expend more lives and money.

[nonconformist]

12. I voted yes, but I will add this caveat:

I definitely think we need to intervene, but I don't think we should lead the march. I think the UN should, and we should provide what we can.

This is genocide, and a civilized world cannot stand by and allow it to continue. We should have stopped it a long time ago.

[Mnemosyne]

13. No. The US would only go in for the oil. A UN

intervention, yes.

[smitty]

17. The U.N. isn't going to do anything.

[Mnemosyne]

19. Even if they did it would end up

the same as Rwanda. :cry:

This sucks.

[sam sarrha]

14. i also support a military intervention in the White House..

[slackmaster]

16. No, this is a job for the UN not the US

If US troops are involved that's fine, but not under US control.

The responsibility must be shared.

[anarch]

20. a good point

An intervention is long overdue, though. :(

[WillyT]

24. Yep... UN Led !!!

I don't think Rumfeld has any problem with genocide.

[Adelante]

26. The UN is begging the US to go in

Under NATO. This should have been done two years ago.

[Adelante]

25. NATO troops

Including US troops.

[Clarkie1]

21. Wes Clark has spoken of the need for intervention for years.

4/20/06
General Wesley Clark: Why the U.S. should care about Darfur
NPR New and Notes

Ferai Chideya: But when you talk about united action, what do you mean? And I'm going to just tread on some sensitive ground here. In Kosovo and in the whole Balkans conflict, you had a bunch of white people who were dying, who were being killed by other white people. There seems to be a certain level of compassion fatigue about black people being killed by other black people or brown people and a lack of ability to mobilize international forces to the aid of groups like that.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I don't know if it's racist. And I do know this, that the United States is heavily committed in Iraq right now and in Afghanistan. Certainly the administration's got it's hand full, and so does NATO, which is by the way, looking well beyond its borders. But here's something that's immediately important to do. I think with the right kind of leadership from the administration, we could focus NATO on this problem. I don't think it could be done without the presence of some US troops on the ground in the region, as well as US assistance with air power and command and control. But I think it's a relatively small number of US troops that would be required, and I think we could muster a large force of supporting troops. You know, in the occupation in Kosova, at the end of the war, the US troops were never in the majority in that operation. I think the most we ever had was on the order of five or six thousand US troops, and yet we had over 40,000 total troops involved in occupying Kosova. It shows what kind of leverage the United States can provide when the United States is engaged.

Ferai Chideya: Now the US has a complicated relationship with Sudan. We have mentioned energy, but also we've received valuable information from their Intelligence Minister, who was once Bin Ladin's personal handler and is considered an architect of the campaign in Darfur. Are we, as some reports would allege, a long Los Angeles Times series for example, enabling a genocide in exchange for intelligence in the war on terror?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I suspect that the intelligence is of some utility, but I also believe that we've got to be very careful not to buy off on and endorse regimes like this just because they'll provide intelligence. There's no telling how valuable the intelligence really is. We don't know what part of it is accurate, what's inaccurate, and more importantly, we don't know that we're getting all that could be gotten. So, in this case I think the intelligence is, is certainly useful, but if the government of Sudan wants to remain a government in the world in good standing, then it's got to obey international law. It hasn't done that.

Ferai Chideya: International law often comes down to the United Nations. Now Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice recently called for an increased UN presence in Sudan, Particularly in Darfur, and the House, here in the US, recently passed a bill calling for action in Darfur and economic sanctions. Is that enough, are these rumblings enough, to make something happen?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: No, I don't think it is enough, because without a stronger international presence along the border, without US troops there to bring this mission home to world opinion, we won't have the leverage to stop the government of Sudan.

http://securingamerica.com/node/875

THE REAL STATE OF THE UNION 2006
THE NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION
Monday, January 30, 2006

I think we're making a big mistake. I've called publicly for the creation of an intervention force in Darfur. I think it's long overdue. As much as we respect the efforts of the African Union to try to get a grip on this problem, they simply lack the means to do so. They need assistance from the outside and I'd like see the United States lead NATO to provide that kind of assistance. It's got to be coordinated. It's got to be acceptable to the people on the ground, because they're the ones that have sovereignty over the terrain. But I think with the right approach, with the right will, with the right kind of force, we could do that and we could save thousands and thousands of lives. I think that when you can make a difference, you should. And we do have the power to make a difference in Darfur, and we should.

http://securingamerica.com/node/560

06 Apr 2004
VIEWPOINT-Ten years after Rwanda: Never Again?
If genocide were looming today, would the international response be any better than it was during the Rwanda genocide in 1994, asks Oxfam International Chairman David Bryer.

CLEAR GUIDES NEEDED
Ten years after Rwanda, the world must reapply itself to this most fundamental question. We urgently need an agreement among governments on clear and consistent principles to guide when the Security Council should act to protect civilians around the world. Military intervention should always be the last resort. The Canadian-backed report, "Responsibility to Protect," published in December 2001, lays out just such a framework. It argues that where a population is facing large-scale killings, which the state in question is unwilling or unable to halt, the principle of non-intervention yields to the international responsibility to protect civilians.

On a more practical level, we need to see the provision of forces and resources on the ground that were so tragically lacking in Rwanda. Throughout the three months of slaughter, from April to June 1994, there were ample opportunities for a relatively small, well-trained force to intervene and stop genocide in its tracks. There were many proposals -- not least from U.S. General Wesley Clark, who presented a plan for a small force to establish corridors of escape.

http://mobile.alertnet.org/thefacts/reliefresources/108125801222.htm?_lite_=1

[OhioChick]

22. This whole situation is a shame, but

what "US-led military" do we send?

[jdelullo]

27. I said i dont, but....

Mostly because it says "military." Do i support us leading a coalition of rescue missionaries, refugee recovery teams, hospitals, and/or famine relief? You bet. But I think our government is a little to scared to put our guns into Africa still. Somalia scared us so bad we did nothing while 1 million+ Rwandans were massacred a year later.

[stevietheman]

29. Re: Rwanda, I give Clinton some slack on that...

as that was a conflict that posed no imminent threat to the United States nor any of our allies.

What Clinton should have done is lobby the UN (hard) to do something about it.

[stevietheman]

28. No, same as for reason not to be in Iraq

The United States does not hold a divine position to save nations from their own internal strife, nations that pose no imminent threat to us or our allies.

That said, if you have a poll on whether the *UN* should lead forces there, I would vote Yes.

[Spider Jerusalem]

30. No.

If the international community decides jointly to intervene, by a vote in the UN security council, then I would support US troops taking part in a military intervention as part of a multinational force. But I DON'T support the idea that America, acting on its own, ought to be the 'policeman of the world'.

[NNN0LHI]

31. I don't support any military interventions with the lunatic Bush in the WH

Everything this nut and his minions touch turns to shit. Things are bad for the people in Darfur right now but Bush's idea of helping them will be to Shock And Awe them for a few months, paint a couple of schools, and then steal their oil. No thanks.

Don



http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/MCD126312.htm

Oil companies help develop south Sudan - at a price

FALLOUJ, Sudan, April 11 (Reuters) - Gleaming, whitewashed walls and a pharmacy brimming with medicine, Fallouj hospital in Sudan's south is one of the best in the country. But in a nation plagued with epidemics, these serene wards are empty.

The hospital, a new school and cultural centre complete with satellite television, were built by Chinese state-owned oil company China National Petroleum Corp, a major shareholder in Sudan's largest oil pipeline, opened on Monday on land about 20 km (12 miles) away. snip

Southern Sudan has been devastated by more than two decades of civil war which claimed 2 million lives, mostly from famine and disease. With a peace deal last year, people are coming home, leading to overcrowding in urban centres and spreading epidemics of diseases like cholera and meningitis. snip

Sudan's oil industry has little transparency and there is dispute over how much oil output really is. The sector is dominated by Chinese, Malaysian and Indian companies.

[Neil Lisst]

32. no way. US needs to pull back and stop trying to dictate world events.

[Warren DeMontague]

33. I think something needs to be done YESTERDAY. As for who should lead

I think it should be UN led. Or whoever can get the job done.

[bluestateguy]

34. No, no and HELL NO!

Getting involved diplomatically is one thing, but not one drop of American blood should be spilled in this mess.

[sweetheart]

36. with bush in power? are you guys joking?

No... no , no. no..

The bush people have proven by their acts to be
aggressive war criminals, and the whole world is
trying to keep them contained until they can be
removed to a prison.

No more wars until they are gone, the moral high
ground to save anyone has completely reversed, that
the darfur assholes, however depraved will be
seen as the goodguys fighting against another
war crime.

GEt the military to invade the white house and
save the constitution, dammit.

[ProgressivePatriot]

37. Only a Democratic President would make it feasible.....

At least we would hqave a leader who didn't desert and would understand the effects of a war. The scum of the right have no experience in these matters.....

conservative cowards cut and run.

[IChing]

39. No, George Clooney last night said on Bill Mahers

that this needs to be african lead with the support of the world.

[SPKrazy]

42. And Of Course George Clooney Is An Expert

I haven't seen the Africans doing much of anything.

This is a real genocide that we can and should do something about.

[IChing]

44. And you are, at least he has been there and is doing a documentary on it

He just got back and said that the African peace keeping force is poorly equipped and supported by western powers.
Did you listen to him last night? I think not.
You want our troops in there? You want white US generals leading this?
Sounds a little pandering to me.

[SPKrazy]

45. Oh, So Since He's "Been There" I Should Trust George

the actor and director with oh so much military experience and expertise in international affairs.

I saw George on CNN pandering to Bush is how I would take it.

I think if ever there were a mission that was worthy of taking on, the genocide in Darfur is it.

Pander?

[IChing]

47. strawman arguement,

george pandering to bush? LOL

the question is should it be "US lead" that means everyone is under our command structure,
our troops, our resources, our military....help, by all means, but not as a colonial power which will be seen by
the African Continent and the rest of the world especially after Amerika's interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Help with logistics of relief, of course, but the troop command structure thing no way ..

[SPKrazy]

49. Strawman Argument?

you're the one who brought up George Clooney

geez

[peacebaby3]

41. Not US led, absolutely no way. I would consider it under NATO, but I agree

with the poster above me and Clooney that this really needs to be done internally. It would work much better that way and we have the means to do it that way right now!

[Jack Rabbit]

43. I vote yes, but with some caveats

First, we need Bush and Cheney removed. Any US-led intervention would be planned by them and their team; they will just muck it up. Let's get some competent people in power first.

Second, we need to extricate out troops from the quagmire in Iraq so that they will be available for more useful and productive purposes, like this.

Third, this must be a multi-national effort in which our partners have genuine input into the operation, not just the US leaders telling them what is so and what is to be done. This goes back to point one.

[BigBearJohn]

46. I'd rather be in Darfur than Iraq. That's for sure.

[Ignacio Upton]

48. I would if Gore or Kerry were President

Darfur is an example of a justified U.S. presence, like Kosovo and Afghanistan (the latter one doesn't as much support on DU, but Kosovo has more) Iraq is/was wrong and we should leave as soon as possible.

[Karenina]

50. With the current *misadministration

support of any "*U.S. led" ANYTHING is simply LUNACY.

[Quantess]

51. I'll put it this way:

I would have much preferred a US intervention in Darfur to the mess in Iraq we are currently entangled. At this point, our resources are stretched too thin to be effective in both Darfur and Iraq. So, at this point I don't want to see the US intervening in Darfur, not until we get out of Iraq.
I never liked the idea of a war on Iraq. I was always opposed to the war on Iraq. But I think Darfur is a far more worthwhile cause.

[JVS]

52. No, I would not.