« Brush Creek river walk | Main | Celebrating the Constitution »

September 25, 2006

Darfur overlooked

Why isn’t the genocide in Darfur a bigger issue in this election year? Some estimate 400,000 men, women and children have been slaughtered, and 2.5 million people have been forced to flee their homes. This despicable genocide has to stop.

William Payne
Overland Park

Comments

GCYL

Tomw – in your opinion, when was the last time we invaded a country to prevent genocide? When We The People stood up and Humanity said “Ten thousand deaths is to much. Without direct action we will see 400,000 men, women and children perish and millions of people become starving refugees.”

A time in our lives where the clear indication of genocide was the only reason for direct intervention. Bonus points for naming a significant oil producing country.

GCYL

“Would I support military intervention under your scenario? Yes. Invasion? No.” – tomw

“Dispersed troops rounding up people and making them dig their own graves before they take bullet in the back of the head. Genocide. Without someone being on the ground to stop such actions (invasion) what military intervention are you talking about?” – me

Any more thoughts on this tomw?

GCYL

“I have no patience for dishonesty by omission.” – tomw

And I have no patience with false indignation.

Jacks complete answer was “No oil ther. Next question.”

Talk about dishonesty. People understand when you’re quoting jack and when you’re supporting it. Let me help you.

“GCYL-I have no doubt your answer was honest, but I believe so was Jack's. His was also more complete.”

That’s you talking about jack’s original post.

“The people in charge don't care because there's no oil.”

That’s your opinion.

I disagree with jack’s only post and I disagree with your efforts to transfer responsibility to “people in charge”. I’m also able to keep the two different subjects separated while quoting.

tomw

"His was also more complete. The people in charge don't care because there's no oil."

That was the more complete quote. Not this...

“The people in charge don't care because there's no oil.” – tomw

I have no patience for dishonesty by omission.

GCYL

“GCYL-I have no doubt your answer was honest, but I believe so was Jack's. His was also more complete.” – tomw

I too believe jack gave an honest answer. I just think his answer was completely wrong.

GCYL

“Finally, one more question for you. What was the last country we invaded that did not have significant oil?” - tomw

To be fair to you tomw I’d have to give you a chance to define your use of the word invaded.

Our country has a history of interfering in other countries and that would include the use of our military in one form or another. An island or two in the Caribbean, Panama and various dirt poor countries in South America that did not include Venezuela. What are your military opinions about the Vietnam war? Specifically the “incursions” into neighboring Cambodia? This is our current history that had an understanding of the word oil. It’s also a part of our history where various radicals fling around the word “invaded”.

I’ve left out WW I and Two for various reasons. Still, even in an honest to goodness war are we not in the process of invading countries? Back in the day the single purpose of a declared war was to invade a country and defeat them.

So, we’re looking for an example where one sovereign country invading another and with U.S. help the invasion was stopped. In the process we ended up invading the offending country. How about North Korea? To my knowledge they’re not a significant oil producer. In many ways the Gulf wars are an example of what is and what could be going on with N. Korea. Hostilities stopped for diplomacy. While diplomacy continues with N. Korea it had ceased with Iraq. Add in the amount of war material used, sprinkle in some NATO troops, I think this could be the answer you’re looking for.

GCYL

“The people in charge don't care because there's no oil.” – tomw

Which brings to mind all the liberal post that “We The People” need to do this, that and the other thing. It’s our country and those in charge answer to us but we’re not the ones who don’t care. Even if I agree with your transferal of responsibility, we still don’t care enough to change that.

“Mr. Payne cares. I care. Even President Bush cares. Or at least he thinks enough Americans do, or he wouldn't be taking some action no matter slight.”

And I care. After 400,000 deaths and 2.5 million displaced people facing a grave situation that I pleased to see we’re taking some action no matter slight. Sadly, my understanding of caring enough to fight genocide doesn’t include “no matter how slight”.

“As for some of your other assertions...”

They remain valid. I would never have used WMD’s as my most prominent reason for invading. I would have used genocide. It’s well documented through out history. Had we then found WMD’s, well, good for us. Your selective reading not with standing, the left’s position on WMD’s is clear. Without WMD’s all other valid reasons for intervention ceased to exist.

“We heard very little about genocide from the administration before the invasion.”

One of the many mistakes the current administration made. But would that have changed our opinion? I don’t think so.

“Would I support military intervention under your scenario? Yes. Invasion? No.”

Dispersed troops rounding up people and making them dig their own graves before they take bullet in the back of the head. Genocide. Without someone being on the ground to stop such actions (invasion) what military intervention are you talking about?

“Now, if you would change your statement to the humans running the country don't care about genocide, then I would agree.”

Our form of government gives us the responsibility to manage our leaders. If we citizens (humanity) cared then our leaders would care. Our world contains a lot of countries where the governments are not accountable to their citizen’s wishes. But that’s not the case for Europe and the U.S. I can’t accept your efforts on guilt transferal to our current leaders. If we citizens had any history of not accepting a HINT of genocide you would see all of our administrations jumping real quick and on a scale that would not be described as slight.

tomw

GCYL-I have no doubt your answer was honest, but I believe so was Jack's. His was also more complete. The people in charge don't care because there's no oil.

"As humans we really don’t care."

This is also not true. Mr. Payne cares. I care. Even President Bush cares. Or at least he thinks enough Americans do, or he wouldn't be taking some action no matter slight.

As for some of your other assertions...

"You’re intentionally ignoring the liberal posts proclaiming that WMD’s were the only valid reason for intervening.."

I don't recall ever reading those posts. I do recall that was the administration's most prominent (by far) reason for invading.

"..and insist that the only reason we’ve “invaded” Iraq was to obtain and control their oil fields."

Some may believe that, but I don't. I have no doubt that it was a factor, but not the only reason we chose to invade.

"People also proclaim that the issue of genocide as a reason for invasion was brought up after WMD’s were no where to be found. I’d be very, very pleased if you would announce to all that on the issue of genocide, it alone would have been sufficient for you to support military intervention inside Iraq."

We heard very little about genocide from the administration before the invasion. Would I support military intervention under your scenario? Yes. Invasion? No.

Now, if you would change your statement to the humans running the country don't care about genocide, then I would agree. Finally, one more question for you. What was the last country we invaded that did not have significant oil?

GCYL

“GCYL-Nice answer. We don't care because we don't care.” - tomw

I don’t know about “nice” but an honest answer none the less. As humans we really don’t care. If the whole sale destruction called genocide moved us we would do something about it regardless of the country or location. As it is statements such as:

“I’d be very, very pleased if you would announce to all that on the issue of genocide, it alone would have been sufficient for you to support military intervention inside Iraq.”

Are left unanswered.

tomw

GCYL-Nice answer. We don't care because we don't care.

GCYL

“So why did we hear in testimony to Congress about all the atrocities?” - tomw

Because we all like a good show and our use of the word atrocity is vastly different than the word genocide.

“If it is about oil we can't use that as our reason for intervening?”

Back in the day when one sovereign country invaded another sovereign country for the single purpose of obtaining and controlling land, that was reason enough for intervening. If that’s no longer sufficient then by all means you may use oil as an additional reason.

“The way you phrased your question, you preclude Iraq, even though genocide was one of the reasons we were given for the Iraq invasion.”

You’re intentionally ignoring the liberal posts proclaiming that WMD’s were the only valid reason for intervening and insist that the only reason we’ve “invaded” Iraq was to obtain and control their oil fields. People also proclaim that the issue of genocide as a reason for invasion was brought up after WMD’s were no where to be found. I’d be very, very pleased if you would announce to all that on the issue of genocide, it alone would have been sufficient for you to support military intervention inside Iraq. It’s not a question of me precluding Iraq, many others have done that. Iraq is just a good example of why jack’s answer was wrong.

“Jack answered the letter writer's question.”

Incorrectly too. In prior discussions with jack about the issue of genocide inside Iraq, he was clear that he did not consider their “internal affairs” as sufficient reason to intervene. He was of the opinion that we’ve made matters worse. Basically the discussion ended when I received an example that humanity really doesn’t care about genocide.

“I answered your question, but again, you didn't like the answer.”

And I’ve pointed out my disagreement with your answer and you didn't like it. In my opinion you still haven’t made your case for Kuwait.

“Why don't you provide your explanation for Darfur being ignored?” - tomw

As I have pointed out in the past with jack it has NOTHING to do with oil. We don’t care. Humanity doesn’t care about the issue of genocide.

tomw

" Regardless of how brutal the invading force was, it was an invasion to obtain oil fields and not the systematic destruction of a population based on their race or religion."

So why did we hear in testimony to Congress about all the atrocities? If it is about oil we can't use that as our reason for intervening? The way you phrased your question, you preclude Iraq, even though genocide was one of the reasons we were given for the Iraq invasion. Jack answered the letter writer's question. You just didn't like it. I answered your question, but again, you didn't like the answer. Why don't you provide your explanation for Darfur being ignored?

GCYL

“Kuwait.”

A military invasion not genocide. Especially when you consider the reason for the military invasion was oil and not the whole sale death of the Kuwait population.

“Remember, they were yanking babies out of incubators and throwing them against the walls.” - tomw

That would fall under the generally accepted definition of war crimes.

To make you case tomw you would have to prove to me that the whole point of the Kuwait invasion by an independent nation was the complete destruction of it's population. Regardless of how brutal the invading force was, it was an invasion to obtain oil fields and not the systematic destruction of a population based on their race or religion.

tomw

"Name me a major oil producing country that obtained assistance from any world organization to quickly stop genocide."

Kuwait. Remember, they were yanking babies out of incubators and throwing them against the walls.

GCYL

“No oil ther. Next question.” - jack

Oil has never been an issue with our lack of confronting genocide.

So I’ll repeat the question that jack never did answer. Name me a major oil producing country that obtained assistance from any world organization to quickly stop genocide.

Engineer

Isn't what the United Nations was created to do, its primary mission?

Global Citizen

Oh. Jack beat me to it.

jack

No oil ther. Next question.

 
About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright