good ol' popey..

[Busyman™]

Curious, that.

We talk a great game about Darfur; the U.N. gives great lip-service, but is effectively impotent.

Whence comes the moral authority to compel genuine multilateral action in this situation?

If the U.S. jumps in, the rest of the world will cheer/not cheer and announce their willingness to closely observe our progress so as to criticize us for our rashness.

Genuine aid, hardware, and military forces will come from a small coalition willing to work under the adverse conditions that await.

The French will promise thousands of troops, then send a sous chef and a dishwasher.

Meanwhile...the beat goes on.

The fact of the matter is death means martyrdom for these crazies, and if any innocent Muslim gets in their way, tough, and "we can always blame it on the Americans".

What he said.

[Skillian]

The situation in Darfur is the kind of thing "the West" could and should be getting involved in - instead we are overstretched in areas where our presence is needed much less.

Whence comes the moral authority to compel genuine multilateral action in this situation? Whence means where, right? If so, as much as you'll hate me saying it, it should come from the UN - there is no alternative.

Unfortunately, the US and, to a lesser extent the UK, have lost a lot much of their right to make moral judgements (though I don't hold that anyone thinks Americans are in any way held responsible for what is happening there), and so the only way to deal with the situation is, as you say, multilaterally.

The UN is struggling no doubt, and slowly struggling at that, but there is progress being made, and even George Clooney's appearance is having a positive impact in at least letting the world know it is happening - two weeks ago most people didn't have a clue.

If the US or UK want to help, they should offer troops and expertise/advice, but unilateral military action, however well justified, is unlikely to be appreciated in the long-term. You can argue that fact is the Muslims' fault, but I tend to think we've dug our own hole in that regard.

[JPaul]

Like I said earlier, if you hate me so much - don't talk to me, don't trade with me, don't accept my aid, don't visit my country. Promise I won't visit your's.

Who caused me to think this way, the people who murdered the Nun and burned the Churches. Why the fuck should I spend my money and sacrifice my children in sorting their problems out.

Why exactly am I going to help sort that problem out, so that you can kill more Christians, issue more fatwahs and have more jihads. Nah, pass.

[Skillian]

Many people feel that if these countries can sort their problems out they are less likely to kill Christians and order jihads.

Fair enough if you don't feel that way, but IMO when we have completely turned over to the "fuck you" - "no, fuck you" stage is when we'll really see WWIII kicking off.

[JPaul]

Many people feel that if these countries can sort their problems out they are less likely to kill Christians and order jihads.

Fair enough if you don't feel that way, but IMO when we have completely turned over to the "fuck you" - "no, fuck you" stage is when we'll really see WWIII kicking off.

Why, what did we do wrong there. It's none of our business, they tell us often enough. So let them deal with it.

It's a Sudanese / Muslim matter so let them sort it out between themselves, without us interfering. We can just go on living our lives, the way we want, without other people telling us why it's wrong.

That seems fair to me. N'est ce pas.

[ilw]

Like I said earlier, if you hate me so much - don't talk to me, don't trade with me, don't accept my aid, don't visit my country. Promise I won't visit your's.

well i don't like your tone, so don't accept my aid or visit my country either. and you better not even think of transitting through my airspace

[j2k4]

The situation in Darfur is the kind of thing "the West" could and should be getting involved in - instead we are overstretched in areas where our presence is needed much less.

Whence comes the moral authority to compel genuine multilateral action in this situation? Whence means where, right? If so, as much as you'll hate me saying it, it should come from the UN - there is no alternative.

Your opinion re: moral authority aside, our international reputation suffers mightily when we move unilaterally; witness the current situation.

The U.N. has dawdled over the Sudan for years, and, truth, has possibly even less real moral authority than Kim Jong Il or George Bush, depending on your particular bent.

I agree that the solution should be generated by the U.N...that doesn't change the fact it will never (read never) happen, because there is no financial nipple for the U.N. to suckle at.

You think the U.S. is the only entity that only moves out of it's own interest?

The U.N. will spend words 'til Hell freezes over because words are cheap.

For real big bucks, they'll actually show up, but only God/Allah knows how much it would cost for genuine action, because it's not on the U.N.'s menu.

As another side note, I wonder:

Why was it perfectly fine for Muslim terrorists to blow up the Golden Dome, after all the hullabaloo over the sanctity of such places?

Is that a whiff of...........hypocrisy I smell?

[Skillian]

Did you see the demonstrations around the world yesterday re Darfur? Many protestors wore blue hats.

Thousands of people want to see the UN do something in Darfur , and I'm happy they are not as cynical about the UN as you are. Basically people have decided they are the best thing we've got so we have to make it work.

I don't really believe the UN or even the US moves exclusively in its own interests - sometimes people really do want to make the world a better place (as hippified as that sounds), and sometimes those people are even politicians or diplomats. People are out there now trying to so something to help the fucked up situation in Darfur, but to dismiss them as irrelevant or worse because they haven't achieved it so far is unfair. They should do more though, perhaps we can agree on that.

Anyway, I'm way OT now - wasn't this thread about a Catholic who shits in the woods or something?

[Busyman™]

Did you see the demonstrations around the world yesterday re Darfur? Many protestors wore blue hats.

Thousands of people want to see the UN do something in Darfur , and I'm happy they are not as cynical about the UN as you are. Basically people have decided they are the best thing we've got so we have to make it work.

I don't really believe the UN or even the US moves exclusively in its own interests - sometimes people really do want to make the world a better place (as hippified as that sounds), and sometimes those people are even politicians or diplomats. People are out there now trying to so something to help the fucked up situation in Darfur, but to dismiss them as irrelevant or worse because they haven't achieved it so far is unfair. They should do more though, perhaps we can agree on that.

Anyway, I'm way OT now - wasn't this thread about a Catholic who shits in the woods or something?

Nuh uhhh. It was about a pretty much meaningless Katholick given meaning by those who aren't Katholick.

[j2k4]

Did you see the demonstrations around the world yesterday re Darfur? Many protestors wore blue hats.

Demonstrations?

With blue hats, you say?

Yesterday?

Has that ever been tried before?

Are things better in Darfur today?

Thousands of people want to see the UN do something in Darfur , and I'm happy they are not as cynical about the UN as you are. Basically people have decided they are the best thing we've got so we have to make it work.

I am not at all cynical about the U.N., I am realistic.

Thousands of people isn't enough; I think you can safely say "millions".

The U.N. has been around for a few years, and has not, in it's entire history, accomplished anything significant.

Merely wishing things to happen doesn't help.

Talking about doing something, having demonstrations, etc., are wondrous things for making the talkers and demonstrators feel great about themselves for being so "caring", but that is all.

There have been oddles of shiney rhetoric spoken from the podium at the U.N. about the situation in the Sudan.

The same was true of Rwanda.

Nothing was done, yet you place the highest hopes in more of the same, fully confident that, this time, the U.N. will come to the rescue-and you say that I am cynical if I attempt to disabuse you of your naivete?

I don't really believe the...US moves exclusively in its own interests - sometimes people really do want to make the world a better place (as hippified as that sounds), and sometimes those people are even politicians or diplomats. People are out there now trying to so something to help the fucked up situation in Darfur, but to dismiss them as irrelevant or worse because they haven't achieved it so far is unfair. They should do more though, perhaps we can agree on that.

I will restrain my cynicism to comment that your belief in the U.S. means that you and I will have to row the boat by ourselves, 'cuz we are the boat's sole occupants.

I do not dismiss those who wish something to be done as "irrelevant"...I dismiss them as "ineffective".

Talk.

Talk some more.

Yet more talk.

Action?

Have you any money?

How much?

That's not enough-let's talk about where to find more money.

People are dying!!!!

How about a resolution?

We need people; we need boots on the ground!!!!

Any volunteers?

No?

Well...perhaps we can talk somebody into helping...

George Clooney is a certified asshole.

I nonetheless laud his efforts in this case, and wish there were more like him, but what can he do?

Raise money?

The U.N. will take his money and ask for more, but will they resolve to push for a coalition to quell the violence?

Nah.

There is nothing in the Sudan to be raped except the little girls and women, but there's no money or resources, no booty to be divvied up by those who would deign to help.

That such lucre should be necessary is the saddest fact of all.