Monday, May 01, 2006

US Sends No. 2 at State to Darfur

I think the US needs more involvement when it comes to a brokering a peace deal in war torn places where there aren't any financial or strategic gains for the US.

About 7,000 African troops are battling to keep the peace in Darfur, an area about the size of France. The United States and many of its allies would like United Nations peacekeepers to augment the African force but Khartoum has so far rejected this offer.

Why do we have to listen to Khartoum for? We should just say that the situation is deteriorating and just put some boots on the ground. If we want to be the World Super Power that means we have to deal with the little guys as well as the Irans of the world.

Plus, preventing genocide is what we are good at and what the UN stinks at. It would be a good situation where the US can 1Up the UN. It would also make Bush "care" about some black people. When the attacks are leveled that the US only cares about Middle Eastern Oil we can counter by saying we took care of Darfur.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Darfur, and its sanctioned army and the Janjua, is a blight on humanity much as Rwanda was 10 + years ago under Clinton. But the worst loss of life SINCE WORLD WAR II is in the Congo and its neighbor DRC...and NO ONE comes to save it, yet somehow it has been worthy of episodes on ER, and now Darfur has rated episodes on ER...so even if our federal government won't save a country from flaying itself alive...we can watch it from our safe, warm, well fed posture and think how fortunate we are....something is hopelessly wrong with this picture...African life is not as valuable as life on the Arabian Peninsula or the lower Asiatic shelf because of perto-dollars...stunning...think of how God looks at us.

Joemama said...

Yup Africa has not been a priority since the late 1800s when the World Powers did the so-called "scramble for Africa."