Re: No. Congrss cannot stop the genocide with fasting
by
Lyssa Lovely Redhead
05/20/2009, 1:08 PM #
Philadelphia Steve:
However, short of invasion and occupation, There is not a whole lot else that will help either.
I know. It's always "Save Darfur!" Ok, how? or "We need to do something!" Ok, what?
Even this article had a pretty absurd statement: "But they will have no trouble getting other members of Congress—and the administration—to agree on what needs to be done in Darfur. Among their demands: Return the Darfuri people to their homes. Make sure humanitarian workers are allowed back into the country with the resources they need. Maintain sanctions against Sudan. And above all, try al-Bashir for war crimes at The Hague."
No, that's what needs to happen, not what needs to be done. If you can find a way to actually make that happen, without launching an invasion or something else that is going to be completely unacceptable to the American people, feel free to volunteer it. Economic and humanitarian aid (which will largely be stolen by corrupt leaders) is not going to cut it.
(By the way, if we can get our millitary back together and unoccupied with other things, I'd be more than happy to advocate for at least considering intervention. I think that, as the most powerful country in the world by far, it is our moral duty to intervene in extraordinary situations like this when we are able. I've yet to see anything that convinces me that we should not have in Rowanda, although I will admit that I wasn't as politically tuned in at the time and may be missing some compelling justification for not doing so. Now, with two wars going on, we obviously are not in a position, but if we can, I think that we should.) (Yes, I know that 16 people are going to tell me that Bushchimpyvonhitler was evil and stupid to get us involved in Iraq and blah, blah, Haliburtin, war for oil, and so on. Doesn't matter and I don't care- what's done is done, regardless of why, we are there now, and clearly going to stay for a while.)