Blogicus reminds us that the Khartoum regime of Sudan has killed almost 400,000 civilians. That's about half of the death toll from the genocide in Rwanda. The deaths caused by the tsunamis - a natural disaster - happened nearly instantly in comparison to these murders. We can't stop nature's wrath, but we should have done - should still be doing - something about man's.
Funky Dung
Comments 5
How many places can we really be in at once though? We don't have enough troops for Iraq, never mind adding new theaters. I agree that something ought to be done about Darfour, but why the onus on the US? There are other rich countries who aren't currently at war who would have the resources.
+0
Posted 05 Jan 2005 at 6:41 pm ¶I agree with Andrea. I'd love to stop genocide, but if the genocidal country does not invite us there, what's the price tag? And let's be honest: Europe cannot project power the way we can, and when at least one country (the Netherlands) has a very gray army (they have an average age of about 40!), even if they can get the troops in the right place, what can they do?
+0
Posted 05 Jan 2005 at 7:45 pm ¶We weren't invited to Iraq, but we freed them from Hussein's tyranny anyhow. Perhaps being the world's policeman doesn't make us popular, but it wouldn't be the first time the US filled that role. Every time America has tried to be more isolationist (i.e. Let the rest of the world deal with their own problems.), someone pulls at our heartstrings (or wallets) and we come to the rescue. We saw fit to interfere with Israel vs the Palestinians, in eastern Europe, and Somalia. Why can't we see fit to interefere in Sudan or Rwanda? I'd like to know how our government decides which causes are worth fighting for and which people are worth giving a damn about.
+0
Posted 05 Jan 2005 at 9:21 pm ¶In an international security course I took as an undergrad, we looked at one reason why we did not intervene in Rwanda: it's in the middle of nowhere, even worse than Afghanistan, and without a Pakistan or friendly ex-Soviet nations. A second reason is that Clinton was our President at the time. Sudan is a shame, but we don't have the troops for it, even if we could logistically tackle it.
+0
Posted 05 Jan 2005 at 10:08 pm ¶I think you know where I stand on this, so I'll keep it tolerably short
Here is a review of a recent book: The Plot Against America (Philip Roth), which (full disclosure: I've not yet read) makes a slight twist in history where FDR loses in '40 to facist-friendly Charles Lindburg. The review is not particularly friendly, but the story sounds really interesting… I guess because it sounds so plausible. America was so, so, ever so close to not getting actively involved in WWII… It was only the stupidity of the Japanese that got us fully into it. Ay, ay, ay…
Cheers!
+0
Posted 05 Jan 2005 at 10:50 pm ¶Post a Comment