Can you help me sort this out??

[Velo Princesse]

I know it will be hard, but please don't turn this into a thread about the war in Iraq.

I went to the Holocaust Museum in Houston and they have a whole wing dedicated to Darfur. For some unknown reason, I have a special place in my heart for Africa... I always have. I was basically unaware of what is going on in Darfur... not entirely, of course. Anywhoo... the images and information in that part of the museum was just gut wrenching. I bought a book about how I can help and things of that nature while I was there. Later, though, I got into a conversation that I don't know exactly what to do with.....

The conversation was about Iraq. The person I was talking to was telling me about all of the awful thing that Hussein was doing to his people and that we needed to go in there because of that. My complaint was that even if we did need to go in there because of that, that isn't why we went in... rather, that is what the story changed to when we didn't find any WMDs. I found myself saying "We can't police the world."

And therein lies the rub. I am trying to figure out what the difference is between what was happening in Hussein's Iraq and what is happening in Darfur? Does "we can't police the world" mean that we shouldn't help the people in Darfur? If not, does that mean that we definitely should be in Iraq? If we can't police the world, does that make it okay that the US didn't step into WWII until we were attacked even though we knew what was happening to the Jews?

 

[stan1980]

Well if you consider the known genocides that Saddam Hussein committed were roughly 20 years ago, one does have to question anyone who uses the argument that "we had to stop Hussein doing what he was doing".

You're right, we can't police the whole world, but if we do attempt to, our efforts would be better spent putting our trillions we have spent in Iraq into solving famine in Africa, as well as the problems in Sudan. I believe these people are far worse off than the people of Iraq and that is where the priority should be. Not much would change my mind about this.

 

[FaithLikeARock]

Revised. See New Post.

 

[keith99]

It is a tough question. Only answer I can give is based in pragmatism. No country or even group of countries can police the whole world for long. Or if they do they have to as master, more Nazi stormtrooper than helpful Irish cop.

So decisions have to be made on what we can do and costs, both of action and inaction. One thing that gets forgotten is what we can do is not a fixed thing. The support of the poeple is important. WW II is a great example. Waiting was the right decision, but only because we could not have succeeded until the people supported the war and that did not happen until Pearl Harbor. In WW II we also got very very lucky, not in thee war, but in the peace. And not just the U.S. but the whole world.Instead of the usual punitive peace we had a few wise men who created a fair peace, turning our enemies into our friends.

That last, or something like it is what I would see as a requirement of going off policing something. Is there at least something forseeable where we can go in, play the world cop and then go out leavihng something good behind. Kuwait is perhaps a good example. Nothing wonderful, but stopping an invaider seems to have been enough. A country that had a history of even just a couple of decades of democtatic rule under law where rule has been taken by force seems to me to be a good chance. (though support may present a problem). Somewhere where different tribes or sub groups of a religeon have conflicts going back decades or centrueis seems to have poor prospects for us going in and settleing things, unless we are willing to wipe out one side or the other.

 

[Meshavrischika]

I know it will be hard, but please don't turn this into a thread about the war in Iraq.

I went to the Holocaust Museum in Houston and they have a whole wing dedicated to Darfur. For some unknown reason, I have a special place in my heart for Africa... I always have. I was basically unaware of what is going on in Darfur... not entirely, of course. Anywhoo... the images and information in that part of the museum was just gut wrenching. I bought a book about how I can help and things of that nature while I was there. Later, though, I got into a conversation that I don't know exactly what to do with.....

The conversation was about Iraq. The person I was talking to was telling me about all of the awful thing that Hussein was doing to his people and that we needed to go in there because of that. My complaint was that even if we did need to go in there because of that, that isn't why we went in... rather, that is what the story changed to when we didn't find any WMDs. I found myself saying "We can't police the world."

And therein lies the rub. I am trying to figure out what the difference is between what was happening in Hussein's Iraq and what is happening in Darfur? Does "we can't police the world" mean that we shouldn't help the people in Darfur? If not, does that mean that we definitely should be in Iraq? If we can't police the world, does that make it okay that the US didn't step into WWII until we were attacked even though we knew what was happening to the Jews?

politics.

that's the only reason I can think of.

 

[Bombila]

Though the images are a couple of years old, it is possible to go to Google Earth, if you have it, and look at high resolution images of many, many destroyed and abandoned villages.

I have no answers, other than the one ElsanRandiMom has offered.

 

[StarCannon]

human indifference. *shrug* A bit ironice, isn't it?

Seriously... I'm starting a cult of the golden rule: do what you want done to you. Anyone is welcome to join. Membership: free.

 

[quatona]

I´m not sure I agree with the underlying notion that attacking a country necessarily means helping the people.

 

[Verv]

The cited reasons in the 2003 state of the union address were many. There was no one reason for the conflict though the primary focus was on WMDs and terrorist funding.

However, deliverance of the suffering was not neglected either in the speech.

If you do not think a country has the right to sometimes act as a police force, then I guess I can understand some of the roots of the argument but like you I look at conflicts in some of those nations and pray for liberation of those souls.

 

[variant]

In the cold game of power and political calculus Iraq is important and Darfur is not.

Therefore:

The suffering in Iraq will be used as at least one pretext for invasion and the suffering in Darfur will be ignored.

This is why we should not be the world’s police. We are two faced and “police" only with respect to our own calculated interests, thus we are rightfully resented.

How would you feel about a self appointed police force that only got involved when it felt it was in its own selfish best interests?

 

[Verv]

In the cold game of power and political calculus Iraq is important and Darfur is not.

Therefore:

The suffering in Iraq will be used as at least one pretext for invasion and the suffering in Darfur will be ignored.

This is why we should not be the world’s police. We are two faced and “police" only with respect to our own calculated interests, thus we are rightfully resented.

How would you feel about a self appointed police force that only got involved when it felt it was in its own selfish best interests?

That is not necessarily true.

One of the reasons why many have stayed out is the fact that Sudan was being protected and shielded by Arab states far more and was like a little brother to the Saudis. Plus, they were even trying to cooperate in the late nineties when all of this was happening by offering us Bin Laden (Clinton politely declined as he did not want to travel all the way to Sudan for negotiations, one of the stipulations).

Furthermore, African Union troops have been present for two years I believe the number is.

It also didn't get bad again until we were inserted into Iraq.

 

[allhart]

I know it will be hard, but please don't turn this into a thread about the war in Iraq.

I went to the Holocaust Museum in Houston and they have a whole wing dedicated to Darfur. For some unknown reason, I have a special place in my heart for Africa... I always have. I was basically unaware of what is going on in Darfur... not entirely, of course. Anywhoo... the images and information in that part of the museum was just gut wrenching. I bought a book about how I can help and things of that nature while I was there. Later, though, I got into a conversation that I don't know exactly what to do with.....

The conversation was about Iraq. The person I was talking to was telling me about all of the awful thing that Hussein was doing to his people and that we needed to go in there because of that. My complaint was that even if we did need to go in there because of that, that isn't why we went in... rather, that is what the story changed to when we didn't find any WMDs. I found myself saying "We can't police the world."

And therein lies the rub. I am trying to figure out what the difference is between what was happening in Hussein's Iraq and what is happening in Darfur? Does "we can't police the world" mean that we shouldn't help the people in Darfur? If not, does that mean that we definitely should be in Iraq? If we can't police the world, does that make it okay that the US didn't step into WWII until we were attacked even though we knew what was happening to the Jews?

A couple of thoughts and Question in around your ideals of your thread. Hussein ruled with an Iron fist in suppression towards the suennie and sheites. Which kept them focused on their surpriser not on there differences. Was there any true freedom ever known? Evil happens when good people let it or in other words a nation turns a blind eye while defend less people get killed. I don't think we can push our ideas of how freedom is played out in other country's Just as we can't financially support the world as they want us to. The constitution of our people is ours not there's ,so is our democracy ours,but evil is something that mankind should take a stand against for the good of the people of and in the world.

If you can help? Not knowing what or just how, in the attempt to do the right thing. In where a lot of wrong is going down. There can be honor in that,but what honor is there in say you didn't try to make a difference.Can the USA be noble?

 

[variant]

That is not necessarily true.

One of the reasons why many have stayed out is the fact that Sudan was being protected and shielded by Arab states far more and was like a little brother to the Saudis. Plus, they were even trying to cooperate in the late nineties when all of this was happening by offering us Bin Laden (Clinton politely declined as he did not want to travel all the way to Sudan for negotiations, one of the stipulations).

Furthermore, African Union troops have been present for two years I believe the number is.

It also didn't get bad again until we were inserted into Iraq.

You should read your own post.

If we do things based on what the Saudis think, we are doing them based on our own interests rather than what should be done via moral obligation.

We police the world insofar as it suits us to.

 

[Autumnleaf]

Oil and the petro dollar are why we are in Iraq. Follow the money. If Bush sends in troops to fight a war and Americans get killed he looks bad. If the economy goes down because the petro dollar goes down Americans will want Bush's head on a pike. When Saddam said he was going to trade oil for euros instead of dollars the petro dollar was going to go down, like it is now around the world despite the war.

 

[Beanieboy]

I suggest watching Hotel Rwanda.
The people are being masacred, even children. The man says, "We must get this on the air. Someone will come to our rescue." His friend says, "Honestly, I think people will say, "that's a shame" and go back to their dinner.

It's about oil, pure and simple.
We say it's for freedom or to help people, and I would back our government if it were actually altruistic, but the bottom line is oil.

What's the difference between the Holocaust and Darfur? Both were people that the US really didn't care about. (The US turned away a boat of Jews trying to escape.) The US intervened only after they saw Germany a threat of power. In Darfur, there is no threat to the US, and no oil. Sad, huh?

 

[Beanieboy]

Maybe I should put it this way - On Judgement Day, when God asks why the US didn't intervene, is "we can't police everyone" going to fly?

 

[StarCannon]

So I guess that means we are responsible.

 

[Beanieboy]

So I guess that means we are responsible.

I don't think "neighbor" is confined to your country.

Are we responsible?

I think it's a bit like seeing someone beat up, and going on your way, because you don't want to be involved. What did Jesus say about the rabbi and the levite, and the Good Samaritan?

 

[Autumnleaf]

I don't think "neighbor" is confined to your country.

Are we responsible?

I think it's a bit like seeing someone beat up, and going on your way, because you don't want to be involved. What did Jesus say about the rabbi and the levite, and the Good Samaritan?

No, we are not responsible for using our people to stand between factions engaged in a civil war. To do so is utterly stupid because inevitably both sides end up firing upon the 'good samaritan' like a husband and wife during a domestic violence call after the cops arrive.

 

[Beanieboy]

If that's true, then what is the difference between the Holocaust and Darfur? Should we not have intervened with the Nazis?