DAFUR Issues Beyond Palo Alto, posted by Jag Singh, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Nov 28, 2006 at 10:28 pm
Nicholas Kristoff of the NYT and Jonathan Gurwitz of the San Antonio Express-News, deserve considerable credit for their relentless efforts in focusing the spotlight on the appalling genocide in Dafur. The deafening silence by a largely uncaring international community exposes the racism and callous unconcern for the sanctity of human life, especially when the victims are black Africans. The lessons of the Rwandan genocide are all but forgotten. The tragedy of Dafur is also a damning indictment of an international community which unhesitatingly dances with the ‘devil’ but remains unconcerned with the genocidal killings by its trading partner. Russia and China are Sudan’s principal weapons suppliers and are therefore complicit in the ensuing genocide. It is tragic that nations self interests invariably trump human rights considerations. Arab nations especially deserve public scorn for their failure to reign in the genocidal savagery. It is shameful that the United Nations has failed to issue a no-fly’ zone and impose a tight weapons embargo to protect the black Sudanese from their Arab serial killers. This would also be a wonderful opportunity for the US to shore up its tattered image by flexing its military muscles for purely humanitarian reasons. After all, it did not hesitate to impose a tight embargo on Iraq and launch into an unprovoked attack on a sovereign state.
Posted by Mikey, a resident of the Embarcadero Oaks/Leland neighborhood, on Nov 30, 2006 at 4:23 pm
"This would also be a wonderful opportunity for the US to shore up its tattered image by flexing its military muscles for purely humanitarian reasons. After all, it did not hesitate to impose a tight embargo on Iraq and launch into an unprovoked attack on a sovereign state."
Isn't that kind of a neo-conservative perspective?
Either way - you're right...they should. The whole world should. It just goes to show how useless the UN is.
Posted by Draw the Line, a resident of Stanford, on Dec 7, 2006 at 12:29 pm
Look up who is committing the genocide, and who the folks being slaughtered are..note their religions.
It will be telling.
It it were reversed, there would be an international outcry.
We can't go in...even when we have a real national interest in protecting our future, with acknowledgement from most of the world's intelligence agencies that our concern was valid, AND we stop the slaughter of at least 7,000 Muslims per month by deposing a brutal dictatorship, (read Ken Pollock's book, a Gathering Storm..or maybe it was a Threatening Storm..one was by Churchill, who was also ignored at the price of millions of lives) AND we help the natural desire of people achieve their dream of one person, one vote, as was the case in Iraq, the people of the world can be whipped into an anti-American frenzy and not support what was and still is a noble cause. Does anyone really think we can go in and stop this against what would be even MORE resistance? Especially in a case where it really would be supporting Christians' right to live against Muslim desire for Islamofascism?