What Hollywood Gets Wrong About Darfur
by Rusty HumphriesGeorge Clooney wasn’t at the Oscars Sunday night. Where was he? Apparently, Clooney was in Darfur – and he was planning to report back to President Obama about his trip. So far, so good; there are many issues in Darfur that need to be addressed right now. There’s only one problem: Clooney and the Hollywood phonies don’t want to address the real problems in the region.
If you’ve ever heard my radio show (which is heard on 260+ radio stations as well as XM and Sirius), you know that I respect intellectual honesty. If Harry Reid does something right, I praise him. When George W. Bush was wrong, I showed little mercy. But being fair-minded doesn’t mean spreading criticism equally. When I watch the left engage in their politics, it is more often than not wrought with intellectual dishonesty, for which I have little patience.
Hollywood loves to spout off about Darfur. They plaster “SAVE DARFUR!” bumper stickers on their Priuses. They shout “SAVE DARFUR!” at rallies. It’s become the battle cry of the left. But do they really understand what saving Darfur entails? Do they really understand what’s happening on the ground in Darfur?
Last year, I decided to find out the truth about Darfur. I had the opportunity to go to the region to help with humanitarian aid. It was an eye-opening, horrendous experience.
First, the history you won’t hear from Clooney and his ilk. Darfur is a region in Sudan. About 30 years ago the Arab Muslims in the north decided they that wanted to implement Sharia law throughout the entire country. The problem was that there are a lot of people in Sudan who aren’t interested in Sharia law: the folks in the south are generally black Christians. So the Muslims started a war in which about 2 million people were killed or displaced. The Arabs in the north enslaved many of the blacks from the south — a barbaric practice which continues to this day. Today, the war is at a stalemate. South Sudan is working on a cession plan. The citizens of southern Sudan are much poorer than those in the north because oil revenues tend to be given much more freely to those who follow Mohammad.
But not everyone who follows Mohammed gets a slice of the pie. As the fighting in the south began to subside, the desperately poor people in the region known as Darfur – largely black Muslims — wanted to get some help too. Oil was found in Darfur, and the black Muslim citizens of Darfur asked the Arab Muslim government in Khartoum if they could share in the newly-discovered oil wealth. The Arab Muslim government answered quickly and forcefully: hell no! And because the black Muslims in Darfur had the nerve to question their Arab Muslim brothers, they were declared kuffar – ingrates and rejecters. The Arab Muslims labeled them less than human, which means that they are now allowed to be slaughtered and enslaved.
I knew this history when I visited Sudan. I didn’t know just how awful it would be. While I was there, I met thousands of people who had recently been slaves. We found a group of young men and women who had been released – and they didn’t even realize they were no longer slaves. They had the clothes on their backs and a piece of paper stating where they came from — that was it.
The heartbreaking moments that are burned in my memory are those of the children. I have two young girls, 14 and 8. They want what every little girl in America wants: computers, iPods, dolls, clothes from Hollister. You know what the status symbol of a kid in Darfur is? An empty plastic water bottle! Why? So the kid can take water with him to play.
I met a little 10 year old boy whose mother had been a slave. She had escaped with her family about 2 weeks earlier. The boy’s father was probably the slave owner. The boy had a bone that had been sticking out of his leg for as long as he could remember. He was going blind in one eye; I’m not sure if he had bathed that year. But he was happy, always smiling. He loved going to his church and singing. I had a camera and was showing him how it worked. I noticed him looking at the empty water bottles, so I reached over and gave him a full bottle and a package of beef jerky. The look on his face … it was like I gave him the greatest present anyone ever opened on Christmas morning. He was dancing and running around the area, showing his mother this gift. I just thought I was giving him some water and jerky — but to him it was something he never dreamed of. I sure hope that boy is alive today. But I wouldn’t bet on it.
That’s the situation on the ground. But why do things continue to deteriorate? Where’s the international community Hollywood is so fond of?
The international community is fostering this genocide. The Chinese receive a large percentage of their oil from Sudan, and so turn a blind eye to the slaughter. The Russians, who still want to have a role as a major superpower, supply weapons and air support to the Arab Muslim government. The Arab Muslim thugs who run Sudan receive support from Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, all of whom want to help their Arab Muslim brothers against the kuffar.
You might recognize this unholy alliance of dictatorships, thugocracies and rogue states. It’s the same unholy alliance we fought in Iraq. If George W. Bush had listened to Clooney or Obama and left Iraq precipitously, we might be seeing Darfur-like slaughter in Iraq. Muslims killing Christians in the name of Islam. Muslims fighting Muslims over oil rights and revenues, to sell to the Chinese and Russians. There would be murder, mayhem, and slavery in a place where now, at last, peace could be dawning on the horizon.
Where is the UN, you ask? The United Nations Clooney loves so much? I asked the same question to some UN apparatchiks I met in Juba (southern Sudan). “Why isn’t the UN stopping this?” I asked. Here was their answer: “We can’t go in unless the government of Sudan invites us in.” You heard that correctly: the Arab Muslim government in Khartoum is slaughtering and enslaving their own people and the U.N. won’t stop them because the human trash committing these crimes won’t ask the U.N. to stop them.
This is the international community represented by George Clooney and Angelina Jolie. This is the UN beloved by Bono, Drew Barrymore, Selma Hayek, and Reese Witherspoon. I hope my young beef jerky-loving friend will be alive to see their next flop movies, TV shows, and rock tours. Again, I wouldn’t bet on it.
So here’s a note to George Clooney, Academy Award Winner Sean Penn and the other Hollywood morons. You’re right when you say “SAVE DURFUR.” But you’re not going to save Darfur by making movies or holding rock concerts. Here’s the hard truth: you save Darfur by following George W. Bush’s example in Iraq. If you hadn’t spent all your time and moral capital opposing George W. Bush’s war of liberation in Iraq, we might be done there by now, and we could get on with the business of actually saving Darfur.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
134 Comments
The UN can't go in unless they're invited. That proves it: The UN are vampires.
Useless, pointless, spineless, child-abusing vampires.
Thank you for speaking up and shedding some light and truth on a situation I am sure many people (like myself) are not informed about. We need more of this!
Their hearts bleed for the right reason but it's a shame that Clooney & Co. fail to grasp (or admit, maybe) the real cause of the horrors in Darfur. It's hard not to conclude that their intention is not to solve the problem, only to feel good about themselves that they're "doing something" by "raising awareness."
No disrespect intended, because this is terrible. However, Iraq had made a outward lurch to overthrow a neighboring sovereign state, it exported terrorism, and during the mandated UN no fly zone timeframe shot at our planes. Iraq had to go for national security reasons. I don't know that Darfur rates the saem. I can find lots of other places in the world where the local governments are worthy of getting their clock cleaned, but many of them do not concern us.
Of course anyone in hollywood who wants to save darfur and not iraq isn't worth talking to. They are just stupid. And dangerous. Of course my experience is that most of the beautiful people don't have much for brains, and what they have is absent common sense.
So the reactionary lefties are actually saying. "SAVE DARFUR, JUST DON'T LET MY HANDS GET DIRTY!!!"
When it comes to taking the right path, liberals, especially Hollywood liberals, prefer to avoid making the right decisions and supporting them. Why? Because the right path is always too hard. It requires work and there are people who will hate you for doing it.
Hollywood liberals live in a cocoon where they need eveybody to like them..at least the people THEY think are important enough to like them. People in 'flyover country' , Christians, small-business owners, etc, are NOT as 'important' as UN officials, oil sheiks, French 'intellectuals' and Democrat politicians. If a UN official can get you invited to a 'summit' in Geneva, or grease the skids so you can adopt a kid in China, Chad, etc, then you don't get them upset with you by holding their hypocrisy and willful blindness to account.
If you hadn’t spent all your time and moral capital opposing George W. Bush’s war of liberation in Iraq, we might be done there by now, <i/>
I wish this were true but I don't think it is; Bush always made it clear that the only time military interventions would be used would be when US interests were at stake. What US interests are there in the Sudan other than humanitarian? I'm okay with humanitarian military interventions, but that's not US policy, for good reason.
Rusty! Thank you so much for the synopsis. I really didn't realize how clearly, and directly the Muslims are responsible for this atrocity.
Just horrible.
And, I will store up that last sentence in my heart for many years to come: "If you hadn’t spent all your time and moral capital opposing George W. Bush’s war of liberation in Iraq, we might be done there by now, and we could get on with the business of actually saving Darfur."
So very, sadly true.
Can you imagine how different these five years in Iraq would have been if we had ALL been in the cheering section for our troops' efforts? Reveling in the progress and giving honor to the heroic efforts? I just finished reading Lt. Col. Ollie North's book, "Heroes"… and dang if he didn't paint some wonderful, beautiful, powerful, amazing, honorable, tear-jerking, selfless stories of our military folks. Just common, every-day Americans, laying their lives on the line to achieve victory and success in Iraq. All the while, George Clooney and his comrades were sniping and carping and sneering and scoffing and mocking and…
Daily, I await the arrival of the New Hollywood… the movie-making industrial complex that is populated by decent Americans. Until then… I'll ignore the Hollywood product, or gag my way through it.
Blessings to all you at Big Hollywood, who are fighting for the renewal.
So, Mr. Humphries, is your solution to Darfur for us to go in and occupy the country?
I don't disagree with the history you present for the region (although ethnicity–Arab vs. African is more the issue than muslim vs. muslim), but with our forces involved in occupations in two countries, we don't have the firepower to do it alone. Yeah, the "we must be invited in" policy of the U.N. is ridiculous, and the rules of engagement U.N. forces usually aide by make them pretty much useless, but I don't see the U.S. being able to pull this off on our own. We need to use all our influence at the U.N. and whatever the African organization is (don't remember the acronym) to get them to change their policies, intercede quickly and forcefully. More importantly, they need a plan to rebuild the nation and then get out when the situation is stabilized.
It's nice to blame liberals for the difficulties in rebuilding Iraq, but by all accounts the Bush Administration was never prepared for the occupation, and made many, many mistakes that exacerbated the situation there after the war, and it took years of criticism before the Bush Administration changed course. While it's nice to say the struggle there is over, I think it's going to be a couple more years before we know how Iraq is going to turn out.
There's a lot of terrorism experts that believe that the next front in the war on terror will be in Africa. I would imagine a solid case could be made that the government in the Sudan would have no problem harboring terrorists since it already sheltered UBL. The Ethiopians have been aggressive in fighting radical Islam on it's border with Eritrea. Kenya is definitely leaning toward fundamentalism as well. In theory, there is a pretty good reason for the US to be mightily concerned about what's going on and not just from the humanitarian point of view. If they'll do anything about it probably depends on poll numbers.
I would also guess that the second that saving Darfur becomes about preventing terrorism, it will instantly fall out of favor with hollywood. .
Liberals want us to rush into Darfur (but without killing anyone and ensuring that we are 'sensitive' ) but fail to recognize who is truly responsible for the conditions there, and what we might have to do to resolve the crisis…and it just might come to 'offending' the culprits. You can stick your troops to act as a buffer between the victims and the thugs,(But if you are shot at, you should be allowed not only to shoot back, but to make damn sure there won't be anyone left to keep shooting at you.) This is the liberals' view of conducting war. Ironically, it is similar to the 'trench warfare' of WWI, where you place troops in a hole, have them avoid bullets and shells, and every once in a while go 'over the top' and sacrifice them in a foolish charge to reach the other side's hole.
"A couple more years"…c'mon, it's been over two hundred years and we're still working on knowing how America is going to turn out. The plan for Iraq was never to be taken as written in stone. Most with any experience or knowledge of military know "the plan" changes and continues to change as soon as we hit the ground. The left used that fact to paint the picture they wanted to paint. No Administration is ever fully prepared for the occupation of another country, indeed they cannot be for there are too many unseen factors at play. Firepower isn't always the answer though often it is a necessary ingredient, and I daresay the United States is fully capable on our own, or we would be if we tossed political correctness aside. It would be great if every freedom loving people rose up and took action in Darfur whether they be liberal or conservative, there are some things worth fighting for now matter one's left or right leanings. All Administrations make mistakes, using those mistakes to fuel an agenda makes for great political fodder but like pontificating Hollywood it does absolutely nothing for the very real situations that exist in Darfur and elsewhere.
A devestatingly insightful post Rusty. It echo's the experience an extended family member has shared during her twenty-year+ career doing missionary work for christian charities. She too has been to Sudan, as well as half a dozen South and Central American locale's. Such missionary work has for years been derrided by a domestic and world media obsessed with promoting the UN and secular NGO's like the World Health Org as the only qualified participants to despense relief and political change. What gets the focus when conservative Presidents like Reagan & both Bush I & II despense american foreign aid? That funding is tied to anti-abortion rather than abortion as birth control. How many peope (unless they have family also) or belong to a congregation directly involved knows of this? Or that lunminaries like Jeffery Sach's have christian 'competetion' when it comes to saving the world?
The US is not going to get the UN to change its policies, for the reasons mentioned in the post. Russia and China have oil interests in Sudan, and the ability to veto any change in policy at the UN. Which is of course another similarity to Iraq. Russia and others had oil interests in Iraq and blocked UN action. Yet the Left will claim that it was the US that was motivated by oil, rather than Russia and China.
Also, Sojourner seems to have this delusion that when a nation (or nations) intervenes somewhere, it's possible to have some rebuilding plan and exit strategy totally worked out in advance. Although the US didn't adapt quicky enough in Iraq, it did get things under control a lot faster than most counter-insurgencies, historically speaking. But the notion that anyone could intervene in Darfur without having to deal with unforeseen circumstances, tactics of the enemy, etc., suggests a faith in the power of government planning that is not borne out historically, particularly in war.
Your blind pessimism Sojourner is amazing. You should read Rusty's article again. Focus on: "If George W. Bush had listened to Clooney or Obama and left Iraq precipitously…."
The "hint" that genocide is understandable or acceptable due to the REAL issue being African V Muslim etc is just plain wrong. And who cares where OUR troops are – another point is WHERE IS THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY? I'll tell you – frozen in its tracks by China and Russia – typical left – bash America because that's safe – but don't say a word about Communism or Sharia/Radical Islam.
Liberty is the issue, not some twisted drawn out explanation of "ethnicity–Arab vs. African is more the issue than muslim vs. muslim" – so would you use the same argument as an excuse using Founding Fathers of America and the brought in slaves as a justification for allowing slavery to continue?
You my friend are no more the wise than your Hollywood Brethren and their inability to know the true issues regarding Good vs Evil. That is the truth.
i.e Reid, Pelosi, Obama – "The war is lost – a surge won't help – we should not be there – Bush's war for oil" The blatant contridictions are amazing.
Last FYI – It was China that forced the "UN by Invite" policy because of their desire to get the oil in the Sudan….
The communists are profiting from Islamic terrorism? That can't be! George Clooney said George W. Bush was the world's biggest "gangster". Do you dare state that he is lying?
Just one additional point. There was an author who chronicled his similar experiences in a little noticed pre-9/11 expose – Michael Maren – The Road to Hell: The Ravaging Effects of Foreign Aid and International Charity – I highly recommend it. I got it primarily because I was sick of Bill Clinton trying to evoke white guilt every time he lectured Americans about not sufficiently ponying up UN dues back in the day. It's an unflinching review of exactly what Clooney & shrill cassandra's like Mia Farrow either cannot or will not acknowledge – that there are no easy answers. Or how the politics of 'world peace' are subsumed by the despotic military regimes that tyrannize their populations; like Mugabe – once a beacon of hope who evolved into a murderous thug.
I find it quite interesting how "leftists" here in our own country always pick on groups that won't really fight back or give them any trouble. They have no problem selecting a "cause celebre" that really requires no personal courage, like "Save Darfur". It's so convenient to whine about something going on half a world away whilst having no factual information about it. These people simply select the approved bumper stickers and the correct causes for their Facebook page to "fit in". I've challenged liberal neighbors to do more (gently, of course) and they don't even get the idea that there is more to do, beyond the bumper sticker, the t-shirt, and the Facebook proclamations. One neighbor said he wouldn't mind paying more taxes if he felt the money would "go to help" social problems. But when I stated I had been donating thousands of dollars to charity for years, rather than waiting for the government to take my money, he became silent. I guess if he's taxed, he can "feel good" but he can't quite bring himself to find the initiative to donate privately.
The closest I've come to actually experiencing what's going on there is interviewing "Lost Boys" and Catholic Relief Services workers for articles. Man, the stories they can tell you will make your hair stand on end.
I don't think I have any delusions. Of course situations change and the unexpected happens and plans have to change. But the Bush Administration went into Iraq assuming that it would cost $2 billion, the Iraqis would throw flowers at the feet of our soldiers, and the testimony of many of our own generals and Administration officials was that there was no planning at all as to how the occupation would be handled. Reportedly, Rumsfeld didn't even want to hear talks of planning for contingencies. There was also no set of criteria established to say, "here's what needs to happen for us to leave." That was forced on the Bush Administration by its critics, the liberal. That's not delusion, that's recorded fact.
Would you agree with me that in any military or military engagement, you have to have a base plan to start out with? If we were to go into Darfur, there must be, in advance, an idea of what Darfur should look like when we leave. We can't just wing it and hope for the best.
You are right about the U.N. As long as the Security Council exists, the U.N. is going to be useless in any military intervention. (There–I said it! Okay?)
But the Organization of African States (I think I have that name right) or some other African coalition must be involved so opponents can't claim its an invasion of Western powers or Christian powers, or whatever the 'Qaida and other terrorist groups use to recruit.
Poor Africa, a failed continent embroiled in poverty and violence. Muslim invasion has left this once abundant place a wasteland.
Europe, next at bat.
They'll try to tell you it was European colonialism that ruined Africa.
Actually, if George W. had listened to Clooney and Obama, we never would have gone into Iraq. We would have focused on Pakistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran instead of toothless Iraq (which actually gave Al 'Quaida a chance to get a foothold in the country.)
My point about our forces being constrained is simple reality. We don't have the troops necessary to occupy a region that has been in chaos for 30 years. That's not an indictment of our troops, it's a statement that we can't do it alone. Do I think that China and Russia are more altruistic than the U.S? Certainly not.
I'm sorry, though–where did I say that genocide is acceptable? As for being understandable, Mr. Humphries laid out the history of Darfur, not I. What I disagree with is his apparent conclusion that it's because the Islamic Arab is Islamic that the genocide is going on. After all, it's Muslims killing Muslims, not Muslims killing infidels for jihad. It's because of the oil and greed and ages-old tension between Arabs and Africans in the region.
I walked with Simon Deng (former child slave under Islamdom)a couple of years back when he was attempting to bring this Durfur situation to light; there was NO George Clooney around because that idiot with a pretty face was doing what only Leftist women can do…go after easy target like GWB or Christians.
Kingdom Hollywood is so full of crap I can smell it's stench all the way here in Manhattan.
Why do audiences continue showing up to watch? Do Americans really need to be so entertained every moment of their lives that they would be willing fund a bunch of evil narcissists who adore and worship dictators, mass-murders, head-choppers, kleptocrats, plutocrats and Che.
What is wrong with America that we cannot forgo even a few moments of entertainment in order to preserve a just and moral society.
What the hell is wrong with us???????
How did we become a nation of great people reduced to worshiping idiotic celebrity idols?????
Sick…..the lot of us!
"Liberty is the issue, not some twisted drawn out explanation of "ethnicity–Arab vs. African is more the issue than muslim vs. muslim"
I think liberals and conservatives can agree with that. The genocide in Darfur needs to be ended regardless of cause.
But it was Mr. Humphries who laid out the history and drew a conclusion about the cause (and the lessons learned from Iraq) that I'm taking issue with.
"so would you use the same argument as an excuse using Founding Fathers of America and the brought in slaves as a justification for allowing slavery to continue?"
How did you get, in anything I posted, that I wanted the genocide to continue or was excusing it in some way?
"I don't think I have any delusions."
There's your problem right there.
"Of course situations change and the unexpected happens and plans have to change"
"…by all accounts the Bush Administration was never prepared for the occupation, and made many, many mistakes that exacerbated the situation there after the war, and it took years of criticism before the Bush Administration changed course."
Cognitive dissonate much?
Oh yes, it's always European colonialism that ruined Africa and somehow it's also all America's fault even though we never were a colonial power.
The same people that are so fired up about saving Darfur are the same people that thought nothing of letting hundreds of thousands be slaughtered in Iraq by their calls of surrender over the last few years.
How liberals like Clooney square their circle by saying that freeing 25 million people from the genocidal terrorist dictator like Saddam was the worst foreign policy decision made in modern history but then go on to call for intervention in Darfur is typical liberal hypocrisy.
The UN is useless and has accomplished very little outside of delivering aid during crisis. But even this comes at a price of the rape of women and children by the UN "peace keepers".
Just like in Rwanda, Bosnia,and Iraq.The UN has shown to be nothing more than a paper tiger that is more concerned with how much money it's members can swindle than it is in stopping tyrants and ushering in Freedom.
Liberals were okay with bombing villages and killing civilians without UN approval in Bosnia just like they are okay now with rendition,enhanced interrogation techniques,NSA wiretapping,using states secrets to hide information,indefinite detention of detainees. All this was considered war crimes under Bush but is given a great big pass now that Obama is doing it.
NOT A SINGLE PROTEST FROM CODE PINK,ANSWER,OR MOVE ON.
Nothing of any significance will be done in Darfur going the liberal route of wanting the UN to solve the problem.
Here is one reason why.We need the Chinese badly which was very apparent after Hillary's suck up tour to the country that would Veto in the UN (along with Russia) any actions taken against the government of Sudan.
Hillary Clinton: Chinese human rights secondary to economic survival
Hillary Clinton has told China that the US considers human rights concerns secondary to economic survival.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/ch...
She said she would continue to press China on issues such as human rights and Tibet, but added: "Our pressing on those issues can't interfere on the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis."
Mr Obama's campaign pledges to protect American jobs from competition from low-wage economies and to force China to revalue its currency were received badly in Beijing.
Jim McGregor, who runs the JL McGregor research company in Beijing and used to head the American Chamber of Commerce in China, said that where US leaders once came to Beijing to hand out lectures, now they came to "kiss up".
"The power relationship between the United States and China has shifted greatly over the last ten years and dramatically over the last three months," he said. "America needs China badly right now."
But keep on giving speeches and waving the peace sign,it has accomplished so much so far.
Of course there is one place where the genocide and slaughter has stopped…….IRAQ.
——————————————————————————————————————————-
Staying away from Iraq for a mintue, my position would be that not one US life be given up to "solve" Darfur so that Clooney can feel good about himself. There is tragedy all around the world, much of it caused by that Religion of Peace, Islam. Can there be a better example of their world view than Darfur? Why is it that the USA seems compelled to intervene at every juncture?
My position would be to say to the UN-develop a plan I can live with or I will pull the USA out of the UN. If the UN can't take a stand against this kind of mass murder, than what good can come of supporting them with one dime of US money?
To my way of thinking, as bad as it is, this is NOT our problem. Let Europe or Africa do some heavy lifing for a change.
Perhaps a better way to have said everything I did would be this way:
"Until the left or anyone affiliated with the left has a better idea to TRULY fight evil or an example of success from those ideas that works – just shush."
Even FRD had to command the picking up of guns and the sacrafice of American Hero's to abolish evil.
Making sure Iraqi Oil/Energy remained in the hands of Iraqis (as opposed to Iran and its malevolent proxies) was and continues to be a humanitarian interest. The UN Oil for Food scandal however…
The UN is an absolute joke, Rusty is spot on in his critique above and in relation to his point about permission to enter Sudan, the UN is also undecided as to what constitutes a genocide if a nation commits it upon its own citizens. The UN a forum for dictators, tyrants and thugs has been debating this the last decade – if their incompetency and hypocrisy as champions for the oppressed isn't enough to alarm libtards like Clooney and Penn then we really shouldn't be surprised by the collective ignorance that belies their activism.
Kumbaya diplomacy will not force Sudan's hand, especially when its merciless leaders feed a steady flow of energy to China which also holds a major veto. Yes China the nation Obama needs to continually please in order to fund his decadent spending spree, and the thousands of reckless earmarks that make up his pseudo stimulus programs here. Celebutards have no idea what they're up against with regards to Sudan.. if they do then they must recognize all they can really achieve is awareness at most.
Real change, real difference won't occur without boots on the ground and jets screaming above. Obama is a pussycat, there's little to no chance he will challenge any issue which will cost him political points at home – it took him close to a year to agree to an interview on Fox for goodness sake moreover tyrants and despots the world over know what a coward he is.
N. O'Brain,
I don't even understand your post. There's a difference between having a plan that's somewhat flexible and plans for contingencies, and rushing in with no plan at all, which is what the Bush Administration did.
The UN is, of course, a joke.
On April 8, 2004, UN employees enjoyed a nice Spring afternoon walk-around their sprawling campus on the East River, to think about their inaction in Rwanda 10 years earlier and pledge to never let this happen again.
All the while it was happening right then in Darfur.
During the photo-op, Undersecretary-General Catherine Bertini rang the Japanese peace bell in front of the headquarters, and about 500 U.N. staffers observed a minute of silence.
The Undersecretary was left to do this as the Secretary found some measure of good taste and did not attend, as he was head of U.N. peacekeeping at the time the slaughter took place.
He did return to do nothing in any African country, but progress was made in humiliating the US for not joining the International Criminal Court. The one where they will only try a world leader AFTER they have left office. This leaves open all democratically elected leaders but protects dictator and thugs, as they are not elected (in anything but a nominal sense) and never relinquish power.
Well, that was the question I was asking. Does Mr. Humphries (and you) think the solution is to take over and occupy Darfur as we did Iraq, or is he suggesting something else? Unilateral or with a coalition of the willing, or with some other international organization? That's the part he, in my opinion, didn't make clear.
But Hermie, what will the "Arab Street" think about the U.S. if we enter Darfur and don't adhere to their "rules of engagement". That means that all Muslims, regardless of whether they fire weapons at G.I.'s are noncombatants, and considered innocents if injured by American response. Why would we squander the good will that our election of Obama has engendered among the Arab world? Isn't the fundamental role of American foreign policy to insure that we are well liked in the world? On the positive side, the U.S. media could once again explore why the Muslims hate us (and why we love and envy them), and what we can do about it. Opportunities would abound to remind the U.S. population that Islam is a religion of tolerance. By the way, where is the anti-israel cadre on this posting? Certainly someone can blame the "Zionist Occupation Government" for the genocide in Darfur.
The UN is a useless charade. Time to get out and save our money and soldier's lives.
Which is why Zimbabwe changed from the 'breadbasket of Africa' to a starving, bankrupt, corruption-riddled country, after they finally got rid of those 'colonialists' . Of course, some who applauded Mugabe's actions or remained slient, were members of the OAU, Muslim leaders and sympathizers .(Or just plain fools like Jimmy Carter, who continued to 'bless' Mugabe's electoral 'wins', until it was just too obvious to see the truth.). Nobody cared about the white farmers who were born and raised there and who were just as much Zimbabwe citizens as the thugs who took over the farms. It was removing the 'colonialists' that was the excuse.
Um, most of the mass killings in Iraq occurred while we were still supporting their invasion of Iran, and right after the Gulf War I, when the Kurds rose up and we didn't support them. By the time of Gulf War II, Saddam was pretty much toothless, and was terrorizing and killing off his subjects the slow way. (And before you say it, I'm not justifying anything about the Saddam regime. ) There were much better targets in the "War on Terror" than Iraq. Once we invaded, we opened up the floodgates for the killings that were to follow. I think it's an open question as to whether we made the situation better or worse in the short run.
As for the "Islamic vs. Infidels" question, it wouldn't be the first time Islamists reclassified each other to justify their slaughter. But that's a means to an end, and not the reason for the slaughter. Again, not about justifying or explaining the slaughter away.
Clooney wants so badly to be taken seriously as something more than a mediocre actor it's pathetic. And to think, the president of the U.S. takes this clown seriously. Darfur is screwed for the duration.
"I don't even understand your post."
Quelle suprise!
"…and rushing in with no plan at all, which is what the Bush Administration did."
And you know this….how?
Clooney, like all lefties, is motivated by two things 1) Guilt. He has made a fortune that he does'nt deserve,
abd he is aware of that, and 2)humanism. It's his religion as well, and like all secularists they think it is their moral duty to advance issues and dictate outcomes. I wouldn't give a rat's rear end about this ordinarily- let them flap their jaws and feel self-important. What I don't want is the US military turned into a meals-on-wheels program for the third world- as in Somalia (Blackhawk Down, anyone?) no good deed goes unpunished…
Unfortunately the US will never go to war in Africa in the near future. It would be portrayed as the Evil White Empire killing poor African Blacks.
Amen! They aren't getting rich on my dime! I quit going to the movies long ago – I have been renting old, old movies and enjoying them immensely.
Cloonney is very silly cute man, he does not have to think. Clooney wants to feel good.
Testimony before Congress, interviews with military and civilian officials involved throughout the past eight years.
Good Point,
The international community does need to step up.America is a little busy stopping the modern day Caliphate the jihadist are hell bent on.
This is one reason why nothing of any significance will be done in Darfur.Nobody else but the US will send in troops or a strong use of force that would be needed to stop the genocide.
If Obama did decide to send in troops to Darfur,would the same liberals that yelled "no blood for oil" take the streets and yell the same thing about Obama going into an oil rich nation that had not attacked us.
NO. Liberals only yell "war is not the answer" when a Republican is in charge.
Nothing from the code pink crowd watching Obama bomb villages and kill civilians in Afghanistan/Pakistan.
Europeans and the UN sat by and watched Russia invade Georgia.
Who did the people from Georgia call for to stop Russia, America.
Where have the Taliban made their comeback in Afghanistan, where the NATO troops were.
The NATO countries have also told Obama not to expect any more troops from them for Afghanistan.
Just like the American Soldier and Iraqi Soldier had to go take Basra back from Sadr because the British had made a deal of capitulation to the Mahdi Army, solidifying the premise that their is no backbone to fight tyranny
from the international community.
History and the facts on the ground show that going through the UN for any decisive action is a waste of time.
Why is this unfortunate?
Just asking.
Okay, I have a question … while we all agree that the situation in Darfur is awful. But just what special talents, skills, or insight does George Clooney bring to this situation that he's been entrusted by the President of the United States to explore the region?
Oh, he was Batman. Sorry, I forgot!
the liberals/hollywood are wimps…they are the ones that promote the worst in nations. they inspire misplaced emotional garbage that helps no one. the conservatives (in particular) the christians have been and continue to be the real warriors against evil.
liberals do not have the stomach to make the tough/unpopular choices that must be made to liberate the oppressed. they do not understand the world…but how could they, covered in guilt by their own indulgences.
Clooney is trying to build a foundational image for a political career. "Senator Clooney" or "President Clooney." He couldn't care less about Darfur, it's all about the image.
So right, Jim. Someday soon we'll be shipping relief supplies to starving Europe.
When that happens, I'm planning to join Ragnar Danneskjold's pirate organization. Yo ho ho.
It is unfortunate in that if America doesn't do it it will not be done. If we stand back and let things like this take place because we do not have some sort of tangible interest in the region, how long before the entire world is made up of our enemies. We will have no allies, Hell we have none now, show me a country that could really help in a conflict, the entire world will consist of our enemies and those who will not trust us to help. And that is why it is unfortunate. The world needs and will have a leader, I believe it should be the USA.
Exactly. Also, More Alternate Fuel Sources like Wind Turbines, Just Not in my Backyard in Cape Cod.
what is obama going to do with the news george clooney brings back? is george clooney part of obama's foreign policy team? i would be interested to know the ideas and solutions mr. clooney will offer. most americans are weary of hollywood and the UN. they are of little consequence and many times used as a tool by the enemy of the people.
Un fortunately, there is copious documentation of the prewar planning, complete with a 45-month timeline. Some of their assumptions turned out to be completely wrong. But there were plenty of plans. A
nd this is exactly my point. Folks like Sojourner seem to think that when engaging in some enormous undertaking, geniuses in government (or at the top of a large business, etc.) will have a good plan that accounts for all contingencies, etc. But the history of the Cold War should teach us that central planning ultimately fails. The history of pretty much every war is one of chaos, plans gone awry, etc. The side that wins is the side that ultimately adapts better. Fortunately, the US military is one of the best large institutions in the world at adaptation in the midst of chaos. Consequently, the US was able to mount a successful counter-insurgency in 5 years, instead of the average 7-10 years seen in other wars of insurgency.
The only reason the libs in Sodom & Gomorrah (aka Hollyweird) were/are against what we did for Iraq is because a Republican president put us there! If BHO had been the one leading the charge(which we all know he would NEVER DO) you can bet your last penny (which is all most of us have left these days!) they would have been all for it. These "actors" are as phoney as the roles they play in movies and tv. Not sure why they think their opinions matter to us. If anything it turns people off. I know I go to a lot less movies these days because I refuse to contribute in anyway to putting money in their pockets!
The left can never, ever support effective action against the slaughter in Darfur. It would mean they favor neoconservatism (spreading freedom and democracy with force), or, at the very least, it would put them in the uncomfortable position of taking on Muslims that are murdering Christians.
Thank you so much for writing about the true threat of this ongoing atrocity. It amazes me, and I know it shouldn't, that there has been no acknowledgment in the media that this has direct implications to the US war on terror. Not to play into one of Clooney's movies, but this is truly a perfect storm of concern to US interests.
I don't expect any country to help the US and I think that this is simply an acknowledgement of reality. No one helps the big boy on the block. Being a leader does not mean that we have to police every murder, right every wrong. Are you suggesting that everytime the Euros wring their hands but do nothing, we have to sacrifice our children and grandchildren?
Sorry, I am OK if you want to go fight in Darfur and anywhere else for that matter. As for me, I am not for commting anymore lives to help people who are being slaughtered while their fellow africans sit idly by. This is a Muslim/Euro/Afrrican issue. Let them sort it out.
No thanks. Hey, we could use a little attention to our own security problems in the USA. The Mexican drug cartels are here and they are threatening OUR lives.
As the big moca puts more troops in Afghanastan, the part of peace (dems) will not say a word. He is there guy, War is only bad if the other guys is for it.
Would Bush have gone to Darfur? Maybe not. Probably not. It's true enough that we can't (and probably shouldn't) save the world.
Would Iraq be "done" if the hand-wringers hadn't been spent all of their moral capital opposing Bush and Iraq? Maybe… or at least more done by now than it is, which is pretty close to something called "done." I'd like someone to point to a reconstruction or even just a birth of a nation that took less than a decade in the history of the world.
Raising awareness on this is such a selfless act, isn't it?
At this rate, the only way there will be peace in Darfur is when all available victims are dead or expatriated, and regrettably that day is coming. Wonder if Clooney will take credit?
Raising awareness, where was he when Bush was trying to get the U.N. and the world do do something about what was going on in Darfur. Oh thats right he couldn't help Bush because Bush is evil and can't be seen as doing anything just in the world. Thats why we criticize, because to him and his ilk everything has to be viewed through political goggles.
I get the impression that everyone was surprised by just how quickly Iraq fell. It was practically instant, when it comes down to that. A couple weeks?
It wasn't just the Administration… do you recall the lead up to the Iraq invasion? All that was on the news was how we were going to deal with the psychological effects of a protracted hot-war. They weren't so much as touching on "what happens next" because "next" wasn't expected to happen so fast.
That doesn't mean there wasn't a plan.
My impression of "the plan" (just going by the news and stuff) was that the "plan" was to try as hard as possible to avoid the appearance of an occupation. It was TRUE after all, that we didn't want to occupy, didn't want to rule, didn't want the country of Iraq for us, we did NOT want their oil.
Maybe this would never have worked in any case, and it certainly didn't work. But it didn't help much that the "loyal" opposition insisted on portraying us as occupiers, Iraq's rulers as "puppets" (a word Kerry actually used in a public statement in 2004), and how it was all about us wanting their oil. Blood for Oil… whatever.
Gotta love the "loyal" opposition. They couldn't say "of course we're not interested in occupation – send more troops" or "of course this has nothing to do with oil – send more troops" or "we support the efforts of the legitimate government of Iraq – send more troops." No. The "send more troops" was just about taking the opposite of whatever Bush decided, because as soon as he *did* decide to send more troops, as soon as Bush "changed course," all the "loyal" opposition changed their tune as well. Now more troops was a bad idea, the "surge" couldn't and wasn't working… one person who insisted that was the case, insisted as late as last summer that the surge *didn't* work, is now President.
No what I'm saying is that everytime the Euros wring their hands of something that we end up footing the bill with our children and grandchildren to fix it. (Name a war in the last century we started) The current situation in the middle east can be directly linked to the Brits and French not fulfilling their agreements with the Arabs for their help in the world wars. What I'm trying to say is that we need to take charge and let the world know that these atrocities will not be tolerated, and from that we can gain allies that will provide help. The old way of doing our job and then sitting back and letting the rest of the world screw up what we've done should be over. We need to take the lead and make things happen that benefit us as a nation and the world as a whole. If that requires us to be Colonial then so be it. Make no mistake though, we as a nation will sacrifice our children over and over until we take the lead and make others do the right thing.
IF we act in Darfur, anything other than decisive military action and occupation is immoral, IMO. Unilateral, if necessary (and this has some very "up" sides to it) or in concert with the forces of other countries. Never mind the UN… they aren't even in play in this.
The problem, for me, and the reason I think we probably ought to just let the people kill each other there until they get tired of it or have no one else left to kill (hey, call me Ghandi, that's what he suggested for Jews in Germany) no matter how entirely horrific that is, is because for all the cries to "do something" in Darfur… just like the cries to "do something" in Burma… what people want isn't decisive military action… it's fairy dust. They want tinker-bell to fly over and sprinkle fairy dust on the problem and make it go away.
They want something "done"… but not by the US, because we're bullies. They want something "done" but not by the US because we'd be accused of wanting their Oil. Again. They want something "done" but not by the US, because war never solved anything.
Doing *something* makes the fairy-dust believers feel better, but it doesn't stop any hardship, it doesn't stop any death. The killing goes on, just as long as it would have done. The difference is that people have an out, they have a way to deny that they are responsible for the death… because they were *doing* something. And when the people killing get tired of it or run out of people to kill, the fairy-dust believers claim they stopped the slaughter.
It's a fundamental dishonesty.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti...
Which you will see was written before the DPAA and which is also three years ago. Also if you are interested you will see that Bush in 2005 allowed the situation in Darfur to be sent to the International Criminal Court by not vetoing the UN resolution allowing possible war crimes charges. If you go back and look a little harder you will see that Bush had sent Colin Powell then Bush's Secretary of State to study and report back on the situation as far back as 2004. So if Clooney had been around that long why hadn't he made appointment to speak with Bush like he has with Obama, that's what I'm shedding light on.
You don't know that.
He likely cares a great deal about Darfur and wants to do what he can to stop the slaughter there. Maybe he can convince Obama to do something.
Not that I think anyone involved will do the *right* thing, but there hasn't been an anti-war Democratic president yet who was slow about sending our troops to far away places.
Good posting. Enough said.
well, the slaughter hasn't completely gone away. Christians in the north (I think that's where it is) are being slaughtered. But you are certainly correct. Wholesale slaughter and torture and rape rooms and, and, and, have stopped. They recent held relatively peaceful democratic elections. Girls are going to school now and learning to read. It's better there since Saddam's fall. (Funny, I nearly typed Obama's fall. Freudian?)
I don't buy Clooney's act. I worked with a guy a few years back who knew Clooney through working with his dad and went on to work for one of the tabloid shows. He said when Clooney was trying to get a name in Hollywood he'd beg them to feature him on the show. But once Clooney hit it big on E.R. he was real quick to bite the hand that fed him. Clooney was the first one to jump on the blame-the-paparazzi bandwagon after Princess Di was killed — which is when I first heard some vitriol against Clooney from my co-worker. Maybe Clooney cares about Darfur. But past experience tells me that Clooney uses what's in front of him for his own benefit. If the media is a convenient outlet for him– he'll use it. If it's gets him more attention to bash it– then he'll do that. If a sudden interest in Darfur gains him leverage for a future political career– then down that road he'll go.
If Clooney and his friends want to fly to Darfur, I am all for it.
But if he wants my kids to go fight, ah, NO.
"ACTing!"
Perhaps George should focus on the EU and the African Union. Seems this is more their issue than ours?
And slaughtering Muslims.
How to explain this? Maybe if the Big Moca asks the Muslims really nice, they will stop:?
Remember all the Hollywood Hoopla about "apartheid" and South Africa? The special songs, the concerts, the ongoing lectures during televised publicity appearances?
Well, apartheid was brought to an end by these methods and with these results: those farmers and ranchers in South Africa who were and are not Black were hacked to death, their property burned and ruined, their generations of lives lived in Africa amidst a lot of hard work to create productive properties utterly denigrated if not ruined — and Hollywood was not interested or concerned and still isn't, while the locals in South Africa, having ruined productive farms and ranches and the lives of others have since returned to their lives in shacks with little to no employment after they ruined most of the productive possibilities and circumstances once there.
Hollywood "gets involved" with causes that benefit Hollywood and actors are always acting as long as photos, still or live, are being taken. Everyone else outside Hollywood doesn't talk the walk, they walk it. Take away "the publicity" factor and problems in our world, as to Hollywood's attention, go unaddressed.
It is very sad for me to read some of this, but very gratifying to read other parts. I wonder how humanity and nations will be judged for how we "treat the least of our brethern," yet I have little confidence that nations or blocks of nations would be ever so effective as Churches, individuals, and private groups will be in solving this very real, very shameful crisis.
You are right. They want something done, but not if they have to do it. Do you remember the wringing of hands in Europe over what was to be done about Serbia and Bosnia? France was in a particular dither about it. Please USA, Do SOMETHING! Which we did in leading UN forces to quell the violence. Now that was a conflict that we REALLY had not nexis to be in.
Wow.. that's a stretch. Clooney famously said 'the United States doesn't fight and win wars anymore', and Barry was an obscure Illinois state senator (who spent very little time there) and took a politically very easy vote to please his looney left Hyde Park base… neither were logical decisions based on geopolitical strategy, but typical liberal anti-war (as long as it's in the US' security interests) rant…
Also Bruce we have been sitting back and watching for over 50 years while the Africans slaughter themselves and revel in clan genocide. They aren't getting better they are getting worse as the technology of warfare makes it easier and simpler for them to kill each other.
Tough straight hard hitting article Rusty.The Great Sensitive's in Hollyweird haven't got the onion's to face it head on,it's not in their script. The truth of a real reality a reality that they pretend to love and embrace is to much for them to absorb,believe me! I've met enough of them to know. Again a fine article. God Bless You Brother.
I don't know what is in the Darfur films, but I doubt that they scream at the people actually doing the killing in Darfur they way they criticize us the people of the United States.
All I'm saying is 'Shut up, Sean Penn!'
Really good pieceBaxter, but I checked up on one of your points a long time ago for an argument I was having with someone. Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon for instance opposed the Bosnia effort, and Code Pink, Answer and Move.On weren't around yet. But as far as Democrats and a lot of liberals you're right on. Anyone who is against Iraq and for intervening in Darfur is a hypocrite.
Just a guess but Sojourner would have been screaming like a banshee at the Allies being stuck in the French boccage country.
Hind-sight it always better.
I thought that the fundamental change in policy that led to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a distinct turning away from the policy that had us supporting Saddam against Iran… the old favoring of stability by supporting tyrants who could be persuaded to oppose who we wanted opposed, while ignoring what those tyrants were doing to their own people. This is something that George Bush pretty much put a stop to. I hope we don't start doing it again.
Bush the First made a huge mistake bowing to international pressure not to follow Saddam back to Baghdad and remove him from power in 1991. (Though he may have actually agreed with that, as far as I know.) The failure to support the Kurds and the Shia who rose up against Saddam is an extreme moral failing and should be considered a national shame. Not only did Saddam terrorize his own people for those 10 years that followed, the situation in Iraq was a rally cry to Islamist extremists. Containing Saddam and subjecting the people of Iraq to that additional decade of oppression really didn't do *us* any good, as the US was accused of the murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children during those years, or even each year, because we were trying to enforce the UN approved sanctions. While Saddam built palaces and acted like a bully to save face before his own people, played chicken with the weapons inspectors and tried to get everyone to believe that any minute now he'd have a nuke, just to be absolutely certain no one thought for a moment he'd been *beaten*… the death of those Iraqi children was cited by Bin Laden as one of the (many) reasons for the attacks on 9-11.
There's no way to say what would have happened *instead* had the US followed through in 1991. Maybe the reconstruction then would have been disastrous. But the sanctions were *not* working, no matter what anyone insists today, and the entire situation needed to be resolved. It really did.
I just don't want someone to send my kids and then NOT let them fight.
It's immoral, IMO, to commit military to anything without doing so in the interest of decisive action. This is also why I oppose any assignment of US troops to UN command. It's not that the military can't do the sorts of non-military tasks they have in Iraq and Afghanistan… they can. And often well. But that if the military is necessary at all, then the *military* is necessary and must have leave to undertake military operations. Not just defend themselves, but take the battle to the enemy.
If not? Then leave them home. Anything else is unacceptable.
Clooney, like the UN, gets caught up in the excitement of rallying behind a cause. But Clooney and the others, like the UN, don't have the cajones to say and do what really needs to be done to fix a problem and give people in Darfur a chance at a decent life. Instead, they'll spend their time criticizing people (e.g. President Bush) for doing what they never have the courage to do. Where was Clooney's outrage when people were being slaughtered and mistreated in Iraq and Afghanistan?
http://the100mostannoyingthings.blogspot.com/
I find it interesting that you state that their Save Darfur signs are on their Prius'. I wonder what bumper stickers they have on their Bentleys?
Who needs Hillary when we have Clooney !
Based on his article it is Muslims killing Infidels i.e "Black Muslims in Darfur had the nerve to question their Arab Muslim brothers, they were declared kuffar – ingrates and rejecters."
Perhaps they should try to nail down meaning and purpose in the Qur'an before they begins killing.
<a href=”http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Ar…” target=”_blank”>http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Ar…
So regardless of reason (my point to you're desire to explain away or justify the killings) our being in Iraq or staying in Iraq has stopped the same type of killing – you refuse to accept that.
…there's a drive to deep left field…it's going…gong…gone! Right freakin' on, ma brother! All this useless wimp-ass hand ringing by the Left… is done by the same people who drive around with WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER bumper stickers. A real, effective opposition to to this evil, and the Left harangues you for fomenting a useless war. The selective morality of these doofs has always cracked me up. And 'd laugh …if it wasn't so sad. I've traveled a lot through out Africa and my heart is heavy for the suffering of these people. The U.N. needs a massive Viagra injection. It's completely impotent. If I were CIC, no governement perpetrating such attrocities would be safe from my smackdown, 'invited in' or not.
As I read about the plastic bottle all I could think about was how self obsessed we are in this country where everyone on the left is worried about drinking out of the plastic water bottles and how toxic they are and here's this little kid that has nothing…He wants to play with the bottle…It put it all in perspective for me…
The real reason the UN will not do anything is because they do not believe what is taking place is genocide :
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/01/31/su... If they declare it genocide they must, by charter,intervene (convention on genocide articles 1 thru 5). A member country can invite them in (article 8)… Bashir is unlikely to declare what he is doing genocide. Bush, however, on numerous occasions has said that he believes it is genocide.
"Save Darfur " bumper stickers will soon replace all the "Save Tibet" ones and boy what a successful campaign. Now if they were really serious they would get Dick Cheney involved or George W. Too bad they did not start the Iraq war campaign w/ "Save Iraq" stickers on hollywood cars, maybe our country would be united and B Hussein would still be a minority senator sweating about reelection.
Colanial rule was the last time any infrastructure was built in these countries. It's been steady decline since then. All the roads, railways and buildings they have the colonials to thank, but somehow they blame Europeans for everything wrong.
What I find most frustrating about the Clooney clowns jumping on the bandwagon is that no one in Hollywood seemed to give half a cent when it was muslims killing black Christians, now that it's muslims they suddenly care? Now if they want to come out and say "our bad, we really were oblivious and just didn't know, we're sorry" then fine, so be it, but I really suspect there is something much more insidious here in Hollywood, the reality that they are fine with Christians being slaughtered.
That last sentence hit the nail on the head. Precisely because there is no national interest or security concern there makes it irresistible. IF we don't go, we look bad. If we were to drum up a valid reason, then it would no longer be a human rights crusade and we would be "selfish" and "imperialist". In the end, we look bad.
The downside is a Somalia redux. We get popped on the nose, realize it's foolish and leave, and in the end we look bad.
Oh, wait, it's win-win for them any way we go.
That makes perfect sense. And frankly, if we did send troops to Darfur, the first time a soldier got a hangnail, the liberals would be all over it. "Get our troops out now!" Since there's oil there too, it would only add *ahem* fuel to the fire. That's no reason not to pull a Charlie Wilson in Darfur though. We still have weapons and ways to move them. Let those in Darfur fight for themselves. If Iran and Saudi Arabia are supplying the bad guys, why can't we supply the good guys? Then, when the good guys win, we go in and build their infrastructure, instead of hightailing it out of there like we did with Afghanistan the first time around.
I think we in the west have a fundamental lack of understanding of Africa. Not just politically, but socially and historically as well. This fundamental lack of understanding leaves us to believe two great falsehoods. 1) That WE can "Fix" the problems in Africa and 2) That the problems of Africa are even fixable.
Years ago I read an excellent essay by an African (now in the US) named Kim du Toit. Its not very positive or upbeat, but it is based on REAL experience living and fighting in Africa and comes from the perspective of a native African, not the academic musings of some western intellectual. Its titled Let Africa Sink.
Nice double post action…….wtf?
Africa has been a hell hole LONG before that schizophrenic child molester penned his little screed.
The real problem is tribalism. Until Africans throw off the chains of tribalism (like Europe did before the Renaissance) Africa is gonna suck. Islam compounds the problem as its heavily tribalistic (and nutty death cult to boot).
Nothing The West can do is going to solve Africa's problems … they're going to have to do it themselves.
I suspect the underlying problem is that Africa is actually where Eden was … and man was cast out of Eden so frankly nobody is going to be allowed to have an easy go of things there (but that's just my little theory … I'm not going to argue the theological implications here).
Correct, I don't know it. I probably should have prefaced my comment with, "In my opinion." That said, I believe my opinion to be an accurate assessment of Clooney.
Wow Rusty, that was a powerful article. If George W. had sent troops into Darfur, George Clooney would have declared that George W. was commiting genocide.
"You can't beat your enemy anymore through wars; instead you create an entire generation of people seeking revenge. These days it only matters who's in charge. Right now that's us—for a while at least. Our opponents are going to resort to car bombs and suicide attacks because they have no other way to win…. I believe (Rumsfeld) thinks this is a war that can be won, but there is no such thing anymore. We can't beat anyone anymore"
…George Clooney on Iraq
Why would anyone think he'd be right about how to handle Darfur?
Nathan
Short Answer – Because we need the Saudi's to sell us their oil because we won't drill any of it here ourselves.
So long as the American people are not willing to fund an adequate military, we cannot continue to fight wars of liberation, and must limit ourselves to wars where there is a common belief that American interests are involved. Whether we should intervene for humanitarian reasons is a political matter. Whether we can actually do so is a simple practical matter. The former asks "is there a humanitarian need so great that we must intervene?" The latter asks "since we've decided to go in, do we have sufficient troops and supplies, and is there a reasonable chance of victory?" In Darfur, the answer to the former is probably "yes." The answer to the latter is definitely "no."
The same people who have denigrated America, its troops and its wartime strategy now expect us to do the impossible. After telling us we can't win one war, how the hell do they expect us to win three? If Hollywood twits are going to determine which wars we should fight, let them do the fighting. Send in Brad Pitt with his Myrmidons and his Greek sword and spear from "Troy." Send in Angelina Jolie with a few throwing stars. Send in Sean Penn with his fists of fury (to beat up the local women). Send in Obama to talk them to death. Come to think of it, this might work. And if it doesn't work, we get to blame them this time.
My final [serious] question is, "if you Hollywood types don't think we should be the policeman of the world, why aren't you lobbying the Eurotrash you hang out with?" I think the mass murder and slavery in Sudan must be ended. But since Hollywooders don't believe in American intervention, let them go and convince England, France, Germany and Spain to intervene. Or have the UN write another threatening resolution.
Sojourner,
I have a simple question for you. Take the US back to 2002 when the decision was made to back to Iraq and finish what was started. HW got is in their at the request of the "d" near everyone else in the world in Gulf I. Instead of removing Sadaam we listened to these other countries and left him in power. Bin Laden got kicked out ot Suadi Arabia becuase he protested us being on their holy soil. We then proceeded to bomb that country "d" near every day of the Clinton Administration becuase of Sadaam violating no fly zones and playing games with the inspectors. MEanwhile Muslims see the US too cowardly to go in and take Sadaam out but brave enough to blow up schools with cruise missiles so they join up with Bin Laden. And Sadaam is still playing games.
Soujourner the question is thisI
I'd like to know what other option there was but to go back in and finish this. Seriously what was the answer. Becasue Sojourner if you say nothing then it would mean we would spend the next 100 years enforcing a no fly zone over Iraq blowing up schools and hospitals that happened to serve as SAM RADAR sites. That is an answer I reject. I say there was no other choice at all. I say if Gore had one he would have done it. Especially since the war plan in place was developed by the Clinton Admiistration.
The United Nothings are a bunch of third world countries that can never resolve anything. The Korean "CONFLICT" for example, not a war. They are trying to tell what is still for now the greatest nation (I hope not another Roman Empire for a while) how to do things and the IDIOTS running things here are answering their beckoning call on their knees because they are worried about world image. Where is John Bolten now we REALLY need him? Here is a man with a spine. I will be really suprised if after the exit from Iraq we will not be in Sudan/Dafur…
Umm??? Ummm…. check out the mass graves in Iraq and when the atrocities occurred. Heard of Halabja? Anfal?
And… in case you haven't noticed the Sunnis began killing Shia because they thought they weren't 'muslim' enough. So… you think that might be happening in the Sudan? I do. Grab a clue and hold on tight. Your (Bush, Palin, neo-con) derangement syndrome is showing.
Soujourner the question is thisI
I'd like to know what other option there was but to go back in and finish this. Seriously what was the answer. Because Sojourner if you say nothing then it would mean we would spend the next 100 years enforcing a no fly zone over Iraq blowing up schools and hospitals that happened to serve as SAM RADAR sites. That is an answer I reject. I say there was no other choice at all. I say if Gore had won he would have done it. Especially since the war plan in place was developed by the Clinton Admiistration.
Excellent article. Too bad our MSM won't depict it the way it is.
"No plan, no matter how perfect, survives first contact with the enemy."
US Army maxim.
Funny old thing, that.
Well said!
We cannot go into the Sudan….ever. "No war for Oil"….the mantra of the left. Let the commies have it all….including Alaska, after all, Putin can see Alaska from his backyard.
Man plans, and God laughs.
I don't have any problem with their slaughtering each other. It seems to be what they do. Am I there father, do I need to go send them to their rooms. Presumably, they will tire of it after awhile. In the meantime, I think we have issues here to deal with. No more American lives lost so that as we are going home, some turd can piss on us for being too something!
Again, I am all for a volunteer effort. If GC wants someone to intervene, I am all for him raising his own army and funding it too. Put your money, where you mouth is.
As for me, I will be sitting this one out. My kids too!
[...] listening to Muslims howling about Palestine when they start howling about the actual genocide in Darfur. Posted by Dan Collins @ 6:56 am | Trackback SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: “TPM Steps in a Steaming [...]
I just get a chuckle out of how a lib thinks you can stop, turn, and maneuver an army like it was a Lamborghini Gallardo. That alone shows lib incompetence. Its like a calving glacier; massive, overwhelming, and damned near impossible to stop; which is like the way you want it if you are depending on it for protection.
As a former troop, I would prefer tac nukes as a shock and awe demonstration, but the National Command Authority didn't poll me before step-off.
Why would ANYONE in their right mind go to Darfur? If Iraq is the model of failure, Darfur would be the model shifted even more negative and with a two place exponent. It makes Yugoslavia post Tito look like a spring day, or any one of several other African continent 'ethnic cleansing', 'tribal conflict', or ANC troop peacekeeping look like a Methodist picnic. (Thought I forgot about the oh so benign ANC (African National Congress) peacekeepers, did you, Sojourner? #1 in the rapine, abuse, extortion hit parade?)
Yugoslavia only behaved when the Bear was near. When the emaciated Bear left, it was the bad old days all over again. I am afraid Iraq might turn out like this. But it is a good try, A for effort place. If it failed as you say, why in the name of PBHO your Most Holy would you want to try it all over again in an even more insane, everybody definitely hates the USA place?
Because it'll be your war, right? Where the most Holy of Presidents for all time gave it his 'ol college try.
Swallow your brain when you were younger? THINK! Have 'ol PBHO get through Iraq and Half a Gas Can, help them be the best they can be, draw down the troops from there when it works out, and He'll get his legacy shining in the sunlight from his ass. Screw the pooch, and he owns it for all time, like Jimmy Carter and Desert One. I would have shot myself in the head for sending troops to die like that. Instead, he thinks he's a glory soaked legacy leader. I would be laughing myself silly if it wasn't so pathetic.
Unfortunately history has proven that radicals and fanatics never "tire" of killing or of imposing their will upon others. That is what the anti war forces said about Hitler, Stalin, etc. Add in Radical Islam and recent news shows that they hate anything western and America in particular. In time they will come to us, in droves and when they have enough people in place then Chicago becomes Beirut, Palestine, Gaza…etc.
Respect for intellectual honest you may have but youve also provided one of the most simplicstic explanations of Darfur that i have come across. If you read someone like Dewaal (someone who has studied the history of the country) you'll find that to simply term he conflict as being between Arab Muslim and black Darfurians is a crass stereotype. The history of Darfur is one of the result of colonolalism, famine and a growing Islamist influence. Don't tar the entire muslim population of Darfur by the act of some of its citizens. No rock concerts don't save the world but they keep the attention on Darfur and that is equally as important. and as for american intervention would it not be better to support the UNAMID troops out there, how with the defecit that america has would you propose that you pay for intervention?
DOes intellectually honesty get forsaken for political ideals, in your case sadly I think so.
HollyWood left cares not of the suffering, unless a camera is rolling.
Why would ANYONE in their right mind go to Darfur? If Iraq is the model of failure, Darfur would be the model shifted even more negative and with a two place exponent. It makes Yugoslavia post Tito look like a spring day, or any one of several other African continent 'ethnic cleansing', 'tribal conflict', or ANC troop peacekeeping look like a Methodist picnic. (Thought I forgot about the oh so benign ANC (African National Congress) peacekeepers, did you, Sojourner? #1 in the rapine, abuse, extortion hit parade?) They may be ogres, but at least they're smart enough to stay out of that insanity.
Yugoslavia only behaved when the Bear was near. When the emaciated Bear left, it was the bad old days all over again. I am afraid Iraq might turn out like this. But it is a good try, A for effort place. If it failed as you say, why in the name of PBHO your Most Holy would you want to try it all over again in an even more insane, everybody definitely hates the USA place?
Because it'll be your war, right? Where the most Holy of Presidents for all time gave it his 'ol college try.
Swallow your brain when you were younger? THINK! Have 'ol PBHO get through Iraq and Half a Gas Can, help them be the best they can be, draw down the troops from there when it works out, and He'll get his legacy shining in the sunlight from his ass. Screw the pooch, and he owns it for all time, like Jimmy Carter and Desert One. I would have shot myself in the head for sending troops to die like that. Instead, he thinks he's a glory soaked legacy leader. I would be laughing myself silly if it wasn't so pathetic.
Rusty, Thank you for so brilliantly telling this extremely sad story. Heaven knows we cannot count on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC and the other left leaning media outlets for any reliable information. I'm glad you referenced this article on your show for all of us to read. If I were you, I would mail this article via registered letter to George Clooney, Angelina Jolie, Bono, and all the rest of them. Maybe the truth will open their eyes. Also, try to get an interview on any of the shows that would be interested in getting this information out to more people. Maybe Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, or Greta Van Susteren would be willing to have you on so that more us can be better informed on this horrific situation. I would not have known this level of detail had it not been for your article. Good work, Rusty. Thank you. Mary
I suggest " progressive radio", go to these people they have a huge audience, radio free america would be my choice the are so highly respected with a great bunch of listeners, and a large bank of advertisers that would help out the cause.
To what end is all this directed?
the clue is in your sentance, its hollywood, the camera is key to its very existence – and at least it has you all talking so i guess its working
[...] March 7, 2009 · No Comments Rusty Humphries of conservative entertainment blog Big Hollywood climbs on his high horse to bash George Clooney, spout off about Darfur and praise war-mongering politics in his post What Hollywood Gets Wrong About Darfur. [...]
My comment is a bit long, so I made it a post on my blog — http://adamtree.wordpress.com/2009/03/07/what-big...
Thank you for informing us. You are right, we must take action in Darfur instead of just endorsing the action. What is occurring in Darfur is sickening. In WWII we didn’t help the Jews in the concentration camps from the Germans until after we were attack and we are doing anything in Darfur. What are we waiting for? We shouldn’t be waiting until someone attacks us, the United States is the most powerful country in the world, and we should be taking advantage of our title. We should be helping to make peace, because no other country is helping these innocent people from death. It is a shame that the U.N. wil not do anything to stop the genocide. It is understandable that action hasn’t taken place because we are too busy fighting terrorism. Yet there are more people dieing in durfur than there is because of terrorism. We have ignorantly let five years pass by. Enough is enough. We have to help stop crimes against humanity in Darfur.
How about if YOU go and I will stay. I am tired fighting other peoples wars.
Most of what he say's about Darfur is accurate; however, we did not go into Iraq to free the people, we went in to control the area so WE can extract the oil. The reason why America, or the United Nations isn't in Darfur is because the region and its people hold no economic value-we don't NEED anything from them, nor will we get anything for helping them. It's not about the money to the people who care though, it's about morality…we have a moral obligation to help people that are being murdered. So Rusty, instead of complaining about what George Clooney and Hollywood ISN'T doing, why don't you write things that will inspire and educate people as to what THEY CAN do, since you're broadcast on 260+ radio stations.
You must be logged in to post a comment.