Darfur, the DLC, Missing Blondes, No More War, and Rush Limbaugh...

[Totally Committed]

As one gets closer and closer to the end of life, it gets tougher and tougher not to see everything that happens in that life as a lesson. When you are younger, there are other things that occupy the part of your brain that notice these lessons: kids, a half dozen loads of laundry, what to fix for dinner, that proposal you need to write for work, paying the bills. All those things clog up the "Life Lesson" lobe of the brain. Maybe that's why some people get "wiser" as they get older -- they can afford to pay attention more to the wisdom that the Universe sends their way as the kids move on, etc.

I got a huge life lesson yesterday, and I'd like to share it with all of you. I'll say that I'm sharing it, if for no other reason than to let you know that I got it. I got it bigtime. Anyway, here it is: No good deed goes unpunished. Or, in this instance, no good intention expressed goes uncriticized, and that is putting it mildly.

I don't know what each of you, individually, knows about Darfur. But, the short story of Darfur is this: What is going on there is hideous. Horrendous. Monstrous. Simply, as human beings, our hearts should be broken for the suffering, degradation, and death that happens there every day. World leaders know what's happening there. And yet, sadly, few have the slightest compunction to think about stepping in to help. Yesterday, I posted news that I felt would finally be accepted with open hearts here. Usually, a positive thread about Wes Clark brings out the flamers and the detractors, but this time I felt, surely, everyone would be relieved (pleased, even) that someone like Wes was calling for direct action to stop the suffering of these people. So, I posted the news:

NPR "Morning Edition": Wes Clark on the On-Going Tragedy in Dafur
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2025864&mesg_id=2025864

My friends, what I woke this morning to find has saddened me beyond belief. As I left to go to bed last night, one of the usual anti-Wes-ers had shown up and was doing his usual thing. I bantered with him for a while, but then gave up. I felt that, surely, most would read the wonderful post and appreciate what was there in spite of the posts by this one detractor. That thread devolved into something we should all be ashamed of. The vile and disgusting things that are posted on that thread shame me as a human being. They should shame each and every person who reads them, and doubly, those who posted them.

That thread is a wake-up call for what we, as human beings are becoming. People are dying, and yet we argue about the "the geopolitical implications of using NATO..." to go in and help. Those of you who are parents, and posted in opposition to Wes's plan on that thread just because it is Wes's plan, let me ask you to consider this: If it were your children suffering and dying in Darfur would you give a flying fig whose plan it was that saved them? Or would you sit there and piss and moan about "geopolitical implications", "virtual empires", "Pan-African relations", what books have to say about the situation, and finally, just fall into into the garbage pail of half-truths and innuendo that some here spout about Wes Clark to talk about depleted uranium, the School of the Americas, and all the other trash spouted every time a thread is started with his name in the title. It's all just so much mental masturbation, a virtual pissing contest, and over what -- exactly???? Where the hell are our priorities these days? What if these were your own sweet, beloved children dying? What did you, who posted that shit, just tuck your own kids in, sit down at the computer and forget that each and every person in Darfur that is dying is someone's child, mother, brother, sister or father? Where the hell are your hearts? When the hell did taking Wes Clark down a peg become more important than saving living, breathing, human beings?

Are we smug, arrogant, intellectual, heartless assholes the other side sees us as, or are we the compassionate, loving, generous, giving and unprejudiced human beings we know most Democrats to be? It's time to back up, take a deep breath, and decide who we are. All the wonderful "make love, not war" feel-good Camp Casey feelings going on here is just a bunch of bullshit if we oppose the war, but sit back and argue about personalities while genocide rages on.

That's my opinion, anyway. I really did think a plan to end genocide was something we could all agree on, and posted that news in good faith expecting hope and love to pour forth in this time where little hope and not a lot of love was coming our way. I was wrong. It was a life lesson. And, yes, I got it. Bigtime.

Think hard before you reply. Your humanity, or lack of it will be showing.

TC

edited for a title that would actually interest most enough to open and read this

[acmejack]

1. What's a little genocide?

When we have the realities of $3 a gallon gasoline to face up to? 20,000 children starve to death each and every day, but do we care. Hell, that would be the equivalent of giving up a cup of coffee a day in order to save them.

Darfur is a crime for which we all bear the horrible responsibility. All of the things you list are indeed crimes which our Country and ultimately we ourselves will someday in the near future be required to answer for. I suggest that all the good Christians should fear their final judgment rather than so eagerly anticipate it.

[gulfcoastliberal]

27. And Bill Clinton Knew about the Rwanadan Genocide...

An he did nothing. He can say he's sorry now, but that doesn't change the fact he did nothing to stop or put an end to it. Do we all also bear the responsibility for Rwanda?

[Totally Committed]

31. Look in front of you NOW...

Look, there is a genocide going on RIGHT NOW. You CAN do something about it RIGHT NOW. Why sit around and blame Clinton for what happened in Rwanda (which, yes, we bear some of the responsibility for, since you asked...)? NOW is NOW. These are our fellow human beings.

If you just sit at your computer finding intellectual arguments against doing something, anything, NOW, how will you live with yourself? Personalities, arguments, intellectualizing... all are more important to you then GENOCIDE? Clinton should have done something then, I agree. But, Wes is trying to do something NOW. You can support that, or you can support genocide. It's that simple.

[Totally Committed]

2. Notice:

Most threads about this subject fall of the page quickly. I will not allow this to happen. I intend to kick this and re-kick the ever-loving bejeezus out of this thread all day long, and into the evening, so as to be sure all who posted on that other thread see it.

I know it's considered bad form to kick one's own thread, but fuck that. I'm doing it, and I feel no shame whatsoever in doing so.

TC

[brokensymmetry]

3. You ain't seen nothing yet.

Presently, we - by and large, with certain exceptions duly noted - enjoy profound abundance. This will change due to peak oil and environmental degradation.

You will then see scores of Darfurs. And they will grow, worsen, and multiply.

And then you will, I think, receive further enlightenment regarding the fundamental nature of humankind.

[Totally Committed]

4. So, does this mean we shouldn't discuss Darfur,

and the personal, spiritual, and human implications of it?

I think not. Scores of Darfurs on the way? Better then, to start now, and eradicate them, one by one.

[brokensymmetry]

6. By all means, discuss them.

As for eradicating them - that simply cannot happen.

Please consider the implications of exponential growth; they guarantee that you will see many more such scenes. Soon, I think.

[Donna Zen]

5. A "thank you" to you too.

I just wrote a "thank you" note to Frenchie, someone who has started many a thread about Darfur, only to see it drop from the page. We have had to deal with so much outrage over the past 4+ years, coming to grips with this one is difficult, but we must make time, because it is necessary.

As for thoughts while doing the laundry and paying the bills, I think you always had time to identify the bullshit no matter your age TC. Really, these times are worse than anything I can remember. And remember, I've been shot at by the US government. But those days were marked by stark contrasts, by a more clear distinction of what the US regimes were up to, as opposed to today's creeping national miasma.

Samantha Powers said that while the US has said over and over again: never again, Kosovo was the only time when we actually stepped up to stop genocide. The far-left is a strange bedfellow for the far-right, but they fall in love anyway when it suits them, even if it is a one-night stand.

I'm off to do the laundry, to make a quick run to the school and do some work, to straighten out my daughters college loans, and to walk through all of those daily chores that cloud our brains, but I will be thinking about your call for sanity. For while I prepare dinner, I know, and we should all know, that at this moment and every moment, there are people who trying to find a way to stay alive for one more day. Those people, the ones we say we care about, will not spend an ounce of their remaining energy ranting about "neoliberalism."

Thank you again.

[Totally Committed]

9. Thanks, Donna...

"The far-left is a strange bedfellow for the far-right, but they fall in love anyway when it suits them, even if it is a one-night stand."

And this Party is all the worse for it.

TC

[FightinNewDem]

7. Damn

With that title, I was hoping for a DU Unified Field Theory, something that explains everything:

"The DLC is kidnapping blonds and sending them to Darfur, where Rush Limbaugh runs a sex slavery ring and sells the women so that he can send the funds to Donald Rumsfeld's secret anti-journalist death squad in Iraq, where they can target Cynthia McKinney and Marks Moulitsas for exposing the fact that the Bush family knew about the Skull and Bones plot to bomb the USS Maine in Havana so that they could capture the lucrative Cuban playing cards market".

[Totally Committed]

8. I am horrible at thread titles.

I just wanted everyone to read this. I will not just let it die this time. The posts on the thread cited in the OP have convinced me that now is the time to call everyone on the carpet, and make them consider this.

Are we human beings or NOT?????????

TC

[FightinNewDem]

12. My apologies

I didn't intend to cheapen the underlying point.

Thank you for pushing this issue to the forefront. I am afraid that it gets overlooked as a result of the prevailing ideological cross-currents. Too many Republicans see no role for humanitarian intervention of any sort, while too many folks on our side of the aisle allow an inherent distaste for potential military action get in the way of a needed response to inhuman activity.

Keep up the good work.

[Totally Committed]

14. No probs...

A moment of levity is always welcomed.

It's the out-and-out bullshit I will not tolerate.

TC

[Donna Zen]

11. Stick around

It will soon be posted with plenty of links from publications with names likes www.playingcardneoliberal_xhavanagenerals. Even then, the text will be a mass of cut/paste weenies.

[jonnyblitz]

10. If Wes Clark is so concerned about human rights

why in HELL does he support the "School of the America's'? that is all I want to know.

[Totally Committed]

13. Here's his statement. Let Wes speak for Wes. He does it best:

Statement of General Wesley Clark on the School of the Americas
(now known as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation)

I strongly condemn human rights abuses of any kind. Throughout my career, I have fought to protect the fundamental rights of all people and to promote democratic values that empower people to prevent abuses of power and combat them when they occur.

It is unacceptable that some who passed through the School of the Americas (now known as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation) committed human rights abuses. Those that did should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law - as should all who commit war crimes or crimes against humanity. In order to prevent such abuses from happening in the future, we must promote a policy of engagement and education with friends and allies in the region.

I strongly support the reforms that have been implemented at WHISC and encourage careful vetting of students. I strongly support oversight measures that ensure that antidemocratic principles are not taught at the school. Thanks to the work of human rights campaigners and others, WHISC is constantly improving the way it teaches the Army's values of respect for human rights, for civil institutions, and for dissent.

http://www.clark04.com/issues/soa/

EDUCATE YOURSELVES BEFORE JUST PARROTING THE BULLSHIT YOU HEAR AND READ FROM THE FAR RIGHT AND THE FAR LEFT.

TC

[Totally Committed]

16. And, furthermore...

WTF does this have to do with what's happening in Darfur?

What you just proved is what I said in my OP: For some, personalities and prejudices are more important than genocide.

Nice.

TC

[Donna Zen]

15. Why does Patrick Leahy oversee it?

Why does Russ Feingold vote to fund it?

And why does the left not keep updated about actual training of "death squads" which is now being by done by PMCs in the "stans," far from the prying eyes of the congress.

BTW, General Clark said that if proof was given that the same sort of training that went on in the 80s is going on today, he would close it immediately. And, of all the current flock of politicians, his is the only knock would be answered at the Pentagon door.

So your thesis is: Do nothing about the people dying in Darfur because Wes Clark is not in a position to close a school that as far congress is concerned is now okay.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

17. Jeebus

What the f*ck does the School of the America's have to do with this thread? WHAT? :spank:

Totally, your point has been proven...some people...never mind...I'd be banned for life from DU if I said what I'm thinking.

It seems evolution is a fairy tale...we are instead de-voluting...mindless wonders.

[Totally Committed]

22. I feel your pain.

What DOES it have to do with this thread, indeed.

TC

[understandinglife]

61. QED.

You are truly courageous and actually very patient. We all have to constrain what we slam onto the keyboard, at times. You have done it remarkably beyond all reasonable limits.


Peace.

[RandomUser]

90. Thank you for proving Totally Committed's point.

When attacking Wes Clark is more important than people dying in Darfur, something is wrong.

[welshTerrier2]

18. short-terms, long-terms, and American imperialism - no blondes

we spend a lot of time on DU talking about political things like how to "frame" what our values are ... we are political wordsmiths ... if we get the phrasing just so, we will become a force to be reckoned with ... but, if at our core, we can't see the unconscionable devastation in Darfur and we fail to set finding a way to help as our highest priority, i see little value to fighting for political victory ... if at our core, we cannot hear the tortured cries from those who suffer the most on an unimaginable scale, our mission is truly rudderless ...

we have failed for far too long to build the necessary global institutions to address the kind of inhumanity going on in Darfur ... and so, the institutional remedies available today MAY be far from an ideal we might envision ... perhaps there is merit in raising concerns about imperialism and oil ... perhaps these will ultimately be the price to paid ... perhaps it is wise to "go in with our eyes wide open" ... perhaps increased vigilance is called for ... but THIS CANNOT EXCUSE OUR FAILURE TO ACT NOW ... the short-term considerations easily trump any of those concerns ... it is UNCONSCIONABLE to allow death, needless death, to occur on this scale ... even if the worst fears of American imperialism were to be realized, the international community must respond NOW ... there is no choice here ...

as to the long-term, Americans need to be educated about doing a better job empowering and funding the UN ... neither the US acting unilaterally, nor NATO, is the ideal structure to provide aid to Darfur ... NOT the IDEAL structure ... unfortunately, today, we have no time to build the IDEAL structure ... we must act NOW ... but we also need to commit ourselves to teaching Americans that a true "community of nations", empowered both with humanitarian expertise and military force when necessary, is the best way to address catastrophes on the scale of Darfur ... geo-political concerns in no way should deter us from acting immediately but they are very real concerns nonetheless ... we should never have to find ourselves in this position again ... oil and power are the imperialists' aphrodisiacs making the confluence of factors in Darfur a cauldron of evil ...

today, there is no future to worry about in Darfur; there is only the present ... but this too shall pass one fine day and we may find another country, or worse yet another continent, under the abusive, imperialist hands of American empire ... we may see the rape of the African environment ... we might see slavery on a continent-wide scale ... and then we will bemoan the reality that the "darkest continent" will truly have earned its name ...

we need to act NOW but we should do so with vigilance over our suspect institutions ...

[Donna Zen]

19. Excellent thesis:

we need to act NOW but we should do so with vigilance over our suspect institutions ...

so let us not talk falsely now; the hour is getting late.

Yes, we do need better and more trustworthy institutions, and while I hate to add this, your post just begs me to: "...have you been reading Clark? That is what he has been saying for years."

[welshTerrier2]

20. nope, haven't been reading Clark ...

i'm afraid to say i'm a loose cannon, Donna ...

hmmmmm ... maybe Clark's been reading my stuff ... nahhhhhhh ...

[Supersedeas]

23. continued awareness through threads like this one

Thanks for the wake up call.

[cbear70]

21. Thank you

I admit I was not completely aware. Your post made me research this more deeply and take action. Thank you for doing everything you can to help out.

[Mass]

24. Recommended - This story is tragic and way too much ignored

both by the media and many who call themselves liberal.

So thank you for your effort to bring that to light on this forum. I know it is less interesting than other subject, but it is way more important.

[Supersedeas]

118. just to name a few

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

25. Trusting the messenger is important

And I posted what is below on the prior thread, #96, in an effort to respond to some of the doubt that some people seem to have about General Clark as the messenger.

"When Wesley Clark refers to Virtual Empire, he is basically referring to Globalization.

He says over and over and over that what we want to do is to lead by example and persuasion.

His last chapter in "Winning Modern Wars," "Beyond Empire, A New America."

See page 190 in the hardcover edition, where he cites 3 basic concepts that it is time for America to return to. He is contrasting this with the current Administration's pre-emptive foreign policy and its bogus supply side economics.

In very brief summary the 3 principles are:

1. Inclusiveness
2. Working to strengthen and use International Institutions, UN and NATO named specifically.
3. Place in perspective the role of our military in our overall policy. Yes maintain primacy. But force, he says, must be used only as a last resort and then multilaterally.

I recommend the book, and especially that entire chapter. It really does present much of General Clark's vision for a better, more inclusive, equitable, and safer world."

[Donna Zen]

88. I enjoyed the book

...especially the part where he writes about how corrupt the appropriations are for the military budget.

Anyway, Clark included the term "holistic economics" in a post on his blog. I've been meaning to ask him about that, but it is difficult to move the conversation to economics at these political events.

Next week the General will be blogging at TPM, I might try to get the question in then. He recommended a book a while back which I've noted on a different computer or I'd pass on the title. Sorry, I wish I could tell you more.

My best take is that he believes that economic policy must take into account the kind of country we want to live in both socially and economically.

What surprised me, although I don't know why, was how broad in scope his library is. Really.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

92. Yes, he has a good grasp of a wide range of issues

And if I recall correctly he taught economics among other things.

[1932]

26. As John Perkins points out in his book, 24,000 people die every day from

poverty that is caused by the economic policies he promoted as an economic hit man and that are referred to unthreateningly as 'globalization' and thought of as an inevitability and often as a good thing.

It's important to talk about solving the problem of genocide in Darfur, but it's also important to talk about the misery that is caused by American virtual empire that has polarized wealth and INCREASED poverty in the developing world.

Not only is it important to put some kind of force into areas where governments are letting people kill people, but it's important to realize that many countries can't provide the services that would stop this sort of killing because they're spending 50% of every dollar in GDP on financing debt to Western countries. If they could spend that money on education and health care, they'd do more to reduce the 24,000 deaths occurring daily.

It's also important to remember that the way development is financed by the US is to give payoffs to a few wealthy families in the developing world and the rest to very large multinational corporations in construction and engineering contracts that those companies know are mostly designed to make those countries obligated to keep channeling wealth towards the west rather than having it go to their own citiizens. This is often what people are killing each other over in the developing world. People are not only fighting amongst themselves to be the chosen enriched families, they are fighting against people, like the indigenous tribes in Ecuador who are battling the oil companies, who just want to have control over their own lives and aren't motivated by greed.

It's very important that we think critically about virtual empire and about globalization, because it has caused a great deal of misery. It isn't working. 24,000 deaths every day are caused by the incredible polarization of wealth.

Check out www.JohnPerkins.com.

[Totally Committed]

28. You should be fucking ashamed!

Your post proves what I said in my OP: For some, personalities and prejudices are more important than genocide.

Take your pseudo-intellectual "I read this book, did you?" bullshit and shove the eff off. You can read, but can you feel? You can think, but where's your humanity?

TC

[1932]

30. I'm going to borrow your rhetorical style:

So you care only about the people in Darfur? You don't care about the people in Darfur AND the 24,000 who die every day from economic policies that force developing countries to give half their GDP to western corporations to service loans that enriched the wealthiest and dramatically reduce the amount of money those countries can spend on education and health care for their own, increasingly poor citizens?

Really?

You should be ashamed that in order to promote a single politician you would engage in an argument that criticizes someone for pointing this out.

Globalization is the problem here. It's not the solution, and if you really care about people dying in developing countries, you might want to think more about the implications of virtual empire.

[Totally Committed]

36. You think this is only to promote Wes Clark?

Who the hell are you to presume to know me well enough to say that? For your information, I would support and "promote" any Democrat who tried to help this situation, because I am one of the many who have been lobbying a NUMBER of people to do something about this for MONTHS.

I would have welcomed this plan from anyone. ANYONE. And I wouldn't have sat around bloviating about their politics or their supporters or the books they wrote. Why? Because people are more important to me than the sight of my own words on a message board. I'm not out to impress people with the books I've read or the ideas I got from them or my knowledge of things political. For this subject, I'm not even out to promote Wes Clark. You can believe that or not believe it, because I don't give a fig.

You see this thread and think it is here only to glorify my "candidate". I don't know you well enough to know why you have your particular pathology, or your particular mode of thinking, but your cynicism is withering. You are like this black hole that, when it appears, does not allow any light to escape around it.

People are more important than ideology. Always.

TC

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

43. We need a working definition of "globalization"

in order to have an inkling that we're actually having an exchange of opinions, facts, ideas etc.

On page 180 of "Winning Modern Wars," Wes writes about the 1980's and 1990's when enormous budget deficits were run by our government by foreign governments purchasing our bonds. He says, "In short, American Empire was, to use a contemporary term, virtual. The United States was at the hub of a network of mutual interdependence, sometimes called globalization.""

He has much more to say, this is not a simple issue. He says that the international institutions that we were involved in creating and the network he refers to helped us.

He goes on to say the US was very involved with the UN and nuclear and chemical weapons regulation, as well as regulating the exploitation of the oceans.

And he says, "...The United States had representatives everywhere, ambassadors and delegates and officers detailed for periods of service. And, issue by issue, they worked to pursue and secure US interests.

But the American way was not to rely on coercion and hard pressure but on on persuasion and shared vision. To an unpredented extent, the United States had been benign and magnanimous as a victor in World War II. Sharing international power through the United Nations system, deeply involved in assisting the reconstruction of the German, Japanese, and Korean economies, hosting foreign students and encouraging exchange programs, speaking out against the old colonial empires, receiving immigrants, the United States became an ideal, a model for nations around the world. American beliefs expressed in the Bill of Rights had inspired others around the world. We were palpably uninterested in classical empire ...for two-thirds of a century the United States was regularly viewed as the most admired nation in the world..."

The last is from page 182.

He continues to discuss soft power, the cold war and much more.

At the bottom of page 183, he writes,

"But 2001 marked a profound departure in U.S. foreign policy. Coming to power in a disputed election, the Bush administration acted unambiguously to put a more unilateralist, balance-of-power stamp on US foreign policy..."

He then notes that we were withdrawn from Anti-Ballistic missile treaty, the Kyoto treaty to deal with global warming, 2 way talks with North Korea.

Later he says that all this unilateralism only put at risk what we had gained.

Finally for now, back to the last chapter, page 200 he says "We don't need the New American Empire. Indeed the very idea of classic empire is obsolete."

He refers to "a more collaborative, collegiate American strategy, based on the American values of "tolerance, freedom, and fairness that made this country a beacon of hope in the world..."

[Totally Committed]

47. I have to say, the word "globalization" has a negative connotation

with me, and more than a few others. I wish we could come up with a working definition or a new word or phrase altogether.

If anyone has any good suggestions, I'd love to hear them.

TC

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

48. How about ...

a "network of mutual interdependence?"

Wes's phrase. As I'm sure most of us know, Wesley Clark believes in free AND fair trade and bringing some lost jobs back to the US too.

[welshTerrier2]

32. sorry, TC ... but i disagree ...

the poster you responded to wrote: "It's important to talk about solving the problem of genocide in Darfur, but it's also important to talk about the misery that is caused by American virtual empire that has polarized wealth and INCREASED poverty in the developing world."

i took that to mean that they saw an absolute need to provide immediate relief to the "genocide in Darfur" ... but no matter what the depth of our humanity is, no matter the passion we feel, no matter that some might view it as "intellectualizing", we still must carefully guard, restrict and discipline abuses of the American empire ...

should the poster have only passion for those being slaughtered and have no passion for the 24,000 deaths a day at the hands of the imperialists?

i 100% compliment you on the passion you've displayed with your BP ... Americans need to open their eyes and realize that selfish isolationism is unacceptable ... we can do much more and we need to do much more ...

but i don't see that raising concerns about those who might seek to exploit this suffering for their own greed is cause for saying that someone should be "fucking ashamed" ... the American empire has caused death and suffering for more than 100 years ... to caution vigilance about its excesses, especially where situations like Darfur might be exploited, seems a wise path at all times even if it is an intellectualized path ...

it seems to me the poster you responded to supports the cause you highlighted ...

please understand that i see us as allies in this injustice; my intent is not to criticize but to question ...

[1932]

37. Thank you immensely for that post.

[Totally Committed]

41. It's just all about you, isn't it?

Now the thread is all about you and your thoughts and your ideas and your ideology. Bravo. Now you can keep posting until this becomes a referendum on Wes Clark again, instead of about Darfur.

At some point I hope you are able to ask yourself why you feel the need to do this in every thread that is even tangentially about Wes.

It's shameful.

TC

[1932]

72. To me, it's all about the arguments Jim Wallis, John Perkins, Wes Clark

Joe Stiglitz, Naomi Klein, and others write in their books.

But it's funny that after so many posts by people who disagree with me which attack me personally, the rare time I make a personal comment you jump on me.

If one only read the post criticizing me, one would think that you all have decided it's all about me. But it's not. It's about other people's ideas which I'm trying synthesize and share with DU'ers.

[Totally Committed]

40. The "concerns" raised were from someone who has a "history"

with Clark supporters. My reply to him was in response to his behavior, rather than his "concerns". Had they come from anyone who had even the slightest moral authority with me (Like you, for instance!) I would have discussed them at length gladly.

If you go back to the thread that gave birth to this one, you will see that his concerns were answered over and over and over ad nauseum.

I agree that these concerns should be considered, but also promise you they have been -- many times -- until we are blue in the face. Thank you for all you do to make this board worth reading.

TC

P.S. You still have the cutest icon on DU!

[welshTerrier2]

44. and thank you, TC, for this thread ...

i often feel that many here do indeed become so blinded by the politics that they forget what they're fighting for ...

i see this as the root cause of the problems the Democratic Party has ... there is no room to "nuance and politic" the big issues ... when we learn to be a movement, a cause filled with passion, only then will our candidates be able to push back against the neo-con darkness ...

all other tweaking and scorecard-keeping is just pretend ...

keep up the good work, my friend !! my sweet puppy and I thank you ...

[SeanQ]

42. But WT2, this is another example of someone

writing in a critical tone and bringing in topics, that, while certainly important, are relevant, are not central to the purpose of the thread - letting people know about an effort to put an immediate end to the genocide in Darfur (not all genocide everywhere, forever), and looking for a bit of support.

The tone and semantics, not the information, are often what causes dissent.

I think if the poster had said something like 'Wow that's great, something really needs to be done there, and now! I hope this brings relief to those suffering. ... But keep in mind this is a symptom of a larger problem. See yada yada and consider encouraging (or pressuring if needed) the people you support or work with on this to keep the big picture in mind and stop this type of thing from getting started'

Do you see what I'm saying? I see the cycle TC is struggling with over and over, here and elsewhere. It's a human thing. We frequently agree - we just want others to agree with us first! ;) IMHO, unless you feel you have a genuine _disagreement_ with a topic, *focus* on being supportive. Feel free to mention other things that are tangentially relevant, but don't try to make them the focus ... you can always start a new thread to discuss the importance of fighting against American Imperialism and poverty, and how you feel that is relevant to Darfur, and post a link to that thread here.

I'm not saying TC's reply was appropriate either, BTW. But even I thought 1932's response was a bit negative, and I wasn't the poster, looking for support to end unnecessary suffering. JMHO

[Totally Committed]

46. Thanks, Sean. I appreciate that what you said about my response.

Maybe it wasn't "appropriate", in light of just this thread. But, if you go to the thread I linked to in my OP, you will see that this same poster, was answered and answered and answered about the very stuff he's spamming this thread with again today, until I and a few others felt fed up to the teeth.

I hope you will take that into consideration, along with my apology if my response offended you.

Thanks again.

TC

[SeanQ]

49. I had not scanned your other thread yet, and in light of that,

it makes 1932's continued thread-jacking and tone even less tolerable. While that still doesn't make your reply appropriate either, ;) I do understand your feelings in this situation and certainly accept your apology, with gratitude. As I said, I see this type of exchange with unfortunate frequency, and not just here at DU.

If someone can't take the hint and start their own thread, my only suggestion is to simply try ignoring them. If no one responds, they can't high-jack your topic.

[1932]

78. The OP is explicitly about posts I made yesterday.

How is it thread-jacking for me to respond to new thread in which I'm discussed.

What if my first post in this thread were its own OP and I referred to yesterdays thread in it. Do you think I'd be justified in arguing that the responses to it were thread-jacking?

[Totally Committed]

84. Only you would read the OP and decide

it's all about you. You were referred to in passing, and not even by name.

This thread is about the horror of the genocide in Darfur, and how all the bloviators and pontificators either missed it or were missed the gene that would have granted them the compassion to allow a thread to go by without it degenerating into a war of name-calling, blaming, and so much pissing into the wind.

I was actually hoping you'd prove me wrong about you. I was pulling for you to come back here and actually find the grace to make one heart-felt and compassionate post about how you really feel about the dead and dying of Darfur. But, here you are, still discussing what you've read and the ideas of globalization and the works of everyone from Naomi Klein to Wes Clark. And you do thread-jack all the time. You are actually a master at it. If I ever need thread-jacking lessons, I will definitely ask you for a tutorial.

I will repeat this thought: The other side says we are smug, unfeeling, intellectual assholes. I used to think we were caring, compassionate, and largely unprjudiced human beings. If the two threads I have started about Darfur are any indication, we need to stand up and decide who we are. That's all I can say.

TC

[welshTerrier2]

50. kindred souls ...

i have the greatest appreciation for everyone participating in this thread ... if you heard negative "tone and semantics" in the post in question, you are right to say the post was inappropriate ...

in my own post in this thread, i too raised the importance of two issues; not one ... i'm not sure i see anything wrong with broadening the focus of the BP ... we are essentially discussing the providing of aid to Darfur; it seems to me that looking at the history of "aid giving" and understanding that it has often been exploited to "get a foot in the door" is a very worthy discussion ...

i would provide a strong rebuke to those who thought we should not provide aid because of these concerns ... but i didn't hear that in the poster's "tone and semantics" ... and i certainly didn't hear that in the poster's words ...

in all fairness, and I also read the book the poster referred to, the neo-con controlled American empire is a devastating force for evil ... as i said in my own post, there is no time to delay given the crisis that exists in Darfur ... people are dying TODAY ... but i can't see why raising concerns about the long-term implications or cautioning about the risks of sending in US-controlled NATO would be viewed as inappropriate here ... perhaps i'm just a little slow ... i'm open to all ideas; i just haven't arrived at the same place ...

the greater crime, it seems to me, is a sleeping America and "leadership" and media that fail to bring home the message of this tragedy ... i'm confident that on this, all here agree ...

[FrenchieCat]

51. I agree WelshTerrier that what poster 1932 said

was relevant and made rational sense, but I believe that TC's response to 1932 is based on 1932's focus in the previous thread that TC did on this subject yesterday.

It is here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2025864

and in that thread, it does expose 1932 doing a lot of "it is all so fucked up until I'm not gonna address the issue of Darfur other tan to say that I find the solution "suspect" brought forth by Clark and I'm gonna focus on inpugning Wes Clark as a NeoLiberal based on my interpretation of his book" type debate.

At the time, 1932 admitted that he knew little on the subject of what is actually going on in Darfur, and so this may be why he focused his attention on denigrating Wes Clark's intentions.

This may be why patience is wearing thin. When one feels like the present issue is pressing and urgent and is a matter of life and death, getting sidetracked into defending one of the Democrats who is calling attention to this issue and offering up a doable workable possible solution to the current situation can be disheartening, and could allow someone to question 1932's own motives in participating so actively in the way that he/she did.

It doesn't mean that the debate that 1932 is proposing cannot be had; but it does mean that TC would prefer that we "do" something about Darfur to the best of our abilities as the situation currently stands. Whether it's to write letters to our congresspeople; write letters to media editors; write letters to some of the American companies doing business in Darfur as we speak; or donating to some of the organization that seem to want to do something about the issue of starving refugees....that is the action that we should want to focus on within this thread. That would be a good thing, IMO.

It's like an uninsured mother bringing her dying child to a physician, and instead of the physician examining the child and proposing a remedy, he/she decides that the dicussion to be had with this mother should be on the state of the health insurance situation in this country and how irresponsible she is for not having any insurance.

I suggest that we look at these links, and attempt to do what we can....and if we need the chew gum and walk at the same time, 1932 can certainly start a thread about his "suspicion" of Clark's motives or the larger broader picture of all that is wrong with how Foreign policy and its economic implications are currently putting more people at risk than need be.

http://securingamerica.com/articles/npr/2005-08-22

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3780933#

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3952496

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1786001

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3941986

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3786376#

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3778944

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

52. NeoLiberal has nothing in common with Neo Conservative

except the Neo, which just means new.

It is a pretty meaningless label in and of itself.

[FrenchieCat]

53. But, but, but....

I thought that The arrows in People Magazine pointed to:
OUT ----> NeoCons
IN---->NeoLibs

That is the problem....we all can debate a mean game, but when it's time to do what could really make a difference, some continue to debate.


My above post provides many DU links that in them provide links for information and what one can do. It's called "action".

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

70. Who are we to differ with the arrows in

People magazine?

[1932]

66. Not according to the book The Twilight of Equality.

But I'm getting the impression people don't care what thoughtful people are arguing in smart books.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

71. I think people care...

but if some have read a book and some haven't, it doesn't work out to use terms that are coined and/or redefined in a book without stating the definitons being used etc.

[1932]

75. In that book there's an explanation of the terms.

It says they mean the same thing. The author explains her use of the term neoliberalism (IIRC it's because it captures the central them better: liberalization of markets). I'm not going to reproduce the whole argument, but you're welcome to read it and respond to it.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

91. Sorry, don't have the time to add anything

new to my reading list at the moment.

[welshTerrier2]

54. well, OK: let me offer this OPEN INVITATION to 1932

first, let me say that i read most, not all of TC's thread from yesterday ... i did NOT read posts made by 1932 ... i thought the discussion (blood-bath?) between Tinoire, Frenchie Cat, Donna Zen and one or two others was especially insightful ... i couldn't have been more impressed with the power of the authors and the knowledge and judgment their posts offered ... it helped me sharpen my own thinking and i genuinely thank all who participated ...

anyway, let me request of 1932 to make an additional post in this thread that focusses more narrowly on what you think must be done NOW in Darfur ... let me ask you to clarify whether you would have any hesitation to sending in NATO, the UN or even the US military if those other organizations refused to cooperate ...

perhaps it would be useful, especially since i came away with a belief that we are all in agreement on the core policy, if the other issues you raised could be whittled away so that others don't perceive your thoughts to be a distraction from the themes expressed in the BP ... the goal is not to lessen the importance of other issues you raised but to strengthen and clarify your thoughts about Darfur ...

[Totally Committed]

55. Oh, this oughtta be good...

:popcorn:

TC

[welshTerrier2]

56. fair enough?

what i've heard from those raising criticisms of 1932's first post IN THIS THREAD was that it distracted from the central theme ... we need not waste our time debating such things ...

what i really was hearing was that 1932's position on Darfur was either not clear to some or was unacceptable ...

this is a simple request, and an opportunity, for clarification ...

[Totally Committed]

57. I'm all "ears"...

If there is even an ounce of compassion in him, this would be where it would show.

:popcorn:

TC

[FrenchieCat]

59. Yes, I think that doable solutions

to this issue would be welcomed. And certainly there may be some, but thus far, apart from Harvard and Illinois divesting (of which the impact will be slower than what we kinda of need), I haven't seen any actually occuring. Negotiations have been ongoing; the Sudan government would rather that we not intervene for their political nefarious reason; the current administration is doing business with Darfur and only mounting pressure will make them act (and since we know that with the Bush admin, it would take so much pressure, until it's not even funny), and so Clark advancing the debate in such a forceful way can only be seeing as a good thing.

NATO is the one that acted in KOSOVO, and although Bombing is not what Clark is calling for, he understands that armed peacekeeping intervention is the only thing that the thugs (financed by the Sudanese Government) will understand; a strength greater than their own, unfortunately.


1932?

[understandinglife]

63. Here's some fresh popcorn ... as we await a response ....

:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

I'll check again later ....


Peace.

[1932]

Post 67.

[understandinglife]

76. Post 74.

Peace.

[1932]

73. Post 67.

[Donna Zen]

64. Hey thanks

But really, I was disgraceful.

Terms: neo v neo. Actually, the two neos are different and I've been trying to get a handle on the precise differences. Nevertheless, these absolutest labels that get thrown around without understanding and meaning, contribute to the hostile environment at DU. I cringe when I see the word progressive thrown around--another word that has become bereft of its true meaning.

In the first thread, and even in this one, sending NATO troops morphs into starting a war, but that is not necessarily the case. Someone at MyDD scoffed at the idea that NATO would be "bridging" the gap until AU troops could be made available. Nay-saying is a right, but the naysayer is not always right.

What is right is to make Darfur an issue. We have already waited too long. Most of America would return a blank stare to the mention of Darfur. Our brothers and sisters who are starving there deserved better, we need to demand better of ourselves.

[1932]

67. I've answered that question: someone has to help to stop it.

But if the assistance is the form of extending empire (through NATO or European influence through their involvent) it's going to do nothing to stop the 24,000 deaths a day caused by neoliberal economic exploitation, and will likely cause even more misery.

One thing I really think needs to be done immediately (as I said before) is debt relief so that instead of spending 50% of GDP making interest payments on debt that made US corporations and a few wealthy African families wealthier, African countries can use the money to make people's lives better (to police and educate themselves and to provide opportunites for working people that undermine fascism in Africa).

The fighting in Africa is over which families are going to get immensely rich from neoliberalism, and it's between those families and groups who don't want to see their societies destroyed by the greed of the west and the greed of the very powerful in Africa and other developing countries.

(Even if I hadn't said this already, wouldn't it be obvious?)

[welshTerrier2]

74. well, i'm afraid you lost me with that response

1932, I read "Confessions" quite some time ago ... it's a very important book with a very important message ... in fact, if you want a much more scholarly and thorough treatment of American imperialism, read "Sorrows of Empire" by Chalmers Johnson ...

for those who are interested, you can read a great interview with Mr. Johnson here ==> http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/global/cj_int/cj_int1.html

i don't disagree with a single point you raised about the evils of imperialism ... not one single point ... but, and i say this in the hope of providing constructive advice rather than criticism, this post was an opportunity to bridge the gap, heal some wounds and show some compassion ... you've already made your points about debt relief and imperialism ... you're of course free to say whatever the hell you want to any way you want too ... but it seems to me showing greater compassion for the large-scale tragedy in Darfur seemed in order here ...

and the solution you offer, to digress, probably would not apply here anyway ... i think you've let the impact of "Confessions" color your thinking inappropriately ... what good would "debt relief" do for a government that has "conducted a calculated campaign of slaughter, rape, starvation and displacement"??? ... "Confessions" provided information about US imperialism in countries that had governments that wanted to do the right thing for their people; this is NOT the case in Darfur ... outside intervention and FORCE is clearly needed ...

i urge you to do some additional reading about what's going on in Darfur and perhaps reevaluate the solutions you propose ... and i urge you, because i agree with many of your ideas about imperialism, to quit pissing everyone off and learn to play nicely with the other children ... you'll carry more clout with your thoughts that way ...

[1932]

77. If you read Perkins book all the way to the last page...

...you'll remember that he tells readers there's a list of things they can do -- vote, write their representatives, etc. -- but that when he thought back on American history and about what ended the British Empire, slavery and convinced Americans to battle fascism in WW2, it was ideas. It was that people like Thomas Paine and Jefferson wrote down their arguments about why the British Empire was bad, and those ideas swayed people to set aside their short term material comfort to do what was right for society for the long term.

Perkins says that is why he wrote down his ideas about Empire in his book.

In my own small way, I'm doing the same thing.

I hope that's OK with you.

(And what do you want me to read about Darfur, btw?)

[welshTerrier2]

80. of course it's OK but ...

people, perhaps more than half a million people, are being raped, slaughtered and "disappeared" by their own government ...

in your last post to me, you said that people should "set aside their short term material comfort" ...

to respond in that way in the face of this large scale tragedy is at best, cognitive dissonance ... we're not talking here about having people toss their beloved tea into the harbor ... we are not talking here about corporate exploitation and the involvement of the World Bank ... people are dying at the hands of their own government ... it's genocide ... we cannot sit idly by ... we have to act and we have to act NOW ...

if you want to read more about Darfur, just do a simple Google search ... there are millions of links ... perhaps others can recommend specific readings ...

many changes to our immoral foreign policy are needed; this one is needed TODAY !! show some compassion ...

[1932]

81. I think you misunderstand the context of that statement.

You've read Perkins' book. So you know that he wonders why upper middle class people during the revolution, before the civil war and world war 2 put aside their short term material comfort to fight empire and injustice. He says that there were plenty of lies about how monarchy was the best, most enlightened way to make the majority of people happy. He said that what it took was for people like Paine to argue something else.

So, right now, we may get short term benefits from America's virtual empire. But we all need to think and talk and write about what this empire is creating.

Sudan is not just about a government turning on its people. This is not happening in a vacuum. Apparently, one of the reasons Sudan might have felt comfortable killing its own people is because they might have traded with Bush cooperation in the war on terror for a promise not to send NATO troops in (which Bush wanted to do according to that article). You think that isn't about globalization? Also, that article posted yesterday makes an argument about what's at stake for the various potential participants (NATO vs non-NATO) and guess what? The implications had to do with globalization and empire.

And as I said numerous times, what are they fighting for? Perkins writes about what they're fighting for in Ecuador and in Columbia and elsewhere, and guess what it's about? It's about who's going to get rich when the west comes in with their corporate bribes saddling future generations with the debt that's going to polarize wealth and deprive people of health care, education and other social services. It's about competing greedy people fighting with each other and fighting with anyone else who's more interested in democracy.

We should have sent some kind of force in to Darfur the minute the genocide started, but golbal empire is the reason we didn't, and global empire is playing a part in deciding who will go in and help. Don't you think it's important to talk about that?

[welshTerrier2]

83. yes i do think it's important to talk about that ...

you already did; i already did ...

and none of that will save the lives that will be lost later today and tomorrow and the day after that and so on ...

i hesitate to offer analogies because they are never accurate, but i think you're coming across as talking about global warming (which could put an end to ALL life on the planet) while a child is suffocating inside a discarded refrigerator ... you might even raise important points about our society's rampant materialism and our "throw away" culture such that the discarded refrigerator shouldn't have been there in the first place ... all excellent points but they lack a sensitivity to the immediacy of the tragedy ...

you're making great and important arguments that need to be addressed ... but your failure to acknowledge that the URGENCY of the crisis in Darfur transcends the issues you raise diminishes the effectiveness of the case you're making ...

[arikara]

65. I've read this exchange several times

and I just don't understand the strong reaction. The way I understand it 1932 was discussing the root causes. I don't see anything about personalities mentioned. Maybe I'm tired. At any rate...

:grouphug:

peace

[RandomUser]

89. Just a matter of missing context

Out of context, the exchange does seem strange -- but here's the context: click on the link in the original post of this thread, then look at 1932's statements (and responses to his statements) in the previous thread, then reread the original post ("Darfur, DLC, Missing Blondes") again with this context in mind.

I can tell you that 1932's behavior in that thread is no isolated incident, but a recurring pattern. You'll find him popping up in Clark threads for the fun of bashing him.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

33. The M.O. of the economic hit man was to snare

"third world countries into an indebtedness that would later be guaranteed to overwhelm them, thus leaving their debtors in a position of unreasonable power over them."

This is the other part of my post 96 on the old thread.

This is what struck me in listening to several interviews with the author.

[1932]

38. And the author says we have done this in almost every country in the world

since WW2.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

45. It is disgraceful and just plain wrong.

But it isn't anything at all like what Wes Clark holds as a vision for our world.

[1932]

69. Read Perkins's book and list the countries where he thinks post-WW2

virtual empire has increased misery. He says in almost every country in the world.

Read Winning Modern Wars and list the countries where Clark thinks we have made mistakes. He lists Chile and maybe three others (or maybe he just listed regions without being precise about which countries or specific American involvements he thinks were bad). Not only that Clark, talks about how the US hasn't needed to send armies to project American Empire since WW2 as a GOOD thing.

I may be completely wrong about this -- and I encourage anyone with Winning Modern Wars on their shelf right now to check this out -- but I believe that Clark describes Panama as being a good thing. For Perkins, Panama was a worse projection of American Empire than any other American action since WW2, including Iraq and including Chile. In the book, it's described as the absolute nadir for him personally when he contemplates his role in empire building.

I think there is a huge gap between Perkins's (and Jim Wallis's) interpretation of virtual American Empire since WW2, and that difference is definitely worthy of discussion at DU.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

94. If you can direct us to a specific passage from Winning Modern Wars

some of us might comment on how we interpret it.

Although I don't believe we've yet defined our terms well enough to really have a meaningful discussion.

If you wish to discuss it, make your case.

Otherwise I doubt you'll get many takers.

[1932]

96. Do you have a copy of the book?

Have you read it?

[Texas_Kat]

39. NO, the subject yesterday was genocide in Darfur

Not globalization of economies in the 3rd world.

The subject today is why some posters seem to want to change the subject to suit their own (somewhat obscure) needs. If you want a thread to talk about globalization, feel free to start one. (Note: If you want to think the Sudanese government would stop the killing if only they didn't have a debt to pay off and could hire more gun-toting peace officers, I think you have clearly misunderstood the situation there.)

So far as I can tell, you admitted that it was important to talk about Darfur, then immediately changed the subject.

If you can't do a better job weaving your arguments together toward discussing the topic the OP brought up, we'll just have to consider your post off-topic.

[1932]

79. I doubt any serious commentator on Sudan would say that what is going

on there is NOT about globalization.

Oh, I'm sure a lot of western media would like you to think it's about some tribal conflict that started when someone killed someone else's chicken in a marketplace. But seriously, you think Sudan is not about globalization?

If you think that then it proves that it's important that I post in these threads.

[Texas_Kat]

82. Thank you for denigrating my intelligence.

The conflict in Sudan is not easily encapsulated with catch phrases and buzzwords.

It is cultural, it is economic, it is geopolitical -- but most of all it is deadly.

Debating this or that phrase or definition does not obviate the fact that people are dying in Darfur for want of a (relatively) small force.

Some of us are past talking about issues by trying to define what 'shape the table is' while people die.

It is comfortable for some to wrap life and death situations in rhetoric. It may be uncomfortable to talk about women being raped and children left without parents, but it is reality.

Deal with it, help find a way to stop it, or read another book. The choice is yours.

[phillysuse]

93. What is really going on in Darfur

Some posters have used this thread to attack Wes Clark and
to blame globalization for what is going on in Darfur.

I think that interpretation is wrong.

A better interpretation is that this genocidal war is related to
post colonialism.

In Darfur, an Arab Islamic government based in Khartoum
is killing African Christians and animists.

This is a genocidal war based on differences in race and religion.

Will we sit by and watch millions die?

Or will we listen to someone like Wesley Clark who has saved
1.4 million Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing?

We honor Schindler for saving 1200, yet few of us trt to emulate him. General Clark has given us an opportunity to save lives.

The Talmud instructs us that: He who saves a life saves a world.

[1932]

95. I credited you with the intelligence of a New York Times reporter

The NYT actually claimed that the cause of the Rwanda massacres was a fight over a chicken. It wasn't. It was caused by post-colonialism strategizing, the aim of which is to keep countries unstable so that former colonizers can still control them. In Rwanda, the French put different ethnic groups in charge of different parts of the government so that they'd fight amongst themselves and so the french could continue to pull strings from abroad. The french weren't the only country to do this since the 60s, and it looks like the US is setting up something similar in Iraq.

And, by the way, talking about this truth about Rwanda and about other developing countries is NOT sitting by while people die. It's explaining why people are dying.

[Texas_Kat]

101. Have you heard Richard Holbrooke on the subject of Rwanda?

Perhaps if you do a little research you can discover a bit of history to go with your presuppositions.

[Texas_Kat]

104. Actually it was the Belgians

Look it up.

Google: Hutu Tutsi identities

[1932]

107. Belgians last colonial power. French were screwing country up later:

Yet, the blame cannot be placed entirely on the United States. The French newspaper Le Figar reported that France provided the Hutu-led Rwandan government with arms during their slaughter of the Tutsis (Democrat). The missile that shot down President Juvenal Habyarimana’s plane was also French made (Kiley). The newspaper goes on to charge that France continued dealing with the killers after voting in favor of a United Nations arms embargo (Democrat). France, however, “absolv of any direct complicity in the massacre of as many as 1 million people” (World). A French parliamentary inquiry commission’s report on the genocide in points the finger to the United Nations and the United States. This report also concludes that the “ ‘passivity and inertia’ of the international community” was due to “U.S. timidity following its earlier peacekeeping debacle in Somalia” (World). Rwanda renounced these claims, asserting that France did indeed arm the Hutus and them escape after the killings.

http://members.tripod.com/~Aquabrat/rwanda.html

Also:

Civil warUltimately, a new wave of ethnic tensions were unleashed in 1990. One of the main causes was a slumping economy and food shortages. Throughout the year, the country was subject to bad weather and lessening coffee prices. These problems helped create a dangerous political climate. Further political tension was evident following a call by the French President for increased democracy in Francophone Africa. France, though not traditionally associated with Rwanda, began to show that it would put political pressure on Rwanda if it didn't make concessions to democracy. Many Rwandans heard the call, and began forming a democracy movement which protested during the summer.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/h/hi/history_of_rwanda.htm

[Texas_Kat]

111. Go back further... read a bit about colonial power-brokering in Africa

pre-1940.

[1932]

114. Read my post.

I was talking about what colonial powers do when the pull out in order to create instability so that they can pull strings after they've removed themselves as police powers.

If you don't want to occupy a country with your own military, you make sure you create a nation built on cultural, religious, ethnic divisions. If they can't work together, it's easier to control them from afar.

The Belgians did it in Rwanda (and the French exploited those divisions).

The US is doing this in Iraq (between Sunnis and Shiites).

In any event, it wasn't a fight over a chicken that caused the genocide in Rwanda. And if you want to stop genocide in the future, it'd be useful to talk about the real reasons why these countries are instable.

[TheFarseer]

29. Isn't Sudan also a haven for islamic terrorists?

Why don't we bring peace to that country and detroy the terrorist netowrks there instead of manufacturing a problem in Iraq?

[Pithy Cherub]

34. Everyday, people use mental models to construct

or stabilize their daily life. Most mental models happen automatically and it takes being present in the moment to make connections. You were present in the moment and made a connection. Being first to interrupt others passivity is a timeworn activity that usually is not met with immediate acceptance. Your focus on the connection is the most important because it means you are focused in the moment which is a part of leadership. TC, Your Leadership in pausing and seeking others to be present in the moment is most appreciated.

Thank you! :pals:

[SeanQ]

35. Something needs to be done, yes -

Personally I would rather we were not embroiled in Iraq and that _we_, as a nation, would lead the way in putting a stop to genocide there, and when called for, elsewhere. And for a tiny fraction of the cost we have paid in Iraq.

I would also prefer to see long-term solutions and international policies (however imperfect the first attempts may be) that would make calamities like Darfur less and less common, and eventually unheard of.

However, if in the meantime Clark can get enough momentum to get NATO in there and help put a stop to the genocide ... GREAT!!! We can't solve all the worlds problems at once. A single person can not focus on everything, all at once, all the time and have any success. The sooner people stop dying in Darfur the better! You can always put pressure on banks and countries to release debt of improve aid later - you can't raise the dead!

(spellchecked)

[the phantom shouting]

58. What organization is doing the most to help the people of Dafur?

The only solution I can come up with, seeing as how the UN and the G8 Summit have failed to adequately address this and other pressing world problems, is perhaps a wristband donation program, much like the one that's helped Lance Armstrong's cancer research cause to become so successful. I'm just wondering what organization could make the most use of the money.

Thanks for the thread.

[understandinglife]

60. Welcome to DU. I would like to know the answer, as well. And, TC ...

... I've bookmarked this important thread and intend to share it with many people, not only because of the need to raise awareness regarding Darfur but because we need to address the issues of our humanity that your 'life lesson' exposes.


Peace.

[Totally Committed]

62. I'm honored. Thank you.

Share away! It ain't pretty, though.

Peace to you, too, my friend.

[1932]

68. Bono.

If the problem is as John Perkins argues that debt is using to polarize wealth and force countries into neoliberall servitude to the west, then those who argue for debt relief (Gordon Brown, Jubilee and Bono) are the heroes in this thing.

And notice that they didn't ask working people to foot the bill so that the banks and the corporatocracy still get their pound of flesh.

They've asked you to petition your government to relieve the debt so that it is the people who have made immense amounts of money off the misery of the developing world to let it go so that people don't have to suffer any longer.

[Totally Committed]

85. I said I'd kick this if I had to, so with the help of Cole Porter...

:kick: "I get no kick from champagne... Mere alcohol doesn't thrill me at all, So tell me why should it be true, That I get a kick out of you?" :kick:

TC

[Totally Committed]

86. With a nod to INXS...

:kick:

Sometimes you kick
Sometimes you get kicked
Sometimes you kick
Sometimes you get kicked

Look ahead
But don't mix it up
Baby look ahead
To better days and better ways
Make peace with flesh and blood
Make peace with your love
Nothing more I could ask of you
In the end this is the truth

:kick:

TC

[Totally Committed]

87. Self-Kick

:kick:

TC

[Donna Zen]

97. MSM refuses to air ads about Darfur

snip....

Since the major networks seem to have their hands full covering stories like Natalee Holloway and the Runaway Bride, the ad does what the media won’t — puts the spotlight on Darfur, and suggests that genocide warrants increased coverage.

ABC News broadcast just 18 minutes of Darfur coverage in its nightly newscasts in all of 2004 — “and that turns out to be a credit to Peter Jennings,” as Nicholas Kristof pointed out. NBC News featured 5 minutes, and CBS only had three, “about a minute of coverage for every 100,000 deaths.” Now they won’t allow us to pay for 30 seconds to urge better coverage of the genocide.


Think Progress

The site includes addresses that are part of an action alert.

[welshTerrier2]

99. if you can't beat 'em ...

call me crazy but ...

suppose, just suppose, we could get some network to start a Runaway Bride Travelog series ...

imagine this: Don't miss this week's exciting episode of Runaway Bride ... Today, America's favorite bride travels to the far reaches of Darfur but her wedding plans get all fouled up ... this is truly MUST SEE TV at its finest ... next week's episode: Fouled up in Fallujah ...

nahhhhh, i don't think i could take it if the show actually became a hit ... never mind ...

btw, thanks for posting the link to the action alert ... i'll check it out ...

[kevsand]

98. I've just reread all of both threads

since I've been at work all day and missed the fun. I have to say that I don't care what anyone's motive is. The killing has to stop now.

The AU asked for help back in, what, like April or so? So far nobody anywhere has done anything but hem and haw and talk and jockey for some intangible position. If Bono really wants to help, let him start a militia. (And I'm only half joking about that.)

We need to send in sufficient force to end the killing now. There's already an exit strategy with the advent of AU forces within the year. The only real question is "Who can get there quickest?" NATO is first and foremost a defensive military organization. They could start putting people in by the weekend if they had the authorization.

This is what NATO is best at. Send 'em in now.

[eridani]

100. I'd like some idea of how military intervention in Darfur by NATO--

could actually help. It's one of those things that sounds like a good idea until you start asking how soldiers who know fuckall about the culture and the overall strategic situation could land in the middle of it and wind up doing more good than harm.

Rwanda was a case where there was actually someone on the ground (Canadian General Romeo Dallaire) who knew the local situation, and most important of all, had no dog in the fight (unlike the US, who had trained the Tutsi general who was in the process of invading Rwanda and France, which had diplomatic ties with the Hutu government). Any UN or NATO troops sent there would have had to agree to be under Dallaire's direct command, or they would have been useless.

What we have in Darfur now is basically Cain and Abel redux, the farmers vs. the herdsmen fighting each other over shrinking supplies of water. How does military force solve that one?

[kevsand]

102. What other force is there?

When armed thugs have the tacit approval of the government to routinely visit deadly terror on civilians, what other way is there to stop it? I'm open to suggestion, but it has to be immediately effective. So far, the only recourse that seems to be appropriate is the police concept of "reciprocating force." Just their very presence usually inhibits the most egregious behavior. And anybody who persists gets rounded up. What else could possibly have any impact in the short term?

[eridani]

103. The thugs are unfortunately not all in one place

They are scattered all hither and yon, as are the villages. How do you deal with this?

[kevsand]

106. You do what you can.

You let the military do its job. Maybe it means small units in every village, combined with auxiliary patrols. Maybe it means you hunt down the thugs until they get the message. Mostly it means you let the commanders do what they need to.

You still haven't answered my question. What's the alternative?

[eridani]

108. Arming villagers to defend themselves, for one thing

Farmers are sitting ducks compared to nomads, but some extra firepower might help.

[welshTerrier2]

109. just speculating here ...

how about using whatever force is brought in to control and ration very limited water supplies instead of having people killed competing for them ...

and how about things like distribution of food, medicines, farm supplies ...

the concern I have with this is that the US will exploit any situation it's involved in ... but i just can't see any short-term alternatives here ...

[kevsand]

112. Those all seem like very smart moves,

and should probably all be part of the mix. I'm no military strategist or tactician (nor do I play one on TV), so I'm mostly thinking out loud, as well. NATO is actually pretty good at this, and the UN forces have a lot of experience in similar situations. The AU forces that can be mustered now can take the lead roles, but let's get everyone who can help in there as fast as possible.

[eridani]

113. Excellent idea

Water usage is at the bottom of all this. The ethnic differences are just the froth and the excuse.

A full-blown occupation would be really stupid. Bottom line, unfortunately, is that every potential Euro or US military actor is in the service of the corporate elite who would just as soon privatize all the water and let the poor people kill each other off. If only someone could get military support for policies that don't do that....... A President Kucinich definitely would, but Clark is a 'maybe' here.

[kevsand]

110. That might very well help.

I don't think there's any such thing as a perfect solution, but arming the villagers probably couldn't hurt. But you'll still have to have someone there to give them at least rudimentary training, and not just in the use of the arms. They'll need crash courses in field tactics, and small unit teamwork, and leadership under duress.

And you'll probably still want to have some embedded forces, because you'll want to do everything you can to make sure that the guys guarding one side of the village don't freak and run away when the shots start flying, leaving everyone else's back open.

Plus, I still think you need someone actually chasing the bad guys. Leaving them full freedom of movement is a bad plan, and extremely counter-productive.

I don't think anyone wants to see an occupying force, but I do think you need some pros on the ground, to train the natives, and to help counter the thugs mobility.

[Donna Zen]

105. The eventual proposal calls for AU troops

As it stands now the place is lawless, and ngos cannot go in.

The force structure would include policing details that could allow the refugees to leave the camps, and also provide safety for the ngos.

This is a holding pattern while AU troops are readied.

Eventually, the solution must be political...the armies cannot solve anything. All disputes have identifiable political outcomes.

Right now the only thing that is happening is murder and starvation. Armies can try an stop the murder.

Well, except for Iraq which has a trumped up political solution, and thus, makes it impossible to meet with success. But that's another story.

[preciousdove]

115. Kick for the people of Dafur

[Donna Zen]

116. Thanks preciousdove

How about we all write letters to the bastards at the MSM.

People in the US think that alllllll their money is going to 3rd world countries that lay around all day. That is why the average American just has no clue...that is the bill of goods that is promoted 24/7 by hate radio.

The least that the MSM can do is run the fuckin ads.

In truth, most of the foreign aid is earmarked for weapons.

[Totally Committed]

117. A Postscript:

August 23, 2005
Wesley Clark calls for NATO forces in Darfur

Posted 9:22 am

The United Nations clearly is not making strides in resolving the crisis in Darfur, but there is an institution capable of intervention: NATO. As my friend Eugene Oregon noted, Wesley Clark was on NPR yesterday discussing his proposal for NATO involvement in the region.

Even if the African Union can overcome the political obstacles to strengthening its mandate in Darfur — and that's a very big "if" — it's in no position to get such large numbers of troops on the ground in such a short time. Despite the European Union and NATO assistance, the African Union mission looks set to fall short of its target of 7,700 troops by September.

The UN Security Council, in consultation with the AU, should request and authorize NATO to deploy a multinational "bridging force" to bring the combined force level in Darfur immediately up to 12,000 to 15,000 troops while the African Union prepares and deploys its own forces.

This is not an easy recommendation to make for Darfur, where all multinational organizations have been at pains to keep non-African troops out of Sudan. But the notion that the atrocities in Darfur are solely African problems requiring exclusively African solutions has to be reconsidered. These ongoing offenses are crimes against all humanity. They demand an international response that gives human life priority over diplomatic sensitivities.

Clark, a board member of the International Crisis Group, the former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, and someone who's carried out a peacekeeping mission through the alliance, knows of what he speaks.

The scope of Clark's plan may sound modest, but therein lays the point. Just 12,000 troops, serving in a peacekeeping capacity, can, as Ed Kilgore noted, go a long way towards "stop the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent people."

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/5035.html

[kevsand]

119. This almost makes too much sense.

As some of the comments at Carpetbagger point out, it's too much of a no-brainer for the folks with no brains, i.e. Bush and the EU. Here's hoping that Clark still has friends at NATO who can talk to the UN and AU and get something worked out asap...

[Donna Zen]

120. Clark has a close friend at the EU too.

It really is a no brainer.

I really think that the gods have gone crazy, or why is this going on?