Tuesday, February 13, 2007

It is all hopeless, you know...

One of the reasons that I opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq was that by invading Iraq, we put ourselves in a position where we could not respond to and stop the genocide in Sudan. About 400,000 people died during this genocide.

Imagine, if you would, that the US had stayed out of Iraq, and tried to prevent the genocide in Darfur. Imagine if US troops had stepped in and save 9/10th of the people killed in the genocide.

If the US had stayed out of Iraq, and prevented the genocide in Sudan:

There would be massive protests on the lawn of the whitehouse protesting the occupation of Sudan. Jane Fonda would be using that ugly little face of hers to claim that Bush killed the 40,000 Sudanese that we failed to save. There would be ten thousand or so progressive blogs linked together professing a collective hatred of the United Stats.

Meanwhile in Iraq, Mr. Hussein probably would have killed another 60,000 or so of his citizens to maintain power. Who knows, maybe George Clooney would have made a trip to Baghdad and would make high profile speeches about how the US should have done something about Hussein ... because Hussein is our fault.

It is all hopeless. It is absurd that we are in the middle east trying to stand against radical Islam.

In that case, there would have been both a genocide in Sudan and the 60,000 deaths in Iraq. There would be massive protests on the White House lawn. There would be ten thousand or so progressive blogs linked together in a collective hatred of the United States. Jane Fonda would be using her ugly mug to accuse George Bush of all of the deaths.

All post 9/11 paths lead to the same result, with worldwide hatred focused at the US and the revolutionaries being glorified.

Here is a speech from Dinesh D'Souza on this process of demoralizing the west.


Charles D said...

O please!

If the US had acted in concert with the United Nations to prevent the genocide in Darfur, it would have been applauded by the left. Of course, preventing the genocide would not mean US occupation of Sudan, and even overthrow of the corrupt and genocidal regime in Khartoum could have been accomplished with UN oversight of the transition.

Had this happened, Saddam might well have murdered many of his people, but not nearly as many as have been killed as a result of the US invasion and occupation. If the embargo had been lifted, the Iraqi economy might have rebounded and their secular middle class would be strengthened rather than decimated.

Much of the 'radical Islam' that the US is allegedly fighting is funded by US allies (Saudi Arabia), protected by US allies (Pakistan) and trained or supplied by the US itself (Al Qaeda, Saddam's army, etc.). In many ways, they are the blow back from our prior misadventures in the Middle East and Central Asia.

P.S. It is one thing to explain why there is "worldwide hatred focused at the US" and quite another to glorify the terrorists who are using that hatred as an excuse for their murders.

y-intercept said...

"If the US had acted in concert with the United Nations to prevent the genocide in Darfur"

Your argument is premised on there being some sort of desire on the part of the UN to stop the genocide. If you watched the ongoing debate on Darfur, you would notice that the US keeps trying to bring the issue up and continually gets slapped down.

" it would have been applauded by the left."

Unfortunately, the nature of partiship is such that the right will always deride the successes of the left and the left the successes of the right.

The far left and far right don't condemn genocide. To a revolutionary it is the cracking the eggs you need for the omelet. To the right is it a necessary evolutionary step in the rise of the master race.

Charles D said...

The US did 'put pressure' on the UN to act in Darfur, but it did not agree to provide the military support needed to intervene between the parties. Perhaps the illegal and unnecessary Iraq invasion and occupation tied down the US military or perhaps the government of Sudan (which was behind the genocide) was considered a ally in the 'war on terror'. Take your pick.

The problem is that the UN cannot act on its own. It has to go hat in hand to member nations and borrow troops and logistical support and money to keep the peace. That means that if the US wants it to intervene and is willing to put is money where it's mouth is, the UN will intervene. If not, it is a toothless tiger.

I do not agree about your assessment of left or right. I don't think there are rational people who support genocide on the right or left. There are those who put US economic interests above the lives of human beings in other parts of the world. We call those people conservative in the US. The fanatics in the street yelling for human rights are leftists.