Darfur
Somebody's actually doing something that doesn't make me feel snarky.
Joined by senators from the left and right, Oscar-winning actor George Clooney used his star power on Thursday to focus attention on Sudan's Darfur region, where he said the first genocide of this century was taking place.
Almost makes me feel kind of good to know that somebody, somewhere, with more influence than I is giving a damn. But, the sentiment is fleeting, and I'm going to have to ruin it...
The actor, flanked by conservative Sen. Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican, and liberal Sen. Barack Obama, a Democrat from Illinois, said a young girl asked him during his trip when he would return and "stop this."
When he said it would be soon, the girl replied "that's what you always say."
I'd like to say:
It's about damn, frickin' time!!!
But, instead I have to say...again:
Get off your fat, powerful butts and DO SOMETHING!!!
This isn't a partisan matter. It's not an American matter, pride or otherwise. This is a human matter! Historically speaking, nations watched blandly while the Nazis committed genocide. It wasn't until those same Nazis started to expand that people stood up and took notice of the travesty that was going on right under their feet. You would think that something like that, something so awful and disgusting could never happen again, and yet here we go, hemming and hawwing while people are dying en masse because their religion is different than that of their neighbors. Over and over and over and over again.....
by Mark @ 4:09 PM
7
comments
7 Comments:
Our leaders don't seem to want to help unless they can see a profit. I don't think we did much to help the people of Rwanda.
God Bless America, God Save The Republic.
No, nor do I. Thus the again and again and again at the end. It's just unacceptable to me that this cycle will keep continuing indefinitely.
"conservative Sen. Sam Brownback"?? I'm having trouble believing the "conservative" part since he went haywire on the immigration bill when it was in committee.
But regardless, the fact is, Darfur does need attention. I saw that Clooney was on Oprah yesterday talking about it.
I can't stand the guy because I often get the sense that he's trying to create some kind of legacy/reputation, but as long as he keeps his mouth shut about partisan politics, I may be able to tolerate him.
And he is a good actor.
If we even do go to Darfur, what about Rwanda (I guess that's starting to subside), or North Korea, or China, or other areas with massive human rights abuse? Will it be okay for us to be "world police"??
"Will it be okay for us to be "world police"??"
No. That's not what I meant. I don't mean the US should single-handedly go in and fix Darfur. I meant that the world body, i.e. the United Nations, should do so. That is, imo, what they're good for, if they were good for anything. Sitting back, wringing their hands, and saying "It's just not working, it's just not working," when they could garner world support to end such a travesty is what I have a problem with. Whether the various governments themselves approve of the actions of Sudan, or whether they have any personal compunction to step in; I do believe that if the actual people those governments "serve" knew what was happening there they'd support action all across the world.
It shouldn't be a US-go it alone thing. It shouldn't have to be.
Isn't it amazing how we overlook this kind of violence, hatred, and genocide when it happens in Africa, which holds so little resources for America (i.e. OIL).
I agree with Joey on this. I despise Clooney for his recent partisan politics (or any Hollywood looneys, for that matter), but I do think he's on the right track with this, and I don't care which side of the political aisle it comes from. I'm just glad someone is spurring our so-called leaders into action. Maybe they can prevent Darfur from becoming another Rwanda.
Stepahnie, you're right about this being a U.N. kinda thing. They're pretty much useless as tits on a bull, but they need to step up and do that which they were created for: being the world police. The job America keeps getting stuck doing for everyone else.
It's sad that we always wait so long before acting. Our actions in Liberia may have very well prevented escalation of violence, and it took very little effort on our part.
Why do we wait until something makes headlines (and sometimes even years after that) before acting? The Taliban had been in Afghanistan for years, and we knew there were terrorists and terrorist supporters among them. Iraq, for cryin' out loud, could have been addressed 12 years earlier with less effort and more international support. East Timor, Nicaragua, we yawn until the violence and hate escalate, and then it takes more effort.
Right now why can't we address Kony? Why can't we address him before the violence escalates even more?
I don't know why it takes so long for people to do something (other than R_V's theory of "What's in it for us?"), but squashing this kind of thing early would certainly prevent a lot of suffering and mess. It'd also help if the US or the UN had some rules about who/what they will play nice with and who/what they won't.
If we simply weren't helping such corrupt governments stay in power by trading, acknowledging and negotiating, then we'd probably have more impact when we did decide to step in. But, that'll never happen at the UN, considering China has veto power and they're probably one of that nations that we shouldn't be involved with.
Post a Comment
<< Home