Is it me, or does "Janjaweed" sound oddly redundant?

Yes, Darfur is a genocide and it is horrible.

But here's my point.

We are stretched thin in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Balkans, Korea and other places. Our armed forces are stretched to the breaking point. As is our economy.

Where the hell is the UN, the Europeans, the rest of the world?

Why must there be only handwringing until the US takes action? Followed by resentment and recriminations by the very people that could have, but refused to take action in the first place?

I know, that's not constructively focusing on trying to solve the problem, but I can't help but wonder.

And don't give me the old, we're only there for the oil, because many of the places where we have deep and costly commitments have no oil.

Damned if you do, Damned if you don't. Let the EU help them, we're busy elsewhere.

Where's Kofi when you need him? I thought "world peace" was the UN charter. Those slackers would not even agree that genocide was occurring in Darfur.

I agree with TimP. Our hands are full and getting fuller. The rest of the world needs to take on responsibility. Are you listening EU, Russia, China, others?

Don Cheadle was Oscar nominated for Hotel Rwanda and you think him in Boogie Nights? Whatever.

In situations like this when military intervention is impossible, I call for a universal 2nd Amendment. Unlike, the UN, which wants a universal Brady Bill, I'd say arm the people of Darfur and let them fight back against the Janjaweed. No one messes with a armed citizenry. Even Hitler didn't invade the Swiss, it's male citizens trained militarily and encouraged to keep arms at home.

Tim: I understand your concern, but I think there are genuine strategic advantages in getting involved in the Sudan, aside from the obvious humanitarian reasons.

First, as we speak, Kofi Anan is trying to pass a series of amendments to the UN charter that will vest in the Security Counsel all authority to wage war, so that any action taken by any country w/o UN approval would be "illegal". This will give leverage for the UN to blackmail any country who wishes to assist the US in any action not specifically authorized by the security counsel. Action by the US in a clearly humanitarian context will strengthen our argument that the UN is incapable of preventing genocide or crimes against humanity and doesn't deserve the responsibility it seeks to award itself.

Second, the Sudanese government hosted Bin Laden for several years and is fairly sympathetic to his aims. Sudan is precisely the type of failed state that terrorist operatives have been drawn to, and will be drawn to in the future.

""""Unlike, the UN, which wants a universal Brady Bill, I'd say arm the people of Darfur and let them fight back against the Janjaweed.""""

Thank you, S.K.!

I've been saying that on a number of forums for months now. It worked for the Croats and Bosnians against the Serbs, why not the Darfur black farmers? In effect this is an old-fashioned range war between farmers and "cow-pokes."

Sean:
Your point's well taken, but I would counter with the fact that the UN was incapable of dealing with the humaintarian catastrophie of the December 26th tsunami, and there were absolultely no repercussions. Infact, the MSM did back flips to cover for them.

Secondly, I don't agree with the statement that the Sudan is a failed state. They are functioning and know exactly what they are doing. I would characterize them as a rouge state.

So if we go into Darfur, then what? Nothing further is to be gained unless we actively try to overthrow the regime in Khartoum.

Do we really want to go there now?
What strategic advantage do we gain?

Again, where is everybody else?

You know what Chad really needs? A place where they can get top-quality stereo gear at a great price...

That and porn.

Hey, if Venezuela can get 100,000 AK-47s, why not Darfur?

lawyers guns and money, hold the lawyers.

but we should keep it to small arms, maybe rpgs (no manpads.. definitely no manpads)

who knows where we'll have to go in next. but the us is involved across most of the sahel in training locals and helping them get access to materiel (aks or m16s, depending on local preference) very nice article in the atlantic ( i think) about troops training nigerien (i.e. niger, not nigeria) troops.

It seems very fashionable to call upon the U.S. to solve all the world's problems and if we don't, it is called all our fault. Isn't the U.N. is suppossed to solve the world's problems? It seems that every time the U.S. tries to do something internationally, there are world wide demonstrations comparing Bush to Hitler. In practical terms, why should the U.S. become involved at all when it will only be demonized by the rest of the so called civilized world which stands by and does nothing.