PLEASE HELP ME!!! Non-intervention in Darfur

The powers that be, meaning those who benefit from a perpetual state of war, are pushing our 'guilt' buttons to make us feel it's our 'duty' to send our troops in and stop the atrocities. It's an effective tactic because most of us don't see it for what it is: an attempt to manipulate us into doing something to further THEIR agenda, at high cost to us and little or none to them.

Where does one draw the line when it comes to interfering in the affairs of sovereign countries with the supposed intent of saving oppressed people? Spend a couple of hours browsing around and you will notice oppression in tens of countries, if not hundreds. In fact oppression is rife even in flourishing democracies. Which country is the US going to pick to invade and 'liberate'? A government that cannot get its own act together - think Katrina for one - has no moral authority (or the financial capacity) to take up on itself the task of invading and liberating sovereign nations.

The answer is not simple. For most of us it may be hard to digest, but it is without serious open and honest debate and dialogue. No we should not become involved in this.

What does the constitution say? Remember, we are self governing and the constitution tells the government how we want them to behave.

So the government should conduct themselves in accordance with the constitution, in which, we the people have clearly told them we do not want to become entangled in the affairs of foreign lands.

In this case, if the congress or the executive believes that the situation is something we should get involved with then they should bring it to the people on the floor of the senate and the house debate it and decide.

The big question is can genocide in a foreign land be an American National Security issue. If it is how do we best deal with it?

The executive should never be allowed to commit this nation’s military to anything on his own.

We should never allow our elected officials to use this nation’s military for anything other than to execute war against an aggressive foe who threatens the people, their nation, and or their constitution. In any other circumstance there must be a deliberate debated open with full disclosure of the issue and the case made to the people.

We should never allow our elected official to use this nation’s military unless a clear concise mission (Such as a declaration of War), is given.

Can we the people justify putting our nation’s service members in harms way, to stop genocide form occurring? Should we? Some say yes some say no.

Clearly it should never happen at the whim of one person, it should never happen with out the debate before the people occurring, and the consent of the congress being given, it should never happen due to a foreign entities (U.N.) resolution or authorization.

I am a retired veteran of the United States Army, I served 20 years. I am a devout Christian. I love the scripture “blessed are the peace keepers, for they shall be called the son’s of God”.

But who believes that they have the right to send another to a place where life or limb could be lost without all of the circumstances being weighed by the elected representatives of the people.

The congress has a clear mandate that war should be declared. But how do we determine our roll in things like this? Do you have the right or authority to determine the action of the nation? Does your brother? Does the president? The answer is clearly no. No one person has this right or the authority. So it must be a ground swell of the majority of the population saying to their elected officials we want you to look at how we might be able to influence this situation. Then they bring it to the floor debate it and determine the course of action that the nation should take.

My gut and my heart say how can we let this happen? Again, do I have the right to send another to a place where life or limb could be lost? The answer is no one person has this right or authority.

How do we the people influence the situation, without compelling the government to commit the military to a mission for which they are not designed?

This is not simple, it is not easy, but it is appropriate to compel our government to conduct itself with in the confines of the constitution.

Sudan is an Oil producing country, don’t know why I threw that in or how it impacts the analysis but it is what it is.

Thanks for the question. Ask it of the other candidates you will get bunch of Blah Blah touchy feel good, demands of others, and commitments they never intend to keep. At least with Dr. Paul you get the truth and a action guided by principle and the rule of law.

History:

Your brother is probably under the incorrect but common assumption that we went to war in World War II to stop the holocaust. The truth could not be further from this popular revision. Especially since we actually sent a literal boat load of jewish refugees back to Germany and their eventual deaths.

Philosophy:

Bad things happen to good people. Sometimes horrible things happen to many people at once.

It is not in our power to prevent, stop, or mitigate these things. First do no harm.

When we kill in the name of peace we create harm.

Reality:

Darfur is a strawman. Even the most liberal democratic candidate will not intervene in Dafur. It is a moot point. We have no economic interests. This country has never gone to war absent an economic interest. We only use humanitarian interests to gloss our decisions and actions. There are always 2 reasons for what this country (and every country) does: The right one and the real one. We always come up with the right one after the real one.

War with the best of intentions is still war.

"It's all just a ride"
-Bill Hicks-

I have a relative doing missionary work in the Sudan. He's a great kid. He gave up his football scholarship to go help. He won't say which part of the country he is in, and I'm pretty sure it's not Darfur, but therein lies the solution. He wanted to go help. He went as an individual, not as any agent of the government. Oh, and he's funded by charity. He's also trying to setup his own non-profit to help out...

years. The other candidates, whom your friend plans to vote for, have indicated a willingness to keep the "regional destabilization" policy in place. This will result in more Darfurs and MORE people getting killed in horrific circumstances.

The issue is systemic. It is not Darfur.What do we do about Darfur? First we get the hell out of there and demand that all other "powers" stop assisting in the killing (believe me, they are).

Then you define a "regional stabilization" approach that is run by the countries in the region...not US.

We can do more for Darfur by stopping the network of weapons, war and destruction we have created with our printed money and "agencies" and arms manufacturers than we can by putting in 20,000 marines.

Your friend MUST understand why the leg is broken instead of putting cast after cast onto the wrist and wondering why the bone never heals.

Tell your friend we have 1000 overseas military bases.

Tell your friend that, unlike Darfur, American citizens are rising up to establish the rule of PEACE in our country and that this will be the beginning of peace in this world.

If a person uses the media for research into world problems, they will have no concept for why specific problems exist. The truth is great thing, check it out sometime it is all over the internet mixed in with garbage too, but, it is cool to learn how to find truth. God always helps those who ask for the truth...always.

We want it more than they do and we will win because OUR plans and approaches are rooted in peace which creates the stability that humanity prays for.

T

Also remind your brother, that while the military intelligence and the executive branch knew about the German Death Camps, the American servicemen had no clue and indeed the US media as a whole didn't report about it until after we had been at war in Europe and "discovered" the camps. The American people thought we were fighting a war against fascism and naziism, not stopping a genocide. It is nice to justify it after the fact a great humanitarian feat, but in reality it was justified in terms of freedom and fear of socialism. Also, we had a lot to gain in "saving" Europe along with the Russians. And, as Dr. Paul reminds us, the war was caused by the inconclusion of WWI, not the concept of genocide.

As far as Darfur, all we can do is donate goods and hope the Red Cross and similar entities can get supplies to the right people. When a person recieves needed food and medicine, they are much more likely to become an ally and listen to the reasoning of those providing the aid. If a person wants to do more, they need to deliver these things themselves and put their lives at risk in trying to help - not order a farmboy from Illinois to do it with a 50-cal and risk his life.

Dr. Paul has always said, when asked similar questions, that if the Congress voted to declare war, then that is what we would do. He adamently opposes using random force at will, without a war declaration.

because of the treaty of versaille. as for the jewish question it didnt help there cause to have a poor germany and an elite group of jewish bankers taking out ads in the new york papers asking that jews boycott germany. i think thats what paul says is blowback. woolworth was pressured to discard in the garbage millions of german made pots and pans. i dont know what you call it but some refer to that as an act of war. those are the unintended consequences of those action. you dont it can happen here or anywhere just put the right circumstances in place and you will find out just how brutal human beings can be to each other.

how does a guy that doesnt make a dollar a day in salary gets his hands on a 3000 dollars automatic rifle. last time i checked they dont manufacture guns or bombs in dafur. charity my friend charity is what solves the problems of darfur not government intervention. take away the guns and its alot harder killing a guy with a rock. many people around the world would donate and do to stop these peoples misery but first we need to get politics out of darfur.

I don't agree with you.

If they wish to know why and are truly interested, then they are looking for a reason to agree with you.

At this point you can follow the advise below, but don't waste your breath, unless they want to know why.

You are only obligated to verbally disagree with the irrational and leave it at that.

The best example of American military intervention under the guise of humanitarian aide is Clinton's meddling in the civil war of Yugoslavia in the 90's. To understand this complicated issue, a little history must be provided.
In the 1980's, the World Bank and IMF began calling in loans issued to the Yugoslav government in the decades following WW2, and economic crisis and hyperinflation began to rot the entire political system from the inside out following the death of Yugoslav dictator Tito. What resulted from this economic crisis was predictable; Yugoslavia began to split along religious and nationalistic lines, as each side blamed the other for the ailing economy, while the true culprit was a communist government too willing to borrow money from the IMF and similar institutions, and when these bankers decided that a profitable war was possible, they ripped the rug out from under the feet of the artificially propped Yugoslavian economy and chaos resulted. Old historic animosities began to surface between the various nationalities in Yugoslavia, and a civil war ensued.
Eager to provide a reason to preserve NATO, which was practically without a purpose after the fall of the Soviet Union, Clinton and his 'Allies' decided to get involved. Following the usual embargoes, which further empowered the leaders of all sides of the fighting and enflamed the tensions in the region, the first major military intervention was in Bosnia, where NATO sided with the Muslim Bosniaks, against the Christian Serbs, claiming that the Serbs were committing atrocities. At the end of the war, official UN casualty statistics showed that all sides had equal civilian deaths proportionally (sounds like a civil war!). However, our allies the muslims, were funded by Bin Laden and others eager to establish a Muslim-state in Europe. Years later, the majority of the 9-11 hijackers went through the US & UN-backed newly created Bosnia for training and a safe-haven on route to their ultimate destination; attacking us.
Another interesting intervention on Clinton's part was in Kosovo, another region of Yugoslavia. The Kosovo conflict pitted Muslim Albanians against the Christian Serbs. Once again, the muslim Albanians were trained and funded by Al-qaida and illegal drug trade, and they started a guerilla war with secessionist intentions, which took part in terrorism against the non-muslim populations. Clinton claimed that at least 100-250,000 civilian Albanians had been slaugtered by the nazi-like Serbs (who had interestingly fought on our side in both world wars, while Albanians joined Hitlers ranks). However, to this day official figures place the total civilian casualties at 1500-3000 ON BOTH SIDES!!!! By the way, NATO bombs killed another estimated 1500 civilians, which the media wont report. I'm sure you all remember the massive propaganda that went on during this time (98-99). Pictures of refugee camps were instilled in the minds of millions of Americans. However, the UN figures again claim that around 150,000 or so refugees fled their homes during the war before NATO bombing, and 1,000,000 or so did during the bombing. I wonder if the bombing really calmed things down!? To top it off, Clinton called this the Humanitarian War (as if the title isn't contradictory), and said this was the first good war since ww2. He doesn't mention that he dumped tons of depleted uranium all over the Balkans (Al Gore wont mention this when talking about his environmentalism).
It must also not be forgotten that Clinton initiated this air-war against the wishes of Congress which had unanimously voted down any air-war against Serbia/Yugoslavia. He even went against his buddies at the UN, because not even the UN approved these air strikes!!!!!! He did it under the umbrella of NATO, quite convenient.
One thing to remember from the so-called Humanitarian intervention in Yugoslavia is that the intervention, as always, further enflamed the conflict as opposed to ending it. If the goal of the humanitarians is to stop the conflict and end the killing, why is it that they only do this through the barrel of a gun or a bomb, or a sanction/embargo? These things only empower oppressive governments and only hurt civilians. Non-intervention ensures that we don't make these conflicts worse, and create blowback in the process.
While the US should not ignore humanitarian issues around the world, a better way to end these conflicts is to cease being the major arms dealer of the world (arming both sides of many conflicts). Another way to end humanitarian attrocities is to stop empowering oppressive governments through our flawed interventionism. And finally, to the original poster of this topic, ask your brother why we only help CERTAIN places (could it be those pesky special interests?) What about slave-child labor in Asia, what about blood-diamonds, what about Burma, or the oppression of non-muslims in many muslim countries, or the Rwandan Genocide? The world is full of conflict, and most of the time the elites running the show are involved in pushing for war...the most profitable thing. Be weary of emotional propaganda which serves to only fatten the pockets of the elites at the expense of the poor and middle class.

The CIA is known to be in every part of the world stirring up conflict for various propoganda purposes. Start a war in a country, send in the US Troops to "save" the day. US Gov't doesn't like a leader, send in CIA and start a civil war. Look at Pakistan and Turkey...I would bet anything that it is not what it seems or is being portrayed in the media. Why is it the USA has to be the ones that "help"? We do more harm than good, proven time and time again. Hell, the CIA has been used right here in the good ol' US of A to stir unrest, create distraction and chaos.

I'm just sayin'.....

I understand that there are real atrocities going on in MANY parts of Africa, including Darfur. There are many terrible, unthinkable things going on all around the world. Always have been, always will. If we are to be the policemen of the world, how do we decide which ones to intervine in? The most killed? The most people involved? ALL of them?

Right now, we intervine when the corporate ruling elite decide it is in THEIR interests. Do you really believe bush and his warmonger buddies at haliburton and KBR really care about the people of Iraq? Where was the demand to invade China, North Korea, the Soviet Union when these despots crushed their people?

I have to ditto JeffH below and add one last point. There have been so many times in the past when US citizens were actually kidnapped or killed, and for political reasons, the power elite saw fit to ignore the crimes. THESE are the only reasons our military should be attacking other Nations.While I do not know enough to know it is true, I would be willing to bet the Sudan is to this day, still receiving money directly from US taxpayers. There are ways other then invading, to stop these thugs. The power elite just chooses not to.We have no say in the matter.

KEEP THEM COMING EVERYBODY!!!!!

Wonderful comments! I have all the faith in the world... that whenever I am bothered by something Ron Paul does not "support"... I simply investigate the problem further and am relieved... thanks!

Sudan is a big ally in the War on terra. We prop up their regime. Our CIA has been on the ground there for years. We fund a couple different rebel groups in the area.

It is complicated, but we are already involved with entagling and constantly shifting alliances in the region.

Same story different geography.

Save Darfur?

How about staying out of these countries first and see how that works out.

Ask your Bro about the Congo, or does he not care about that because it is not a trendy campaign complete with runway models and catchy slogans?

Ron Paul will fight it, win it, and Get Out. He would have stopped hitler if he had the authorization, even before Pearl Harbour. But since we were attacked, it would have been inevitable anyway. As far as Darfur is concerned, Glenn Beck said something last night about Charity that was misinformed but applicable here.

He said "most Libertarians believe that we should just step over the homeless person in the street, but most Americans don't believe that."
He is wrong on both points. right now, most Americans DO step over the homeless person on the street because they do not feel that it is their responsibility to help.( that is father government's job, and I'm taxed for that kind of stuff.) But in truth, Most Libertarians take Personal Moral Responsibility Very Seriously, and understand that it is OUR job as citizens to take care of those who are in need. It would be Much easier for us to spend our Charitable money where we please if the IRS wasn't taking it from us and spending it on all of this foriegn intervention. There ARE many privately funded means for us to help the suffering in Darfur and elsewhere in the world but this Nation will never be able to take it's responsibility seriously while the Federal Government has a Monopoly on this Cause.

Dr. Paul's opinions from July and November of 2004, respectively...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul195.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul219.html

I have a few simple questions for your family. Who among them is ready to give their money, their time, and their life to go fight in that civil war? Who among them is willing to sacrfice our liberties and rights here at home? Which ones of them believe that we can better serve the world when we are bankrupt and powerless? I'd also urge them to look deeper into the roots of the conflict and ask why now, after so many years of civil war there, is it imperative that we intervene?

Want to do something positive? Find out where the money that's supporting the atrocities come from. Find out where the weapons & supplies are coming from. Find out who's behind it, sanction them, cripple the money & machinery that make it possible thru Congress, legally. And above all, if a decision to use military force is made ANYWHERE, question the motives of the people responsible for deciding to do so. Ask if they or the special interests that support them stand to profit in any way from such action.

It's an emotional issue, and make no mistake, there are those who will use it to divide us on what's truly important here. And what's important is OUR rights, OUR liberties, OUR preservation of OUR government. We can't help anyone else if we can't protect and save ourselves first.

First, ask if he knows the background of the conflict, Did you know that it was in fact People from Dafur that attacked the Sudanese government ? This was largely a result of the previous Sudanese Civil war, which can in fact be traced to British colonialism, where, like in Iraq, the British created a country among groups with very different cultures and economic interests. It may be that the UN's intervention in the Civil war gave hope to Rebels in Dafur. So the current genocide is the result of a civil war started and lost by the people of Dafur. This is not to say that the Sudanese government is not evil - they are, and very much so, but fixing the problem is not so easy as UN peacekeepers - without decisive action, the problem perpetuates. (note , Historians say that one reason europe prospered was because of Decisvie wars) .

Second question - ask him to weigh the life of an American soldier, against the lives of people in Dafur - what is an acceptable ratio ? Would he, like Abraham, kill his own son if it meant saving 10, 000 lives in Dafur ? Would he die himself ? If he would not, then how does he have any moral authority to require that someone else does this ?

As for non-profits, blackwater has bragged that they could quickly defeat the Gangaweed, and make the government sue for peace with the Dafur Rebels. I imagine there is some truth. Perhaps a Moneybomb for Dafur mercenaries?

As for the Hitler Comment - The truth is that FDR allowed the German Holocaust to Occur. We've allowed Holocausts to Occur everywhere, from Cambodia, to Rwanda. We do not have the power to Stop Holocausts. Perhaps a non-interventionist policy during WWI would have prevented the Holocaust.

Note that we can do very little to prevent holocausts that are currently on going. What we can do is prevent Holocausts yet to come. And non-intervention is the way to do that.

We are a sovereign nation entitled to protect itself from enemies. Darfur, Palestine, Sudan . . . none of our damn business. End of story.

All of the hitlers of the world. All the Stalins, Castros, Putins, Chavezs, Jung ils, Maos, Musharrefs, Quadafes, Duvalliers, Mugabes etc...

It is wihin our power and responsability to prevent an evil dictator from coming to power in America in the name of the "greater good." And don't think it can't happen here. Remeber the Japanese interment camps in California. The conditions in those camps were horrible and poeple died en masse from contagous illness. Remember the tuskeegee airmen. Sounds like something out of Mengele's journal.

If we keep sacrificing Liberty for secuity then it won't be long before we are putting poeple in camps again. That guy over there has a turban -Get Him! Salem which trials anyone? McCarthy era anyone?

Let's take care of America's problems and let our prosperity be a beacon of light to the rest of the world. Or as they say....you can catch more flies with honey.

You cannot force peace onto the rest of the world.
It reminds me of the phrase "the beatings will continue until morale improves!"

I understand your brother's concern. I felt that way with Rwanda and was quite upset with Clinton for sitting on his hands while people were slaughted at a rate faster than Hitler accomplished.

I think the question is not "Would it not be "good" for someone to help prevent the slaughter of a group of non-Americans far from our home?" That is an absolute good, and everyone should say yes.

The real question is who should help and should that help itself be forced at the point of a gun?

If your brother wants to help those being slaughtered, perhaps he himself can contribute to a paramilitary group. (Oops! That's not allowed by our government.) Or, maybe he himself can go over there and fight as part of some relief army.

But that's not what he's suggesting. He isn't putting his money and his body behind his good intentions. No, he wants to use the US government to force peaceful Americans who are simply minding their own business to put their money and their lives behind his good intentions.

Our government forcing otherwise peaceful Americans to pay for and to go over there and fight -- even though neither side is attacking the US, is not "Defense"; only "Defense" is allowed by our Constitution. Not "Article 46: Anything my brother thinks is a good idea"

BTW, if things go bad and bodies keep coming back and the expense goes to billions, do we run back here, or is he just a chicken-hawk, demanding 'stiff measures' only when he thinks that the battle won't be fair?

reLOVEution, Dennis
State education: "The best way to insure implicit obedience is to commence tyranny in nursery." - Disraeli