If the U.N. doesn't pass a resolution to intervene in Darfur

[otherlander]

Just wondering what everyone's thoughts were on this. I know that we can probably agree that the most appropriate action to take regarding Darfur would be a U.N. intervention. But I also know that that might not happen. Russia and China have already blocked one proposed resolution to pass sanctions against involved leaders. They seem reluctant to take action against the leaders of Sudan who support the Janjaweed.

And I also realize that the greedmongers in charge of America have no real interest in helping the people of Darfur. But in a hypothetical situation, supposing that the U.N. does not intervene- because, let's face it, they haven't exactly been doing all that much about genocides in the past- would you support an intervention by America? On the one hand, we can hardly do nothing and leave innocent people to be slaughtered and die of famine. On the other hand, how much can we trust American leadership not to turn the whole thing into Iraq 2 and make it worse than ever?

What a fucking mess it all is.

[BayCityProgressive]

1. I know I will get flack here

but the UN is fucking worthless. We should most definately intervene in Sudan and stop genocide regardless of what the UN says. It is the liberal progressive thing to do. I don't trust the UN to make good decisions when it has no real power and the Security Council has countries like China and Russia deciding human rights laws and foreign policy. Sorry guys, I am all for internationalism but the UN is very flawed.

[otherlander]

3. It's definitley not what Wilson had envisioned.

It was a good idea, an organization to resolve problems between countries. But that's not what it is. Instead of adressing the issues, it lets people get away with anything in an attempt to prevent conflicts. China's on the security council and part of the human rights body, when it has one of the worst human rights records in recent history. It's definitley not doing enough, so it becomes the job of America. Yet what would make this any less of a disaster than Iraq?

[applegrove]

2. Um.. the UN doesn't have an army. They are intervening in the only

way they can. If you didn't hear the news.. UN has not had much help from Bush or the brits in the last few years. Finally some pressure is being brought to bear. It seems.. it had to wait for al Qaeda to take the side of Khartowm before Bush got interested.