The World Is Failing Darfur, But Why Is Pres. Bush?

[NATO AIR]

that's what I want to know. i'm putting this in WOT because what Sudan is doing is a terrorist activity of the highest, worst level. my christmas day duty thoughts on the most disgraceful non-use of US force in our history.
Please provide your thoughts (disagreeing is cool, i understand) because I want to edit it and see if the Weekly Standard or NRO will post it on their site tomorrow or Sunday as a special submission.

Nearly 60 years ago, Allied soldiers liberated Nazi concentration camps throughout Europe, bringing an end to the nightmarish Nazi system that utilized factories of mass death to eliminate enemies and despised ethnic and religious groups. The term “never again” was coined then, and various agreements and promises were solemnly made by leaders intending to make sure genocide was never allowed to ravage the human race again.
Of course, over the decades since those heady days of new hope and momentum in the often successful export of the American Revolution of democracy, much has happened to cheapen and ultimately, disgrace the lofty rhetoric of the victorious WW2 leaders. Genocides or something disturbingly close to the definition have happened in the Congo, Burundi, Uganda, East Timor, Cambodia, Iraq, Bosnia, Rwanda, Kosovo and most recently the Darfur region of Sudan. In all but Kosovo, the international community dutifully ignored the horror of mass murder or intervened haphazardly with peacekeepers whose hands were tied behind their back by weak-willed mandates that did more to aid the perpetrators of death than the victims. This is definitely a chapter of world history filled with utter failure the great majority of the time.
Darfur was supposed to be different. It came in the wake of reputable successes by leading nations who intervened to halt conflict and potential mass murder in Kosovo, East Timor, Sierra Leone, Liberia and Afghanistan. The US president had achieved more towards peace in Sudan than any previous leader. The UN, troubled over failures in the past, seemed eager to apply the painful lessons learned. The AU appeared ready to accept the challenge of ending war on its territory, and the EU claimed it was ready to support admirable goals like ending the needless slaughter in Darfur.
It is tragic in itself to report that all have failed miserably to halt the genocide. At times, the US seems to put heavier stock in finalizing the end of the war between Sudan and well-armed rebels in the South. The UN leadership is appallingly unwilling to take a stand on the issue, while many of the UN members are directly profiting from the genocide committed by the Sudanese regime (Egypt, Pakistan, India, Russia, China). The AU refuses to confront the regime over its extermination agenda, and the EU is disturbingly more concerned with not supporting America’s position (that a genocide is happening) than taking action.
Most realize the shortcomings of the UN, AU and EU. It is common knowledge that America and her allies are the only forces of freedom and hope in the world, willing to take action to secure peace and liberty. Most though will not consider Darfur a failure of American foreign policy. This is a shortsighted conclusion to say the least. America’s refusal to intervene is a disastrous decision that will have tragic repercussions for tens of millions in the coming years. A dangerous precedent has been set; though America will understandably not tolerate terrorism, it is more than willing to allow regimes that terrorize their people to continue doing so unabated. Emboldened despots from Uzbekistan to China to North Korea gleefully note American inaction with approval. China procures its needed oil regardless of genocide or oppression utilized to pump it, and America allows it without uttering a peep of disapproval.
It is apparent why America did not intervene to halt genocide and mass murder in much of the world for the past 60 years, for until George W. Bush’s presidency, America was either handicapped by the specter of Cold War reality or misled by weak liberals in the White House or Congress who mistrusted the military and misused it. Not so now. A president of honor and vision sits in the White House, emboldened by the threat of terrorism and fascism to defend America and her ideals regardless of the fickle international community’s opinion. A fascist, terrorist supporting regime is terrorizing its citizens and exterminating tens of thousands. Why, under the most fervent advocate of freedom and peace since Ronald Reagan, are we not justly using our mighty military force to stop them?

 

[Gunny]

Invade Iraq and Bush sucks. Don't invade Sudan, and Bush sucks.

This is NATO's job. Let their new "leader" ...France ... handle it. Oh yeah, France has a vested financial interest in the Sudanese governement and threatened to veto any UN action proposed. Must've slipped my mind.