Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The Pope and Hypocrisy
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: April 6, 2005
President Bush and other world leaders are honoring John Paul II in a way that completely misunderstands his message. We pay him no tribute if we lower our flags to half-staff and send a grand presidential delegation to his funeral, when at the same time we avert our eyes as villagers are slaughtered and mutilated in the genocide unfolding in Darfur.
The message of the pope's ministry was about standing up to evil, not about holding grand funerals.
"Throughout the West, John Paul's witness reminded us of our obligation to build a culture of life in which the strong protect the weak," Mr. Bush said. Well, what about that reminder? What kind of a "culture of life" is it that allows us to shrug as Sudanese soldiers heave children onto bonfires?
The latest estimates, from the British government and others, are that 300,000 or more have perished so far in Darfur. Mr. Bush has forthrightly called this slaughter "genocide," but he has used that label not to spur action, but to substitute for it.
These days the Sudanese authorities are adding a new twist to their crimes against humanity: they are arresting girls and women who have become pregnant because of the mass rapes by Sudanese soldiers and militia members. If the victims are not yet married, or if their husbands have been killed, then they are imprisoned for adultery.
Doctors Without Borders issued a report last month about Darfur that quoted one 16-year-old girl as saying:
"I was collecting firewood for my family when three armed men on camels came and surrounded me. They held me down, tied my hands and raped me, one after the other. When I arrived home, I told my family what had happened.
"They threw me out of home, and I had to build my own hut away from them. I was engaged to a man, and I was so much looking forward to getting married. After I got raped, he did not want to marry me and broke off the engagement because he said I was now disgraced and spoilt. ...
"When I was eight months pregnant from the rape, the police came to my hut and forced me with their guns to go to the police station. They asked me questions, so I told them that I had been raped. They told me that as I was not married, I will deliver this baby illegally.
"They beat me with a whip on the chest and back and put me in jail."
The report quoted another girl, 17, who was gang-raped and then locked inside her hut, which was set on fire. She escaped through the wall of the hut but suffered extensive burns.
John Paul wanted world leaders to show compassion for suffering people like these girls, not for dead popes. Mr. Bush and other world leaders flocking to Rome could truly honor the pope by meeting there to establish a protection force in Darfur.
In the meantime, these attacks are continuing daily. And what are we doing about it? When girls are mutilated after their rapes, we provide free Band-Aids.
Mr. Bush has supported a humanitarian relief effort. But even the aid agencies emphasize that what is needed most is a security force to stop the slaughter.
"We're proud of what we do," said Kenny Gluck, the operations director based in the Netherlands for Doctors Without Borders. "But people's villages have been burned, their crops have been destroyed, their wells spiked, their family members raped, tortured and killed - and they come to us, and we give them 2,100 kilocalories a day." In effect, Mr. Gluck said, the aid effort is sustaining victims so they can be killed with a full belly.
I'm not proposing that we send American ground troops. But an expanded United Nations and African force, with logistical support from the U.S., is urgently needed. And Condoleezza Rice should immediately visit Darfur to show that it is a U.S. priority.
Mr. Bush should promptly back the Darfur Accountability Act, a bipartisan bill that would pressure Sudan to stop the killing (so far, the White House hasn't even taken a position on the act). Ordinary citizens can also urge their members of Congress to pass the act.
If there is a lesson from the papacy of John Paul II, it is the power of moral force. The pope didn't command troops, but he deployed principles. And it's hypocritical of us to pretend to honor him by lowering our flags while simultaneously displaying an amoral indifference to genocide.
E-mail: [email protected]
Superstar said:I doubt seriously our experience in Somalia is what is keeping us out of Sudan. It is however shedding a different possible light on the subject, and not outside the realm of possibility.
I believe our experience in Iraq has kept us from acting unilaterally. Damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we DO act, as in Iraq, all the ostriches pull their heads out of the sand long enough to criticize us. If we DON'T act, the verysame ostriches pull their heads out of the sand long enough to criticize us.
Sudan is CLEARLY a mission for the UN if ever there was one, and what have they done besides blow a lot of hot air?
I am quite perplexed over the fact the same people who squealed like stuck pigs when we invaded Iraq are the ones criticizing Bush for not doing anything to stop the goings on in Sudan. How is the mass murder in Sudan different than the mass murder perpetrated by Saddam Hussein?
IMO, anyone condemning our invasion of Iraq AND criticizing our inaction concerning Sudan are just political hacks finding fault in whatever the President and/or his administration does regardless the obvious hypocrisy in their stances.
Kathianne said:I agree with your sentiments, but Nato Air is not one of those hypocrites. He is currently serving the Navy in Japan.
The UN is not going to step up to this, in all honesty, the US would NEVER have done Sudan unilaterally, it just doesn't reach the threshold of vital interests.
I'm a ree-tired jarhead myself, so it's all good.
Superstar said:I doubt seriously our experience in Somalia is what is keeping us out of Sudan. It is however shedding a different possible light on the subject, and not outside the realm of possibility.
Superstar said:I believe our experience in Iraq has kept us from acting unilaterally. Damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we DO act, as in Iraq, all the ostriches pull their heads out of the sand long enough to criticize us. If we DON'T act, the verysame ostriches pull their heads out of the sand long enough to criticize us.
If it is clearly a mission for the UN and all the UN does is blow hot air, why do you condemn the victims to the UN? The UN is controlled by the people supporting the bad guys (China, Russia, France). America and Japan should withhold their UN budget contributions (nearly 50% of the UN budget) in protest of this genocide supporting UN.Superstar said:Sudan is CLEARLY a mission for the UN if ever there was one, and what have they done besides blow a lot of hot air?
Superstar said:I am quite perplexed over the fact the same people who squealed like stuck pigs when we invaded Iraq are the ones criticizing Bush for not doing anything to stop the goings on in Sudan. How is the mass murder in Sudan different than the mass murder perpetrated by Saddam Hussein?
IMO, anyone condemning our invasion of Iraq AND criticizing our inaction concerning Sudan are just political hacks finding fault in whatever the President and/or his administration does regardless the obvious hypocrisy in their stances.
NATO AIR said:The disaster of Somalia is the catch-all excuse for folks who want to influence the president and other leaders not to intervene at all in Africa with military force. Even during our limited (and I mean limited) presence in Liberia, there were nimrods in the media and in the government saying "it'll turn into another Somalia, don't do it!"
Ten years later and we're still paying for Slick Willy's mistakes, and so are the victims of genocide in Africa.
I look at it more and more and I don't believe we went into Iraq unilaterally. Even if Germany and France had contributed ground troops and somehow had more ground troops than we did, it would still be said we acted "unilaterally". Bullshit. We acted with the support of over 40 nations contributing military forces and even more contributing intelligence assistance, development and economic aid and political cover. We had more nations behind us in Iraq than in Kosovo, but Kosovo isn't called a unilateral war, even though again, we had to act against tyranny without the stamp of the UNSC.
If it is clearly a mission for the UN and all the UN does is blow hot air, why do you condemn the victims to the UN? The UN is controlled by the people supporting the bad guys (China, Russia, France). America and Japan should withhold their UN budget contributions (nearly 50% of the UN budget) in protest of this genocide supporting UN.
The mass murder in Sudan is no different than the one Saddam pulled off... with two notable differences.
The world isolated Iraq for its crimes for nearly a decade. The US and its allies prevented a second genocide by basically taking over N. Iraq, giving it to the Kurds who lived there and defending the Kurds with Operation Northern Watch and other deployments. Finally, after it was apparent Saddam was just as bad as he always was, and was supporting terrorism (and was a tyrant in the ME), we toppled him.
Sudan is embraced by the international community, considered and promised fucking World Bank loans, called a partner for peace by even the US, even though their leadership is a jihadist, oppressive, slavery using, genocide committing bunch of fuckos. They've murdered 2.5 million people in the past 20 years, 300,000 in the past 2 years. The world response.. "Sudan's a partner for peace"
Bonnie said:Im inclined to agree with you Nato, I have met a gentleman who flew an apache helicopter during that horrible episode. His opinion on the matter was that Clinton got us into this situation ill prepared, then left the men to hang by refusing re-inforcements. It is quite humiliating and horrible to see our men dragged through the streets by thugs firing guns off tops of buildings and bringing down the most powerful nation in the world even briefly. It is loathsome but not surprising that the UN for all it's hot air about being a force for good ignores this problem.
NATO AIR said:The disaster of Somalia is the catch-all excuse for folks who want to influence the president and other leaders not to intervene at all in Africa with military force. Even during our limited (and I mean limited) presence in Liberia, there were nimrods in the media and in the government saying "it'll turn into another Somalia, don't do it!"
Ten years later and we're still paying for Slick Willy's mistakes, and so are the victims of genocide in Africa.
I look at it more and more and I don't believe we went into Iraq unilaterally. Even if Germany and France had contributed ground troops and somehow had more ground troops than we did, it would still be said we acted "unilaterally". Bullshit. We acted with the support of over 40 nations contributing military forces and even more contributing intelligence assistance, development and economic aid and political cover. We had more nations behind us in Iraq than in Kosovo, but Kosovo isn't called a unilateral war, even though again, we had to act against tyranny without the stamp of the UNSC.
If it is clearly a mission for the UN and all the UN does is blow hot air, why do you condemn the victims to the UN? The UN is controlled by the people supporting the bad guys (China, Russia, France). America and Japan should withhold their UN budget contributions (nearly 50% of the UN budget) in protest of this genocide supporting UN.
The mass murder in Sudan is no different than the one Saddam pulled off... with two notable differences.
The world isolated Iraq for its crimes for nearly a decade. The US and its allies prevented a second genocide by basically taking over N. Iraq, giving it to the Kurds who lived there and defending the Kurds with Operation Northern Watch and other deployments. Finally, after it was apparent Saddam was just as bad as he always was, and was supporting terrorism (and was a tyrant in the ME), we toppled him.
Sudan is embraced by the international community, considered and promised fucking World Bank loans, called a partner for peace by even the US, even though their leadership is a jihadist, oppressive, slavery using, genocide committing bunch of fuckos. They've murdered 2.5 million people in the past 20 years, 300,000 in the past 2 years. The world response.. "Sudan's a partner for peace"
Superstar said:Probably why they don't let Gunny's make those decisions. I'd put a MEU on the ground and turn the Supercobras and Harriers loose. Let's see what the Sudanese Army can do against some pro's.
NATO AIR said:That's why Gunny's should be in some position of power, you need a guy who doesn't take any shit.
:happy2:
Superstar said:Problem is, I made no tactical decisions based on political bias. They were made based on the objective and how to achieve it, and I didn't care WHO got pissed.
My political aspirations upon retirement would be down the shitter for sure!
