For the country that is supposed to be the world's leader, setting an example across the globe, we can't even help ease the slaughter of 200,000 and the suffering of 2 million? For all the compassionate conservatism, Christian care for our fellow man, and threat to terror the USA is supposed to represent, why exactly are we ignoring this grossly obvious human rights abuse?

To call the US the majority financial supporter in Darfur would be a gross understatement. So to answer your question, the US is leading the charge on humanitarian support. We have also have a proposal in front of the Security Council that is being blocked by Russian and China. But wait, are you suggesting we ignore the UN? I thought the argument was we were supposed to work within the UN? As this issue clearly shows, the UN is a toothless agency.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

I'm glad we can lead the way in aid given, but you have to realize that the US is hardly putting Darfur at the top of our international priorities.

Africans are not really people.

This is the only interpretation I can put on the developed world's indifference to famine, terrorism and war on the continent of Africa that I have seen during my lifetime. The sole exception I can think of is the original LiveAid initiative in the Horn of Africa (Bob Geldoff et al), and that is easily explained as being a temporary fad taken up by celebrities, and which faded just as quickly (like not wearing real fur was for a couple of years).

There are half a dozen conflicts in Africa of the most atrocious sort (mass killings, mutilations, child soldiers) that could be sorted out with the presence of forces from developed nations. Ten thousand troops, some special forces and air support could clean up each mess in turn. In Sudan, for example, it would be ridiculously easy to spot and strafe the Arab Militias wandering around the Darfur region. The Sudanese airforce is laughable and could be swatted out of the sky if necessary.

The fact is we just don't care. Instead of fake surprise, just admit it.

There is something to that. But then again most of us Europeans and Americans really don't care about any other nation in the world. Africa still gets ignored more.
I think it is because the perception of many is that Africa is a hopeless case. We tend to think Africa is so impovered and so behind that there is just no saving it... Interestingly we also talk of Africa like it's a country. Different African nations have different levels of hope. One theory is that if we put our effort into the most industrialized and politically stable African nations, those countries can put more pressure and deliver more growth to their neighbors. But over here, we seem to think that it's all one country.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

to American interests will always be a higher priority. That is true of us and any country on earth. This is not something that impacts our direct interests, but it doesn't mean it's not important. If you looked at the priorities on items that do not impact us directly this would rank pretty high. The US took action in Somalia as well. There is a history, but it will never be as important as say the Iranian threat. It's time for the rest of the world to step up on this. Don't complain when the US takes initiative outside of the UN (not addressing you but the world in general) and then say "oh but on this issue we want you to act outside of the UN." At least be consistent. Personally I think the UN should be a first option and we should have no qualms in going around them when they prove useless.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

Same reason we ignored Rawanda back in 1994.....because the United States alone cannot do EVERYTHING. In 1994, the UN didn't support doing anything.....and TODAY, the UN doesn't support doing anything about Dafur.

Why aren't you libs condemning the United Nations organization that you usually put so much faith in?

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

How can we put EVERYTHING at the TOP?

What's the UN for?

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

No, we can't do everything by ourselves. But like Java said, 10,000 troops could take care of the Sudanese militias. We have over 150,000 coalition troops in Iraq and we are not in control and the situation deteriorates daily. I think some sort of perspective is needed here.

__________________
the memories of a man in his old age
are the deeds of a man in his prime

roger waters