What ACTUALLY does good in a situation like Darfur?
A. Having a party? 'On Sunday, April 29, Salt Lake Saves Darfur invites the greater Salt Lake community of compassion to join with us as we honor the fallen and suffering Darfuris in a day of films, discussion and dance with a Sudanese dance troupe.' (From here)
B. Fighting the killers? 'On a hot sabbath, i am prompted to say that Darfur is a catastrophe that could and should be solved in an hour or so. The killers largely operate from helicopters and small fixed wing aircraft. We could destroy them all in an hour or so. But that would be "wrong," because it would violate the current hymnal.' (From here)
I know which one would make sense to me - forget sanctions, destroy the hardware, and provide arms and ammo to let the other side build up it's military to the point where the Sudanese government would be willing to coexist. Of course, violence never solves anything, so why go that route?
Let's try another comparison. If your house is on fire, do you...
A. Stare at it intently while it burns, thinking that by paying attention to it the house will stop burning?
B. Call the Fire Department?
Yeah. No brainer, that one. Yet how is the UN imposing sanctions significantly different than choice A above? You have a government intending to commit genocide - and the one thing necessary for genocidal governments to do what they want to do is time. Yet what are sanctions, except something that is supposed to apply pressure over time?
And what good does honoring the fallen Darfuri with a day of films and discussion do? Aside from turning something very serious into a social event? Not that there's much wrong with that - there were plenty of social events stateside to support the troops in WW2. But there was also FIGHTING - it wasn't assumed that the social event alone would have any effect.
That's not the case here, apparently. Yay, they're 'concerned'. What good will it do? That concern doesn't translate into real-world action.
J.