Clinton joins Clark, Richardson, Edwards. Calls for Darfur action

[wyldwolf]

This week the front runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York has been stressing the need for U.S. action in Darfur.

In the rhetorical climax to her speech to the Democratic National Committee last weekend in Washington, Clinton sounded a twin call to action, “We can stop the genocide in Darfur. And, yes, we can find the right end to the war in Iraq.”

For presidential candidates, will “withdraw from Iraq and intervene in Darfur” prove to be an appealing message?

One question the 2008 presidential contenders face is: In the wake of the protracted U.S. deployment in Iraq, what future interventions elsewhere in the world would the electorate be willing to support?

The unpopularity of the U.S. entanglement in Iraq seems to have made Americans wary of intervention, even in a place such as Darfur in the African nation of Sudan, a case in which television viewers have seen ethnic cleansing.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17034034/

edited for spelling.

The reactionary Left will so make this issue a grand DLC conspiracy now that Clinton has signed on and when they fully realize Richardson is DLC

[zulchzulu]

1. There's also this guy named Obama...

http://www.darfurscores.org/barack-obama
Darfurscores.org writes:

"Barack Obama has received an “A+” for supporting and voting in favor of all significant Darfur legislation. This member of Congress is a champion of the cause and has taken crucial action to end the genocide in Darfur."

Barack is not a Johnny-Come-Lately on this tragic issue.

[wyldwolf]

2. good for Obama - we need all the voices we can for this issue

But they're all "Johnny Come Lately's" compared to Clark, Richardson, and the DLC who've been calling for Darfur action for several years.

[geek tragedy]

3. Was that before or after they were calling

for the invasion and occupation of Iraq?

[wyldwolf]

4. two entirely seperate issues

[xkenx]

9. Clark, at least, has been consistent, warning against IWR back in 2002

[geek tragedy]

12. I meant the DLC--apologies for not specifying. eom

[BushOut06]

5. Should we intervene militarily?

I want to hear exactly HOW they want to intervene in Darfur. The Sudanese government has made it quite plain they don't want the United Nations getting involved, and Libya seems to be siding with Sudan. I have a feeling that any military action in the Sudan could get quite nasty.

[wyldwolf]

6. there are several plans that come short of full military involvement

...from a No Fly Zone, to air lifting opposition soldiers into Darfur, to freezing Sudan's assets .

[zulchzulu]

13. China might get a tad upset if we get involved militarily...

China has a large share and investment in getting Sudanese oil and natural gas and has turned a blind eye to the genocide going on there. Canada, Iran, India and a few other countries also have companies there.

Sudan's oil reserves have been termed very "un-explored", and since the US has bestowed sanctions on Sudan, American oil companies have to sit back and watch China, Canada, Iran, India and others dig in.

A fascinating article explains the Sudanese turf wars (http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article11203), complete with ancient rivalries of nomadic Northern tribes against Southern African farmers, Arabs referring to dark Africans as "slaves" and how the oil wars started when Chevron discovered oil in Sudan in 1978.

It's another blood for oil scenario with many layers of ancient bloodletting...

[eauclaireliberal]

7. Will NEVER happen:

there is NO profit motive involved; Repigs HAVE TO profit somehow or its a no go.

[wyldwolf]

8. was there a profit motive in Kosovo?

[eauclaireliberal]

10. NO...

which is why Rush hammered Clinton about "asprin factories" and the right-wing pricks on the hill went on and on about how the president's act of war in Kosovo was "morally wrong."

[wyldwolf]

11. ok, so there is a precident of a humanitarian intervention with no profit motive, right?

[eauclaireliberal]

14. On Clinton's part...yes.

on W's, no.

[wyldwolf]

15. right, so in 2008 - with a Dem congress and probably a Dem president, there can be again.

[JNelson6563]

16. So glad so many are speaking up!

This is one of those good reasons to have many candidates. They can all hammer on important issues such as this.

Julie

[Tellurian]

17. A Lateral move into the Sudan

would remove the argument of troop surge/deployment, assigning our troops into a fairly safe zone as Peace keepers keeping them as safe as possible until enough progress is made with resolutions to bring them home..

Am I understanding this correctly?