The lamestream media told you:
The fighting and atrocities in Darfur are getting so bad politicians worldwide don’t know what to do. The United Nations would send in troops, but Sudan will not allow them in, presumably so they can continue to rape and execute militias and the people of Darfur. A cry to have U.S. forces summarily invade the troubled region has been ignored by the State Dept. so far, which labels the situation a genocide.
The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
The Muslim government in Sudan appears determined to wipe out the Muslims in the Darfur region, because they hate each other. All the combatants are Black. The racial and religious nature of the conflict has been blacked out in virtually all mainstream news reports, but can be found easily by entering Darfur Muslims into a search engine, further enhancing the web’s reputation for actually delivering news. Reporters either cannot do web searches for unknown reasons, or are suppressing the racial and religious information for unknown reasons.
Muslim nations that proliferate in the area have declined to step in and stop the Islamic warfare, for unknown reasons.
The deliberate suppression of context in the African nation’s troubles might hurt news-media credibility, experts speculate. Because the average news consumer is clueless as to what is really going on, credibility may not be hurt, other experts believe.
This is a perfect example of “Dammed if you do and dammed if you don’t”.
This remember me the public opinion in my country about Afganistan. Twelve years ago, there’s was not a dry eye in the public opinion about the treatment of the population by the Taliban. Back then, many blamed Washington’s inaction in the problem because the country lacked oil resources.
Now that Canadian soldiers are engaged (and killed) there, the mass media antics changed. Now it’s an All-American war where Canadian soldiers are killed in the name of the U.S. imperialism.
I am heavily critical of this. When do a war be just? With all the hype around, we can imagine that the Darfur will receive the same treatment that Afganistan if we send troops there: We will become “Evil Colonial Tyrans” regardless what we do.
Couldn’t agree more, Toubrouk: When Western nations DO intervene in Third World nations suffering the usual religious hatred/economic disfunctionality/political instability/rampant butchery, we are “meddling”.
When Western nations’ DO NOT intervene, we’re “callous”.
Apparently our actions must be aligned toward saving the populations of the world from all sorts of perils, particularly from themselves, and by all means IGNORE the need to look after our own welfare, health, and wealth, not to mention our own borders.
For me, this very attitude came from an old ‘70 Hippie “Meme” about the “Noble Savage” myth.
Many Hippies at that time (who some are now hard-core Leftists) believed that the Natives of a poor nation got a more “sane” lifestyle. They seems to have a greater spiritual life and they live with a greater bond with the existing ecology.
The failiure of this thinking is simple; when you are poor, you can’t pay yourself the big chemical fertilysers needed to get a better harvest or a good irrigation system. You can’t send your kids at school so they can learn that rain don’t fall from the skies because you pray. Everytime I think of this I have the picture of Indian people starving around a “Sacred” cow. It is not Spiritual, it’s stupid.
So the Far-Left mostly ask that we help those poor “Noble Savage” but don’t mess with their precious lifestyles. In example, the African continent’s basement is filled with resources. There’s tons of Gold, diamonds, rubies, ore and oil bellow. Any responsible government could use those resources to lift their country out of the International Wellfare system (UN). But I guess we can’t tell them that, It would wreck their “Lifestyle”.