Sunday, May 07, 2006


Darfur. Genocide? Homocide?

We'll operate under the premise that it's genocide. (For an alternate take on that read Gary Leupp's "Out of Iraq, Into Darfur" at CounterPunch.)

So it's genocide.

And what does that mean?

At the NYC rally and march against the illegal war in Iraq, for some that meant carrying signs reading "Out of Iraq, Into Darfur."

Oh, is that how it works?

The last Saturday in April saw a huge, long planned march in NYC against the war and Monday was long ago penciled in for immigration rallies in your own area. So we were a little surprised to see those advocating for Darfur (apparently military action) pick the Sunday between for their rally. As Elaine noted, C.I.'s thoughts on that were, "If you've got the Monterey Pop Festival on Saturday and Woodstock on Monday, you don't try to squeeze in Live Aid on Sunday."

Right or wrong, it did seem to be squeezing in a bit much. C.I. attended the DC rally (a favor/marker called in) and the "Out of Iraq, Into Darfur" signs were even more plentiful than they were at the NYC rally. The crowd wasn't as large. And not a lot of anti-war types. Which may be why they can advocate military action.

Military action? A region that the US would love to get its hands on (due to the natural resources) and some want to go begging to the Bully Boy to send in NATO? Elaine noted the tragedy of that misbegotten notion on April 18th.

The Force Wagon pulled up and, based largely on The New York Times reporting (and op-eds of big cry baby Nicky K), said peaceful solutions didn't work. Hadn't worked for three years, people! It was NATO time! US led, of course.

Well, excuse the hell out of us, but when in the last three years has The New York Times worked? The James Risen article that they sat on for over a year? Or maybe that reporting by the likes of Judith Miller and her cohorts? Or maybe the sliming of Hugo Chavez? Or the creative work of Brian Lavery?

Woah there, Force Wagon rider, we'll need a little more than The New York Times to get us to march off to war.

And here's another thought, since Afghanistan and Iraq are only successes in Bully Boy's mind, what exactly are you pinning your hopes on?

Another long occupation?

No, sorry. If someone's crashed your best friend's car, if they've crashed your romantic partner's car and then they come to you for the keys, you don't hand 'em over. (That's almost Thomas Friedman logic, but we'll go with it.)

You don't.

You don't say, "Okay, this person has crashed two cars but I know they'll take care of mine." You hide the keys. You say "no."

But the force wagon wants a thrill ride.

"We must act now! Lives are at stake!"

Lives are at stake all over the world. People are dying (from war, starvation, inadequate medical attention) all over the world. We're glad you've picked up a cause. We just don't see war as the first resort.

And that's what is it because, if you'd look beyond your New York Times, you'd grasp that there has been no serious effort on the part of the United States to address the issue in non-war terms. They've played around and messed around and joshed and joked.

We were quite comfortable saying "No more war" and leaving it at that. We've seen what Bully Boy unbound can do.

But last Sunday, as we were finishing up, C.I. mentioned something in passing. What? That was our reaction. (Second reaction, "Why didn't you bring this up sooner!")


We want to you to stop a moment and think about the Jews killed in gas chambers, murdered for being Jewish (a long with the gays and lesbians and the Gypsies).

That didn't happen in one year. The death camps weren't set up before the United States joined the WWII war effort.

That drug on for some time. During that time, people in this country and outside, begged the United States to do something. (Begged The New York Times to do something, which is why C.I. brought it up.) And nothing was done. Oh, excuse us, refugees attempting to find sanctuary here were turned away.

So all you shit kickers on the Force Wagon, what exactly are you ready to do?

You're willing to send others in to fight. (Such bravery from the arm chair set.) But is that your only solution?

Had the United States not looked the other way, six million Jewish people might not have died. You can figure out your own percentage that might have lived.

But we looked the other way (something the Force Wagon wants to accuse everyone that's not screaming with the blood lust for one more war for the United States) and, worse, refused people entry to this country.

So Darfur's a genocide.

That's an emergency.

What do you do in an emergency? Do you send in a SWAT team to handle a fire? Do you send in Homocide to handle a heart attack victim?

No. You send in rescue workers.

So, if you can hop off the Force Wagon for just one damn minute, here's an idea to consider: mass extraction.

Those at risk, extract them from the country.

Your other choice is a long occupation.

Now maybe you're happy to send people to their potential death but you get a little antsy about letting 'foreigners' into the United States?

Well that's really your problem, isn't it?

UN's there already. Send in more and start extracting. All the nations of the 'developed' world should open their borders.

If it is a genocide, we're not disputing that or supporting that, then you get them out of there.
A genocide's a crisis, to put it mildly.

Troops on the ground may reduce it but it won't stop it.

So you go in and you offer relocation to the victims.

Now it might put a few nations out. It's easier to send in force then to welcome someone by opening your borders. But isn't that really helping?

If you don't like the idea that's fine. But we've said no to another Bully Boy led (from afar) war.
Afghanistan and Iraq have not demonstrated a concern with human lives or a high regard for them. They have demonstrated a lust for never ending occupation.

But if you don't like the idea, come up with your own. We didn't sit around and think, "What would Bully Boy do?" We went out of the box. (One professor, when told of the idea last week, said it was pre-Bully Boy thinking.) So why don't you try that?

Instead of more guns, more bullets, more deaths and more occupation, why don't you try asking yourself how you would deal with the situation if the government had a real leader?

The most annoying thing about Nicky K is how he bends, bows and scrapes before the Bully Boy (while claiming "left"). He trashes the left (feminists are a particularly favorite scapegoat of Nicky K's). He wants action! So he buys up a woman in slavery. (They give Pulitzers to slave buyers now, apparently.) He wants action! So he thinks like the Bully Boy and calls for war.

Never ending war. Exactly how many more countries have to be at war for WWIII to start?

Again, you don't have to like the idea. We're assuming many won't because it's far easier to send people to die then it is to welcome by opening your borders. That was true in the 1930s and 1940s and it's true now. But after Kosvo, we really think you should be embarrassed to suggest NATO. It's popular with the Bully Boy, true. So is warrantless spying.

Will you next endorse that to get your way?

You stand for what you believe in or you don't. Speaking only for ourselves, we would prefer to never see another sign, banner or t-shirt reading "Out of Iraq, Into Darfur." Find another forum your cause. The peace movement, the anti-war movement, doesn't need to be diluted with cries of "End this war so we can start another!"

And you're fooling yourself if you think that's not what would happen.

[Read Gary Leupp's article. He's the only one we've seen besides Elaine that's addressed the cries from the blood lust crowd. Also check out our four scene musical this edition.]
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
Poll1 { display:none; }