Out of Iraq and into Darfur?

[BreadBros]

A while ago (I forget how long, maybe a few months?) there was a thread on here where the issue of Darfur was debated. I (and various other posters) expressed the opinion that a foreign intervention into Darfur might be necessary. In hindsight that opinion was based on very little knowledge of the actual situation going on in Sudan/Darfur. Anyone who has been to an anti-war demo in the US recently will attest to the fact that calls for intervention in Darfur have become more and more common among anti-war individuals. With that, I've recently begun talking to my comrades who are more knowledgable about that situation than I am and I have found my opinion change, I now think foreign military intervention (especially led by the US or UN) is a horrible option for Darfur. Of course that statement doesn't even accurately reflect the situation since, to a certain extent, the US is already involved in the conflict through proxies, just like it was in Rwanda. With that being said, I'd like to re-open the discussion on Darfur and present this article (from the London Review of Books) for debate:

The Politics of Naming by Mahmood Mamdani (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n05/mamd01_.html)

I'm interested in hearing people's opinions, particularly those who disagree with him. However I do encourage all of you to read that article since it provides a far more realistic and historically contextual view of the conflict than the "good vs. evil" we normally hear in the media.

For those who are already anti-intervention, what should be done to confront the growing number of anti-war individuals who continue to argue in support of American intervention in Darfur?

Discuss!

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

It seems an easy way to exert global influence and turn a profit at the same time. There has to be a solution that doesn't make a puppet out of anyone.

[travisdandy2000]

Oh well, we don't have to worry about imperialist intervention in Dafur, because they have nothing to gain by it. Capitalist are not humanitarians, they are quite content to allow Africa to slowly die. I am personaly against imperial intervention, though I am not againt arming the black africans against their agressors, were is Cuba and Venezuala to help arm and train the fighters in the south?

[Tekun]

What "fighter in the south" are u referring to?
The Islamic militias?
I doubt that Cuba would help any Islamic armies, let alone those who are concerning the Americans
I don't believe Cuba would help these armies, because helping them could give the US a reason for invading or attacking Cuba, using their "support of terrorists" as a excuse

Venezuela on the other had, possible but not likely
I think they rather leave it to Middle Eastern countries (Iran and Syria)

[travisdandy2000]

no, no, I was refering to the native black africans in the South, and their right to self-defense.

[Guerrilla22]

For those who are already anti-intervention, what should be done to confront the growing number of anti-war individuals who continue to argue in support of American intervention in Darfur?

We should ask people who would support such a thing, in what way would a US military intervention benefit the people of Darfur and the Sudan in general. How would NATO intervention help? By dropping bombs, like they did in Bosnia and Kosovo? Every time the US military has intervened in similar situations the situation was only made much worse. The US military is not trained for humanitarian missions, its trained for conventional combat, which won't so anything to alieviate ths conflict, on the contrary it will only escalate the killing.