Agreed. And all the people who managed to organize to protest Bush's misguided war actions are strangely absent and silent as well, I suspect because the people in Darfur don't look like them or live like them. It is truly sad.

But maybe there is something to the progressive argument that the US should not have interfered in Iraq because there was no threat to the homeland from them and helping a surpressed people isn't enough, even though all the Iraqis look just like us and live just like us... that is obvious from all the TV coverage of Baghdad, Najaf and Basrah. The average Iraqi is virtually indistinguishable from some school teacher in Nebraska and that's probably why the Bushies wanted to help them so much. I applaud all the progressives for finally getting the message through to Bush that military action is only warranted for true immediate threats, and that the US should not lift a finger to help those in Darfur because there is no threat to us here.

Are you attempting to make some ironic comment? If so, it's vague and idiotic.

Why were the Iraqi people in such a mess? Saddam, right? And who funded Saddam? Who gave him the gas to try out on the Iranians in the Iran/Iraq War?

We did, of course.

I know it's scary, but try looking at the big picture.

Furthermore, Bush's inaction on Darfur has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is an "immediate threat." His inaction doubtless has to do with many things, but one of them for certain is the fact that acting in Darfur now, as the majority of the UN Security Council wants to, would mean involving the International Criminal Court. And the ICC is something that this administration, like the Clinton administration before them, does not want to use. Read the post above, which explains this matter in further detail.

It's tremendously callous of you to try to score points in favor of the Iraq war (or, perhaps more accurately, against pacifists or progressives opposed to the Iraq war) off the backs of over 70,000 dead human beings, over 500 raped women. It's pathetic because you score no points at all using your circular logic, so you wind up being insensitive AND moronic.

"The average Iraqi is virtually indistinguishable from some school teacher in Nebraska and that's probably why the Bushies wanted to help them so much." AH, so you're saying War Excuse #3B is the reason we went there: because we cared about the Iraqi people! Operation Iraqi Freedom, right? How, exactly, did the Bush adminstration demonstrate "caring" for the over 100,000 Iraqis killed in this war? And don't give me the "war has casualties, democracy costs lives" line. Everyone from Richard Perle to Koffi Anan to John McCain said there were alternative ways to help the Iraqi people without going to war. Many, many alternative methods. Are you seriously suggesting that the Iraq War was launched because the Bush administration CARED about the Iraqi people? Crickey. Did you happen to read Seymour Hersh's piece in the New Yorker about ramping up for war against Iran? Are those operations being launched because we suddenly care about the Iranian people? Jeez, why don't we care much about the North Korean people? Or the Chechen people? Or the Russian people?

I know it may be hard for you, but try to look beyond snatches of fact that support your cobbled-together argument.

One final question: are there a lot of people of Messopotamian or Persian descent teaching school in Nebraska?

One final question: are there a lot of people of Messopotamian or Persian descent teaching school in Nebraska?

Of course not, that was my point. Your article at the end suggests that the US isn't helping in Darfur for racial reasons, but we're not racially matched with Iraq either. By the way, Iran is made up of Persians, not Iraq. That's why Iranians aren't Arabs but Iraqis are.

Look, this isn't too hard to grasp. Progressives protest preemptive military action when there is no immediate threat to the homeland. So where is the progressive justification for acting in Darfur? Progressives reject the justification that action was justified to free 50 million people to hold elections in Iraq, so it's kind of hard for them to argue that freeing people somewhere else justifies military action.

Do it because the UN security council is for it? Through numerous resolutions the UNSC favored actions against Iraq by condeming non-compliance with its Gulf War cease-fire commitments. So which is it? Send the military to Darfur to help the people? Or do it because the UN security council recommends it? Both were the case with Iraq, so I'm still confused as to how you can argue for action in Darfur but say action in Iraq was wrong.

Ah, I missed the stinging subtlety of your wit in the Nebraska comment. And, yes, I know Iranians are Persians, which is why I brought them up. Because we're already engaging in military action there. Which I said. Iraqis are the Messopotamians to whom I made reference.

I am not suggesting we carpet bomb Darfur. Neither is the UN. Do you read anything? I'm also not talking about "freeing people to hold elections"! I'm talking about a peacekeeping force to STOP A GENOCIDE. I'm talking about taking the perpetrators to the INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT.

Why do you reach to compare the motives for an unprovoked, preemptive invasion of an oil-rich country and a UN peacekeeping force and criminal prosecution to halt a genocide? So you can bitch-slap progressives for being hypocrites? But we're NOT being hypocritical. I'll say it again and I'll use big type since you seem to be reading-impaired.

WE DID NOT GO TO IRAQ TO HELP PEOPLE. We went to Iraq because they allegedly had WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTIOIN. You act as if I'm the hypocrite, but, in fact, it is the Bush team who changed reasons mid-war. The reason Congress voted to support the war powers for Bush was because of the supposed WMDs. The reason Bush told us we were going to war was the supposed WMDs. Progressives were against going to war for the same reason the UN was against it: because there was already a process in place to verify that Iraq didn't have WMDs. And the process was working.

I'll repeat the questions from above which you chose to dodge: Why were the Iraqi people in such a mess? Saddam, right? And who funded Saddam? Who gave him the gas to try out on the Iranians in the Iran/Iraq War? Are you seriously suggesting that the Iraq War was launched because the Bush administration CARED about the Iraqi people? Did you happen to read Seymour Hersh's piece in the New Yorker about ramping up for war against Iran?

Over 70,000 people murdered. Can you "grasp" that?

When I attempt to answer you, it seems to be taking two replies each because the first one is over your head.

I am not suggesting we carpet bomb Darfur. Neither is the UN. Do you read anything?

Maybe my own posts are going over my head, but I don't recall ever mentioning carpet bombing Darfur. If you are going to augment and mischaracterize my replies then there's no point in carrying on this discussion. And so far I'm an idiot and I'm reading impaired... and I am the question dodger... hmm.

The point of my replies was to contest the assertion that the media is ignoring the plight of millions due to some racial motivation. You try to avoid defending your assertion by saying the attack on Irag was unjustified... you are the one posting the blog, not me, so please return to the topic and defend your assertion that the media doesn't cover the story because the victims are black.

It takes two (or more) replies because you don't answer me. In fact, you haven't answered questions from my first reply, which I repeated in my last reply, which you STILL haven't answered.

I'm not augmenting or mischaracterizing. You say: "Progressives protest preemptive military action when there is no immediate threat to the homeland. So where is the progressive justification for acting in Darfur?" You're CLEARLY equating military action in Darfur with the military action of the Iraq war, a war that began with carpet bombing. From your first post, you equate the US taking action in Darfur with the US going to war against Iraq.

Okay, so you are contesting my question as to why the American corporate media gives short shrift to the genocide in Darfur. I was not trying to avoid defending my assertinon. I was simply confused, because you were talking so much about how the progressives were to blame for the Bush intransigence on stopping the genocide, and you did so by tying Darfur to Iraq. You did this in your first comment. I was talking about the media and Darfur, and you started talking about Bush and Iraq. Is that like a Pavlovian response?

But to return to my topic, as you request:

There are doubtless many reasons why Darfur doesn't get the airplay it deserves. One is that it's a complicated story, and American corporate media loathes complicated stories. One is that it's been relatively "slow" to develop (in other words, it's not an overnight disaster like a Tsunami or an earthquake). One is that no famous people are involved. One is the Bush administration doesn't make it an issue. One is that the American corporate media consistently gives short shrift to Africa, and part of that is because Africans are poor, part of that is because they are foreign, and part of it is because they're black. Am I asserting that Peter Jennings and Brian Williams are members of the John Birch Society or the KKK? Of course not. I'm talking about the subtle racism of our racist society. Racism that doesn't even know it's racist.

But if you think the American corporate media is colorblind and even-handed in its coverage of matters in Darfur, that's your prerogative.

I suppose I should give up hope that you'll answer any of the questions I have repeatedly asked you. You bring up Iraq and sling a lot of shit at progressives who were opposed to the war, and then you steadfastedly refuse to answer my questions. To paraphrase you, if you're going to continue to avoid answering direct questions that I've repeatedly asked, there is no point in carrying on this discussion.