In all seriousness… “…tell of a genocide without borders as the killing…” “…the United Nations evacuated 71 aid workers from the…” “Secretary General Kofi Annan said that more could be done in Darfur: ‘There are measures short of force that could be used: political pressure, economic sanctions, isolation, and of course in the last resort, there is the use of force.’” This sounds so familure to me. “…genocide…” – like in Iraq as well as other places. “United Nations evacuated…” – like they have done in so many other places around the globe. “…political pressure, economic sanctions, isolation,…” – sorry, been there, done that, where has it worked anywhere in the world. Again – Darfur needs to be delt with – but what are we going to do. Bush has been blasted by this website for doing the samething in Iraq and when it showed us that it was not working and he took the next step…the ‘blue’ people will never forgive him. So I ask the question – we do all the above – again. Again it does not work, what are the blue people willing to do to correct the wrong that is going on in Darfur? I was taught by several wise people that the definition of stupidity is ‘doing the samething over and over – praying for a different outcome.’ Sorry – economic sanctions, we really want to let Germany – France and Annan make more money at the expense of the US and our Allies – again??? The Troll>

amen, jim. the fact that our government claims to be fighting in iraq for “democracy” and to save the iraqi people, yet fails to support the simplest of initiatives to prevent the complete slaughter of an entire peoples is absolutely despicable. kinda tears the moral high ground right out from under us.>

I think the most important thing that Christians and others could be praying to God right now for is for George W Bush’s heart to be spun towards true wisdom: the fear of God and avoidance of evil, which in his case will require true brokenness, repentance and a turning away from how he has mislead his country. dlw>

The President has engaged in a number of intiative, including diplomacy and sanctions. Wallis doesn’t seem to have any idea what Bush should do, only that he should do “more”. What should we do that we are not doing?>

I am as shocked with what is going on in Darfur as anyone. I think more should be done, including armed intervention. However, I find it ironic that many who are calling on the much maligned President of the United States to put US Forces into Darfur are the same people who oppose US and Canadian deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan. While I feel for the victims of the genocide in Darfur, the Janjaweed and the Sudanese are not a real threat to us….the Taliban and Al-Quida are. This is going to sound callous and uncaring, but I’d rather deal with the most immediate threats to our security before we send our troops off on another ill-planned Somolia fiasco.>

Doesn’t Sojourners consistently harangue the president for the presence of troops in Iraq and the perpetuation of the conflict there? How in the heck can Sojourners turn around and call for the president to use his influence to get a UN peace keeping force to Darfur? Is Sojourners pacifist, or not?>

“the Janjaweed and the Sudanese are not a real threat to us….the Taliban and Al-Quida [sic] are” Um… then why did we invade Iraq?>

This is the same response as the League of Nations to Abyssinia being attacked by Mussolini . That encouraged Hitler and Mussolini to war . Who will it be this time?>

Now that Secretary General Kofi Annan is going out of office, maybe something can be done to save the one-quarter million Christians from certain death at the hands of the Muslim terrorists in Somalia. Mr. Annan has been a major force for evil in the world for many years now as he has been a proven force in the corrupt “Oil for Food” fiasco in Iraq and many other world disasters where he and his sons have made $$$billions of dollars on the backs of third world, poverty stricken people. Let us desperately pray that the next leader of the UN will NOT be as corrupt and inhumane as this horrible despot and his family!>

When Clinton left office he regreted not helping the people in Rwanda and the results were that of a genocide. Jim Wallis is doing something good. We are required to be righteous and to love our neighbors. Hopefully, if President Bush can send some troops to help and other countries can send some troops too it would be great. “Whoever is kind to the poor lends to the LORD, and will be repaid in full.” (Proverbs 19:17 NRSV) President Bush also has a lot on his plate with the Soldiers in Iraq.>

Peacekeepers??? Isn’t that another name for young men and women in harm’s way? My understanding of the Sojourners position is that Christians ought not to be involved in the military. If that is true and that were followed then that means we are sending the worst possible people into combat situations: those who die and go to hell. There is just something WRONG about that.>

“When Clinton left office he regreted not helping the people in Rwanda” It was nice that he was able to come to that conclusion. But why didn’t he do something in Darfur? This has been going on for over a decade. He went into the Bulkins (and we are still there) because of christian genocide against muslims. Anonymous wrote Um… then why did we invade Iraq? Because ‘radical islam’ is like a snake with several heads and the only way to kill a snake is to cut off the head. You had to start somewhere – where would you have started? Again, I ask the question that I asked in my first posting talking about Darfur. Anonymous, Jim Wallis and Friends… When it comes to Darfur – what is the objective and what are you willing to commit to in order to achieve it? Please – step up to the plate and take your turn at batt. I am very willing to listen and dialog with you on this so that we can come to an understanding about Darfur. just a side-bar here – I find it interesting that Annan went to the Truman Library to make his address to the world. I believe that Harry must have been fumming. Truman – “THE BUCK STOPS HERE!” Annan – “PA$$ THE BUCK HERE!”>

Jim has already offered his idea, back in May: President Bush and Congress have named it genocide and the administration has tried to pressure the Sudanese government. But the world has been too slow and all the efforts thus far have failed to stop the daily death and atrocities. The Sudanese government has continued to resist international pressure. The U.S. has often been reluctant to put real teeth behind its rhetoric because of its strategic interest to keep the Sudanese government as an ally in the fight against terror. Nothing less than a strong multinational peacekeeping force is needed now to stop the raping and killing by the Janjaweed militias; to assure the delivery of critical food, medical, and humanitarian aid; and to provide the security necessary to make a political solution possible. The U.S. must push the U.N. Security Council to authorize a multinational peacekeeping force – over the objections of China and Russia who do business with Khartoum – to reinforce the existing African Union force. Additionally, the U.S. should push the UN to aggressively enforce the current sanctions against the Sudanese government. The Bush administration has called for many of the right things, but has not applied the necessary pressure to accomplish them. Only a massive outpouring of public opinion could change that and force the U.S. to do whatever it takes. As long as that does not happen, many more people will be savagely attacked and cruelly displaced. As of this week, Andrew Nastios, US envoy to Sudan, responded to criticism by saying that further threats wouldn’t help because there have already been threats made and not made good so that Sudan now scoffs at them. SoS Rice said this week that she considers the creation and fielding of a UN/African Union peacekeeping force critical and she expects the Sudanese government to find that alternative amenable.>

i see that robstur’s self-imposed martyrdom didn’t take. his failure to understand “radical islam” remains intact.>

Robstur, I was taught by several wise people that the definition of stupidity is ‘doing the samething over and over – praying for a different outcome.’ In order to fight communist encroachment we allied with Saddam Hussein against Iran and knowingly funded him to buy WMD and use them on the Kurds. In other words, the end justifies the means. But those very same people – Donald Rumsfeld wrote the report of what Saddam was doing – later identified him as one of the biggest threats in the world to our security. Now they will not get too tough on Sudan because the Sudanese government metes out intel on its sordid dealings with Al Qaeda and other terrorist elements. Without the information we lose a productive information resource – so at the moment we are trading countless lives of non-Americans for the potential to save an unknown number of American lives. In other words, the end justifies the means. So: If doing something again and expecting a different outcome is stupidity then what is our current policy toward Sudan?>

I am outraged. What can we do as a community to put our faces and might behind our prayers? Another protest? A sit-in across from the White House? I’m 2 hours away but I will go and stay as long as it takes. jen]]> 2006-12-21T16:33:26-05:00 Kathy G. daleearnkicksbut@aol.com 152.163.101.9

mingus wrote – “…understand “radical islam” Mingus – help me understand ‘radical islam’. I understand Islam and have members in my community that I know that are Muslim. They practice their faith and are not threatening to anyone that I know of at this time. I have no problem with ‘Islam’ – I do have a problem with the radicals that are blowing themselves and others to pieces all over the world. Radical Islam is at war with US – Christianity – Judaism and with moderate Islam. They are sanctioned offically by none but protected by some. Our (the US) ‘mistakes’ of the past as you see them we should just ‘live with’ because you reep what you sow and are not allowed to ‘correct’ them? The whole world would be lost if that were the case. Daniel – “…then what is our current policy toward Sudan?” I am not sure at this time nor will I speak for the Pres or his Adm. But for the ‘arm-chair military’ that we have here in the US – I am asking what ‘they’ would do with the Sudar/Darfur issue. I am opening up for discussion to see where we are at with the Darfur issue…other than just saying ‘something’ needs to be done. What is the ‘something’ and what will it take to do the job as you see it. I know that I am not the ‘brightest blub on the tree’. But I am more than willing to step up and address the issue – just not going to take the first step right now as I have been ‘labeled’ for my opinions in the past – let someone open the discussion with their ideas of what we, the US should do. Back in the 80′s the ’cause celeb’ was Iraq and what was happening to the oppressed people there. Then we had the Bulkins and the genocide that was going on there – it still is – just in reversed. Now we have Darfur…and how long will it be the ‘current’ issue before we do ‘something’ and it does not go the way we would like it to go. Then we condem those who ‘tried’ and we move onto the next issue and ‘talk’ somemore. I am having a hard time keeping up with all the things the ‘blues’ are upset about and talk about ‘doing’ something, which I never get a definition as to what the ‘something’ is that we should do. I am rearly without an opinion or idea as to ‘what’ could be done…it’s just that I can’t be totally wrong all the time. No matter what we do – something is going to have to be done that is not popular -unsafe – etc. We are not going to solve the worlds problems by getting all involved and singing Kum Bye Yah. We (the US) can come to the table with the attitude of ‘what can we do together to make a win-win’ conclusion. Most of the time the other people come to the table with ‘what do I have to say to distract them and get my own way’. In this war on terrorism – who do you want to prevail?>

Jim, you are so insightful regarding the Darfur and Iraq struggle. The struggle in these two instances is genocide; It has historically been the path of least resistance in controlling a territory. Kill the people and inhabit the land. Because in America we are living in peace and prosperity in a far off land, we can continue to politically discuss that genocide is happening yet do nothing to enter in and turn the tide of violence and genocide in the regions. Our silence in Darfur reflects the US president’s stamp of approval on the the genocide that continues in the region. On the other hand, our continued involvement in Iraq reflects our approval of the violence and extermination of indigenous people another type of genocide. Therefore, because of our present action in this world we are part of the system that is perpetrating genocide on these nations. No amount of political rhetoric can stop the truth of what the American political system is doing in both instances. The truth speaks in the actions that we have taken. Our sin is corporate and you Jim Wallis are like a light crying in all this darkness. Please keep crying out for justice for all the world. Peace, E.D. Fennell>

Robstur, In this war on terrorism – who do you want to prevail? We are not fighting against terrorism. We are fighting against homicidal-suicidal psychopaths hiding among innocent people the world over. It is more like international organized crime than anything else. Safety and security require an international police response. I am having a hard time keeping up with all the things the ‘blues’ are upset about and talk about ‘doing’ something, which I never get a definition as to what the ‘something’ is that we should do. I share your frustration. Jim Wallis devotes a chapter of God’s Politics to saying that you can’t only be against one thing, you have to be for something else. On Darfur, Jim has long advocated an international peacekeeping force occupy the conflict areas. That seems a reasonable response to me, and, as I indicated, the White House is starting to see this point of view. We (the US) can come to the table with the attitude of ‘what can we do together to make a win-win’ conclusion. Most of the time the other people come to the table with ‘what do I have to say to distract them and get my own way’. This is not the case. First, the US is hardly so noble. The current foreign policy framework is the Wolfowitz Doctrine, which is unrestricted American hegemony. It’s emodied in the Pax Romana, the neo-con blueprint for the US getting its unilateral way around the globe. If this is good intentions to us it’s not hard to see why we create enemies – especially when we deny our own greediness and selfishness and project it onto them. North Korea’s response to our posturing has been simply that they are scared of us – they need to ensure their security and being demonized in the Axis of Evil when they are a closed society was all the encouragement they needed to go nuclear. That doesn’t sound outrageous to me, nor do I consider the need to feel safe selfish and unreasonable. Second, treating someone as an enemy usually makes them an enemy, yes? There’s a children’s book called Enemy Pie that I recently read. The child hates another kid in the neighborhood. His father tells him that he’ll serve the kid an ultra secret thing called “enemy pie,” a pie that gets rid of enemies. But first, he has to lure the other kid into his confidence by spending a fun day with him. At the end of the day, the father serves up enemy pie – cherry pie. And it does, in fact, get rid of his enemy.>

robstur, for starters, saddam hussein’s iraq had absolutely nothing to do with “radical islam”. al-qaeda is not the same as (and in fact are mortal enemies of) the shia militiamen we are predominantly fighting in iraq. iraq did not attack us, we attacked them (justified or not). if you can’t understand these simple facts, then perhaps you should think twice before you post. you’re going to have to bring more to the table than parroting of bush administration quotations about a “many-headed snake.”>

robstur, re-reading my last post, it sounds unintentionally mean-spirited. i apologize. but my point is, it’s important for us as citizens of this country to understand the reasons why our government is sending our fellow citizens to fight and who our government has decided to call “enemy”. “radical islam” is just too general of a category to have any real meaning. “many-headed snake” is just rhetoric – it has no meaning.>

The “war on terrorism” is a cruel hoax. Be not afraid. Peace on Earth for all mankind. .>

I’d like to urge caution with respect to increased armed intervention (even UN Peacekeepers) in Darfur. I’m not only doubtful about armed force as the solution, but also worried about geopolitical factors we don’t fully understand (including Sudan’s oil). I agree with the Mennonite Central Committee’s 1997 (revised 2005) guidelines for relating to peacekeepers, which said in part that “there may be tragic situations where we have no alternative [besides military intervention] to suggest. This may be either because our understanding is incomplete or because we cannot see a possible nonviolent solution. In situations like these, we may choose to publicly neither oppose nor support an international intervention.” The 2005 revision adds: “Our responses to these situations will range from that of bold prophetic voice to gentle advocacy to lament/silence in solidarity.” (MCC Peace Committee, Winnipeg, 13-15 October, 2005; reported in the MCC Peace Office Newsletter, July-Sept. 2006, available at .)>

Caution is warranted, of course, but I fear inaction and paralysis are not a suitable alternative in the face of an action so evil as genocide.>

Mingus wrote for starters, saddam hussein’s iraq had absolutely nothing to do with “radical islam”. al-qaeda is not the same as (and in fact are mortal enemies of) the shia militiamen we are predominantly fighting in iraq. iraq did not attack us, we attacked them (justified or not). But they are co-belligerents in their desire to dominate the world and eliminate any culture and religion that is not based on Islam. I say this because it does make my analogy of the “many-headed snake” a good word picture. I also say this because the radicals of Islam have shown the world that they do not respect any religion other than their own. Case in point the Buddha s that we carved on the side of the mountain in Afghanistan that the Taliban destroyed by blowing them off the mountain. The world community and the UN talked-dialoged with them to just leave them there. Islam does not like any images/statues, and that was their defense of their actions on the Buddha s. Fine let s just give them access to the Sphinx while they are in the area. David in Italy how long would he last if the radicals took over that country. (he s naked) Why wouldn t they take over that country? (Italy) It is my opinion that you need to stop thinking with the western mind-set, and start thinking like them and see what you can come up with. In war you need to know-your-enemy in order to win the battle. They do not respect us they do not desire that we should be allowed to practice our religion freely. Look at the US and the freedoms that all religions have here. Yes isn t it interesting that the Founding Fathers wrote Freedom of Religion. and not Freedom of the Christian Religion Islamic people can worship here in the US with no restrictions. Name one country that has a gov t controlled by Islam that has that kind of freedom extended to Christians or any other religion. The last Christian Church was closed by the gov t in Afghanistan I believe in 1974. No they do not have treaties and agreements like the US has with Great Britton. But the radical Islamists or whatever you want to call them are just as focused on our demise as Hitler and Mouselini were during WWII. This is a whole new way of doing war and they are writing the book for us. I do not believe that the classical terms of what a just war apply in this situation. I believe that I understand the simple facts I think I have a handle on how they operate. With the way the world is going and all of the different leaders that are in place at this time. Who would you want to deal with and who would you trust what they say or agree to do? In trying to restore peace to the world who do you want in charge to keep that peace, a peace that will be respecting of all involved? God help and bless all His Children. May His creation come to terms and find peace.>

robstur, this argument is simply not true. saddam hussein was never out to destroy america. the shia were never out to destroy america. al-qaeda, yes, is out to destroy america. but consider that it is our cold war policies that created al-qaeda. who do you think gave them all those stinger missiles? furthermore, support for al-qaeda among formerly moderate muslims has exploded since we went in to iraq. how is the iraq war perceived in the greater muslim world? is that really the way to make peace? consider also: what is a just war in this case? everyone knows that the US can take iraq in a traditional war. do we really expect that the iraqi insurgents are going to line up on the battlefield and let us mow them down? they fight the only way they can against an immeasurably more powerful force. which doesn’t make it right to blow up buses and markets, but it was completely foreseeable. in the eyes of the muslim world, our invasion of iraq immediately justified the “radical islamists” and put them in the position of the underdog. we can find words that rationalize and justify this war, but was it really a smart move? we can scream and shout about “just wars”, but at the end of the day, have we made ourselves safer by invading iraq?>

robstur, i’m curious how you feel about the arguably terrorist methods (bombings, assasinations, etc.) used by our founding fathers in the american revolution?>

Mingus wrote robstur, i’m curious how you feel about the arguably terrorist methods (bombings, assasinations, etc.) used by our founding fathers in the american revolution? If I remember my history correct yes, we did fight the British in a formal manner of war. i.e. straight line gentlemen walk forward toward the enemy and front row it s been nice knowing you. And we were very unconventional with bombings, assasinations, etc. against military groups. Our D of I basically was a Declaration of War with Britton. Remember we tried to be more a part of the Commonwealth and not just a cash cow for them and they did not listen. I do not remember reading where the colonist driving a cart filled with explosives and blowing up the town square. There was an Army and there was the militia which even Cornwallis had no respect for in battle. Yes some citizens came to the aid of the colonists and paid for it with their lives. Have a great Christmas!>

sure, the times were different, so the methods were different as well. but in our fight for independence, there were certainly plenty of morally questionable military actions. my point is just that it’s too easy to fall into the we’re good, they’re bad trap. there’s plenty of evil to go around. we to a large extent are reaping what we have sown.>

robstur – looks like you and i are the only ones left here. everyone’s been drawn into the iraq post… you have a wonderful christmas as well.>

mingus – enjoy dialoging with you and I pray that your Christmas will be one that you will have fond memories of for years to come. Blessings on you and yours Amen>

When Sudan committed genocide against its people, it forfeited its right to State sovereignty. Therefore, the U.N., the U.S. and the rest of the world should NOT give any effect whatsoever to the Sudanese government’s “opposition” to a multi-lateral UN force. Who cares what that Genocidal regime wants and does not want? A UN force should intervene immediately and it is completely just to use Force against any Sudanese military personell or Janjaweed that get in the way. We must step ‘literally’ in between the oppressors and the oppressed. To kill in self-defense is not a crime or a sin. The people of Darfur can not defend themselves, so the World should step in their shoes to defend them, and if they kill Janjaweed of Sudanese military in the process, that is totally justifide. If genocide was happening in downtown New York, would we stand by and watch if the City wanted us to? No. Darfur is no different because the Sudanese government has forfeited its right to sovereignty by committing genocide on its people. The love of Christ does not call for passive indifference but active intervention. Let’s pray that President Bush uses his power for justice. John Chicago>

Let’s pray that President Bush uses his power for justice. John Chicago Why? Bush can do nothing right for most of the people that write or post on this website – I am not willing to commit troops to anything like this anymore. Bush should let the UN handle international issues and I agree after all Annan has bills to pay so sanctions would help him and the French out just fine.>

I still can’t figure how the UN can be a force for “good” without using threats of violence and actual violence to try to stop the “genocide.” How can Christians who are against violence and war support such. I’m puzzled. Perhaps the U.S. (and the Christians there-in) must recognize the limitations in trying to control world events. We can’t even control local events. Peace be with you!>

Being a pacifist does not force a person to sit silently in the bleachers of world events. The first step to making peace is to put an end to the violence. If diplomacy / sanctions / external pressures do not work, military intervention may be the only option. But it cannot be an intervention that overthrows a government, imposes a preferred ideology, requires and ordains a “winner”, etc. The goal must be to end the violence and then be engaged in non-violent solutions. This may require that we allow solutions that do not benefit our nation (or our “Administration”). Yes, a novel concept – but one that may not bring as much resentment to those involved.>