A Need for a More Refined Answer on Darfur

[michaelwise]

Ron Paul's answer on the Darfur question was technically correct, however it may have been viewed as if he doesn't care about the people there. I intend this discussion to be a constructive criticism for the purposes of clarity.

Tell me if my view does no coincide with Ron Paul's.

Through the use of diplomacy through our State Department, pressure could be put upon or neighbors, China, and Russia, Europe, our own military industrial complex, and others, to stop supplying militants in Darfur with AK47's, rocket launchers, and other weapons of war, used against it's own residents, and others that are not a threat. We know that the wealthy elite of the world, play both sides of an armed conflict, supplying both sides with arms, because it is very profitable for them to do so, and they do not care who is getting killed. We should do everything within our power of diplomacy, and do everything within our constitutional authority, to reign in the worldwide military industrial complex, and those who benefit from supplying arms, to those who would use the weapons against innocent people. This goes not only for the Darfur conflict, but for all armed conflicts of genocide, and oppression throughout the world. I would also emphasize that our country is virtually bankrupt, and the US cannot continue to be the saviors of the world, into perpetuity.

[runderwo]

I think we should start airlifting anyone out of there who wants to leave. I think we should have offered that to Iraq citizens when Hussein was in power. If nobody really wants to leave, even offered a new life in one of the most free and prosperous countries in the world, then that would be their choice. Such an approach certainly leaves you with the moral high ground because you aren't attacking anyone.

[ctb619]

I think we should start airlifting anyone out of there who wants to leave. I think we should have offered that to Iraq citizens when Hussein was in power. If nobody really wants to leave, even offered a new life in one of the most free and prosperous countries in the world, then that would be their choice. Such an approach certainly leaves you with the moral high ground because you aren't attacking anyone.

any idea how much that would cost?

[Ron Paul Fan]

Yep, if you wanna go help the people in Darfur then go help them. We won't stop you. But the U.S. Government cannot continue to be the policeman of the world. We're going broke! Also, have you ever heard of the concept of blowback? Our interventionalist actions usually end up backfiring against us and it incites hatred. The U.S. Government should take its marching orders from its Constitution, not the moral do-gooders.

[Eli]

I personally would never give debate strategy advice to a man who's entire strategy consists of:
Tucker: "whats your strategy for tonights debate?"
Ron Paul: "Well just telling the truth like I did last time."

[Noog]

I think he kind of said it in the beginning of the answer. If you, as a private citizen, want to help, go ahead. Donate to a group that is helping in the way you prefer.

[micahnelson]

Which side do we choose in a civil war?

[michaelwise]

I think he kind of said it in the beginning of the answer. If you, as a private citizen, want to help, go ahead. Donate to a group that is helping in the way you prefer.
I totally agree with this and other comments, but is there something more that our government could do to condemn the actions of rogue organizations?

[JackLaw]

I think we should start airlifting anyone out of there who wants to leave. I think we should have offered that to Iraq citizens when Hussein was in power. If nobody really wants to leave, even offered a new life in one of the most free and prosperous countries in the world, then that would be their choice. Such an approach certainly leaves you with the moral high ground because you aren't attacking anyone.

You think we should offer asylum to an unknown number of refugees, most of whom would be unable to function in our society? Have no doubts, in the end we would end up supporting them.

Paul's non-interventionist approach is the only real solution. In the recent debate he just wasn't given enough time to explain himself, so his stance appeared, well, morally deficient.

After Paul addressed the question, Brownback made it clear he did not share Paul's sentiment toward intervention in Darfur. He was playing to all the weekend humanitarians in the audience, none of whom has ever considered that foreigners view US interventions as invasions. Brownback proceeded to explain he didn't envision any "boots on the ground," that is, US soldiers in Darfur. In other words, he doesn't actually want to intervene at all, he justs wants to say he does... because he's such a damn saint, just thinkin' about those poor, poor Darfurians.

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

If one wishes to tailor Ron Paul's message, or deliver it "better," one is welcome to run himself. (In fact, do. Run for city council, state legislature.)

I understand everyone's wish to have a Hollywood actor with the highest paid handlers deliver our message for us, but then we would have a Hollywood actor with high-paid handlers running for office. What do you know, there are such candidates.

Ron Paul is a man. A man who is where he is because we demanded the message. Don't you think he'd rather have a Hollywood actor running in his place if the Hollywood actor had survived three decades in Congress while voting no to all legislation which was unconstitutional? Hell, yes. He could then eat chocolate chip cookies and ride bike all day.

If you want slick, you're not going to find principle. Vice versa.

And I kinda like non-slick. In a real, gets-tired-like-I-do-on-a-hectic-schedule kinda way.

[Thom1776]

That kind of Hollywood works for me.

[runderwo]

Well, the ones who leave don't have to come to the U.S. They can go to anywhere else that welcomes them. Even if they become dependents somewhere else, it's better than being helplessly killed by a violent regime they don't have the means to defend against. As RP suggested but ran out of time explaining, I believe a private humanitarian organization can do this with far less blowback than a government. I just wish people who are willing to tie themselves to trees would be willing to take up arms to execute a mission like that. I think there are enough ex-military in this country to fill the positions though.

[michaelwise]

If one wishes to tailor Ron Paul's message, or deliver it "better," one is welcome to run himself. (In fact, do. Run for city council, state legislature.)

I understand everyone's wish to have a Hollywood actor with the highest paid handlers deliver our message for us, but then we would have a Hollywood actor with high-paid handlers running for office. What do you know, there are such candidates.

Ron Paul is a man. A man who is where he is because we demanded the message. Don't you think he'd rather have a Hollywood actor running in his place if the Hollywood actor had survived three decades in Congress while voting no to all legislation which was unconstitutional? Hell, yes. He could then eat chocolate chip cookies and ride bike all day.

If you want slick, you're not going to find principle. Vice versa.

And I kinda like non-slick. In a real, gets-tired-like-I-do-on-a-hectic-schedule kinda way.I have no need for a Hollywood actor, and found Ron's answer quite adequate for myself. This observation, noticed by some, is just a minor detail in the overall package, not significant, but may be further refined somewhere down the road. I found the debate quite good, especially when the camera showed the lady pilot clapping for one of RP's answers. I think I'll put that in a clip of the highlights.

[ctb619]

Well, the ones who leave don't have to come to the U.S. They can go to anywhere else that welcomes them. Even if they become dependents somewhere else, it's better than being helplessly killed by a violent regime they don't have the means to defend against. As RP suggested but ran out of time explaining, I believe a private humanitarian organization can do this with far less blowback than a government. I just wish people who are willing to tie themselves to trees would be willing to take up arms to execute a mission like that. I think there are enough ex-military in this country to fill the positions though.

I agree....I was under the impression that you were calling on the government to carry out such a program... I would be on board with a private operation like the one you are describing.

[synthetic]

Paul can tackle Darfur in steps.

1. No US troops are needed there. Its a civil war - not our place to insert the military. We occupy 130 countries. Explain how the empire is already bleeding america dry with lives and fortune.

2. Private enterprise and volunteers will always do a better job than some bureaucrat in DC when it comes to aid - inside or outside the US.

2.5 The federal government doesn't have the authority to take away from the poor in the form of tax and redistribute that oversees to aid foreigners.

3. His view on Darfur being a civil war and food aid ending up in the hands of the military, used as a weapon against the people is spot on.

[michaelwise]

How about a statement, and actions taken against black market arms dealing, concerning those suppling arms for an unjust conflict. It really disturbs me the profits being made by those who engage in such activities.

[Locke_rpr]

Well, it's Asian oil interests over there... so as long as we are dependent on Asian countries to give us money to keep our boat afloat there really isn't much we can do about it. It sucks, but I don't see anything changing over there.

Inside Sudan:
http://www.vbs.tv/player.php?bctid=595226597
or
http://www.vbs.tv/shows/index.php?show=Inside%20Sudan

[BillyBeer]

This is so simple. There are Civil Wars in Africa that erupt every other week. Are American troops going to get involved in every single African conflict because Bono wrote a song about it?

[Shatterhand]

Dr. Paul should denounce all human rights violations. He should be very passionate about such things. His Darfur answer seemed rather cold. I don't see why he can't at least express his personal feelings. Why not, as a citizen, condemn all forms of violence? Say it loudly.

:D :D :D :D :D :D

[Lady Liberty]

I agree with Paul's stance on not interfering in Civil Wars. And he did state that individuals should get involved in the way that they see fit. I think what some people are upset about is the way the other candidates spun it after him...and that's not something we can control. Personally, I thought he did good tonight. As for future debates, I would like to see Dr. Paul elaborate on the alternatives a bit more. Talk about diplomatic efforts or even just talk in further detail about what we as individuals can do. I think your average voter needs to see that there is compassion and thought given to people of every country, in order to see that military effort on their behalf is neither thoughtful or compassionate.

[devil21]

Somalia, Darfur, Rawanda, etc. None of it matters because we will always be seen as invaders when we intervene and our countrymen die because of it. Anyone watch Blackhawk Down? Did those men deserve to die such vile and cruel deaths?

[jblosser]

The notion that if there is injustice we-the-government have to do something about it or we don't care, instead of we-the-people being able to help them individually if we want, is absolutely not the conservative position and they should be called on the carpet on it. Ronald Reagan said it best, "government is not the solution, government is the problem". If big government intervention is not the answer at home it certainly isn't abroad and these snake charmers will hide behind any tearjerk excuse to take our money and children.

[Nefertiti]

Through the use of diplomacy through our State Department, pressure could be put upon or neighbors, China, and Russia, Europe, our own military industrial complex, and others, to stop supplying militants in Darfur with AK47's, rocket launchers, and other weapons of war, used against it's own residents, and others that are not a threat. We know that the wealthy elite of the world, play both sides of an armed conflict, supplying both sides with arms, because it is very profitable for them to do so, and they do not care who is getting killed. We should do everything within our power of diplomacy, and do everything within our constitutional authority, to reign in the worldwide military industrial complex, and those who benefit from supplying arms, to those who would use the weapons against innocent people. This goes not only for the Darfur conflict, but for all armed conflicts of genocide, and oppression throughout the world. I would also emphasize that our country is virtually bankrupt, and the US cannot continue to be the saviors of the world, into perpetuity.

He would never in a million years say something like that. This sounds like politically correct diplomacy-put the pressure on the rich powerful countries. However, intervention is intervention and he would say its not our business to interfere with trade between two other countries, which is what you are suggesting.

[trispear]

I think Ron's answer is fine. Especially when our current NEO-CON president isn't doing anything in Darfur.

I would be all for private organization like Blackwater to go in unhindered (to help, not harm civilians) if a private organization wants to foot the bill. A letter of Marque and Reprisal but with no reward from the government. Let the people who want to make it a cause food the bill.

My view is that AMERICA had to FIGHT for its own democracy, and so we value our freedoms more. In Iraq, they did not have to fight for their democracy, so the people there would let it collapse the moment we left. Our soldiers deserve more than that.


I think we should start airlifting anyone out of there who wants to leave. I think we should have offered that to Iraq citizens when Hussein was in power. If nobody really wants to leave, even offered a new life in one of the most free and prosperous countries in the world, then that would be their choice. Such an approach certainly leaves you with the moral high ground because you aren't attacking anyone.So, what is the cost to our citizens and even more, are you willing to voluntary for the military duty for such a job?

Our military is for our protection, not for feel-good peacekeeping missions that put them at danger when no Americans are threatened.

[apropos]

Darfur is a potential Somolia/Black Hawk Down situation. I was really impressed by Paul's response.

We went into Somolia to feed the citizens under U.N. resolutions, and the local militia began intercepting these food packages to feed their own army. There were times that our soldiers had to watch Somolians get gunned down because the definition of their mission was to deliver the food, not to fight off the militia. Bush I sent us in, but Clinton authorized us to use force. When we started fighting, the local militias pushed back hard. American citizens quickly asked why we were there in the first place, and why Americans were being dragged through the streets when they were trying to feed the populace.

Similar situation in North Korea. We allow food in for refugees, and then we see Kim is feeding his army with these care packages.

This sort of stuff is a briar patch, which is why the Founding Fathers didn't recommend it. Darfur will quickly turn into another Iraq with us there.

[USPatriot36]

Most times when we interfere in the affairs of other nations, we support the bad guys. Fidel Castro, Communism in China which slaughtered 100 million of its own people AFTER they took power and Dozens of dictatorships all came about at least in part because of our interference. If we wish for a better, more peaceful world, we have to reign in our foreign policy.

[Sematary]

I think we should start airlifting anyone out of there who wants to leave. I think we should have offered that to Iraq citizens when Hussein was in power. If nobody really wants to leave, even offered a new life in one of the most free and prosperous countries in the world, then that would be their choice. Such an approach certainly leaves you with the moral high ground because you aren't attacking anyone.

Where is the constitutional authority for THAT?