Clooney: ‘My Job Is…To Beg You On Behalf Of Millions of People Who Will Die’
Clooney: ‘My Job Is…To Beg You On Behalf Of Millions of People Who Will Die’
The world may be two weeks away from another Rwanda.
On Sept. 30, the under-manned and under-funded African Union (AU) peacekeeping force in Darfur is set to leave the country. Those 7,000 A.U. troops — dispatched over a region the size of Texas — are the only thing moderating the genocidal violence in Darfur, in which “civilians are usually killed, injured, raped, abducted or forcibly displaced.”
Over the last two weeks, the Sudanese government has “dramatically intensified” its air strikes and worked “to drain the region of witnesses,” including aid workers and foreign journalists. If the AU forces leave on Sept. 30 as scheduled, “this is a genocidal black box.”
Today, George Clooney spoke at a press conference at the United Nations, reminding the international community: “[T]his genocide will be on your watch. How you deal with it will be your legacy — your Rwanda, your Cambodia, your Auschwitz.” Watch it:
Full transcript:
The United States has called it genocide. For you, it’s called ethnic cleansing. But make no mistake, it is the first genocide of the 21st century, and if it continues unchecked it will not be the last.
Now, my job is to come here today and to beg you, on behalf of the millions of people who will die — and make no mistake they will die — for you to take real and effective measures to put an end to this. Of course it’s complex, but when you see entire villages raped and killed, wells poisoned and then filled with the bodies of its villagers, then all complexities disappear and it comes down to simply right and wrong.
It’s not getting better. It’s getting much, much worse, and it is only the international community that can help us. Now, I know there are members of you here that, for what I’m sure are sensible reasons, have failed to use leverage at times to keep the — to get the peacekeepers on the ground. Well, we now have a date. The date is September 30th. The 1st of October we’ll leave these people will nothing. Whatever the reason, it’s not good enough. On October 1, it won’t just be the Janjaweed murdering and raping with impunity or the SLA slaughtering the tribes. With no protection, all the aid workers will leave immediately and the two and a half million refugees who depend on that aid will die. Jan Egeland estimates 100,000 a month. So after September 30th, you won’t need the U.N. You will simply need men with shovels and bleached white linen and head stones.
In many ways it’s unfair, but it is nevertheless true, that this genocide will be on your watch. How you deal with it will be your legacy — your Rwanda, your Cambodia, your Auschwitz. We were brought up to believe that the Holocaust could never happen again. We believe in you so strongly. We need you so badly. We have come so far. We are one “yes” away from ending this. And if not the U.N., then who? And time is of the essence.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
at least he’s trying to help
September 14th, 2006 at 6:26 pmIts nice to see some people care about the holocuast equivalant geniocide that is going on is Sudan.
September 14th, 2006 at 6:26 pmGeorge W. Bush told a Rwandan refugee that genocide wouldn’t happen on “his watch”.
Looks like he must have given away that watch. Now the US is so overstretched that we are unable to offer any help to Darfur.
America must be close to filing moral bankruptcy.
-GSD
September 14th, 2006 at 6:31 pmGSD, does Georgie know how to tell time? Maybe that’s why he gave away his watch.
September 14th, 2006 at 6:43 pm“Actor.” Ok, yes. He’s an actor.
FOX should have:
BILL O’REILLY
DOUCHEBAG
underneath every image of the Falafel.
September 14th, 2006 at 6:43 pmAmerica must be close to filing moral bankruptcy.
-GSD
Not quite, but we will be undergoing a massive restructuring come November. :)
September 14th, 2006 at 6:43 pmAmerica must be close to filing moral bankruptcy.
-GSD
Their leader already is…..
September 14th, 2006 at 6:44 pmI guess its time to invade Sudan Yippee!!
September 14th, 2006 at 6:51 pmI’m pullin’ for the white buffalo as a sign of positive things to come. We had the first one about 30 miles north of town a couple years ago, but I think Cheney shot it.
September 14th, 2006 at 6:59 pmWhere would we be now if, in early 2003, the Coalition had devoted 200,000 troops and $US400 billion to helping the people of Darfur, instead of hitting Iraq?
Would there be a quagmire for US troops there? Few military analysts I’ve read think so. It certainly wouldn’t have been a slam dunk, but the Coalition would have won the hearts and minds of hundreds of thousands of innocent people who are now dead.
“Never again.” Remember that.
Never again?
Genocide around the world hasn’t stopped since the Shoah. It goes on still.
God help the people of Darfur, because we sure ain’t gonna do it.
http://www.the4thworldwar.blogspot.com
September 14th, 2006 at 7:00 pmAs usual, George Bush would rather kill Iraqis than save the people of Darfur.
September 14th, 2006 at 7:02 pmWhy George Clooney?
September 14th, 2006 at 7:05 pmWhat a bag of hot air.
get someone else to say it and they will be taken seriously.
Why is it always the U.S. that must steps into he breach? How about those vaunted Phrench, Spanish, NATO, or EU et al? This (like the WOT) did not begin with the swearing in of Bush. Where are the Russians, Chinese, Mexicans, Venezuelans, Cubans, Brazilians, Argentines or the Arab League? How about those Indians, Indonesians, Bangladeshis, Japanese? Oh I guess it’s much easier to preach to the U.S. than it is to step up and be counted in a crisis. None of these countries has offered to support, lead, or participate in a un peace keeping mission in Darfur, why? I for one would totally rethink my politics if Hugo Chavez up and volunteered a Division and took the lead in a peace keeping mission. I wont hold my breath.
September 14th, 2006 at 7:18 pmNot to trivialize the plight of these people but it’s about time that someone make a plea for the american people….the homeless, the starving, the elderly who can’t afford their medications, the jobless, the Katrina victims who are still considered to be refugees….it’s time someone makes the case for the american people.
September 14th, 2006 at 7:25 pmWhy is it always the U.S. that must steps into he breach?
It’s called “leadership”, and it’s something “the greatest nation on Earth” is expected to display.
September 14th, 2006 at 7:29 pmAmerica must be close to filing moral bankruptcy.
-GSD
America went into moral bankruptcy when we relected the Chimp, Congress went into moral bankruptcy when it let the rubberstampers give Chimpy free reign to break any law he wishes.
the government has already lost its moral compass.
September 14th, 2006 at 7:31 pmYes, Jake, someone else should be doing what Clooney is, but they’re not, are they?
Do you think another ‘windbag’ politician would score the sort of media coverage Clooney has by doing this? Dream on.
Clooney’s powerful plea for help has already pushed Darfur into the first three stories of news breaks in Australia, and presumably across Europe, China, Russia, and every other country where he is loved by millions and regarded as someone who uses his celebrity to educate, open eyes and change the world. For the better.
You might not like celebrities rallying around a worthy cause, but the people of Darfur have to take whoever they can get.
Right now, Clooney would have to be the most credible, most articulate and most well-researched speaker on Darfur, short of Kofi Annan, actually getting the story to the front of the news.
Good on him for trying.
http://www.the4thworldwar.blogspot.com
September 14th, 2006 at 7:36 pmat least hes doing something with his multi million dollar name. celebrities salaries are never justified, but if more of them could open their mouths and speak out (like charlie sheen) then maybe we can move ahead, because the rich men in power today arent doing anything for anyone besides themselves.
the distribution of wealth is so unfair.
September 14th, 2006 at 7:47 pmReading through the comments I just had to respond to a couple of those seriously lacking in thought and understanding.
Jake: It is not the suit that makes the man. Mr. Clooney’s profession is irrelevant, other than it is an honest and recognized one. What we see is Mr. Clooney honorably and rightfully fighting for a deserving cause. One could even say a “Christian” cause. Your attempt to marginalize his efforts betray only your ignorance and lack of compassion and common sense.
Retired Republican Soldier: I don’t know who you were a soldier with but in the army that I served in even the most simple minded knew that there is a difference between the United Nations (to whom Mr. Clooney was speaking) and the United States (who is currently only interested in killing people). As you are obviously a citizen of the United States, I understand your being aghast at the thought of being involved in a compassionate act that will serve to save the lives of people. Now, however, if you were able to profit off of the adventure and then steal the resources of the people that you would be “saving” or “liberating”, I’m sure you would be all for it.
September 14th, 2006 at 7:57 pmAmazing how the trollz here automatically assume that it’s the U.S.’s job, when in fact Clooney was speaking to the U.N. That the U.S. has the most powerful military in the world and is squandering it away in Iraq in a war designed only for war profiteering instead of actually showing leadership and stopping genocide only shows the complete hypocrisy of the Dumbya administration, not that Clinton did a damned thing about Rowanda.
But there is no excuse anymore….oh I forgot…not enough oil. And besides, they are all black and we know what the ReThugs think of black minorities.
September 14th, 2006 at 7:57 pmAnybody check out the ticker under the picture of Clloney?
Wht the hell is this?
“A White Buffalo Will Unite All The Races of Man”
September 14th, 2006 at 8:00 pmGood for Clooney, nice to see actors take up worthwhile causes.
Why do so many on here use every topic to bash Bush? You could save your insults for the FIVE other main articles that are all agaisnt the Bush administration and keep ths one on topic.
I don’t know much about this topic so it would be nice to see relevant posts.
What is Clooney asking for – money or Unicef?
September 14th, 2006 at 8:23 pm#19
September 14th, 2006 at 8:40 pmGreat replies.
Spudge Boy – “A White Buffalo Will Unite All The Races of Man†– that is weird!!
My only reply would be – “All our base belong to us”
September 14th, 2006 at 8:43 pmThe Bush Administration looks at the people of Darfur like they looked at the victims of Katrina. Look let’s face it this Administration is racist and could care less how many black people die. Yes the world did nothing as the Jews were killed and yes the world said they would never let that happen again. But we have George W. Bush would watched blacks beg for help and others die on TV. Now if this Administration wont help African Americans in the US you know they will do nothing for the people of Darfur. If the Darfur Crisis is to be saved we’ll need a new President. Look at Bolton who eats his dinner while watching the suffering in Darfur. Wolfie is looking to buy favors for the US in his position. Yes history will show millions of African died but they didn’t have to. It is because of the color of their skin thank goodness all of Americans aren’t like the so called born again christian George W. Bush. I guess the religious groups really don’t read the bible or follow Jesus’s teachings. I hope God can forgive our elected officials who watched and did nothing as millions of humans died.
September 14th, 2006 at 8:49 pm#19 – very well said.
September 14th, 2006 at 8:50 pmI agree, #19, well said.
September 14th, 2006 at 9:02 pmThe question isn’t about what his profession is or isn’t. The question is what is he going to do with his celebrity status? I give him huge points for stepping up to the plate and using his power as an actor to reach a lot of people. Think about the common ‘joe six pack’ types who only read Entertainment Weekly, they might learn something that they wouldn’t otherwise be exposed to. He is also putting his career on the line by doing this. Think about what happened to the dixie chicks when they started speaking thier minds. There are 32% of Americans who would follow Bush over a cliff. How do you reach these people? I think Clooney is a good place to start.
September 14th, 2006 at 9:16 pmOh yeah #19 is very good.
Thanks for the heads up on that Zooey and Cloak.
September 14th, 2006 at 9:29 pmWho has what to gain from Clooney’s objectives.
September 14th, 2006 at 9:31 pmOK #28 & 17, I agree that Clooney might be a good vessel for such pleas (sort of like Bono) However, we should be wary of ridiculing those of different opinions.
Obviously there are plenty of liberals that just assume the majority of US voters in 2004 were either idiots or too lazy to look for “the truth” since Bush won.
But there are pleny of conservatives that think the majority of people have entertainment-based IQ’s and can not grasp the scope of what we are trying to do in Iraq and instead LCD everything to thievery and greed.
You don’t have to be an idiot to support Bush. Nor be a liberal.
…and #18, celebretiy salaries are justified because we live in a capitalistic society. I wouldn’t group Clooney and Sheen together either…
Now look what you made me do…get off topic just after i asked everyone to remain on…sadness.
September 14th, 2006 at 9:37 pmWell, I’m almost convinced George Clooney can make a difference in my….er…the world. He needs to come over to my house sometime and finish convincing me.
September 14th, 2006 at 9:47 pmWell, that destroys the myth that we, beautiful people, cant be intelligent or social thinkers. ;)
September 14th, 2006 at 10:03 pmHey, lemme do an impression of a right winger:
September 14th, 2006 at 10:08 pm“Hey, you stupid actor. Why don’t you shut up and act and stop using your celebrity to help people. Who cares what you say?”
How was it?
America’s Least Wanted
Well, I’m almost convinced George Clooney can make a difference in my….er…the world. He needs to come over to my house sometime and finish convincing me.
Comment by Zooey — September 14, 2006 @ 9:47 pm
LOL!
September 14th, 2006 at 10:15 pmWaitaminnit….I thought the publishers of ThinkProgress were opposed to interventions that protect the lives of people who live in dangerous, dictatorial nations….Which is it? Is it acceptable to intervene in a nation where people are being slaughtered or not?????
September 14th, 2006 at 10:18 pm#33….Juan,
I know you have said here many times that other nations should not come to the aid of oppressed peoples and that such oppressed peoples must fight for themselves— that the international community owes these oppressed peoples nothing.
Ergo, I am perplexed by your seeming acceptance — indeed, praise — of Clooney’s remarks. As I underestand your previous posts, you should be saying the people of the Sudan need to take care of themselves and they should expect no help….Or have I misinterpreted your numerous earlier posts? Looking forwar to your explanation…..
September 14th, 2006 at 10:24 pmElax…could you please find another blog to troll? Thank you.
September 14th, 2006 at 10:25 pmIs it acceptable to intervene in a nation where people are being slaughtered or not?????
Comment by Exley
Yes, with the condition of not killing more people.
September 14th, 2006 at 10:26 pmIt’s amazing to me that Republicans would never intervene in a nation that has no oil, no war-profiterring, and no white people. That says a lot about them.
September 14th, 2006 at 10:30 pmOr profiteering from lands taken, puppet governments, and resources plundered. Tough one, right?
September 14th, 2006 at 10:31 pm#38, So, you have no intelligent response? Okay.
#39, Juan, So do you honestly believe that the international community could stop further mass slaughter in the Sudan without having to take another life? How, in your opinion, would or could the international community prevent further mass murder in the Sudan if, as you indicate, military action is off the table????
September 14th, 2006 at 10:35 pmJuan,
You’re making a lot of sense there.
Hello, Juan. Long time, no see!
September 14th, 2006 at 10:36 pmHello, Juan. Long time, no see!
Comment by Zooey
Zoo!! Nice to find you. :)
You’re making a lot of sense there.
I bet you meant my post #33. ;)
How, in your opinion, would or could the international community prevent further mass murder in the Sudan if, as you indicate, military action is off the table????
September 14th, 2006 at 10:43 pmComment by Exley
Simple: STOP SELLING WEAPONS TO DICTATORS AND PARAMILITARY FORCES. Promote fairness, force european countries to give back all the richness they have taken from that continent. Try to give some monetary value to all the slavery US promoted and pay that, with the most profound apologies to real democratic elected governments. Let people live with the governments they want. People dont want to kill each other; weapon companies want that! Review the history of tutsis and hutus, just as an example.
#40
Korea (Truman’s decision but supported by GOP)
September 14th, 2006 at 10:45 pmVietnam
Grenada
El Salvador
Nicaragua
Panama
Somalia
Obviously a self-righteous Republican who doesn’t have the mental capability of reason.
September 14th, 2006 at 10:45 pmJuan
#44
What you describe — regardless of its merits or naivete — are long-term proposals. It would do nothing in the immediate or short-term to save one life in the Sudan.
September 14th, 2006 at 10:52 pmExley you took Juan’s point too literally. Juan was likely saying the military is to be used as a tool to obtain the peaceful objective.
Yes Exley you are pointing out that in an imperfect world, there will be some resistance, likely serious, and someone will die in that process.
I would love to see this done with no more killing, but realistically, going in as a military on best behavior may not prevent casulties.
September 14th, 2006 at 10:53 pmIt would do nothing in the immediate or short-term to save one life in the Sudan.
Comment by Exley
So, how many people must die until we get to long term solutions?
September 14th, 2006 at 11:02 pmIm sure that if Sudan is threatened in a forcefully way (no firing anything, but cutting funds for dictators and army), you get peace. Then you talk.
It seems that we must do nothing until we find the perfect solution. Until then, people will simply have to continue dropping like flies.
September 14th, 2006 at 11:15 pm#48, For Truth,
No, I think I understand what Juan is trying to say….But, I suppose what I am ultimately asking is what is the difference between seeking to save lives in a genocidal Sudan, Iraq, or the Balkans? Juan and many others here seem to support military action to stop the mass slaughter in the Sudan (or condemn world inaction in Rwanda in the 1990s) but oppose actiom in the Balkans or Iraq or Afghanistan….
September 14th, 2006 at 11:20 pm[...] Clooney lends his dashing good looks to the Darfur debacle. [...]
September 14th, 2006 at 11:23 pm#50
Zooey…Is that sarcasm I am detecting? Are we actually in agreement that we musn’t wait for a perfect solution before acting????
September 14th, 2006 at 11:24 pmbut oppose actiom in the Balkans or Iraq or Afghanistan….
Comment by Exley
I just will say: Come on…
September 14th, 2006 at 11:31 pmExley it goes back to the ways and reasons the military is being used. We disagree how and when to use the most powerful military in the world.
September 14th, 2006 at 11:33 pmHaving the US help in Darfur doesn’t necessarily mean boots on the ground. It means intel sharing, command and control aid, logistics, air lifts. It has been accepted for quite some time now that the majority of any UN force would orginate from African countries, so proactive US military help to Darfur does not mean the US will be “taking over” another Muslim nation. Far from it. We need to apply targeted sanctions to regime officials who are responsible for this genocide; we need to enforce a no-fly zone (an action that would not put our pilots in danger); we need to seriosly pressure China and Russia to vote YES to the US force in the UNSC. We can’t fight the last war here: our mission in Somalia porly planned as has been the war in Iraq. This genocide is neither of those wars. There are one million internally displaced people in Darfur right now who will literally be murdered if the international community (lead by the US) doesn’t start taking our responsibility to protect these people seriously.
September 14th, 2006 at 11:37 pmAnd to #14: your post is offensive. You obviously have absolutely no idea what kind of literal hell these people are living through. Yes, there are a host of problems in our country, but they come no where near the daily challenges that a Darfurian must live through. Do some research on what is going on over there before you demand that we focus solely on helping poor Americans. That’s part of the probelm: we feel so sorry for ourselves that we can’t make room in our schedules to consider that some people in this world might have it worse than us. Wake up and read the news.
correction: we need to push Russia and China to vote yes to a UN force in the UNSC
September 14th, 2006 at 11:43 pmDay 105 24/7 DC VIGIL for DARFUR; Day 35 HUNGER STRIKE (54 days so far this summer, with breaks); ARRESTED Sept 9th at White House with 29 others from Africa Action; http://wwww.standwithdarfurwhitehouseii.blogspot.com
THE ONLY HOPE FOR DARFUR: WE-THE-WORLD’S-PEOPLE. Duh.
It is said that the mark of truly being “crazy†is expecting different results from doing the same thing over and over and…. Ok, we needed to try some new approaches, hoping we could find a new formula for mass social change (stopping Genocide has NEVER been done); looking for an approach that would be comfortable, convenient, safe, executed from our computer terminal / phone / TV or office in some combination. The variations we’ve tried are: * Blame (Bush, UN, EU…) , * Emails, letters, postcards…,* Letting the Nonprofits do it, * Divestment. And the results are in. WE ARE NOT, STOPPING THE GENOCIDE!
You mean that the answer for Darfur is the same answer we found for…* Ending the Vietnam War, * Gaining Civil Rights in the US, * Gaining Women the right to Vote in the US, * Ending apartheid in South Africa, * Throwing off the British oppression at our start….?
Yup. No one else, nothing else can stop it, can save 4,000,000 in Concentration Camps in Sudan and Chad. The buck stops with WE-THE-WORLD’S-PEOPLE. Let’s stop talking and start – marching, demonstrating, sitting-in, hunger striking….
The next step is September 17th (SaveDarfur.org; DayForDarfur.org). BUT, then we need to be ready on SEPTEMBER 18th, 19th… AS LONG AS IT TAKES, WHATEVER IT TAKES.
Jay McGinley, jymcginley@cs.com
September 14th, 2006 at 11:45 pm#55, For Truth
I understand we have some disagreements over how an when the U.S. military is used….But I suppose what I am looking for are some examples of the appropriate use of military force? The intervention in Somalia? The Balkans? Afghanistan? Iraq?
September 14th, 2006 at 11:46 pmZooey…Is that sarcasm I am detecting? Are we actually in agreement that we musn’t wait for a perfect solution before acting????
Comment by Exley
Very good, Exley. I didn’t even have to use an indication of sarcasm.
I suppose in the great scheme of the cosmos, there will be times when we agree. Welcome to the metaphysical plain….
September 14th, 2006 at 11:50 pm#60….Welcome to the metaphysical plain
Thank you, Zooey…Nice to be here…
Good night all.
September 15th, 2006 at 12:02 amExley, I would have to be a military expert, General or something to answer your question. I would like to hear alternatives from the experts.
September 15th, 2006 at 12:07 amEx weenies out…again. Was it something I said?
He’s lurking…
September 15th, 2006 at 12:09 am#59: I suppose what I am looking for are some examples of the appropriate use of military force?
I’ll speak for myself. I don’t know what For Truth thinks.
The intervention in Somalia?
I supported this; it was a humanitarian mission. The execution was pretty bad, but I thought it was the right thing to do. I would have supported military action in Rwanda, too, even though there would have been political fallout for Clinton. I would like to have seen other nations also committing peacekeepers.
The Balkans?
Again, I supported this. Although the case against Milosevic was overstated, there was genocide happening in the Balkans, and the situation demanded US/UN intervention. I thought Republicans who suggested Clinton was waging a “wag the dog” war to distract from the Monica Lewinsky scandal were the worst kind of political hacks.
Afghanistan?
Yet again, I supported this. I don’t like going to war, but the Taliban supported Al Qaida and I think they had to be removed. I have no idea what Bush’s real motives were, but I supported this action. The Taliban were (and are) a threat to global security. It troubles me that Bush didn’t commit enough troops to capture/kill Bin Laden.
Iraq?
There was no logical justification for this war. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, but he was not a threat to global security.
September 15th, 2006 at 12:11 amZoo. This goes too slow.
September 15th, 2006 at 12:21 amI know, Juan. It’s a big, giant, massive, pain in the ass.
TP needs to get a better geek!
September 15th, 2006 at 12:27 amJake, check out the Air Force thread.
September 15th, 2006 at 12:34 amYou guys are such hypocrites. Nobody has signed on at the AF thread. I am thinking if you losers are so patriotic you will sign up for it.
September 15th, 2006 at 12:35 amWhat a cornocopia of knowledge
September 15th, 2006 at 1:01 amSomeone got to it before me, but exley, the reason I want the UN to stop what’s going on in Darfur but that I didn’t support what they wanted to do in Iraq is that our military was doing things different ways and for different reasons. Like it was said before, us helping in Sudan doesn’t mean troops on the ground. Taking out Saddam didn’t require an invasion. What do we train all of these black ops guys for, anyway?
September 15th, 2006 at 2:11 amClooney is a nice guy, but the GOP swift-boats Hollywood actors and actresses, so their messages tend to get destroyed > sad but true!
September 15th, 2006 at 2:19 amtesting
September 15th, 2006 at 9:12 amGood for Clooney. It is good to see Hollywood actors with a conscience getting out-and-about taking action on what they say they claim to believe. I get sick and tired of opinionated, hypocritical actors who think others should “do as we say, but not as we do.”
Clooney is putting his money where his mouth is, and in the process revealing the true nature of the Christian America of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, George W. Bush, etc. — i.e. not the least bit interested in “helping the least of these”; and instead more interested in power, money, submission and blood.
If the so-called Christian West won’t come to the rescue of the mass murder of defenseless, impoverished people, perhaps it is time for non-Christians (progressive religionists, secularists, humanists, etc.) to stand up and do the rational, ethical thing – IN THE NAME OF HUMANITY.
September 15th, 2006 at 9:20 amExley, c’mon, you’re an intelligent person and you seem to be reasonable when people use reason with you. (Except for that part about being a Mets fan. By the way, my Cubs proudly own the worst record in the NL … sigh.)
But, you can’t really compare Iraq in March 2003 with Darfur today. Hussein had a genocidal streak when it came to the Kurds (though, without beating a dead horse, that didn’t stop the U.S. from “normalizing” relations with him in the 1980’s, including lifting trade restrictions and approving sales of chemical and biological agents by U.S. companies to the Iraqi government … but, I digress), but the U.S. and the UK had already put an end to that by enforcing the Northern No-Fly Zone.
As I’ve said before, Saddam was a murdering tyrant – and, by the way, he was NOT a legitimate ruler under prevailing international human rights laws – so the people of Iraq had every right to take up arms against him; and, as you suggest, the international community as a whole, or the U.S.-led coalition, would have had the right to support a popular uprising against Saddam … but that’s not what happened. Had the Iraqis come to us and said, we’re ready and willing to take up this fight, I would have supported U.S. intervention on that basis alone. But we never gave the Iraqis the chance to make that decision; we forced that decision on them – and that’s where I have a problem with the supposed “humanitarian” justification of the Iraqi mission. (Well, that and the fact that the White House said, unequivocally, that bringing down Saddam to enable the Iraqis to form their own, democratic government would NOT have been a sufficient, independent justification for military action; instead, it was just a desirable side effect of the war, the justification for which was based solely on WMD, Iraq’s supposed threat to the U.S., and its supposed links to terror groups including al Qaeda.)
The people of Darfur, on the other hand, are begging for intervention. It isn’t that they, like the Iraqis, are merely unhappy with the oppressive regime; they are victims of genocide right now, and they are facing a greater threat of genocide in about 2 weeks when the African Union force leaves the region. In March 2003, the majority of Iraqis wanted Saddam out but were not yet willing to face outright war to get rid of him, so far as we know anyway. The people of Darfur have no choice – their facing slaughter (renewed slaughter, more accurately) if we don’t intervene. It’s not a choice between the devil they know and the devil they don’t know (e.g., Saddam vs. U.S. intervention); it’s a choice between dying by the hundreds of thousands or having at least a prayer for survival.
And by the way, this is NOT a left-vs.-right issue. In fact, conservative Christians were way out in front on this issue, and liberals are now playing catch-up. The problem is, our elected officials here in the U.S., and the leaders of the U.N., have dropped the ball on this issue – just like they did in Rwanda. Now is the time for liberals and conservatives to work together to address an issue we all agree on – we CAN’T turn our back on these people!
September 15th, 2006 at 11:09 amGod bless George Clooney and Sean Penn…
…two definitely righteous HUMAN BEINGS!
September 15th, 2006 at 11:16 amOh yes, I need an empty headed actor telling me what American policy should be. Gee, If we wanted to stop mass killings by military intervention we would invade Iraq, oh. Hmmm.
September 15th, 2006 at 11:20 amSean Penn is righteous? Mr. anger management problems?
September 15th, 2006 at 11:28 amHappy Guy (the name seems a bit out of place, but I guess that’s your cross to bear), at least this “empty headed actor” is talking about the issue; whereas our elected leaders – Republican and Democrat alike – have been ignoring it for the past few years. By the way, did you know that this issue was first championed by conservative Christian churches? It’s not some liberal cause, even if a Hollywood actor (gasp!) is on board.
And as far as the Iraq comment goes, let’s talk about Saddam’s mass killings. How many people was he killing in March 2003? Since we did nothing to stop the Anfal campaign in northern Iraq, and we left the Shi’ites out to dry after Bush 41 encouraged them to rise up, our track record on “humanitarian intervention” in Iraq is less than spectacular … unless you consider how Bill Clinton enforced the northern and southern No-Fly Zones for 8 years. But the relevant question is this: How many people did Saddam kill on, say, a yearly basis, in the years leading up to the war, and how does that number compare to the number of civilian casualties since the war began? Have we killed more or fewer civilians than Saddam would have killed had he been left in power?
I ask this because the Iraqis themselves were apparently willing to live with the mass murderer rather than incur the cost of rising up against him, so it seems as though they felt the cost of military intervention was higher than the cost of leaving Saddam in power. Wasn’t that their decision to make?
September 15th, 2006 at 11:33 amDave, I was being sarcastic. I don’t mind helping out those being killed by dictators and warlords. Saddam is responsible for millions of deaths (with an M). He constantly broke UN resolution to the point where his regime change became US policy. Clinton did not revoke or dispute this policy.
Clooney (actor) is going to the UN. These bunch of idiots will write a letter to a warlord say if they keep killing people we will get mad and write a letter using bold next time.
September 15th, 2006 at 11:50 amHappy Guy … I may be a little sarcasm-impaired today (it’s been a long week).
I can’t quote chapter and verse, but I think Saddam has been accused of killing around a million people – not that that changes your argument, of course (a million here, a million there … pretty soon the numbers start to add up …). I wholeheartedly agree the guy was a murdering bastard.
I think, though, his murdering ways had been held in check by the time 2003 rolled around. Undoubtedly, he tortured and murdered political opponents – and that, alone, would have been reason enough for the Iraqis to rise up against him and for us to back them. But, he wasn’t committing genocide against the Kurds or the Shi’ite majority and he wasn’t at war with Iran or anyone else by 2003. Hence, my question – would more Iraqis or fewer Iraqis have died during the period from March 2003 to the present had we not invaded? I’m not saying I know the answer, but I do think it’s a relevant question.
And again, I am in NO WAY defending Saddam or trying to minimize the harm he caused to the people of Iraq.
September 15th, 2006 at 12:15 pmOh yes, I need an empty headed actor telling me what American policy should be. Gee, If we wanted to stop mass killings by military intervention we would invade Iraq, oh. Hmmm.
Comment by Happy+Guy — September 15, 2006
Yes, from now on on the neocon imperialist agenda. Screw the black people, they have too little oil.
September 15th, 2006 at 12:35 pmI can’t say he was killing more or less people. Not that he and his sons were not killing. After all when you divert medical aid to buy bullets you don’t know how many have died that way. And of course the rape rooms don’t kill anyone now do they? And Saddams boys pulling little girls out of schools for fun, that’s better than US involvment.
How about the fact that Saddam paid $25,000 to the family of anyone who killed an American or Jew in a suicide attack. That does not sound like a terrorist supporter to me. No connection at all.
September 15th, 2006 at 12:48 pmHey pnac911, I am saying we should go in. The US should have a policy of involvment.
I don’t say screw the blacks, but you people love to sit around and say screw the Jews.
How about Iran? They say we want nukes and we want all Jews dead. What do you say? You can’t talk with these people so do you say attack or screw the Jews?
Come on, show your true colors!
September 15th, 2006 at 12:54 pm#63 Zooey….I “weenied” out???? Where? When? What did you say to which I was supposed to respond?
September 15th, 2006 at 1:41 pmHappy # 82
You right wing scum never cease to miss an opportunity to LIE!
now it’s Saddam offered $25,000 to any Palestinian “terrorist’s” family for killing AMERICANS?
You’re a lying piece of rat excrement, and I apologize to the rats…
September 15th, 2006 at 2:09 pmI support the statement, but I seriously question G. Clooney’s motives. I believe very few celebrities are able to make a statement like that and be taken seriously. It seems that every now and then some Hollywood big shot pops up and tries to profile themselves as the “really concerned world citizen”. You could start by shelling out of all your own millions first Clooney while the rest of us struggle at the factory to make a few measly bucks to support our own lives.
BTW, why is the US the “greatest nation in the world”? Surely the US is the most dominant, most polluting, most aggressive, most selfish (always looking out for American interrests, whatever the cost) and biggest divider of nations, but does that make it great? Not to mention the large portion of it’s own poor people it can’t support because of a gang of greedy WASPs. Whatever the problem, just send in the troops – they’ll fix it! But at least anyone can become president, right – if they have several millions in the bank. But at least anyone can speak his or her opinion in the press, as long as it is in accordance with the general perception of what is the appropriate oppinion of the rest of the press at any one time. It certainly is great. Boy, am I happy and proud to be European!
September 15th, 2006 at 2:26 pm#86, Clooney’s father was a journalist in the Edward R. Murrow era, and Clooney grew up with journalists hanging around his house. I believe that he even interned as a journalist. Regardless, he was raised being totally aware of current events, and, obviously continues to be strongly interested in and involved in global problems. He really IS a “really concerned world citizen”, not just another pretty face.
September 15th, 2006 at 3:45 pmWe have over Six Billion people on the planet. If 2 million die in Darfur, they will not be noticed and quickly replaced by the insane birth rate. We would have less problems if the world consisted of 2 Billion people so there would be x3 resources to go around.
It’s not nice to think about, but less people means more resources to go around to those who live. The Laws of Nature are not the laws of man or the platitudes of religion. Nature says survive or die.
Africa’s best bet is not 2 million dead, but 200 million so the populations can readjust to the available resources and have plenty of space between their various population groups.
Sad but true.
September 15th, 2006 at 6:32 pm[...] Think Progress » Clooney: ‘My Job Is…To Beg You On Behalf Of Millions of People Who Will Die’ Clooney at the UN: “[T]his genocide will be on your watch. How you deal with it will be your legacy — your Rwanda, your Cambodia, your Auschwitz.†(tags: genocide darfur activism) [...]
September 15th, 2006 at 10:19 pm[...] George Clooney pleads to the UN to stop the genocide in the Darfur, Sudan – Powerful video, “This genocide will be on your watch. How you deal with it will be your legacy — your Rwanda, your Cambodia, your Auschwitz.†[...]
September 16th, 2006 at 6:58 amAmen, Miss Jane…
September 16th, 2006 at 5:29 pmWith all due respect, Mr. Larsen, I doubt very seriously that you (or, for that matter, I) would have as much impact on the UN as George Clooney when it comes to Darfur. While most celebrities are gobbling up every morsel of fame fed by a gossip-mad society, George Clooney is clearly using his celebrity to get a very important message across to the world. GOOD FOR HIM!
Why not try to look past the glossy exterior of the man to see a good person who has been been given the privilege of having his voice heard.
Mr. Clooney has contributed financially to charitable causes- case in point, auctioning off Oscar swag of considerable value for charity.
Oh, and BTW, speaking as a proud American born and bred, America truly is a wonderful country of opportunity. There, I am an Indian American. In Europe, I am a brown girl trying not to be categorized.
In response to your rant, I am sure that there are more then a few Americans who are happy and proud that you are not an American as well.
Thanks, SK! (Although I have to admit he is an extremely handsome man, too!)
September 17th, 2006 at 7:04 pmyou ain’t lyin’…
September 18th, 2006 at 5:44 amBut that is beside the point. Whatever comes of the Darfur panel discussion at the UN, I hope it means a step in the right direction. Perhaps it can be agreed that any humanitarian effort is welcome, as it is clear from this and other forums that people are war-weary.
SK, as George Clooney said about it, he’s planning to use the fact that cameras follow him around to help bring this (and hopefully other) problem(s) into the limelight. And, hey, he has the money, too, to really help this and other causes. And did I mention that he’s good-looking? ;-D
September 18th, 2006 at 4:55 pm[...] …life imitates art. « Healthy Competition [...]
September 18th, 2006 at 5:07 pmI find your blog information both compelling and relevant.
Best of luck,
Dr. Eileen Sheridan Wibbeke
September 18th, 2006 at 8:07 pmThanks, Dr. Wibbeke – drop by any time!
September 19th, 2006 at 10:04 amYes Jane, you did say he is good looking.. and, believe me, no-one is more eager to agree than me (you could melt into George’s eyes…)
September 19th, 2006 at 5:44 pmAs I sit here writing, the newscasters recite the chaos occurring in the world- Hungary riot; Thailand coup; and even worse, what exactly defines torture in re to Geneva Convention. The goings-on drive you insane and for me anyway, make me wish I could do something more. I really hope that familiar voices, like that of George Clooney, can generate inertia behind pressing human rights issues.
At the risk of laying prey to more cynical minds, I really want this to make a difference.
SK: Thailand coup? Hmmm, haven’t heard that one yet, but our media is woefully inadequate as far as world news goes. I understand the wish to do more, I just took my first baby steps by volunteering help for the campaign of a Democratic challenger to our local Congressional rep’s seat. Other than that, I sign a lot of petitions, email reps/senators/right-wing pundits, occasionally contribute to causes, what else can one do? Unless one is in the position that, for instance, George Clooney is in (fame+money), it’s tough making one’s voice heard. I’m with you in wanting Clooney’s actions to make a difference, and I’m actually pretty hopeful about it!
Have a good night (it’s night there, right?), I have to head home.
September 19th, 2006 at 6:44 pmThe African Union troops will stay in Darfur til end of year not til the end of this month- just heard it on CNN.
September 20th, 2006 at 6:35 pmGood news, I think.
Did Darfur attack the US? If not, the liberals say we can’t do anything. So, no deal.
September 20th, 2006 at 9:55 pm