Darfur

U.S. should not intervene Sudan, because current Sudan situation is similar to the Iraq situation. The criminal invasion and massive bombing of Iraq caused the destruction of its infrastructure that left the people without water or basic electricity, and the horrible photos of the U.S. military's use of torture at prison created a world outcry. This would happen to Sudan too. Intervention of U.S could make situation worse than right now, because history repeats itself. In this aspect, in September 2004, then Secretary of State Gen. Colin Powell went to Sudan and announced to the world that the crime of the century--"a genocide"--was taking place there. However, the rest of the UN Security Council was unwilling to accept this view, the U.S. "evidence" or the proposed action. The campaign against Sudan increased even as evidence was being brought forward that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was based on a total lie. The same media that had given credibility to the U.S. government's claim that it was justified in invading Iraq because that country had "weapons of mass destruction" switched gears to report on "war crimes" by Arab forces in Sudan. The U.S. corporate media is unanimous in simplistically describing the crisis in Darfur as atrocities committed by the Jan Jaweed militias, supported by the central government in Khartoum. This is described as an "Arab" assault on "African" people. This is a total distortion of reality. As the Black Commentator, Oct. 27, 2004, points out: "All parties involved in the Darfur conflict--whether they are referred to as 'Arab' or as 'African,' are equally indigenous and equally Black. All are Muslim and all are local." The whole population of Darfur speaks Arabic, along with many local dialects. All are Sunni Muslim.

So far, U.S. already gives sufficient humanitarian aid to Sudan. Presently 7,000 African Union troops are in Darfur.

...