Question 5 – a high school senior from Wauwatosa

It comes from the stage – Darfur.

Oh, come on, you knew it was coming. It’s a pretty young crowd.

Obama says he’s been in the forefront of this issue. He turns to explain Darfur to the crowd. Uh huh, really. I’ll look it up later and link to it if you don’t know.

He also understands how dicey the issue is worldwide given there’s religion involved again. He argues for diplomacy with a carrot and stick approach.

He goes further to say that the world community is losing respect because we are not upholding the basic rules of human rights. He knows accountability to our own actions will help make change.


  1. Thanks for blogging this.

    The other key component with Sudan is the south — Darfur is not going to get resolved until the south is. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement reached in Jan. 2005 is still not fully implemented, and there are some critical issues (getting the N-S boundary set to the 1/1/56 one and census so a good vote can take place) are still outstanding.

    What is Obama’s plan on that?

  2. If you want to send me some steady links I’ll put them next to the question. Not a lot of people understand this one.


    Here’s an interesting link that may or may not be the real story. It’s worth noting that one side is the Islamists, and they seem to be involved in almost every worldwide conflict, which is not publicly acknowledged…Islam must rule the world according to Big Mo and the Koran. (Seems like that is Satan’s agenda)

    Note the comment by Ban-Ki of the U.N. that the conflict is caused by global warming. You think there is not an agenda behind the global warming garbage? Obama and his “negotiation” ideas will be very bad for U.S. interests!

  4. Shawn Matson says:

    Yeah, it’s probably best to ignore our problems. That’s worked well for the past 7 years.

  5. Who said anything about US going into Sudan? (My apologies if it is in the Wikipedia article; I didn’t read it.)

    I think the real issues here are wealth (such as it is) and power–that is what people fight over. Religious differences may fuel the flames, but seldom are the root cause. Islamists (not Muslims in general) are an exception, of course. (A rough parallel: some pro-lifers shoot doctors and bomb clinics; most of us do not.)

    We could provide helicopters, so the African troops that have agreed to go into Darfur could actually do their jobs. We could apply diplomatic pressure on China, which protects the Sudanese government from international sanctions and decrees through China’s own economic and diplomatic power. We could raise a constant clamor in all international forums calling for all Sudanese factions to implement and abide by agreements they all ready made.

  6. Shawn Matson says:

    I never said we had to get involved in Darfur.

    I said that it didn’t make sense to justify the Iraq war because of Saddam’s Human Rights Violations and then turn around and ignore the conflict in Darfur which has had much worse human rights violations.

    I don’t live by double standards, and neither do most people in the world.

    Dan, that’s what 5 times now that you’ve made empty suppositions about my stance on issues that were completely off the mark?

    Maybe you shouldn’t do that anymore.

  7. Shawn Matson says:

    Kathryn, the conflict is also racial as I understand it. Ethnic Arabs against the Ethnic Africans.

  8. Yes, that’s true, but it’s still about power and land. The Ethnic Arabs, who are also Africans, want Darfur, the land; and they want power. The situation is further complicated by a number of rebel groups.

  9. Shawn Matson says:

    I can handle criticism about my statements.

    But I can’t handle someone fabricating statements about me as you’ve done more than a handful of times.

    I said it was hypocritical to justify US involvement in Iraq while ignoring Darfur.

    I’m actually not and never have advocated sending people to Darfur.

    So “obviously” you assumed I did, and you missed the boat on this issue.

  10. I favor not being involved in either–at least militarily. But i’d tend to ay don’t be involved in either.