It was interesting to see that the four candidates who talked had completely different things to say. Some thought that we should directly intervene and send troops to Darfur, but others said that we must accelerate the U.N.'s role in providing peace-keeping troops. I agree with Clinton. The U.S. can provide logistical support and the airlift to give humanitarian aid. Clinton also thinks that we should not put American troops in Darfur becuase we are also involved in the Middle East and we still need to focus our attention there. Although I do agree with this, I do have a problem with it too: after reading about the U.S.'s isolationist role during the Armenian genocide, it really upset me. I see the SAME thing here. Technically, the U.S. is treating the Darfurians the same way they treated the Armenians almost a century ago: Although the press did report about the unfair treatment of the Armenians, foreign countries never took action. The New York times reported headlines such as “Entire Villages Scattered” and “A Policy of Extermination Put in Effect against a Helpless People.” These headlines made Americans aware of the problem, but the did not do much for the Armenians. The U.S. remained isolationist during the outbreak of World War I because they did not want to sacrifice American lives. Instead of just reporting on the issues, foreign countries should have gotten involved and tried to help stop the genocide.
It's the same thing here-the U.S. isn't acting . So after learning about the Armenian genocide and the U.S.'s uninvolvement, do you think that it is right for us to get invovled here? Is is not a good time because of the conflict in the Middle East? If we don't help now, will we regret it later?
I liked how this video brings up the relationship between what we are learning about in class and the current presidential race.
I think that first of all this video made me aware of the various strategies that exist to intervene/ help the genocide in Darfur. From UN troops to American troops, or no "no-fly" zone to yes "no-fly" zone. Previously I thought of helping Darfur in broad terms, knowing that something needed to be done and that there are many ways to do so , but I never quite understood the specifics.
What I found most interesting was the debate over American troops and the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness that would result upon sending them into the Darfur region. I found it particularly intriguing that some individuals such as Governor Richardson and Senator Biden strongly believed that sending US ground troops into Darfur would effectively change and possibly stop the current situation in Darfur, while other such as Senator Clinton believed that sending US ground troops is not the solution right now because troops are already spread thin with the war in Iraq. I think that the problem that could arise from instating troops into Darfur now is that there is a possibility of spreading our aid/troops too thin (for lack of a better description) given that most of our attention is being aimed towards the war in Iraq. Don't take this to mean that I don't believe that something needs to be done immediately to stop the killings, but I do believe that this is a caution that the US should take when considering the possibility of bringing troops to Darfur.
I find it interesting that only Governor Richardson mentioned working to get China to pressure Sudan, because as we talked about before, little can be done as far as economic sanctions go without China's support.
I also find it interesting that most of them recommended increasing the UN and NATO presence in Darfur instead of the African Union. Should the US support the African Union so it can be stronger and help to prevent future African genocides? Or should most resources go to NATO (a union comprising Western countries) because it is already well-established and could probably be more effective?
I take the statement 'never again' to mean working to prevent future genocides as well as stopping current ones, so wouldn't strengthening the African Union work to prevent possible future genocides in Africa?
Do You Need Help Working the Blog? a guide to the genocide blog
ANNOUNCEMENT: YOU SHOULD ALL HAVE YOUR OWN ACCOUNTS AND BE ABLE TO POST ON THE BLOG - PLEASE DO NOT POST AS MS. FINN ANYMORE. Thanks!
1. How to Enable Yourself
Sign in as Ms. Finn (she gave you her username and password) and up at the right hand corner, you'll see "customize." Click there, then click "settings." You'll see a nother button that says "permissions." Click there and hit "add new guest) or something like that. Then, add your email. You'll be listed as "guest" - that's fine. Check your email and accept the invitation. Then, sign onto your own account here on blogspot! Voila - you've enabled yourself.
2. How to Post Pics/Videos
IF YOU WANT TO POST PICS AND/OR VIDEOS, YOU MUST POST, NOT COMMENT.
PICS: While you're writing your post, you can click on the button with a little picture of a picture... (it's weird, but you'll see it up at the top right of the editing box.) If you hold your mouse over it, it should say "Add Image." Basically, follow the directions in the popup window that shows up. Then, preview your post before you publish to make sure that it worked. :)
VIDEOS: On Youtube, right under "URL" and right above the box with "Related Videos," there's a section that says "Embed." Copy that line of text and paste it into your post. Then, preview your post to make sure it worked. :)
3. Basic Courtesy
If you see that there is another post that is similar to one that you want to create, DON'T POST YOURS. Instead, comment on the one that exists already. This will prevent clutter and will allow for deeper and more active discussion on topics. :) Basically, comment whenever you can and post when there isn't a topic that relates to yours already.
4. Check all of the Recent Posts
Since there has been more blog activity, there have been more and more posts. Be sure to go back and check on posts that are a bit older - chances are, if the topic was interesting, there are still a few people posting on those as well. Let's not let any topic just die off! :)
5. Check the Lists at the Left side of the page
We will be updating these lists of links, articles, and other fun stuff, so be sure to check every so often and see if there are any new goodies to enjoy. :) Also, we will post almost any link that you all mention, so please keep them coming!
Most of all, just participate, speak your mind, and have fun!
That's it for now. If any other questions come up, we will be sure to give you all more information here, so check back every once in a while. :)
3 comments:
It was interesting to see that the four candidates who talked had completely different things to say. Some thought that we should directly intervene and send troops to Darfur, but others said that we must accelerate the U.N.'s role in providing peace-keeping troops. I agree with Clinton. The U.S. can provide logistical support and the airlift to give humanitarian aid. Clinton also thinks that we should not put American troops in Darfur becuase we are also involved in the Middle East and we still need to focus our attention there. Although I do agree with this, I do have a problem with it too: after reading about the U.S.'s isolationist role during the Armenian genocide, it really upset me. I see the SAME thing here. Technically, the U.S. is treating the Darfurians the same way they treated the Armenians almost a century ago:
Although the press did report about the unfair treatment of the Armenians, foreign countries never took action. The New York times reported headlines such as “Entire Villages Scattered” and “A Policy of Extermination Put in Effect against a Helpless People.” These headlines made Americans aware of the problem, but the did not do much for the Armenians. The U.S. remained isolationist during the outbreak of World War I because they did not want to sacrifice American lives. Instead of just reporting on the issues, foreign countries should have gotten involved and tried to help stop the genocide.
It's the same thing here-the U.S. isn't acting .
So after learning about the Armenian genocide and the U.S.'s uninvolvement, do you think that it is right for us to get invovled here? Is is not a good time because of the conflict in the Middle East? If we don't help now, will we regret it later?
I liked how this video brings up the relationship between what we are learning about in class and the current presidential race.
I think that first of all this video made me aware of the various strategies that exist to intervene/ help the genocide in Darfur. From UN troops to American troops, or no "no-fly" zone to yes "no-fly" zone. Previously I thought of helping Darfur in broad terms, knowing that something needed to be done and that there are many ways to do so , but I never quite understood the specifics.
What I found most interesting was the debate over American troops and the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness that would result upon sending them into the Darfur region. I found it particularly intriguing that some individuals such as Governor Richardson and Senator Biden strongly believed that sending US ground troops into Darfur would effectively change and possibly stop the current situation in Darfur, while other such as Senator Clinton believed that sending US ground troops is not the solution right now because troops are already spread thin with the war in Iraq. I think that the problem that could arise from instating troops into Darfur now is that there is a possibility of spreading our aid/troops too thin (for lack of a better description) given that most of our attention is being aimed towards the war in Iraq. Don't take this to mean that I don't believe that something needs to be done immediately to stop the killings, but I do believe that this is a caution that the US should take when considering the possibility of bringing troops to Darfur.
I find it interesting that only Governor Richardson mentioned working to get China to pressure Sudan, because as we talked about before, little can be done as far as economic sanctions go without China's support.
I also find it interesting that most of them recommended increasing the UN and NATO presence in Darfur instead of the African Union. Should the US support the African Union so it can be stronger and help to prevent future African genocides? Or should most resources go to NATO (a union comprising Western countries) because it is already well-established and could probably be more effective?
I take the statement 'never again' to mean working to prevent future genocides as well as stopping current ones, so wouldn't strengthening the African Union work to prevent possible future genocides in Africa?
Post a Comment