"Supporters of our intervention in Sudan argue that this is a clear-cut case of Sudan’s Christian minority being oppressed and massacred by the Arab majority in the Darfur region. It is interesting that the CIA’s World Factbook states that Sudan’s Christians, who make up five percent of the population, are concentrated in the south of the country. Darfur is a region in the mid-western part of Sudan. So I wonder about this very simplistic characterization of the conflict."I wonder about it also, especially because anyone with any knowledge at all about Darfur understands that all the parties involved: the residents of Darfur, the Janjaweed, and the Khartoum regime are all Muslim.
Dr. Paul goes on to say that he knows what motivates those who oppose the Darfur genocide. Greed. That's right, he said:
Why does it always seem that when we hear urgent clamor for the United States to intervene, oil or some other valuable commodity just happens to be present?
4 comments:
Wait a second -
Paul says one reason he opposes the resolution is because its proponents have been making claims about the Darfur situation that aren't true.
You're also saying that the claim that the genocide is based on religion is untrue.
So how are you disagreeing, exactly?
Paul's statement revealed his total ignorance of the situation in Darfur, not that of the anti-genocide activists. Somehow, Paul got it in his head that Americans were upset because the Darfur residents were Christians being oppressed by Muslims. Where he got that wacky idea, I just don't know.
Understood?
He was probably speaking to a Christian group arguing in favor of intervention?
At any rate, where's the supposed Democratic leadership on this issue, anyways? (crickets)
He was speeking on the floor of the House, opposing taking action against the Sudan regime. I agree that leadership on this issue has been lacking. I have a feeling this will be a breakaway issue during the upcoming presidential campaign.
Post a Comment