What I notice most about this article and the responses is that no one draws negative conclusions about africans or muslims or arabs based on what is going on in Darfur, and also in Chad. Yet people draw negative conclusions about the US or Bush because of what he is not doing. The attitude that if people are not white or not western, that they are not responsible for anything is not good. It's actually racist.

The article is correct - that something needs to be done. However, by the time that this proposal takes effect, the problem will be resolved because all of the refugees will either be dead or permanently displaced. This is feel good politics at its worst - because the consequence of physical inaction is the continuation of the current slaughter & starvation.

And diplomatic action is going nowhere - because the Chinese and the Russians have oil interests that trump humanitarian action - and assure vetoes in the Security Council.

But I am terribly confused here - in Sudan, you have a people that are oppressed by the government, groups that are killed & displaced by the "favorites" of the regime, and a country that has oil resources. And here, we need to intervene? Read Kurds & Shiites for the oppressed and explain to me what the difference is between Iraq and Sudan - why is it is ok to intervene in one place and not the other? After all, this have been going on for 20 years - in the Southern Sudan and now in the Western part - the only difference is that this time, the victims are a lot more photogenic. Or maybe this is somehow “Noble” because we have no interests there?

Intervention would make Iraq look like a picnic too - you would have the Muslim world crying "crusader" at you all day long. In the end, you would have to take down the Sudanese government & military to have any hope of resolving the problem. But then, what would you replace it with?

The real choices are simple: stay out, arm the Dafur people or rain hell on the Janjaweed areas until they get the idea that leaving their neighbors alone is a really good idea. But no ground troops - period. The divestment alternative will just move the funds into the hands of those that could care less. So either feel guilty or realize that some nasty things have to be done.

Sometimes choices are bad, worse and evil - and here, that certainly is the case.

All this has done is facilitate cheap acquisition opportunities for Chinese state-owned oil companies. Glad to see Talisman out, but it is not going to solve anything.

It shows where we really place our emphasis and priorities. That Right Wing supporters are deliberately and obtusely uninformed, insisting that the Iraq war was justified for humanitarian reasons (once the WMD excuse wore thin) when there is a true genocide of truly epic proportions taking place -- and has been for some time.

Where will we be judged in history is a question I keep asking myself.