I'm not necessarily opposed to military intervention, I just think that most of those supporting it aren't thinking clearly about how difficult it would be and the risks it would entail. Before I support such action I'd need to be convinced that they had seriously considered the problems they would encounter, and understand that this conflict, like most, is not a morality play of good vs. evil but of two rather unsavoury and chaotic sides, albeit with differences of degree, with one side a lot more powerful than the other.
There have been UN troops all around Israel's borders since the 40s.
Thousands of politicians, NGOs, scientists deal with bringing peace to the Middle East.
Wouldn't it be fair to commit a small percentage of those monetary ressources brain power, creativity etc to Darfur or Africa in general.
Europe, the US and the UN... we all failed to bring peace to the Middle East despite the enourmous ressources we invested. Let's try our luck in another region. Waste some money somewhere else.
I don't see that in some parts of Africa. The people are too poor and too desperate and the states are too artificial.
Compared to Africans, the people in the Middle East are not poor. And yet they are not willing to compromise.
Poverty is not the cause for conflicts or the reason why peace is so difficult. Rather a middle class that is getting poorer is often a main cause for conflicts. Atlantic Review - A press digest on transatlantic affairs edited by three German Fulbright Alumni
understand that this conflict, like most, is not a morality play of good vs. evil but of two rather unsavoury and chaotic sides, albeit with differences of degree, with one side a lot more powerful than the other.
