United States the Interloper Essays - War In Darfur,

In the years of past the United States has intervened in many overseas wars and dilemmas. On the warrant that the United States believes their values and ethics are the beliefs of the world. Darfur would be one example where the United States should keep to its own borders. Darfur is being called in a state of genocide by some. In ?Genocide Is Occurring in Darfur? an article by Andrew B Lowenstein, he states ?To be found culpable for genocide, one must commit certain criminal acts, such as killing or causing serious bodily or mental harm; and - this is a key part - these acts must be committed with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group?(p1). Is the United States not doing this in Iraq? Has United States not single out one ethnic religious group and committed mass killings against them? So this begs the question, why is United States not accused of genocide? In the United States if murder is committed, that person is arrested and put on trial for his or her crime. With undeniable proof he or she is sentenced to prison and in some states the death penalty. Then that person can make many appeals towards their case. For a person on death role it takes a lot of years before that person is put to death. Lowenstein interviewed many people from Darfur, he claims a male survivor told him a Janjaweed leader said ?kill all the blacks in this area?(p2). Lowenstein also claims a female told him she heard ?kill? the ?Zaghawa people?(p2). Lowenstein being an international lawyer should know eyewitness accounts are not very reliable. Everyone sees an event a different way or here?s what was said and put in their own words. Lowenstein does not provide any real hard evidence that genocide is being performed in Darfur, just what some people have told him. Lowenstein never entered Darfur borders. Lowenstein states, ?The U.N.?s decision was particularly significant. Unlike other groups, which merely failed to weigh in the question, the United Nations affirmatively declared that the Sudanese government had not committed genocide?(p1). So United States could enter Darfur borders and start a war on the basis of he said or she said, that?s just what it would be, United States starting a war. Darfur has done nothing to United States, has posed no threats or made any accusations to do harm to the United States. In ?The United States Should Not Intervene in Darfur? by Justin Raimondo he adds, to lend a helping hand the United States should grant more visas, leave politics to their own country and hold American morals to its own boundaries (p4). The United States (for whatever reason) feels their ethics and morals should be that of the world, but why should it, is it because United States is the strongest and economical country in the world? So does this give the United States the right to say do it our way or we will kick your ass? That?s the problem with power; over time it becomes a controlling factor that one?s way is the only way. In trying to save Africa, (because that?s what the United States would call it) what effect would it have on the American people? The Iraq war and Desert Storm war have driven the price of oil to skyrocketing prices. Making the American people pay higher prices at the fuel pumps. The five largest imports in 2009 from Africa were mineral oil, oil, cocoa, wood, rubber and electrical machinery (ustr.gov). If United States starts a war in Africa how high will the cost of these products become? How much will the American people have to pay to finance this war? Raimondo states, ?That our intervention will likely as not lead to more starving African babies?(p4). As this is true for when the United States starts a war like in Iraq foods supplies are stopped. Not to mention if the United States were to start a war in Darfur. Darfur would know well in advance that the United States were going to start a war with them by the media coverage and intelligence. If in