Many of the very same folks who are vocal critics of the war in Iraq have "Save Darfur" banners on their web site. I followed one, and clicked around a lot to find out what the hell they thought should be done. They have some woman on the home page "running for Darfur" but I am not sure that is much of a practical solution. I see they also want to send in the UN peacekeepers, but they seem to imply the problem is that the government needs to go, and I have never known UN peacekeepers to overthrow any governments (or to do anything really, other than maybe participate in some of the looting themselves). And I can't believe that any adult really thinks sending aid money to this area with a rapacious government is going to help one bit.
Isn't the only real solution to send in troops, overthrow the old boss, and hang around for a decade or so until the new boss is stable? And how is that any different than Iraq.
Seriously, I thought opposition to Iraq was about not engaging in wars we don't have to for mainly humanitarian reasons. I am very sympathetic to this position, but it means that you are just going to have to watch and weep when the inevitable Darfurs come along. But all this Darfur stuff is making me think that the opposition to Iraq is more about wars started by our guy vs. wars started by your guy. I think it is perfectly valid to have a discussion about whether we want to try to take on by military force every bad government in the world (see: Cleaning the Augean Stables). Unfortunately, I think the discussion is instead devolving into whether we should use our army to attack governments George Bush doesn't like vs. those Bono doesn't like.