Rocinante (No cynicism required): CRISIS IN DARFUR---NOT TO MENTION THE "LEFT" (AGAIN): "The Darfur crisis is following a pattern which is so well-worn now that it has almost become routine. Saturation reporting from a crisis region; emergency calls for help broadcast on the electronic media (such as the one recently on the BBC Radio 4 flagship ‘Today’ programme); televised pictures of refugees; lurid stories of “mass rapes”, which are surely designed to titillate as much to provoke outrage; reproachful evocations of the Rwandan genocide; demands that something must be done (“How can we stand idly by?”, etc.); editorials in the Daily Telegraph calling for a return to the days of Rudyard Kipling’s benevolent imperialism[6]; and, finally, the announcement that plans are indeed being drawn up for an intervention."

"What is unmistakable is that in recent months, an hysterical atmosphere has grown up around the very same designated enemy in Khartoum that has been targeted by the Great (civilized and largely English-speaking) Powers, and this hysterical atmosphere has spread so widely, it has dragged much of the world behind it by the nape of its neck. Not to mention some disconcertingly prominent segments of the Left, I hasten to add. Just like previous times."

"Or how about the UN Security Council's passage earlier today (13 in favor, 2 abstentions) of Res. 1556, co-sponsored by the United States and Britain, "paving the way for action against Sudan in 30 days if it does not make progress on pledges to disarm the militias accused of indiscriminate murders, rapes and other attacks against civilians in the Darfur region," according to the UN News Center ("Security Council votes to threaten Sudan with action over Darfur crisis," July 30, 2004)? In UNSC Res. 1556, we have an instance of the world's two Super Predator States---the very invaders and occupiers of Iraq, need I remind everyone?---successfully sponsoring a Security Council resolution not in the least way incompatible with their imperial projects and still able to find support among human rights groups and the Left. Sound familiar?"

We can assume that Bush will not be able to connect in any significant manner with this issue, but even Blair would have trouble convincing a deeply sceptical world public opinion of his "humanitarian intervention", ie war.

Rocinante (No cynicism required): CRISIS IN DARFUR---NOT TO MENTION THE "LEFT" (AGAIN): "The Darfur crisis is following a pattern which is so well-worn now that it has almost become routine. Saturation reporting from a crisis region; emergency calls for help broadcast on the electronic media (such as the one recently on the BBC Radio 4 flagship ‘Today’ programme); televised pictures of refugees; lurid stories of “mass rapes”, which are surely designed to titillate as much to provoke outrage; reproachful evocations of the Rwandan genocide; demands that something must be done (“How can we stand idly by?”, etc.); editorials in the Daily Telegraph calling for a return to the days of Rudyard Kipling’s benevolent imperialism[6]; and, finally, the announcement that plans are indeed being drawn up for an intervention."

"What is unmistakable is that in recent months, an hysterical atmosphere has grown up around the very same designated enemy in Khartoum that has been targeted by the Great (civilized and largely English-speaking) Powers, and this hysterical atmosphere has spread so widely, it has dragged much of the world behind it by the nape of its neck. Not to mention some disconcertingly prominent segments of the Left, I hasten to add. Just like previous times."

"Or how about the UN Security Council's passage earlier today (13 in favor, 2 abstentions) of Res. 1556, co-sponsored by the United States and Britain, "paving the way for action against Sudan in 30 days if it does not make progress on pledges to disarm the militias accused of indiscriminate murders, rapes and other attacks against civilians in the Darfur region," according to the UN News Center ("Security Council votes to threaten Sudan with action over Darfur crisis," July 30, 2004)? In UNSC Res. 1556, we have an instance of the world's two Super Predator States---the very invaders and occupiers of Iraq, need I remind everyone?---successfully sponsoring a Security Council resolution not in the least way incompatible with their imperial projects and still able to find support among human rights groups and the Left. Sound familiar?"

We can assume that Bush will not be able to connect in any significant manner with this issue, but even Blair would have trouble convincing a deeply sceptical world public opinion of his "humanitarian intervention", ie war.