Do you really think that the answer is to do nothing about Darfur, because it would take a lengthy commitment of time and resources? Count your blessings that you were born where you were, my friend, and that the shoe is not on the other foot.

There is much suffering, and there are some obvious “bad guy” parties, but who are the “good guys”? Are there any “good guys” at all in this fight? Or is it a fight between “a rat and a snake” with the only innocents being third party victims ?

“Peace-keeping” between two wicked parties mollifies no one.

The US’s involvement in Somalia was a bitter lesson, and the people calling for US action in Darfur seemed to have forgotten that lesson.

Similar problems are going on in the DR Congo. There, there are no “good guys.” So If one does not choose “the lesser of two evils”, then the effort is doubled in trying to pacify both sides instead of one, and multiplied again by having no local allies.

If Africans don’t want to solve Africa’s problems, then are external peacekeepers a step towards re-colonialization? To re-use a question asked 30 to 35 years ago in Southeast Asia, are these people capable of sustaining a democracy? Since the end of colonialism in various African countries, precious few have been able to sustain a democracy. Colonial governments, and white-only rule governments were generally replaced with dictatorships, or tyranny wearing a democratic mask.

From what I’ve gathered from my contacts with African immigrants in the United States, countries that have thrown off colonial or white rule (Zimbabwe, South Africa, and Sierra Leone for instance) are worse off than before. And that’s why migration to the US from Africa has soared. After the end of white-rule in Zimbabwe (the former Rhodesia) 30 years ago, and in South Africa almost 20 years ago, things have only gotten worse for their citizens, and many black Africans have given up and left their homelands.

In the last decade, over 20,000 Africans have immigrated to Indianapolis.

I recently spoke with an LDS member who returned from a mission to Ghana about 2 years ago. They were based at the Church’s West Africa Area headquarters in Ghana, and traveled throughout Ghana, Nigeria, and some neighboring countries. But they never traveled without body guards.

I admire the compassion, but I hear too many voices who have previously said that the US should not play the world’s cop, who are now saying we should be the “cop” in Darfur. Was nothing learned in Somalia over 14 years ago?

I’ve met these refugees/immigrants I’ve personally met people from Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Uganda, Rwanda, DR Congo, Zimbabwe, South Africa, and more countries. They’ve given up on their home countries. They say there’s no way that Africans are going to fix the problems within this generation.

The only possible solution in the short term is for non-Africans to go in and make peace at the point of a gun. And none of the warring factions want that. They’ve already kicked out all the white colonials, and the descendents of white colonials. They don’t want whites going back in and taking over. They don’t want any more “white solutions.” It would take imprisoning or killing millions of people to end the current wars.

Sending in 500,000 military “peace-keepers” wouldn’t even work. I don’t know what a solution might be. But I am confident there is no solution that would work within a 15 year time time. Maybe 500,000 missionaries from all faiths would make a difference, but that also would take a full generation, at least 20 years.

I have no idea, but it’s a bit of a slipperly slope to say that because the church has gotten political a handful of times, it should start getting political whenever we want it to.

Perhaps we should ask the Lord and get some personal revelation on this one. That’s the ideal anyway.

The Darfur situation is horrible, but if the church were to sign on to this particular compact, it would find itself supporting all sorts of incidental things such as urging the use of UN troops and an increase in the US governmental budget. It might be that the church in general supports the basic ideas behind it, but doesn’t want to get tripped up by the fine print, so to speak (and to mix metaphors).

Good point. If the church never strayed into political territory I would understand, but anytime they get political it has the possibility of getting messy. They’ve already decided they are willing to get political, so why not this cause?

I believe, also, that what we are doing in Africa will have a long lasting positive affect on the whole area. It won’t happen overnight, but we are making peoples’ lives better there.

One thing that has troubled me is the limits of what a government or in this case, a church, can do. I personally have wanted the president to wave his magic wand and fix things, but as I age, I realize that is simply not possible.

Despite our best efforts, these people can only progress as far as they and their neighbors will allow. They must work for their own good, as well.

I believe that however tragic and seemingly insurmountable the circumstances, anyone, any people, can make their lives better. There are choices which will benefit them, but they are the ones who must make them.

I’m not informed well about Darfur, and I’m not laying blame on the people of the Sudan who are being murdered. I am saying that everyone has a responsibility here. There are people in Africa who are rising to the challenge of improvement.

I think positive change will come, just not as soon as anybody would like.