My Theory

Through extensive research and thought on the issue of Darfur I have slowly developed my own theories on the matter. I feel that now I am qualified to make my own conclusion because I know so much about the topic. I think that it is only fair to make a conclusion on such a controversial issue if you are knowledgable, and I believe that I am definately a Darfur advocate.
I think what makes this topic such a passionate issue is the fact that there are millions of people suffering. Our world has witnessed a lot of genocide over the past century between the Holocaust and Rwanda and so many other places that they dont want to see it happen again. We need to learn from the past to prevent it from happening in the future. The hate we have experienced in our world, espeically due to race, religion, or ethnicity, has dominated our existence and really little has been done to stop it. The past can not be ignored if we aren't going to make a great step towards peace and acceptance for mankind (http://www.genocideeducation.org/opeds/04_2007.htm.)
I feel that this binary issue is relatively impossible to bring an end to. It is impractical to even think that you can make everyone in the world happy and to solve this problem that is basically what would be needed. The problem with US citizens is that we dont have enough support for our country. The one problem that there is with democracy is that it focuses on the individual success, which is both good and bad. The thing is people care too much about themselves and their own opinions that others are irrelevant. This stubbornness causes a difficulty for unity. To believe that everyone in this country could agree with one side is not only idealistic but infeasible. People can differ in many ways but the binary issue of sending aid into Darfur comes down to two different types of people. These types would including the compassionate, humanitarian or the individual. The "individual" mainly being the type concerned with what affects them. The humanitarian would want to help the suffering people of Darfur by sending aid and the individual would only desire to help them if we were getting economic benefit out of it or is too scared to send our own troops in. It is impossible to find one plan to intertwine the two differing philosophies. If we want to try and "solve" this controversial argument, the only way we can attempt to is to try and please the majority of people in the nation. This is the closest anyone can ever come to satisfying both sides of an issue, is pacifying the majority.

I think that this issue became such a controversial issue to begin with mainly because of our foreign policy. So many people are unhappy with our current foreign policy, especially in Iraq, that they don't want another outdrawn invasion to go forth again. Our country has been under so much strain since the war in Iraq has started and I dont think people want to go through those stresses again. If we eliminate the fear of the people of going into debt, sending our soldiers to fight and face potential death, and potential attack then I think there wouldn't be as many people opposed to the matter as much (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/06/iraq.poll/index.html.) Also, I feel that if all of the controversy over oil in recent years did not happen then foreign policy would be drastically different. I feel that most of our foreign policy is based off of issues with oil. We only seem to get involved with countries that are essential to our economic success. We need an incentive to get involved with a country and it seems to be for selfish reasons. So many US citizens are outraged with the gas prices that we have become obsessed with the issue (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/story?id=1058451.) If we stopped being so power hungry and thought of the actual people the problems in the world are affecting instead of just ourselves than foreign policy would be much different and going into Darfur would not be an issue.