It has become a standing joke to say that the American left does not
object to the use of force in foreign countries, so long as the U.S.
has no national security interest at stake. But perhaps it's no joke at
all.--Mark Finkelstein

That is so true. And don't forget what the Left's idea of intervention is: Send over a force, then have them hunker down in some kind of garrison and try to stay out of the fight, lest one of them get hurt.

The troubles in Dafur will cease when the French decide to stop giving Sudan arms for oil.  Dafur is blood for oil in the most literal sense.  France has a vested interest in Sudan, that being the jobs created by manufacturing arms to trade for oil it needs.  France is not alone in it's arming of a terrorist state, China has similar reasons and the Russians are interested in the hard currency and jobs, they have plenty of oil.  It is a sad state of affairs when nation states are more concerned about keeping their morbund arms industries going as make work schemes than the people they kill in the process.

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius

A little unfair Mark - not all leftists think a peace keeping force is necessary in Darfur - The Hollywood leftists are bringing about peace by not buying conflict diamonds - don't you know? ; )

Darfur is definitely a topic that liberals don't want to to have any serious discussions about. The article in The Globe is about all you ever hear from them:

"Bad stuff is happening in Darfur. You need to be aware of it. Somebody needs to do something. I'm sad. The end."

But what exactly do you do about it? The U.N. has been trying to find a solution for years, and have accomplished absolutely nothing. But any REAL plan of action would involve some concepts that are very uncomfortable to liberals. Mostly, as Mark pointed out, because of the current situation in Iraq:

You would have to have a military force go in completely against the wishes of what passes for the current government. The bottom line is, it would be an invasion. There would be opposition and condemnation from countries like China while this is all going on.

So expect to see nothing but more whining and documentaries, but no real solutions.

From the Savedarfur.org site - June of 2006 (my bold).

New York – Sixty-two Nobel Prize winners have signed letters to President George W. Bush, leaders of the African and European Unions, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and the UN Security Council Ambassadors of China, France, Russia and the United Kingdom calling for the deployment of a United Nations peacekeeping force to Darfur under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Chapter VII empowers the UN Security Council to take extraordinary measures that “restore international peace and security.”

Note: Interesting. The left side of the isle is very attentive to sending around notice of (mass-e-mail activity) the letter writing campaigns and the TV ad campaign which suggests that pressure be put on President Bush (and the Sec Gen of the UN) to be more aggressive in the Darfur plight.

I've noticed that many on the left also are spewing the 4 letter words in attacking Bush for "quote" ignoring Darfur. However, a quick look at the record, a phone call to savedarfur.org, and a number of national editorials had clearly identified President Bush as a leader here. The activist group wants him to do more (fine) - the activist on the street; well, as usual, unaware and wandering in the lost world of political bias.