I visited the website, and here's what at least their "fact sheet" page says:
> The rally is part of the "Million Voices for Darfur" campaign to
> generate one million postcards for delivery to President Bush, who
> recently pledged to push for additional UN and NATO help to protect
> the people of Darfur. We applaud the President's leadership, but the
> work is far from done. We are urging President Bush to take steps
> necessary to end the genocide and build a lasting peace.
At least I understand this to mean that the organizers and participants want to urge Bush to act in the same line as supporting UN effort to help the people of Darfur.
I am a pacifist, but setting that aside for a second: What about the flip side? Is it possible that the non-liberal (radical?) left tends to see U.S and U.S action as by definition evil (and incapable of being in any form fruitful)?
Iran and Darfur are not the same thing. People are being slaughtered in Darfur. It seems a reasonable argument to make that if powerful Western nations could act this situation could be ameliorated. In one documentary on the Rwandan genocide a U.N officer emphasized how the mere presence of a U.N camp made an impact on the perpetrators of violence.
We need to look seriously at the pros and cons of any sort of action in Darfur.
--ravi
P.S: Where from the impression that liberals support an invasion of Iran?
-- Support something better than yourself: ;-) PeTA: http://www.peta.org/ GreenPeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/