Will Someone Grow A Pair?

Darfur. The name of the region in Sudan brings to mind images of starving and homeless people being forcefully displaced. Over 200,000 dead, some figures say over 400,000 and over 2.5million displaced. And yet nations stand by and watch, leaving the dirty work of men to be discussed at a table by naive pencil pushing pacifists. This is a dirty situation and requires a dirty response, namely a military intervention. Years of talks have gotten nowhere and now it seems the violence has reached the worst levels since the beginning of the "genocide." Genocide is in quotations because the international community can't seem to call it that yet (even though the US has done so in speeches before the UN). Why is it that the violence is carried out in front of the international community and yet no one steps forth to stop it?
The abismal failure called the UN is the main reason. Despite its once ideological need (cooperation through the Cold War), it is now an aging dinosaur looking for an excuse to survive, like governmental agencies do when faced with cuts and closures, such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission did in the 1970s by taking over the affirmative action cases. It comes down to money. Russia and China want the rich oil resources in eastern Sudan. Therefore, those two nations will do whatever is needed to please the Sudanese government, such as vote down a UN "peacekeeper" force (still a joke since they can't do squat, but a step in the right direction).
America, the only nation with balls, is currently engaged in military operations and is unable to help. This means the bleeding hearts of Europe will have to do it (Canada could, but they are a lost cause through unilateral military intervention). But we all know they would never go against a UN decision (or lack there of) because acting unilateraly is "wrong" and "jingoistic". France can't shoo flys away from their stinky cheese, Spain became pussified after their last elections voted in socialists, Germany has a phobia of military operations, and Britain is with the US in the Middle East. Maybe Luxembourg could help then? How about Switzerland? Didn't think so.
Besides, it may be wrong to bail out the people of Darfur. For freedom to mean anything, the people will have to earn it through their own blood, sweat, and the sheer agony of struggle. Handing them freedom means little to them, like giving a little child all they want, they will eventually become brats (notice the current Iraq situation). My solution then? Package up all of the arms collected in Iraq and Afghanistan and instead of destroying them, ship them to the refugee camps along the Chad border. Send a couple of special ops people to train them to fight as a unit and let them go at it. What have they to lose? Imagine if France soley defeated Britian in the 1770's and America sat out. Would patriotism be high in our country? No, we would be ashamed of that moment in our history (is that what happened to France after WWI and WWII? Getting bailed out twice has to hurt). Unfortunately, until the US solves the Iraq problem the people in Darfur will have to hang on against the Janjaweed and the Sudanese government militias. But imagine what a few geurilla victories could do for the hopes of the people in Darfur. When starving to death, hope can be that little strength to carry on.