A Response...

I'm happy to see that there is some constructive debate happening because of my last posting, that is exactly what I wanted! Reflecting on both Chris's and Carly's responses to my post, I've come up with a response that hopefully will push the discussion further and help us reach a more informed conclusion.
Looking at Chris's post first, he states that the idea of the U.S. government pursuing policies under the banner of "U.S. Interests" that adversely affect individuals makes us feel uneasy, this leads him to the question of what the difference between a U.S. citizen and a citizen of another country. The response that I have come up with is that although the U.S. government's pursuit of policies that hurt people of other nations by stating that those policies are in the national interest is unappetizing, the fact is that the government is doing its job when it does that. Lets take the support of the repressive government in Egypt by the U.S. as an example, it is within the U.S. government's interests to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks, the government of Egypt, however repressive it might be to its own citizens, is a U.S. ally against Al Qaeda, thus it gets U.S. support. This also answers the question about the difference between U.S. citizens and citizens of other nations, the President, Congressmen and women, and every other high level government official takes an oath to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic, thus they take an oath to protect U.S. citizens and residents, not citizens of other nations. That is the difference, that U.S. citizens are U.S. citizens not Egyptian citizens, we have no duty or need to protect citizens of other nations.
Chris also points out that if nations are in a race for limited resources my argument stands, if not, it is weakened. Our world today is a world in which there are limited resources and nations are racing to get the most before these resources run out. However, notice I say today, thus if and when we find alternative and renewable resources to supply our needs, I will gladly admit my argument fails. Unfortunately, we are not in that future right now, we are in the present, where we have limited resources, and we need them to run our everyday lives.
Moving on to Carly's response to my post, she states that the human condition should take precedence, regardless of boundaries and that the situation in Darfur is inhumane especially if we see that the calamity is taking place because of the "gluttonous appetite" for crude oil. In response to the first point about the human condition transcending and taking precedence regardless of national boundaries, all I can say is that although this is a very good ideal to work towards it is not the state of things today. Our boundaries tend to define us, although today we are being called upon to call ourselves "global citizens" we still call ourselves Americans, just like the citizens of Canada call themselves Canadians, and the citizens of France call themselves French. My point is that being anchored to a nation defined by boundaries makes us feel connected to that nation's history and greatness, an American can associate themselves with America's history, culture, and identity. However when we say that humanity should take precedence over national boundaries, we say that the world is above our nation, so how do you take that American, Canadian, or French citizen and make him or her associate with the world's history, culture, and identity, if such things even exist. Thus, the majority of people will look to their nation's interests first and humanity second, and only if this "look" does not conflict with the nation's interests.
The second point about the "gluttonous appetite" for oil fueling the genocide, I find it to be a legitimate concern, we can all say that killing innocent people is morally and ethically wrong. However, morals and ethics are rarely taken into consideration when pursuing political goals or national interests. Oil is necessary for our economy and everyday lives, thus we will get it wherever it is found, and if to get it we need to be indifferent to genocide, we will be indifferent. That is the ultimate truth at this point in our history, for we cannot wake up tomorrow and decide the the carnage in Darfur is so intolerable that we stop using oil, that is a recipe for disaster. Again I return to the Egypt example, there is no doubt that the founding principles of America include the freedom to protest against the government, from this premise it is easy to conclude that we should stop the violation of this cherished freedom worldwide. However, it is not that easy, to protect ourselves and this nation from terrorism we have to support a nation that suppresses this freedom violently. From this some people would say that we have thrown away one of our founding principles in the name of security, and I would disagree with that reasoning mainly because, if Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups are successful in defeating America, then there is no freedom to protest because there is no nation. We support the repressive Egyptian government to protect our nation, our identity, and our freedoms just like we are indifferent to the genocide in Darfur so we can protect our economy and keep our stability. The truth is that if we start attacking the repressive governments that give us oil and help us fight Al Qaeda and because of this decision, our economy plummets, or our national security is violently threatened, we will forget about these freedoms, because we will be in a bread line or worried about the next terrorist attack.
However, all of this is not to say that we cannot work for a better future. All I'm trying to point out is that we cannot force the better future to become the present, the present shall stay the present and we will have to work within it as it is.