mrbuck12000

Louisville, Ky. - Kentucky Courier Journal
June 17, 2004

"More than 30,000 black Sudanese in the province of Darfur are believed to have been murdered or starved by Arab militias in the past year, and thousands have been raped or tortured. Nearly a million refugees have fled to camps in Darfur or in neighboring Chad. Now the rainy season is beginning, and a top U.N. official estimates that if significant aid does not arrive soon, the death toll may quickly jump to 300,000.

"The United States should insist that the Security Council demand unrestricted access for humanitarian missions and authorize a peacekeeping force, for which it should urge European and African nations to provide soldiers.

"The world has lived with guilt too often after rampages of mass murder that could have been prevented. Sudan should not be added to this shameful list."

These seem to be some of the reasons why we went into iraq to help out the people, why is it that we are not sending troops there to help out? We seem to be pushing the UN to help out here, but if they are taking there time, like we felt they did in Iraq, why don;t we go into the sudan to help them out?

p.s.....my apologies for the last thread, i was a little rattled. this one is edited for my flaming!!

mr b

__________________
"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, it's probably in Tennessee --that says, fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me ... You can't get fooled again." - G.W. Bush quoted by the Baltimore Sun - Oct 6, 2002

nanofever

when i can add something worthwhile, i'll be allowed to speak.

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

phredgreen

much better.


i agree with your sentiment, something needs to be done, but the united states is stretched thin, militarily. it's gotten so bad that the army is involuntarily recalling deactivated troops, some after 3 years of deactivation, and they're begging air force and navy personnell to switch over to green army uniforms when their service is done.

our country has become the number one defender of other countries, but in doing so, it has left one crucial country behind. the United States. our interstate highways and utility infrastructures are crumbling, our schools are in dilapidated conditions, and crime rules the streets in many areas.

as much as the rest of the world needs us, we need our troops even more at home.



the political implications of our occupation in the middle east are another reasoning for the disregard of other areas of terrorist hotbeds. if saudi money funded terrorist attacks and a majority of the hijackers who crashed planes were saudi, why aren't we in saudi arabia right now? but i digress...


sudan has turned into another rawanda, another bosnia, and the world, as a whole, needs to do something. it can no longer be the united states coming to the rescue of every little country that falls into bad times. the united nations needs to step up and become a real world power unto itself.

__________________
My country is the world, and my religion is to do good.
- Thomas Paine

KMA-628

I'm gonna have to agree with phredgreen, well sort of.

We can't be the only one to be relied on in times like this.

It is just as telling that the U.N. isn't doing anything. We can't be the only people appaled by this, why isn't anyone else offering to go in to help? Why must it always be us?

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

djtestudo

Wake me when France and Germany start to care.

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

BigGov

We're already in Iraq and Afghanistan, going into a third country right now would be unreasonable and just plain stupid. We're stretched too thin as it is, in order to solve everyone's problems we'd need a draft and huge war movement.

__________________
One day an Englishman, a Scotsman, and an Irishman walked into a pub together. They each bought a pint of Guinness. Just as they were about to enjoy their creamy beverage, three flies landed in each of their pints. The Englishman pushed his beer away in disgust. The Scotsman fished the fly out of his beer and continued drinking it, as if nothing had happened. The Irishman, too, picked the fly out of his drink but then held it out over the beer and yelled "SPIT IT OUT, SPIT IT OUT, YOU BASTARD!"

Boo

Ditto... and others.

I really don't want my family and friends to be a world police force. I believe in doing our fair share, but the other countries are shirking in their assistance. Of course, we need to be a little less forceful and more diplomatic in our diplomacy.

__________________
Back button again, I must be getting old.

Pacifier

OK, WAKE UP!
Germany already cares.
Problem is, what can we (the western world) do? From what I read so far we are already quick to label one side of the conflict as "the evil" and the other as "the good. This is, as always, way too easy and simple.
I don't think that the west has enough "material" (germany has already troops in at least two other nations, and our army is officially a defence army and rather small!) and knowledge about the conflict to achieve a solution.

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

gondath

The reason for the US not sending troops involves gain. Unless this country, or any country for that matter, can get some sort of economic or diplomatic benefit from doing so, we do not get involved in the disputes of other countries. Nations are very choosy about which people in the world are worth helping. I hope some day this will change, but I seriously doubt it. The only way to really force the government to get involved is a huge public outcry over it. Good luck convincing the typical American to get that involved with people in need of another nationality.

archer2371

Somalia Redux anyone?

__________________
"This ain't no Ice Cream Social!"

"Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it."

"I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

mrbuck12000

yes but is very easy to sway the american people that you need to invade another country if you first scare the be-jesus out of american people and then you tell them that the country you are going to invade has wmd's and they harbor terrorists. these are not proven facts. (just blame the cia though...bad intell...in the mean time 850 men are killed and 1000's wounded over bad intel....another thread!!!)

Personally i think that we should focus all of our attention on this country and get out of everyones business. But to me this administration is picking and choosing who gets to live and who gets to die. Do you have oil or dnn't you, because if you don't, well we really can't help you out.


mr b

__________________
"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, it's probably in Tennessee --that says, fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me ... You can't get fooled again." - G.W. Bush quoted by the Baltimore Sun - Oct 6, 2002

phredgreen

if this hadn't been replied to a few times, i would've removed it. it's a bullshit statement without any merit. don't do it again.

germany and france chose not to take part in an undertaking that wasn't condoned by the UN and was initiated under false pretenses. if that makes them bad people, then i want to be a bad person too. don't villify someone because they don't completely agree with you and your lofty ideals.

__________________
My country is the world, and my religion is to do good.
- Thomas Paine

cthulu23

I'm relatively new to the political forum and the answer to my question may be apparent to everyone else here, but I didn't realize that posters could have their words removed because their argument is perceived as weak. It was my understanding that the rules of this forum demanded staying on topic and showing respect for each other, not intellectual relevance. Am I mistaken in my interpretaion of the forum rules?

I'm not alleging or accusing anyone of anything with this statement, I would just like some clarification on this point.

Zamunda

speaking with some sort of experience as I am half american and have grown up in places throughout Africa, like Rwanda, it is impossible for the US to either send troops or do any good. We can't send troops now for the same reasons we couldn't send any to Rwanda under Clinton, political suicide. While our memory of Somalia is not as fresh as it was then, we've had other wars to remind us and Sudan is a harsher environment than somalia. For those who haven't had the "pleasure" of visiting this desert wasteland I'll say this: no roads, no water, no food, lots of tribes, lots of guns. Only advantage is that Sudan is a lot bigger than Rwanda, so their problems aren't reaching a climax as fast. My second point is that US troops would do squat shit in Sudan, for the reasons stated above: hunger, no roads, and pissed off people. This debate is all pointless anyway because there's no way the US military could spare enough of a force to even establish a presence in Sudan
I know open the floor for anyone who wants to argue. After all thats why we are all on this site

__________________
There's always something at the end of the road
If you're not ready to see what it is
You probably shouldn't be out there
-The Hire

Dragonlich

What is there to be gained from sending troops into Sudan? It's basically a low-level civil war there. Foreign troops will either have to do nothing (peacekeepers), and be useless; or they have to actively fight any and all armed groups (peace enforcers), and be open to a world of dead and wounded, and a lot of criticism for "human rights violations".

The situation in Iraq was different, in that there was a central government doing the killing. In Sudan it's random groups of people, blending into the population as a whole...

Mojo_PeiPei

That's complete shit phred. The reasons France and Germany and other countries such as Russia didn't get involved in Iraq wasn't because of the pretenses, it was because they were too busy being on the take from Saddam. Perhaps you should consider reading up on the oil-for-food scandal. Also not to help the French's case is the fact that they were also violating the Arm's embargo at the same time as they were taking illegal oil from Saddam.

I guess you are a bad person. Even if the US's motives are questionable for going into Iraq, removing Saddam from power is 100x better then the alternative of leaving him in power because you are on the take in shady deals.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Mojo_PeiPei

Also I'm fairly certain this issue is black and white, there is definitly evil afoot here, might be tough to assert there is a force of good. But judging by the fact that more then 2 million people have died, there is an active slave trade (comprised largely of children), and the government sanctions rape/execution squads that are largely responsible for the conflict, I must again say this is an issue of good and evil. Not to mention the fact that this is being done because those in the south are Christian and choose not to follow a cruel and repressive Sharia regime.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

brianna

we're not going to the suddan because we're short on troops. personally i think that stopping the genocide that is going on there is a much more worthy cause then trying to force democracy in iraq -- but it's too late now.

wonderwench

Agreed. In addition, the problems in Sudan are internally generated and are not a threat to our national security. Tragic as they are, we have no ability solve a civil war - unless we are willing to engage in imperialism and enforce martial law. Such an extreme solution would be temporary at best - and not at all palatable.

phredgreen

cthulu23, it's simple. if you're going to make a statement, do it intelligently. his wasn't, and it was treated as such.


Mojo_PeiPei, show me. let's see some articles that show what was going on behind the scenes. i'd be happy to change my stance if i have the facts.

wonderwench, i agree with your statement. i think it's high time that the world stop depending on the united states to solve its ills. i propose that if anyone is responsible for things like this, it needs to be the united nations as a whole, not one country.

__________________
My country is the world, and my religion is to do good.
- Thomas Paine

highthief

Germany has participated in the Afghanistan mission, and - in 1991 when they were constitutionally unable to send troops - provided billions of dollars to liberating Kuwait. I believe they have about 9000 troops deployed worldwide in peacekeeping and policing efforts, including in Afghanistan and Africa.

They chose not to participate this time. I guess all the other countries that did not send troops this time around must have been on the take as well, right?

seretogis

France, Germany, and Russia did not want us in Iraq because they were profitting from the Saddam regime and didn't want us to ruin a good thing (for them). It isn't incredibly diabolical for a country to want to beenfit from another, so the only reason it is a big deal is because they lied about their motives. I would have more respect for them if they had admitted, openly, that they had close trade ties to Iraq and so wouldn't assist to topple Saddam.

As for the Sudan, we have no reason to involve ourselves there and I would hope that we would keep out as well as withdraw our troops from South Korea, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and the other dozen countries they're spread out to. We are not the world's police force -- take it up with the UN.

Here ya go Phred:

LINK

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

highthief

So conspiracy theories about France not joining in on the Iraqi fun are cool and accurate, conspiracy theories about the US wanting Iraqi oil are just paranoia?

That's a bit of a shakey platform isn't it?

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

Pacifier

In most parts of Sudan is peace, the fighting is concentrated in the south part of the nation (the Darfur area). In this area a civil war is goin on between the arabic and african groups.
USAID claims that the famine will cause 100.000 deaths, the german goverment even estimates 350.000 are in danger.

The violence has increaded, reports claim that ~30.000 people have died in violent raids. Mostly the Janjawid militia (arabic) are blamed for this (reuters). Therefore most people who are in favor of an invention are already talking about "ethinical cleasing". One of the leader of the rebels even said that "this is our Srebrenica". This guy surely learned his "buzzwords" to trigger the intervention-reflex.

But most human rights groups claim that the situation is not that clear. Hans-Joachim Preuß, spokesman of the german "welthungerhilfe" (german oxfarm) declined that the Janjawid militia are responsible alone (although he calls them "monsters"). He says that the violence comes from all groups in this conflict "the Janjawid militia, criminals, too many unemployed with too many guns, regular troops and most certainly also the rebels".

It is undisputed that the rebels startet the conflict, the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) and Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) revolted in march 2003. Exactly when the peace negotiations stagnated. With this revolt the rebels, who are cooperating with the SLA, wanted to force the goverment to fullfill their requirements.

The miserable situation (food and medicine)in the southern region is not a fault of the goverment but also of the SLA and JEM who refused any help.
Also undisputed is the fact that the JEM is supported by Hassan al-Turabi, who offered Osama bin Laden shelter in the early 90. The current goverment disempowered Turabi in 1999. Turabi now hopes for his comeback with help of the JEM.

It is true that Sudan was a quite fundamentalist state, but this has slowly changed in the laste years (see disempowerment of Turabi). Conflicts in Sudan are quite common, since 1983 some 1.5 mio people died, those conflicts were mostly fueld by western Oil industries (Yes, Sudan has Oil) who mostly supported the Rebels.

(roughly translated from a german article http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/inhalt/co/17826/1.html)

Now, tell me who is the good guy? which group do you want to support? Who is black and who is white?

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

theusername

This sickens me to the core. Nations around the world and the UN don't even seem to care. If we were not in Iraq and Afghanistan im almost certain we would have intervened already, but we just don't have the resources. Does anyone else step to the plate?

Nah, let the world just condone genocide, call it horrible, say that no one knew how horirble it really was and how many innocents were being murdered. Sickening

__________________
?

Mojo_PeiPei

What's shaky is that you refute clear and concise evidence provided by Seretogis without backing up your own claim. In fact it's almost upsetting that you label it "conspiracy theories" regarding France/Germany/Russia's blatant violation of the oil for food program and arms embargo against Iraq.

Not even that I would disagree with you that this war was largely about oil, just probably not under the pretenses you profess... it's a lot bigger then Bush or the current group power.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

cosmoknight

Why no help for the Sudan? Look at the current UN it's not a military body as it can't enforce its own rules. Regardless of the total number of countries who are members the key players number less than 10. Out of those only 4 have enough military spending vs GDP to possess a military large enough to be self deployed. Of those 4 Great Britain and the US are over extended now in conflicts and commitments that stretch beyond Iraq and Afghanistan. That leaves just two others with large enough militaries. Russia has a large force on paper but most of it is rusting away and is being downsized and slowly upgraded. Even with the political will it would unlikely be able to deploy its forces properly and keep them supplied. Red China has the other forces that could be sent however it current leadership is only focused of the Taiwan issue and could care less past its borders at this point. In short Sudan will suffer from a inept organization who everyone wants to join just not contribute to one of its early goals the ending of persecutions like those in WW2

roachboy

regarding the comments about concerning france and germany, and particularly the post by seretogis.

gee, i thought that france and germany and the rest of the security council that did not vote to authorize bushwar did so because they believed the un inspectors had managed to do their work. and that there was not justification for war.

and gee, given what has been coming out over the past weeks--far too long after the fact--it turns out that american intelligance was at best "flawed"--maybe france and germany and russia and the others who did not support bushwar were right.

how about that.


of course, this kind of problem did not stop the heritage foundation.
and i expect nothing better from them than the kind of pseudo-documentary drivel posted above.

after all, this "thinktank" was a big part of the support system that legitimated the "wolfowitz doctrine", and a major source of what at best could be described as disinformation to support that kind of "thinking"....

if you do any research about the circulation of the ideological framework that underpins bushwar, much of it passes through heritage.

and if you look at the campaign of vacant bullshit that flowed to justify bushwar by trying to shift the argument away from what actually happened onto arbitrarily selected information about financial involvements with iraq only running in convenient directions, and never, ever talking about the complete story, you could always count on heritage being a source.

it is not surprising that the poster did not mention heritage in the body of the post.

i imagine that the assumption was the presence of footnotes, which always float about at the bottom of right thinktank position papers, would make the article appear other than problematic. and that the footnotes would preclude chasing the link. i am a bit surprised there even was a link---seems a bit of a break with conservative style. but i am pleased about that break.

if you are going to try to prove a point, use a serious information source.

the heritage foundation is a joke.

it is surprising to still see the uncritical use of neocon thinktank "information" to bolster cases that are otherwise without merit.
and it is a shame, sometimes, that there are not more strigent conventions in spaces like this such that the use of this kind of pseudo-information would get you laughed out of the proceedings.


as for intervention in the sudan....i was not aware that the americans were considering any unilateral action.

first because it would be a human rights action, and we have all now learned that the bush administration only uses human rights justifications when all others have turned out to be worthless.

second becaue of the logistical problems noted above.

third because it would require a concerted internationally-oriented, highly organized effort to do anything.
maybe bushwar is one reasoin why the international community is in disarray to the extent that nothing is happening.

maybe that is something for the right to think about.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Mojo_PeiPei

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed...1405-2593r.htm
Whatever, people will believe what they want inspite of hard evidence that clearly proves one thing. I guess French firms gettin hundreds of billions of dollars in various contracts didn't skew their decision. I guess all those French produced and sold military hardware we found inspite of the arms embargo really weren't from France. I guess Saddam felt he had to much of an excess of oil to benefit his people, and that it would be better spent helping line the pockets of French ministers. Same goes for Russia. I wonder why they felt Iraq had a reason to get all those cool high tech gizmo's and illegal military hardware's, I however don't think the fact that Russian firms were recieving grants to the tune of BILLIONS of barrels of oil had any effect.

Get serious.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

roachboy

a washington times article?
you quote a washington times article and tell me or anyone else to get serious?

please.....

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Mojo_PeiPei

Where is any evidence to the contrary? Oh ok thats what I thought...

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Dragonlich

roachboy, whether you dispute the source or not, fact is that Germany, France and Russia had a lot to lose if Saddam was removed from power. I don't buy all the info that was presented here because of the source, and it being mostly harmless things that any country could have done... BUT there was a lot of money to be made by supporting Saddam. Just as there is a lot of money to be made (eventually) by removing him from power.

I just ask you not to look at this issue with your black-and-white goggles. Both the opponents and supporters of the war in Iraq had financial interests to promote. The difference is the guy providing those interests - the opponents of the war supported a known murderer, the supporters of the war now support a (more or less) free Iraq.

As for Sudan: your "Bushwar" (annoying word) cannot be held responsible for the lack of action. It wasn't there in previous instances of genocide in Africa. There was no G.W. Bush during the wars in Congo and Rwanda. There was no G.W. Bush during the previous massacres in Sudan itself. I'd say it's not even relevant. What is relevant, is that there's preciously little to gain, and a lot to lose by going in to put a stop to this. This is a recurring pattern for Africa - nobody cares about them, apart from the occasional food aid. If African countries want peace and prosperity , *they* need to take action; they shouldn't cry for foreign intervention everytime they fuck up.

highthief

Here's what I don't get. Some are saying it was ignoble for France to not join the war - presumably in the minds of some because they benefited from the status quo - yet it is either A) OK for America to take over for oil or B) America went in not thinking about oil at all, they went because they thought Saddam was a threat thereby saying that US morality is greater than the rest of the world -and somehow I don't think that's true.

As to refuting point by point, as soon as I saw the first item - that France received 22.5% of oil imports from Iraq under food for oil it was tough to keep a straight face. I think you'll find that number is high (for instance, I know that in 2001 France received 8% and were number 7 or 8 on the list), number one was always the US and US and Britain ran the program with some help from the rest of the security council. Like I said, when point one is blatantly wrong and biased, I had a feeling where the rest of the "Evidence" was heading...

Quite honestly, France was the one country that has always wanted to end the food-for-oil program and made no bones about it. If they were benefiting so much as a nation from food-for-oil, why did they agitate to end sanctions against the Iraqi people?

Dragonlich

Quite simple really: without the oil-for-food program, French companies were going to make way more money then they ever had with the program in place.

Think for a moment... if the sanctions would have been lifted, who would have gained the most? Not US companies, that's for sure. It would have been France, Russia, Germany, China. Exactly those countries opposing the war, and promoting the lifting of sanctions. Saddam used to thank his friends by giving them money and lucrative contracts.

ARTelevision

Dragonlich, I've been following along but haven't posted here because your ongoing points echo my own view of things regarding this subject.

I believe your view of the real politics of the situation reflects much truth about how the world works.

__________________
create evolution

Strange Famous

And so those who die shall at least lay down a life for the cause of realpolitik

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

ARTelevision

Yes. That is how it has always been - many millions of times over.

It has to do with the nature of human beings and the political power we create. The kinds of moral imperatives we want to believe we can live by as individuals can never apply to nations. Why? Becuause that is the nature of human groups. At some point one simply comes to accept this - perhaps distasteful - aspect of human reality. Human reality is the source of political reality.

__________________
create evolution

highthief

So you suggest first France wants sanctions lifted because French companies would make money (Along with other private companies and governments on the security council). Then, failing that, they vote to maintain the status quo because they'd rather make a little money than take part in divding up the country militarily - even though they know their resolution will not change the US/UK approach. And the US now controls 100% of the country - did the US do it to oust an evil dictator or did they do it for oil, Haliburton and contracts?

Dragonlich

Yes, the French government wanted to do what was in their best interests. If they can't lift the sanctions, they can at least maintain the status quo. Failing that (because of the US attacking anyway), they stand to gain politically by opposing the attack. After all, opponents of the US will now look more favourably at France. Besides, once they openly opposed the attacks, they simply couldn't turn around and support it - they'd have lost credibilty, and would have looked politically impotent. Furthermore, they'll be hoping the US caves in and calls in the UN, at which time they'll start to gain financially again...

The US invaded for a variety of reasons, as has been said time and time again. When you wrote that last line, did it occur to you that they may have done it for *all* those reasons, and many more besides those?

...but wasn't this threat about Sudan???

Okay, back on topic: the US and other countries will not help Sudan because of a variety of reasons. The possible end results simply aren't worth it, especially given the huge risks. That may sound brutal, but it's *their* money and *their* soldiers' lives that are on the line. Their own population wouldn't even support an intervention in Sudan, especially if it turns into another Somalia, which is quite likely.

wonderwench

The U.S. did it because Saddam's regime was a reasonable threat to our national security.

France has an additional agenda item: It is a former world power in its twilight years. The only vestige of power it retains is the permanent seat on the UNSC. It has a strong desire to undermine the U.S. as the dominant world power.

One should be wary of friends who are consumed with envy.