[Spliffdaddy]

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- The U.N. Security Council has voted overwhelmingly in favor of a resolution implicitly threatening to impose sanctions if the government of Sudan does not stop atrocities in Darfur after 30 days.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/africa...dan/index.html

WOW. an "overwhelming" vote to threaten to impose "sanctions" at a later time.

LOL. oooooo. scary.

They did this for TWELVE YEARS with Iraq. And nobody in Iraq noticed.

So, Sudan, you have 30 days to continue the genocide unimpeded. After that, the UN will threaten you with "sanctions". And after that, they'll threaten to vote for something else.

[PacHead]

Way to go UN ! 3 Cheers for the UN ! Hurrah, hurrah, hurrah. . . . . .

So, they gave the govt 30 more days to continue slaughtering people, and if they don't stop well. . . . . . . .. The UN will have another get together, drink some more coffee, and pass some other resolution giving them 30 more day, or else ! lol

The UN is a joke and so are their threats, If I was in charge of Sudan, I'd just laugh at the UN's decision, and continue with my genocide plan. Everybody knows they're all talk and zero action.

[angaq0k]

UN NEWS CENTRE

Sudan must act on Darfur in 30 days or face measures, Security Council warns

30 July 2004 – The Security Council today adopted a resolution paving the way for action against Sudan in 30 days if it does not make progress on pledges to disarm the militias accused of indiscriminate murders, rapes and other attacks against civilians in the Darfur region – a move that was welcomed immediately by Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

With China and Pakistan abstaining, and the other 13 members approving the text, the Council agreed to impose an arms embargo against the Janjaweed militias and all other non-governmental forces in Darfur, which has been described as the site of the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.

The resolution says the Council might take measures against Sudan if it does not show progress on achieving the commitments – most notably the pledges to disarm the Janjaweed and restore security to Darfur – it outlined in a joint communiqué with the UN on 3 July.

Those measures include steps allowed under the UN Charter, such as issuing economic penalties, restricting transport and communications, and severing diplomatic relations.

The resolution also calls for the resumption of political dialogue between the government and Darfur’s two rebel groups, the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army (SLM/A) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM).

Mr. Annan, who visited Darfur earlier this month and was present at the signing of the communiqué, “looks forward to the swift and sustained implementation” by Sudan of its commitments, and hopes the resolution will ensure that a humanitarian catastrophe is avoided in Darfur, according to a statement read out by UN spokesperson Marie Okabe.

The Secretary-General also welcomed the Council’s backing of the efforts of the African Union (AU), which is trying to mediate a political solution to the crisis and has deployed human rights monitors as part of a mission in Darfur, a region roughly equal to the size of France.

In Accra, Ghana, African leaders said they discussed plans to significantly expand the number of troops in the AU’s observer mission given the deteriorating security situation in Darfur. They also called on the international community to give financial and logistic support to that mission.

Ambassador John Danforth of the United States, one of the sponsors of today’s resolution, said the Council had been forced to act because Government forces and the Janjaweed, which are allied to Khartoum, had killed 30,000 people since February last year.

“The last thing we wanted to do was lay the groundwork for sanctions, but the Government of Sudan has left us no choice,” he told the Council after it voted, calling the resolution essential to global efforts to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Humanitarian agencies estimate that 1.2 million people have become internally displaced within Darfur and another 200,000 live as refugees in neighbouring Chad because of the Janjaweed attacks and the fighting between Sudanese forces and the SLM/A and the JEM.

Sudan’s Ambassador Elfatih Mohamed Ahmed Erwa told the Council his Government was in a “race with time” to implement the commitments laid out in the 3 July communiqué, adding it was extremely difficult to disarm the Janjaweed because Darfur is a region where almost everyone carries arms.

Mr. Erwa said Khartoum had already made much progress, citing the deployment of more than 4,800 police to bolster security, the arrest and trial of 200 Janjaweed members, and the dispatch of rape investigation teams headed by female judges.

Accusing the United States of pre-determining the facts, he said that when the joint communiqué with the UN was signed, it never occurred to Sudan that it would be used “as a springboard” to punish Khartoum.

Ambassador Wang Guangya of China, announcing his country’s abstention before the role, said the adoption of mandatory measures if commitments are not met is “not helpful in resolving the situation in Darfur and may further complicate the situation.”

Mr. Wang stressed the importance of listening to and supporting the AU as it attempted to resolve the Darfur dispute.

Sounds like there was some ground work in place already.

Interesting that your ambassador was so hesitant in puting those sanctions in place...

I guess it is time to relativize the role of the US in the Security Council.

Bold and italics are mine.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
Interesting that your ambassador was so hesitant in puting those sanctions in place...

The UN does not see war as the last option; it sees war as a nonoption, something which must be avoided at absolutely all costs no matter how vile. The last resort, then, is sanctions. The language used by the ambassador is perfectly in keeping with typical UN language, given this.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Millennium:
The UN does not see war as the last option; it sees war as a nonoption, something which must be avoided at absolutely all costs no matter how vile. The last resort, then, is sanctions. The language used by the ambassador is perfectly in keeping with typical UN language, given this.

I agree with you. On the other hand, I wonder where in my post I could have referred to war...

I am merely reminding spliffdaddy that the U.S. Ambassador sponsored the proposal, with other countries, to start a process that could lead to sanctions, such process, as you say, is the last option. Yet, one of the arguments leading to such a proces, proceeds from murders from February of 2003...

I am not accusing anyone here, I am emphasizing on the idea that the process to get to that decision is a long one.

I have to add also that I respect the U.N. to put in place the elements for such a process, leading to sanctions, but I share spliffdaddy (as well as typoon, from another thread, and just as I and others have remarked) concerns on the slowness of reactions.

There are obviously rules in place I (we?) do not understand.

In the end, it is about time they do something.

[Anders]

The UN authoried desert shield and desert storm so sometimes war IS the last option for UN. And what about Somalia?

If UN was to have war as an option in cases where none of the member states was attacked by another country (like in civil war) then UN had to change its foundation from a union of states to a union of people. States are interested in keeping up their special statuses and a union.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

More and more I think what’s really needed is an actual global police force, with the authority to step in and use overwhelming force to take out genociders and vile dictators who commit gross crimes against humanity. No, not just the US or any single country would be in charge, nor the UN as it exists -woefully ineffective at actually keeping the peace anywhere. I’m talking an actual police/military force with members of all nations that actually has the authority to enforce (for real, not in 'let's pretend' UN-style) global laws and ACT in situations like this.

The reality in this world is, if you’re just some poor schmuck, and you commit a single murder, the combined police forces of the world will chase your ass to the ends of the earth to bring you in if need be. But if you’re some dictator rolling in money and hiding behind an imaginary line on a map, then most people in the world have already fallen for the fallacy that you therefore have a license to commit ANY atrocity on earth behind that imaginary line. You can slaughter people by the MILLIONS and go completely untouched. The reality should be that hiding behind some bullcrap imaginary line of ‘national sovereignty’ is not actually a shield for mass murdering scumbags to go unpunished, nor an excuse for everyone to turn a blind eye. But it is, and will remain so.

I doubt any global force able to supersede the bullcrap of atrocious mass murdering regimes hiding behind imaginary lines will ever be possible, given political reality.

And worst of all some global ‘super’ police force would itself suffer from the likelihood of itself becoming just as corrupt, just as useless, just as non-credible, just as bloated, just as ineffective as the UN or any other big government organization. Pretty soon all the usual political hacks and petty tinhorns of the world would find ways to bastardize the whole idea, and use it as their own personal political battering ram against their political opponents, while true genocidal scumbags were not only being let off the hook, but being brought on as partners. It’ll always come back to business as usual.

So state sponsored/ sanctioned and world-ignored genocide will probably just remain a reality of the world forever, with no one ever finding the will to stand up and say ‘enough’ and really back it up with anything meaningful. Bullcrap wrist slaps and threatened sanctions (undermined by backroom ‘food for palaces’ type scams) are about all we can expect.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
More and more I think what’s really needed is an actual global police force, with the authority to step in and use overwhelming force to take out genociders and vile dictators who commit gross crimes against humanity. No, not just the US or any single country would be in charge, nor the UN as it exists -woefully ineffective at actually keeping the peace anywhere. I’m talking an actual police/military force with members of all nations that actually has the authority to enforce (for real, not in 'let's pretend' UN-style) global laws and ACT in situations like this.

The reality in this world is, if you’re just some poor schmuck, and you commit a single murder, the combined police forces of the world will chase your ass to the ends of the earth to bring you in if need be. But if you’re some dictator rolling in money and hiding behind an imaginary line on a map, then most people in the world have already fallen for the fallacy that you therefore have a license to commit ANY atrocity on earth behind that imaginary line. You can slaughter people by the MILLIONS and go completely untouched. The reality should be that hiding behind some bullcrap imaginary line of ‘national sovereignty’ is not actually a shield for mass murdering scumbags to go unpunished, nor an excuse for everyone to turn a blind eye. But it is, and will remain so.

I doubt any global force able to supersede the bullcrap of atrocious mass murdering regimes hiding behind imaginary lines will ever be possible, given political reality.

And worst of all some global ‘super’ police force would itself suffer from the likelihood of itself becoming just as corrupt, just as useless, just as non-credible, just as bloated, just as ineffective as the UN or any other big government organization. Pretty soon all the usual political hacks and petty tinhorns of the world would find ways to bastardize the whole idea, and use it as their own personal political battering ram against their political opponents, while true genocidal scumbags were not only being let off the hook, but being brought on as partners. It’ll always come back to business as usual.

So state sponsored/ sanctioned and world-ignored genocide will probably just remain a reality of the world forever, with no one ever finding the will to stand up and say ‘enough’ and really back it up with anything meaningful. Bullcrap wrist slaps and threatened sanctions (undermined by backroom ‘food for palaces’ type scams) are about all we can expect.

Tending to agree with Crash.......

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
More (...) all we can expect.

I agree with CRASH HARDDRIVE as well.

IMHO, I think the problem is mutifaceted.

1) Human nature is unreliable when it comes to consider for its goodness (there is a long standing, unresolved debate right there); some people will take advantage of one another if they can get away with it, sometimes, and often because they perceive their needs as prioritary to those of others

2) The context when the U.N. was set was authentic, and probably really full of good will; many nations were coming out of a difficult World War, and the motivation to do good was probably stronger than ever. But human beings are human beings, so they change and not always for the better... Also, people, from one generation to another, tend to forget (thank God the Jews are reminding us of their genocide; I wish we could do the same for all other genocides as well!)

3) Another obstacle is that the Security Council is constituted mainly by the 5 greatest weapons and armament producers of the world (U.S., China, France, Russia, U.K.) which is likely to become a conflict of interest at some point... Whose to deny that this puts those countries in a good place when there is a conflict elsewhere?

4) The U.N., as it has been presented by many (Simey among others) is an organization of multiple interests, the interests of the nations operating in them. The interests of a few opportunistic individuals should not be discarded as well... Therefore, it becomes a great place to trade influence. Not only the U.S. has used its influence in those walls; USSR, China, France and countless others have done that too (there is no doubt in my mind that Canada is included as well).

The only means to control what some individuals are doing, is by bringing it all in the open, in the clear. "Nation" is becoming an overrated concept, for it protects a few individuals (the leaders) from accountability to their constituents, as well to the other leaders (all those secrets for the "benefit" and "safety" of the nation, you see?). I do not believe any nation can be used as a model for the others, simply because nations do not represent people, they represent a political organization managed by a few individuals. Democracy last the time of a vote, or during exposure of the political body to the public eye, and not much longer than that.

Note as well that even religions with their sets of rules of ethics fail when applied by the people it is aimed to protect, or give a meaning to their lives...

Although annihilation of frontiers might seem to be a solution, it draws important challenges. Globalisation cannot be done solely on principles of business, for the consequences on populations are far too great. The need to preserve national identity will always create dislcontents, and therefore, more terroristic reactions.

Also, having a world government might seem very seductive, yet it is flawed for the same reasons (human nature) and would probably come with its own set of dramatic failings as well.

Maybe the "solution" will come through Darwinism: the stronger, better adapted, will impose its morality on the others until another stronger, better adapted one appears...

That is what I come up with, but I am certain there are people with much better insights and ideas on this than me...

[Logic]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
More and more I think what’s really needed is an actual global police force, with the authority to step in and use overwhelming force to take out genociders and vile dictators who commit gross crimes against humanity. No, not just the US or any single country would be in charge, nor the UN as it exists -woefully ineffective at actually keeping the peace anywhere. I’m talking an actual police/military force with members of all nations that actually has the authority to enforce (for real, not in 'let's pretend' UN-style) global laws and ACT in situations like this.

The reality in this world is, if you’re just some poor schmuck, and you commit a single murder, the combined police forces of the world will chase your ass to the ends of the earth to bring you in if need be. But if you’re some dictator rolling in money and hiding behind an imaginary line on a map, then most people in the world have already fallen for the fallacy that you therefore have a license to commit ANY atrocity on earth behind that imaginary line. You can slaughter people by the MILLIONS and go completely untouched. The reality should be that hiding behind some bullcrap imaginary line of ‘national sovereignty’ is not actually a shield for mass murdering scumbags to go unpunished, nor an excuse for everyone to turn a blind eye. But it is, and will remain so.

I doubt any global force able to supersede the bullcrap of atrocious mass murdering regimes hiding behind imaginary lines will ever be possible, given political reality.

And worst of all some global ‘super’ police force would itself suffer from the likelihood of itself becoming just as corrupt, just as useless, just as non-credible, just as bloated, just as ineffective as the UN or any other big government organization. Pretty soon all the usual political hacks and petty tinhorns of the world would find ways to bastardize the whole idea, and use it as their own personal political battering ram against their political opponents, while true genocidal scumbags were not only being let off the hook, but being brought on as partners. It’ll always come back to business as usual.

So state sponsored/ sanctioned and world-ignored genocide will probably just remain a reality of the world forever, with no one ever finding the will to stand up and say ‘enough’ and really back it up with anything meaningful. Bullcrap wrist slaps and threatened sanctions (undermined by backroom ‘food for palaces’ type scams) are about all we can expect.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
More and more I think what’s really needed is an actual global police force, with the authority to step in and use overwhelming force to take out genociders and vile dictators who commit gross crimes against humanity. No, not just the US or any single country would be in charge, nor the UN as it exists -woefully ineffective at actually keeping the peace anywhere. I’m talking an actual police/military force with members of all nations that actually has the authority to enforce (for real, not in 'let's pretend' UN-style) global laws and ACT in situations like this.

If the potential for abuse of a body like this weren't so utterly terrifying, I might agree. But it's a plain and simple fact that a body like this wouldn't last for ten years before being taken over by a dictator such as the world has never seen, and abused horribly to the point where most dystopian novels would look like paradise by comparison.

Does this mean that dictators will still commit genocide? Sad to say, probably. But there are things even worse than that, things which absolutely must never be allowed to occur, even at that high and vile of a cost. The UN may be ineffective, but that weakness is also a strength: it keeps the potential for abuse down to a minimum; still unacceptably high but not at world-dystopian levels.

[Spliffdaddy]

From what I understand, the situation in Sudan has been described as 'genocide' by the UN.

If genocide only warrants a threat of a future threat of sanctions - what would warrant immediate, decisive action from the UN?

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
If genocide only warrants a threat of a future threat of sanctions - what would warrant immediate, decisive action from the UN?

The continued destruction of coffee beans?

Did they learn nothing from the Rwanda disaster?

[Spliffdaddy]

Nobody is stopping Iceland from fixing the situation in Sudan.

In fact, nobody is stopping *any* nation from doing whatever they can.

Somebody must have let France borrow their nut-jar or something - because, folks, without waiting for Iceland - France is doing something about Sudan as we speak. Whodathunkit? Well, they'll have troops on the ground until one of them gets hurt, anyways. Hard to fault the only mofos making an effort, so more power to 'em.

Why wait for the UN?

"This is the last thing we wanted to do," U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Danforth said, "but the government has left us with no choice."

"It's time to start the clock ticking on the government of Sudan."

^ There's our man's assessment of the situation.

And he was referring to a simple vote that might allow a future vote on sanctions.

Start the clock!....We've ran out of other options...

heh.

The UN. Kinda makes you giggle. They have a clock that doesn't need winding for 12 years.

I could walk a bag of flour over to Sudanese regugees and I'd be doing more than the UN is doing - or even planning to do in the next 30 days.

[SimeyTheLimey]

This really has very little to do with the "UN" as such. The UN is just a forum. With respect to Sudan it is quite simple. The US and the UK sponsored a resolution that would have imposed sanctions now. France said no. This resolution "threatening" possible sanctions (maybe, or maybe not) is the compromise that was reached.

This is becoming a familiar pattern. The US and UK propose action, and France says no. I know I will be accused of French bashing, but this is simply how it happened.

[Developer]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Nobody is stopping Iceland from fixing the situation in Sudan.

One very effective way to fix the situation in Sudan would be to stop buying their oil until the government deals with the problem. And since it's YOUR country that buys the oil, not Kitten's, it's up to YOUR country to fix the situation.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Developer:
One very effective way to fix the situation in Sudan would be to stop buying their oil until the government deals with the problem. And since it's YOUR country that buys the oil, not Kitten's, it's up to YOUR country to fix the situation.

Rubbish.

FOREIGN OIL COMPANIES have built Sudan's oil industry. Agip began exploration in 1959 in the Red Sea. US oil giant Chevron discovered oil in the south in 1979, but pulled out in 1984 after three expatriate workers were kidnapped and executed by the SPLA.


Today, a network of Western and Asian companies provide the critical expertise, finance and technology for Sudan's oil industry. Talisman Energy (Canada), Petronas (Malaysia), CNPC (China), Lundin (Sweden) and OMV (Austria) have built production and refining facilities and financed the building of the 1,600 km pipeline taking oil from the oil fields to the Red Sea. Royal Dutch Shell built a refinery at Port Sudan.1 Chinese companies built the pipeline using materials that were supplied by the European company, Europipe, owned by Mannesmann (Germany), British Steel (now Corus), and a French company. As Chapter 5 describes, British companies also contribute. Weir Pumps of Glasgow and Allen Power of Bedford were awarded the
contract to produce pumps and drivers in January 1998. Rolls Royce provides diesel engines and expatriate engineers to maintain them.

Christian Aid (UK)

Stop mindlessly blaming the US for every problem.

[lil'babykitten]

In this situation I don't really care WHO goes in and rectifies it, as long as the killing is stopped. People are dying everyday while the UN collectively hums and hars over what they might do in the future. This is yet another example of how ridiculously ineffective the international community is at resolving anything. We shouldn't really be surprised, they've allowed the Israel-Palestine conflict to go on and on, passing non-binding resolutions for years and years. I would be really amused if it wasn't innocents suffering as a result of this sham that is the international "community".

[Spliffdaddy]

I didn't know 'kitten was from Iceland.

*adds another name*

[Developer]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Stop mindlessly blaming the US for every problem.

I'm blaming the Dschandschawid and the Sudanese government who tolerate them for the problem. And the Britons. But every country that buys oil from Sudan is also in the responsibility.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I didn't know 'kitten was from Iceland.

*adds another name*

I'm not! Developer probably thought you were asking me why Iceland wasn't doing anything because you posted after me.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Developer:
I'm blaming the Dschandschawid and the Sudanese government who tolerate them for the problem. And the Britons. But every country that buys oil from Sudan is also in the responsibility.

But you assume that the US buys oil, but Europe does not. Wrong!

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
(...)
I could walk a bag of flour over to Sudanese regugees and I'd be doing more than the UN is doing - or even planning to do in the next 30 days.

It has started a while ago already. The U.S. did participate in the effort as well in the last few months.

This has been posted already in these forums. You even participated in those threads.

link one
link2

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
In this situation I don't really care WHO goes in and rectifies it, as long as the killing is stopped. People are dying everyday while the UN collectively hums and hars over what they might do in the future. This is yet another example of how ridiculously ineffective the international community is at resolving anything. We shouldn't really be surprised, they've allowed the Israel-Palestine conflict to go on and on, passing non-binding resolutions for years and years. I would be really amused if it wasn't innocents suffering as a result of this sham that is the international "community".

Another example, of course, was the UN's position on Iraq. They hummed and hared about what they might do in the future (that was what Resolution 1441 was about), passed ineffective resolutions, allowed innocents to suffer, and basically, were content to do nothing. Fortunately, a few leaders disagreed and lost patience with the sham.

I never knew you were such a unilateral neocon.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Another example, of course, was the UN's position on Iraq. They hummed and hared about what they might do in the future (that was what Resolution 1441 was about), passed ineffective resolutions, allowed innocents to suffer, and basically, were content to do nothing. Fortunately, a few leaders disagreed and lost patience with the sham.

I never knew you were such a unilateral neocon.

Must you have decided to rewrite the whole history of that situation you would not have done any otherwise!

Reasons Not to Invade Iraq, By George Bush Sr.

The Gulf War had far greater significance to the emerging post-cold war world than simply reversing Iraqi aggression and restoring Kuwait. Its magnitude and significance impelled us from the outset to extend our strategic vision beyond the crisis to the kind of precedent we should lay down for the future. From an American foreign-policymaking perspective, we sought to respond in a manner which would win broad domestic support and which could be applied universally to other crises. In international terms, we tried to establish a model for the use of force. First and foremost was the principle that aggression cannot pay. If we dealt properly with Iraq, that should go a long way toward dissuading future would-be aggressors. We also believed that the U.S. should not go it alone, that a multilateral approach was better. This was, in part, a practical matter. Mounting an effective military counter to Iraq's invasion required the backing and bases of Saudi Arabia and other Arab states.

US Juggling Iraq Policy

Six weeks after allied armies ended the war against Iraq, the formal United Nations cease-fire in the Persian Gulf has done little to bring an end to the conflict between the Bush Administration and Saddam Hussein. And it already is clear that it will not end the suffering inside Iraq. As the refugee drama unfolds on the icy mountainsides of Kurdistan and in the southern Iraqi desert where American forces have begun their withdrawal, United States policy has entered a difficult period that was not clearly foreseen or planned for -- a time of daunting human crisis and the tenacious refusal of President Hussein to leave the scene despite defeat on the battlefield and the enmity of much of his population, his neighbors and the allied coalition. In the chaos of the war's aftermath, Administration officials appear to be adjusting their policy on almost a daily basis around three overriding principles: to disengage American military forces as soon as possible from the turmoil in Iraq, to turn over the Kurdish problem to international relief organizations after an initial infusion of American aid, and then to undertake a long-term pressure campaign to drive Mr. Hussein from power. Even as Administration officials were making plans this week to extract themselves from Iraq's internal strife, they were ordering the American military to get more deeply involved by setting up semi-permanent camps in northern Iraq and providing around-the-clock Air Force protection for thousands of Americans who have flown back to the region from Europe for the effort.

And

The moral questions that influenced Mr. Bush's decision to end the war, when Iraqi divisions were in full flight and were being mauled by allied pilots, are now rising from the postwar anarchy. Anthony Cordesman, a policy analyst, summed up the current situation this way: "The truth of the matter is that this war had to end with one of two consequences: Saddam Hussein's overthrow or the designation of Iraq as a pariah state as long as Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party stay in power." "The action on behalf of the Kurds," he said, "puts even more pressure on the Iraqi Army and the elite to understand that we are talking about a process of being treated as a pariah state for years until Saddam goes." In large measure, Mr. Cordesman said, the already burdened people of Iraq will suffer more. "I think a people does have to pay the cost of the acts of its leadership when the leadership commits acts of war and aggression," he said.

Allied Air War Struck Broadly in Iraq;
Officials Acknowledge Strategy Went
Beyond Purely Military Targets

The strategic bombing of Iraq, described in wartime briefings as a campaign against Baghdad's offensive military capabilities, now appears to have been broader in its purposes and selection of targets.

Amid mounting evidence of Iraq's ruined infrastructure and the painful consequences for ordinary Iraqis, Pentagon officials more readily acknowledge the severe impact of the 43-day air bombardment on Iraq's economic future and civilian population. Their explanations these days of the bombing's goals and methods suggest that the allies, relying on traditional concepts of strategic warfare, sought to achieve some of their military objectives in the Persian Gulf War by disabling Iraqi society at large.

Though many details remain classified, interviews with those involved in the targeting disclose three main contrasts with the administration's earlier portrayal of a campaign aimed solely at Iraq's armed forces and their lines of supply and command. Some targets, especially late in the war, were bombed primarily to create postwar leverage over Iraq, not to influence the course of the conflict itself. Planners now say their intent was to destroy or damage valuable facilities that Baghdad could not repair without foreign assistance. Many of the targets in Iraq's Mesopotamian heartland, the list of which grew from about 400 to more than 700 in the course of the war, were chosen only secondarily to contribute to the military defeat of Baghdad's occupation army in Kuwait. Military planners hoped the bombing would amplify the economic and psychological impact of international sanctions on Iraqi society, and thereby compel President Saddam Hussein to withdraw Iraqi forces from Kuwait without a ground war. They also hoped to incite Iraqi citizens to rise against the Iraqi leader.

Because of these goals, damage to civilian structures and interests, invariably described by briefers during the war as "collateral" and unintended, was sometimes neither. The Air Force and Navy "fraggers" who prepared the daily air-tasking orders in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, took great care to avoid dropping explosives directly on civilians -- and were almost certainly more successful than in any previous war -- but they deliberately did great harm to Iraq's ability to support itself as an industrial society.

The worst civilian suffering, senior officers say, has resulted not from bombs that went astray but from precision-guided weapons that hit exactly where they were aimed -- at electrical plants, oil refineries and transportation networks. Each of these targets was acknowledged during the war, but all the purposes and consequences of their destruction were not divulged.
(...)
For critics, this was the war that showed why the indirect effects of bombing must be planned as discriminately as the direct ones. The bombardment may have been precise, they argue, but the results have been felt throughout Iraqi society, and the bombing ultimately may have done as much to harm civilians as soldiers.

Yeah. Like Saddam was the only murderer...

Note: bold caracters are mine

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Another example, of course, was the UN's position on Iraq. They hummed and hared about what they might do in the future (that was what Resolution 1441 was about), passed ineffective resolutions, allowed innocents to suffer, and basically, were content to do nothing. Fortunately, a few leaders disagreed and lost patience with the sham.

I never knew you were such a unilateral neocon.

Nice try. But it's a shame that the US didn't base it's reason for invasion on humanitarian grounds. The evidence for that was pretty clear. But no, they had to invent a reason for invading. Too bad we all saw through that BS!

I'd go on, but I have a plane to catch. Adios!

[Mr. Bob]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
More and more I think what’s really needed is an actual global police force, with the authority to step in and use overwhelming force to take out genociders and vile dictators who commit gross crimes against humanity. No, not just the US or any single country would be in charge, nor the UN as it exists -woefully ineffective at actually keeping the peace anywhere. I’m talking an actual police/military force with members of all nations that actually has the authority to enforce (for real, not in 'let's pretend' UN-style) global laws and ACT in situations like this.

The reality in this world is, if you’re just some poor schmuck, and you commit a single murder, the combined police forces of the world will chase your ass to the ends of the earth to bring you in if need be. But if you’re some dictator rolling in money and hiding behind an imaginary line on a map, then most people in the world have already fallen for the fallacy that you therefore have a license to commit ANY atrocity on earth behind that imaginary line. You can slaughter people by the MILLIONS and go completely untouched. The reality should be that hiding behind some bullcrap imaginary line of ‘national sovereignty’ is not actually a shield for mass murdering scumbags to go unpunished, nor an excuse for everyone to turn a blind eye. But it is, and will remain so.

I doubt any global force able to supersede the bullcrap of atrocious mass murdering regimes hiding behind imaginary lines will ever be possible, given political reality.

And worst of all some global ‘super’ police force would itself suffer from the likelihood of itself becoming just as corrupt, just as useless, just as non-credible, just as bloated, just as ineffective as the UN or any other big government organization. Pretty soon all the usual political hacks and petty tinhorns of the world would find ways to bastardize the whole idea, and use it as their own personal political battering ram against their political opponents, while true genocidal scumbags were not only being let off the hook, but being brought on as partners. It’ll always come back to business as usual.

So state sponsored/ sanctioned and world-ignored genocide will probably just remain a reality of the world forever, with no one ever finding the will to stand up and say ‘enough’ and really back it up with anything meaningful. Bullcrap wrist slaps and threatened sanctions (undermined by backroom ‘food for palaces’ type scams) are about all we can expect.

We have an origination like this, its called America. Like it or not, America was formed through bloodshed and war, so that freedom can rise to the top. Also, America was formed from all other nations, and we do have the power to take out vicious despots.

But you were right in the second part of your argument. The people of America have shown that they believe only people born on our great soil deserve freedom. If you are not American, you deserve nothing. Amazing how people truly think racism is bad, except if that race is on the other side of the planet.

Think about it, you had no say if you are born black, right? So, you should not be treated any differently because you are black, right? You deserve the same treatment as everyone else. BUT, if you are born Iraqi, well then you deserve to lie under a despotic régime. You deserve no freedom, and if we can help you, you still deserve nothing.

So, I guess the world police force killed itself by complacency. We only want to work for our freedom, not others.

If we wish not to give freedom to others, why do we deserve any ourselves? I guess “Give Me Your Tried, Your Poor, Your Huddled Masses” doesn’t apply to people in the Middle East.

You may think that America is just a place to live and make a buck, and that’s fine. But to me America is the ideal of freedom. Because, we were given freedom by the spilled blood of our for fathers, and our grand fathers, we are indebted to other nations to give the same to them.

But hey, what do I know.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Mr. Bob:
But hey, what do I know.

Nothing of whatever you’re ranting on about has much to do with anything I was saying. First of all, freedom isn’t something that’s just ‘granted’ to others, nor is it hardly America’s job to do so everywhere and for everyone.

I for one think it’s great when the US stands as a force for freedom in the world ( as we have plenty of times), but I don’t buy that it’s our God-given responsibility, and certainly not to the point where the ‘blame America for everything’ crowd harps on us for not constantly charging off on a white stallion to save everyone from themselves.

Your views of a racist conspiratorial America betray some level of ‘white man’s burden’ type attitude that comes off more as ‘benevolent imperialism’ than true concern for the freedom of anyone in the Middle East or elsewhere.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Nothing of whatever you’re ranting on about has much to do with anything I was saying. First of all, freedom isn’t something that’s just ‘granted’ to others, nor is it hardly America’s job to do so everywhere and for everyone.

I for one think it’s great when the US stands as a force for freedom in the world ( as we have plenty of times), but I don’t buy that it’s our God-given responsibility, and certainly not to the point where the ‘blame America for everything’ crowd harps on us for not constantly charging off on a white stallion to save everyone from themselves.

Your views of a racist conspiratorial America betray some level of ‘white man’s burden’ type attitude that comes off more as ‘benevolent imperialism’ than true concern for the freedom of anyone in the Middle East or elsewhere.

[Spliffdaddy]

Check out the date of the original post.

Almost 2 months old, huh?

Time for an update dontcha think?

For all you dolts that think the UN isn't utterly pointless, here's proof to the contrary:

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- The United Nations Security Council has passed a resolution that threatens "to consider" oil sanctions on Sudan if the government does not act to end the violence in the country's troubled Darfur region.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/africa...ion/index.html

OMG they're THREATENING to CONSIDER to impose OIL sanctions.

"Threatening to consider" something by passing a "resolution"?

Yeah, that'll stop the genocide.

Are you starting to understand why Saddam had 12 years to *not* comply with UN 'resolutions' - without penalty?

Folks, you're going to die of old age before you witness the UN doing anything remotely constructive.

[Zimphire]

There for a second I thought the UN grew a backbone.

[aberdeenwriter]

__________________
"Negotiation and concessions are quite different than appeasement." - aberdeenwriter

"heh." - Spliffdaddy
**************************************************

Ok,

I challenge you to a debate, Spliffdaddy.

Yeah, I'm calling you out.

Start a new thread and let's talk about the difference between appeasement and negotiation.

Either that, or remove the sig.

I don't really care about you quoting me. In fact, I find it flattering.

But it's important people understand the difference.

Let's do it, man!

Just you and me.

Mano a mano. (Posto a Posto???)

If you don't respond to this by Monday night at this time, I'll call you out in a thread heading.

[Troll]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
I am merely reminding spliffdaddy that the U.S. Ambassador sponsored the proposal, with other countries, to start a process that could lead to sanctions, such process, as you say, is the last option.

Don't say things like that. It undermines the right's illusion of the UN as some kind of independent state. It's the US vs the UN. The US can't be part of the UN.