Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Sudan turning into Hell

Sudan turning into Hell
Thread Tools
angaq0k
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2004, 10:03 PM
 
Sudan Facing Worst Humanitarian Disaster in the World

Tens of thousands of black Africans have been slaughtered and some one million have fled their homes in Sudan's western Darfur region after attacks by Arab militias armed by the Sudanese government. We speak with independent journalist Julie Flint who recently published a report on Sudan for Human Rights Watch and we go to Darfur to speak with UNICEF worker James Elder.
The US-occupation of Iraq is daily headline news around the world. But one conflict that is rarely mentioned, especially by the US media, is Sudan which faces the worst humanitarian disaster anywhere in the world.

In what the United Nations calls "a campaign of ethnic cleansing" tens of thousands of black Africans have been slaughtered and some one million have fled their homes in Sudan's western Darfur region after attacks by Arab militias armed by the Sudanese government.

On Saturday, Sudanese president Omar Hassan Bashir finally agreed to mobilize the country's military to disarm all illegal armed groups in Darfur, including the Arab militias - known locally as Janjaweed. The announcement came amid mounting pressure from the international community. Last week, the US State Department threatened the Sudanese government in Khartoum with possible economic sanctions and visa denials unless it took steps to stop the killing in Darfur. The current conflict began in February 2003, when two different groups of black rebels took up arms against the Sudanese government in an effort to gain political power. In response, the government reportedly gave the Janjaweed free reign to retaliate against black villagers in Darfur. These militias have killed between 10,000 and 30,000 people and displaced more than 1 million refugees, many fleeing to neighboring Chad.

A ceasefire was agreed in April, but attacks on villages continue and refugees are facing a devastating shortage of humanitarian assistance.
Meanwhile

Annan Says Intervention May Be Necessary In Sudan's Darfur

Friday, June 18, 2004

U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan suggested yesterday that international forces_may be needed to protect more than 1 million people threatened by fighting in Sudan's western Darfur region, Associated Press reports.

While the Sudanese government is responsible for preventing attacks on civilians in Darfur, it may need help and "should be willing to accept that assistance," Annan said.

Thousands of people have died and more than 1 million have been displaced since February 2003 by fighting between Arab militias known as the Janjawid and rebels drawn from the black African population._ The Janjawid stand accused of waging a brutal campaign against civilians.

Annan_stopped short of calling the situation "genocide or ethnic cleansing," as some other U.N. officials and representatives of human rights and nongovernmental groups have called it, but said it was "a tragic humanitarian situation."
And

Southern Sudan Ranks Worst For Welfare Of Women, Children

Thursday, June 17, 2004

Southern Sudan, which has endured 21 years of civil war, ranks worst in the world for key indicators of the welfare of women and children, including rates of malnutrition, immunization, antenatal care and school enrollment, according to a new joint_study by the New Sudan Center for Statistics and Evaluation and UNICEF (Integrated Regional Information Networks, June 17).

An estimated 95,000 children under the age of 5, out of 7.5 million young children,_died last year, compared to the 76,000 young children_� from a combined population of 938 million__� who died in 31 industrialized countries, according to Towards a Baseline:_ Best Estimates of Social Indicators for Southern Sudan (U.N. release, June 16).
21 years in the waiting. How much longer until an intervention comes forth?
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
Sod Off Sadr
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: May 2004
Location: I sent hundreds of followers to their deaths. Then I cut and ran. Now I'm livin' large somewhere in Najaf.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2004, 10:11 PM
 
Originally posted by angaq0k:
21 years in the waiting. How much longer until an intervention comes forth?
So removing a vicious dictator that murdered hundreds of thousands and oppressed millions was wrong, and 'intervention' to protect the lives of millions and free them from oppression is now right?

You people have the nerve to take your opinions seriously.
You heard me! Sod off, Sadr!
     
angaq0k  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2004, 10:15 PM
 
Newsview: Sudan may be next for genocide
A role for the United Nations is made clear under Article 8 of the Genocide Convention: "Any contracting party may call upon the competent organs of the U.N. to take such action under the Charter of the U.N. as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide."

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said he wasn't ready to describe the situation in Darfur "as genocide or ethnic cleansing yet," but he called it "a tragic humanitarian situation."

For now, the U.S. administration seems to be tilting against the genocide label but is sticking with ethnic cleansing to describe the situation.

With so many in Darfur at risk of dying, "legal distinctions about genocide versus ethnic cleansing are going to seem rather hollow," says State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli. The focus, he says, should be on helping the needy.

Humanitarian access remains a serious problem, the result of both government resistance and the remoteness of the Iraqi-sized province. The United States has been airlifting relief supplies to the region, a costly process.

Over the weekend, Sudan President Omar el-Bashir vowed to disarm the militias. Also, peace talks between government and rebel leaders opened in Berlin on Tuesday. U.S. officials are wary about the Sudanese gestures, pointing out that Khartoum has routinely violated an April 8 cease-fire agreement.
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
angaq0k  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2004, 10:20 PM
 
Originally posted by Sod Off Sadr:
So removing a vicious dictator that murdered hundreds of thousands and oppressed millions was wrong, and 'intervention' to protect the lives of millions and free them from oppression is now right?

You people have the nerve to take your opinions seriously.
2 different situations.
2 different motives for intervention.
2 different group of people/nations required for the intervention.

I am not "You people".
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
Dr.HermanG.
Senior User
Join Date: May 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2004, 10:25 PM
 
Originally posted by Sod Off Sadr:
So removing a vicious dictator that murdered hundreds of thousands and oppressed millions was wrong, and 'intervention' to protect the lives of millions and free them from oppression is now right?

You people have the nerve to take your opinions seriously.
     
Atomic Rooster
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2004, 10:52 PM
 
Q: Do they have oil?

A: No...and they're black to boot.

Q: Too bad, bye and good luck. Anything else?

A: Well ahhh...
     
Dr.HermanG.
Senior User
Join Date: May 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2004, 12:05 AM
 
If helping the oppressed Iraqis was wrong then going into another country to overthrow another government must also be wrong.

Frankly, in my opinion, the world should deal with the world's problems. I get sick of the U.S. being expected every time to wipe someone's nose when they sneeze or get a cold.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2004, 12:47 AM
 
Originally posted by Atomic Rooster:
Q: Do they have oil?

A: No...and they're black to boot.

Q: Too bad, bye and good luck. Anything else?

A: Well ahhh...
     
placebo1969
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Washington (the state) USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2004, 12:52 AM
 
You know, I was going to post about this about a month or so ago. I heard about it from an Episopalian (Anglican) priest. However, it was from the Muslim attacks on the Christians in the Sudan that were causing problems. I wish I had the handout for the prayer.

And before anyone goes off the deep end, I'm merely pointing out that there is conflict in the region on a religious level. But I thought the thread would develop to the usual accusations and excuses.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2004, 12:55 AM
 
Here's an opportunity for any other nation besides the USA to fix a problem.

Show us how it's done.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2004, 01:14 AM
 
Spliffdaddy has been saying it for some time now, so it bears repeating:

Iceland?

Wanna feild this one? STEP UP.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2004, 01:35 AM
 
yep. You guys figure out how to fix the problem while we sit here and bitch and moan about how we could do it better - if we got off our asses and stopped moving our lips.

We might even have some time to learn French.
     
Dr.HermanG.
Senior User
Join Date: May 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2004, 01:41 AM
 
We could always oppose military intervention via the UN and veto a resolution.

That'll show them.
     
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2004, 01:56 AM
 
The USA should definitely stay out of this one. Not 1 single US troop to Sudan.

Sudan is a sovereign nation, and there is no reason for anybody to go in there and be occupiers, because that is just wrong.

I am a peaceful person, and I oppose all war. We should try all diplomatic means neccesary inorder to solve this dilemma. If that doesn't work, then we should talk some more, and perhaps pass some more resolutions or something like that.

     
Logic
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The northernmost capital of the world
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2004, 02:14 AM
 
Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Spliffdaddy has been saying it for some time now, so it bears repeating:

Iceland?

Wanna feild this one? STEP UP.
We already have all our available personnel busy controlling the airfields in Pristina and Kabul. As well as having our bomb squad in Iraq. Sorry, when you only have 270k inhabitants there is only so much you can do.

"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. OBL 29th oct
     
Spliff
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Canaduh
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2004, 02:15 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Here's an opportunity for any other nation besides the USA to fix a problem.

Show us how it's done.
I agree. The US has its hands full with Afghanistan and Iraq. The UN should step up to the plate and deal with this situation. Ethically, it would be the right thing to do.
     
Nicko
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2004, 05:21 AM
 
Originally posted by Atomic Rooster:
Q: Do they have oil?

A: No...and they're black to boot.

Q: Too bad, bye and good luck. Anything else?

A: Well ahhh...


Actually Sudan has oil ( ~ 800 million barrels)...and it just so happens that alot of that oil resides in and around the Durfur region. Go figure.

Ofcourse there is also the dispute between black vs. arab africans over land rights.

...... then you have those crazy guys on horses with machine guns carrying out a scorched earth policy aided by the sudan government.

They have issues.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2004, 05:22 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
yep. You guys figure out how to fix the problem while we sit here and bitch and moan about how we could do it better - if we got off our asses and stopped moving our lips.

We might even have some time to learn French.
Exactly. We can kick back and post endless whining about how some other nation's efforts are always wrong, what a cluster-f everything they do is, it's a quagmire, and my personal fave: we can make claims that no matter how suck-$hit the situation was before, no matter how many people died, no matter how barbaric the behavior: "...well hell, the people sure were better off before you f-ups got there and screwed everything up!"

Turnabout is fair play!
     
lil'babykitten
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Herzliya
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2004, 05:45 AM
 
At the moment it seems as though the situation in Sudan is similar to what led to mass genocide in Rwanda.

Peacekeeping troops should have been deployed a long time ago.
     
phoenixboy70
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: ma, germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2004, 06:00 AM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
malapropism no.2233343

     
phoenixboy70
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: ma, germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2004, 06:02 AM
 
Originally posted by PacHead:
The USA should definitely stay out of this one.
...and everything else as well.

     
Nicko
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2004, 06:18 AM
 
Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
malapropism

I love that word.
     
undotwa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2004, 06:34 AM
 
Originally posted by PacHead:
The USA should definitely stay out of this one. Not 1 single US troop to Sudan.

Sudan is a sovereign nation, and there is no reason for anybody to go in there and be occupiers, because that is just wrong.

I am a peaceful person, and I oppose all war. We should try all diplomatic means neccesary inorder to solve this dilemma. If that doesn't work, then we should talk some more, and perhaps pass some more resolutions or something like that.

How does one enforce resolutions? What good is making a resolution if there is no threat of physical force to enforce it?
In vino veritas.
     
PacHead
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2004, 10:57 AM
 
Originally posted by undotwa:
How does one enforce resolutions? What good is making a resolution if there is no threat of physical force to enforce it?
My sentiments exactly.

     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2004, 11:34 PM
 
Originally posted [in sarcasm] by PacHead:
I am a peaceful person, and I oppose all war. We should try all diplomatic means neccesary inorder to solve this dilemma. If that doesn't work, then we should talk some more, and perhaps pass some more resolutions or something like that.
Here's a quote from the debate. Perhaps you are supporting the wrong candidate. At least on this issue, Bush feels that we are already doing enough to stop the genocide. Kerry wants to do more.

LEHRER: .. Senator Kerry, you mentioned Darfur, the Darfur region of Sudan. Fifty thousand people have already died in that area. More than a million are homeless. And it's been labeled an act of ongoing genocide. Yet neither one of you or anyone else connected with your campaigns or your administration that I can find has discussed the possibility of sending in troops.

Why not?

KERRY: Well, I'll tell you exactly why not, but I first want to say something about those sanctions on Iran. ...

Now, with respect to Darfur, yes, it is a genocide. And months ago, many of us were pressing for action.

I think the reason that we're not saying send American troops in at this point is severalfold.

Number one, we can do this through the African Union, providing we give them the logistical support. Right now all the president is providing is humanitarian support. We need to do more than that. They've got to have the logistical capacity to go in and stop the killing. And that's going to require more than is on the table today.

I also believe that it is -- one of the reasons we can't do it is we're overextended.

Ask the people in the armed forces today. We've got Guards and Reserves who are doing double duties. We've got a backdoor draft taking place in America today: people with stop-loss programs where they're told you can't get out of the military; nine out of our 10 active duty divisions committed to Iraq one way or the other, either going, coming or preparing.

So this is the way the president has overextended the United States.

That's why, in my plan, I add two active duty divisions to the United States Army, not for Iraq, but for our general demands across the globe. I also intend to double the number of special forces so that we can do the job we need to do with respect fighting the terrorists around the world. And if we do that, then we have the ability to be able to respond more rapidly.

But I'll tell you this, as president, if it took American forces to some degree to coalesce the African Union, I'd be prepared to do it because we could never allow another Rwanda.

It's the moral responsibility for us and the world.


LEHRER: Ninety seconds.

BUSH: Back to Iran, just for a second.

It was not my administration that put the sanctions on Iran. That happened long before I arrived in Washington, D.C.

In terms of Darfur, I agree it's genocide. And Colin Powell so stated.

We have committed $200 million worth of aid. We're the leading donor in the world to help the suffering people there. We will commit more over time to help.

We were very much involved at the U.N. on the sanction policy of the Bashir government in the Sudan. Prior to Darfur, Ambassador Jack Danforth had been negotiating a north-south agreement that we would have hoped would have brought peace to the Sudan.

I agree with my opponent that we shouldn't be committing troops. We ought to be working with the African Union to do so -- precisely what we did in Liberia. We helped stabilize the situation with some troops, and when the African Union came, we moved them out.

My hope is that the African Union moves rapidly to help save lives. And fortunately the rainy season will be ending shortly, which will make it easier to get aid there and help the long-suffering people there.
Kerry commits to significantly extending our support for the African Union, by providing also logistical support. He says that he is prepared to send troops if necessary.

Bush commits to nothing. He says we are already a leading donor, and mentions US policy prior to Darfur (for no apparent reason, except he rememebered Danforth's name). He mischaracterizes Kerry's position, and, unlike Kerry, and says that we shouldn't commit troops. He hopes that the end of the rainy season will end the ongoing genocide.

Kerry has a strong position on this issue, while Bush thinks we've done enough since we tried to negotiate an agreement before Darfur and are now a leading donor.

(I can't resist remarking on what must have been one of the dumbest remarks in the entire debate: "It was not my administration that put the sanctions on Iran. That happened long before I arrived in Washington, D.C." No kidding!)
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2004, 05:23 AM
 
Originally posted by Sod Off Sadr:
So removing a vicious dictator that murdered hundreds of thousands and oppressed millions was wrong, and 'intervention' to protect the lives of millions and free them from oppression is now right?
Exactly, difficult to understand hmm? To remove a dictator that commited crimes against humanity in the past is not the same as intervening in a case where the crimes against humanity are being commited in the present.

That was what made it necessary to intervene in Bosnia and Kosovo: to stop ongoing genocide and ethnic cleansing.

What the Bush-administration has achieved was giving interventions for humanitarian reasons a bad image, as he has intervened in a country without a current humanitarian cause and with many lied up reasons.

Espescially condemnable as it is widely known that the US and parts (Rumsfeld for example) of this US-administration have supported the iraqi-dictator while he was commiting the crimes against humanity, and even encouraging him to do so.

Taliesin
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:08 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,