[pooka]

Man, Israel has the US's veto while Iran and Darfur got China and Russia. Man, are the rightwingers right? Is the UN forum a waste of time? WTF?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5344890.stm

Never again... this time we mean it... fo' real... no seriously... stop.

If your IQ is below 60 please refrain from posting in this thread. If that is impossible would those with an IQ above 60 please refrain from engaging the intellectually challenged individuals who frequently post in the pol lounge? Pleeeeeeeease.

[subego]

However, the Security Council resolution which backed the creation of a UN force said it could only be deployed with Sudan's approval.

I know I bring it up every time there's a UN thread but it's just so damn appropriate.

P.J. O'Rourke commented he saw a sign at the UN that said "smoking strongly discouraged".

[yakkiebah]

One thing is for sure, don't expect anything from Europe. Unless someone can guarantee that the fighting parties won't fire at the Euro forces.

So maybe the US will do something?

I don't know man, i've been hearing some crazy stuff about them lately. Fascism is on the rise overthere. A Hitleresque leader who is torturing and killing muslims on a massive scale. One of their key allies is also in the genocide business. So i don't think they would even considering saving a few black dudes and dudettes in some far away country. But if they do then it's probably out of self interest. Wait a minute, Sudan has oil right?

Either way we can expect the Euro's to start blaming the US for doing too little, too much, too soon or too late.

Jesus-****ing-christ, i really do start to sound like a Bushy-man these day's.

[Pendergast]

Archbishop Tutu also accused the international community of taking crises in Africa less seriously than in other parts of the world.

Totally right. Afica = no gain for no one, so no one will move.

Damn shame.

[pooka]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Totally right. Afica = no gain for no one, so no one will move.

Damn shame.

Totally agree. Who's gonna take off the skirt and do something about it?

[Sky Captain]

I got sent to Africa twice.
I watched all I did get looted or destroyed.

[yakkiebah]

Pendergast, it indeed is a damn shame no one will do anything but i disagree with that there's nothing to gain. Both China and Russia are blocking UN resolutions that could lead to military action. Why? They have strong trade ties.

Now i'm wondering, because a stronger UN resolution will be unlikely because of this. Would you support military action without the UN? And what about the local complexities? What if an intervention turns into a mess? Would you still support military action in order to prevent another mass murder even if it would drag the intervening country(s) into a conflict that would take years and lot's of dead soldiers? This is an argument used a lot when people criticize the war in Iraq but is it the right argument?

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by yakkiebah

Pendergast, it indeed is a damn shame no one will do anything but i disagree with that there's nothing to gain. Both China and Russia are blocking UN resolutions that could lead to military action. Why? They have strong trade ties.

Now i'm wondering, because a stronger UN resolution will be unlikely because of this. Would you support military action without the UN? And what about the local complexities? What if an intervention turns into a mess? Would you still support military action in order to prevent another mass murder even if it would drag the intervening country(s) into a conflict that would take years and lot's of dead soldiers? This is an argument used a lot when people criticize the war in Iraq but is it the right argument?

Yes, I would support an international effort to bring peace over there, but not to create a democracy.

Any intervention over there needs to allow peacefull tractations amongst all parties and justice according to local customs. Let's also remove all the foreign elements: chinese merchants, christian missionaries and so on and so forth.

There, is the difference. You will not have me support any intervention to support any foreign political structure to be imposed because it is thought to be "so damned good".

Let the people do their stuff peacefully. Let them decide of their fate by themselves, and let's make sure it stays peaceful. That is longer to resolve, but that will be the price to pay for peace locally, and is bound to be more efficient in terms of long term results.

Or do nothing and let the genocide continue.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Yes, I would support an international effort to bring peace over there, but not to create a democracy.

Any intervention over there needs to allow peacefull tractations amongst all parties and justice according to local customs.

How exactly do you suggest this be done without a democracy?

No, really; I'm not joking. I suppose you might be able to get by with some kind of non-democratic federal republic, but other than this, unless Sudan is to stop existing as a nation, I don't see how the goals you can describe can be achieved without democracy. This isn't ideology; it's logistics.

[paul w]

You can't impose democracy in a place with historical tribal loyalties. That is unless you enable the people to find common ground. Usually it's against some outside aggressor.

The whole "we want democracy bit is BS". All you have to do is look at the case of Ethiopia (though there are plenty of examples). What we want is not democracy - that's a pipe dream. What we really want is a stable, peaceful ally.

Heck, I'd take a benevolent dictatorship over (the sham of) democracy in a lot of cases.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by paul w

You can't impose democracy in a place with historical tribal loyalties. That is unless you enable the people to find common ground. Usually it's against some outside aggressor.

The whole "we want democracy bit is BS". All you have to do is look at the case of Ethiopia (though there are plenty of examples). What we want is not democracy - that's a pipe dream. What we really want is a stable, peaceful ally.

Heck, I'd take a benevolent dictatorship over (the sham of) democracy in a lot of cases.

Sad but true.

Democracy is an ideal, but there are democracies that are by name only. Maybe a few have been really succesful, and that should inspire other countries for sure. However, it is a long process to achieve a democracy, and it works only when the people take over and enforce it. You cannot create democracy from the outside. You can facilitate it, but too much intervention may actually prevent it. Iraq, Afghanistan will be exemples of that I think.

We need to enforce the principle of talking without warring. War is a last option, but I dare say it is an unacceptable option, for the simple fact that the innocents are the first to pay for it.

Let's protect the innocents, then ensure the leaders are talking, and provided with a terrain d'entente, always. They don't want to talk? Fine; but murder will not be allowed, for any reason.

Nice post paul w; thanks.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by pooka

Who's gonna take off the skirt and do something about it?

Well, if somebody was willing to take their shirt off I'm sure you'd find a few republicans who'd be all over that.

[Spliffdaddy]

So the left thinks we should send troops into a sovereign nation in order to free some oppressed people?

Fat chance. Been there done that - and you haven't stopped whining about it.

Besides, if things don't go exceptionally well almost immediately, I can assure you the lefties will change their position and start calling the president a dumbass for doing it.

Besides, it isn't our turn to handle this crisis. I think it's Iceland's turn.

Send in the UN. Without US troops or finances.

Show us how it's done.

By the way, they said they don't want you there. So maybe you should just stay home.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

So the left thinks we should send troops into a sovereign nation in order to free some oppressed people?

Fat chance. Been there done that - and you haven't stopped whining about it.

Besides, if things don't go exceptionally well almost immediately, I can assure you the lefties will change their position and start calling the president a dumbass for doing it.

Besides, it isn't our turn to handle this crisis. I think it's Iceland's turn.

Send in the UN. Without US troops or finances.

Show us how it's done.

By the way, they said they don't want you there. So maybe you should just stay home.

roflmao


http://www.usaid.gov/locations/sub-s...dan/index.html

The Humanitarian Situation in Sudan

Recent peace agreements in southern Sudan and Darfur bring with them the chance to improve the humanitarian situation of Sudan's most vulnerable people. Peace in Sudan also promises to advance regional stability, safeguard human rights and religious tolerance, end state sponsorship of international terrorism, and ensure the delivery of aid. The United States is the largest international donor in Sudan, consistently providing 80 percent of all humanitarian assistance-and more than $1 billion since 2005.

[Dr Reducto]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

So the left thinks we should send troops into a sovereign nation in order to free some oppressed people?

Fat chance. Been there done that - and you haven't stopped whining about it.

Besides, if things don't go exceptionally well almost immediately, I can assure you the lefties will change their position and start calling the president a dumbass for doing it.

[DLQ2006]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

So the left thinks we should send troops into a sovereign nation in order to free some oppressed people?

Fat chance. Been there done that - and you haven't stopped whining about it.

Besides, if things don't go exceptionally well almost immediately, I can assure you the lefties will change their position and start calling the president a dumbass for doing it.

Besides, it isn't our turn to handle this crisis. I think it's Iceland's turn.

Send in the UN. Without US troops or finances.

Show us how it's done.

By the way, they said they don't want you there. So maybe you should just stay home.

Like Ann Coulter said recently; something to the effect that the left has no problems with creating weeping mothers over their dead son's bodies, as long as it was for a foreign war that has nothing to do with our own national security.

I find it interesting that all through the 90's when Muslims were killing Christians in the Sudan, there were no pleas from the left to Clinton for him to committ our troops to fighting a war in Africa. Now that the Muslim militias are committing genocide on secular African tribes, they want our troops involved. The situation in Darfur is just one more opportunity for the left to Bash Bush in an attempt to make it look like he is a hypocrit in regard to fighting against the spread of Islamofascism. The leftists don't want to fight the spread of islamofascism. Hell, they can't even admit it exists. They just want to score political points on the Bush Adm.

[itai195]

You seem unable or unwilling to distinguish between war and genocide. If the left had no interest in a war in Africa, why did Clinton support intervention in Somalia? IMO it's dishonest to smear the left about ignoring Africa in the 90s while ignoring the lessons of Somalia.

Anyway, I agree that there are a lot of ugly wars in Africa that are generally ignored by the west. I just don't think there is enough public support in this country, liberal or conservative, for another humanitarian mission in Africa.

[DLQ2006]

Originally Posted by itai195

You seem unable or unwilling to distinguish between war and genocide. If the left had no interest in a war in Africa, why did Clinton support intervention in Somalia? IMO it's dishonest to smear the left about ignoring Africa in the 90s while ignoring the lessons of Somalia.

Anyway, I agree that there are a lot of ugly wars in Africa that are generally ignored by the west. I just don't think there is enough public support in this country, liberal or conservative, for another humanitarian mission in Africa.

That lack of public support is because it would take an extraordinary amount of our treasure and lives to even attempt to solve the problems of Africa. Millions of young Americans would have to die trying to go fix Africa and frankly I don't think it can be fixed from the outside. Third world countries cannot be forced to be like us and have the same value systems that we do. Somalia is the perfect example of why we shouldn't be sending in even one guy in camoflauge if the problem cannot be solved by military means.

If we send the military in, there will be deaths and not one American soldier's life should be squandered if we are not willing as a nation to go in with a mission that will not be withdrawn as soon as things don't go our way or people start getting killed. We need to decide beforehand if the mission is worth the cost in terms of human lives and treasure. If it is, than you throw down and fight to the end. If it is not, then we shouldn't go playing politics with real lives as the pawns. Africa is a mess and no amount of U.S. military involvement or economic aid is going to make it better.

It's hard enought to send in our beloved husbands, sons, daughters, ect to die when the cause IS for our own national security. I'm not willing to sacrifice even one American servicemember so that people in Africa will stop killing each other because for one, they won't. I just wish those on the Left would stop using the situation as a way to bash Bush.

[itai195]

Fair enough. This is the same issue I struggle with. Still it's painful not doing anything.

[DLQ2006]

Originally Posted by itai195

Fair enough. This is the same issue I struggle with. Still it's painful not doing anything.

It's heart-breaking is what is it.

[Spliffdaddy]

Why doesn't the UN just pass some resolutions to fix the problems in Africa? Maybe some sanctions or some sternly-worded threats?

Has everyone finally accepted the fact that diplomacy is never a real solution?

How come diplomacy is the cure for North Korea and Iran - but not Darfur?

Surely somebody in the world has the answer.

The USA hasn't done anything right, but we're the first country the world looks to for answers. Well, we don't have anymore answers. You're on your own. We've got a 700 mile border fence to build. Since diplomacy hasn't worked.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

So the left thinks we should send troops into a sovereign nation in order to free some oppressed people?

Fat chance. Been there done that - and you haven't stopped whining about it.

Besides, if things don't go exceptionally well almost immediately, I can assure you the lefties will change their position and start calling the president a dumbass for doing it.

Besides, it isn't our turn to handle this crisis. I think it's Iceland's turn.

Send in the UN. Without US troops or finances.

Show us how it's done.

By the way, they said they don't want you there. So maybe you should just stay home.

I think you should read more carefully instead of injecting your stuff.

And I am not "The Left". Time for you to start thinking outside of the binary box. Darfur does not need to be imposed a "democracy à la U.S.", at least not yet. The issue is to ensure the survival of the population, regardless of the affiliation. Let's start with that, then let' have them do the talking towards Peace, however long that will take, then if they want a democracy à la Spliffdaddy, they can go up in smoke as much as they want.

In Iraq, democracy was precipitated; it was not an owned process. If you think people will readily take democracy over the usual government, you are dreaming. It takes time to tame freedom, and you have to own it to make it make sense.

But it is easy for you to say freedom and democracy are the best thing in the world: you never had to fight for it, at least not as much as your forefathers, and even then, their access to freedom was easy. So stop lecturing those who struggle and have the humility to acknowledge that your freedom was given to you on a silver plate, for which you never had to sweat to live it.

[Spliffdaddy]

So the goal in Darfur is to stop genocide?

I forget, what crime is Saddam charged with?

You type a lot of words yet offer no solutions.

"We need to stop the killin and the human sufferin!" (spoken as Kofi Annan impression)

puleeze. what needs to be done is called "regime change" - into democracy.

The left is always convinced that only certain human beings are capable of participating in democracy and freedom. The same people that tell us black people need assistance from government programs in order to achieve in our democracy.

If the plan is to "stop the killin" - and we have to do that by force...that is, by "killin" (or do we send unarmed 'peacekeepers' *love that word* to talk sternly to them?) then afterward what the hell do you do? Do you, God forbid, IMPOSE a new dictatorship government? Do you IMPOSE a democracy? or do you simply gather up the peacekeepers, send them back home, and let the genocide commence?

So what you're saying is that some people only deserve a dictatorship.

Yeah, you talk a lot. But you didn't say anything meaningful.

You know, even JoeCartoon can offer some insight....

Joe Cartoon

"Talkin..........don't do nuthin"

[Pendergast]

The solutions are there; you just don't want to recognize them, period.

Democracy is a long term goal, but not the way it was done in Iraq. You are confusing the means, with the goal.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

The solutions are there; you just don't want to recognize them, period.

These were the solutions you offered;

" We need to enforce the principle of talking without warring."

" Let's protect the innocents, then ensure the leaders are talking, and provided with a terrain d'entente, always."

"Let's also remove all the foreign elements: chinese merchants, christian missionaries and so on and so forth."

"Let the people do their stuff peacefully."

Your "solutions" can be summed up by saying; "let's remove arguably one of the only sources of investment and employment in the region, combined with removing the few elements of relief offered to the remaining 73% below poverty level in the region, while using precious mililtary resources to protect innocent people so the leaders who have no interest in talking can talk."

... and when someone asks you for an ROI, you can only say; "saving lives". While admirable, this sounds an awful lot like the reasoning used by the missionaries you want out of there.

I for one recognize your ideas, but they are chalk-full of compassion; woefully short on resolution or purpose. The region needs a liberator, not an enabler.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

These were the solutions you offered;

" We need to enforce the principle of talking without warring."

" Let's protect the innocents, then ensure the leaders are talking, and provided with a terrain d'entente, always."

"Let's also remove all the foreign elements: chinese merchants, christian missionaries and so on and so forth."

"Let the people do their stuff peacefully."

Your "solutions" can be summed up by saying; "let's remove arguably one of the only sources of investment and employment in the region, combined with removing the few elements of relief offered to the remaining 73% below poverty level in the region, while using precious mililtary resources to protect innocent people so the leaders who have no interest in talking can talk."

... and when someone asks you for an ROI, you can only say; "saving lives". While admirable, this sounds an awful lot like the reasoning used by the missionaries you want out of there.

I for one recognize your ideas, but they are chalk-full of compassion; woefully short on resolution or purpose. The region needs a liberator, not an enabler.

The region needs to be enabled to deal with their stuff on their own, plus the safety necessary to make it happen.

All those missionaries and chines merchants and other alien forces are enabling disorder and chaos aby favoring one party over the other.

The last thing people need is a liberator. And if the US or another nation invades the country to impose democracy, as soon as these forces will be gone, that democracy will end in a pile of dust and a lot of pain because the issues will not be resolved.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by DLQ2006

I find it interesting that all through the 90's when Muslims were killing Christians in the Sudan, there were no pleas from the left to Clinton for him to committ our troops to fighting a war in Africa. Now that the Muslim militias are committing genocide on secular African tribes, they want our troops involved.

It really bugs me when people say dumb things like this.

greg

[macintologist]

I don't get it, do conservatives want to see the UN strengthened or weakened?

[Spliffdaddy]

The answer should be obvious.

Since there's no way the UN could be any weaker...

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Why doesn't the UN just pass some resolutions to fix the problems in Africa? Maybe some sanctions or some sternly-worded threats?

Why don't they send the soon-to-be-ex Secretary-General? Heck, he got so much done the last time he was in charge of relief efforts in Africa that they made him the BOSS of the place.