[Orion27]

According to to the Washington Post this morning, the Bush administration is still weighing it's options in Darfur. "Although the Bush administration described the situation as "genocide" nearly three years ago, the United States and other world powers have been unable to end either the conflict or the humanitarian crisis."
"Anticipating the president's speech this morning, a coalition of churches and nonprofit groups that have been pressuring the administration about Darfur will run full-page ads in The Washington Post and the New York Times, quoting Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice from September 2006: "The time for stalling has passed. The time for action has come." The ad pictures a young Darfurian thinking to himself, "What are they waiting for?""

Bush has publicly and privately voiced great frustration over conditions in Darfur and has reportedly pressed his advisers to come up with a more aggressive plan of action. But he has been unable to marshal an effective international response, according to his critics on Capitol Hill and the outspoken advocacy coalition of churches and nonprofits that have worked to raise public consciousness about Darfur.

"Our experience is that the president's actions have not kept pace with his words," said David C. Rubenstein, the executive director of the Save Darfur Coalition. "We are counting on the president to do what he can to end the crisis."

Reviewing the " America: A new Isolationism" thread, it's clear the concensus in this forum is for America to stay out of foreign conflicts. One poster GoMac, seemed to sum up most of the oppostion by saying : "If I were another country, I would certainly not call the U.S. to come and help me. Last thing I'd want was to be turned into another Afghanistan or Iraq. I think the U.S. would come just somewhere above Libya.

The article also seemed to intimate that UN action seemed to hinge on President Bush's decisions to engage or not.
I think if the United States were to get involved in another conflict, it would just open itself up to more criticism, especially in in this part of Africa where once again we would be fall victim again to Islamist extremeism. Somalia, a case in point.
I thiink it's time we let the UN and other nations handle Darfur, given it's far away and regional nature.

As another poster dcmacdaddy wrote: ".......We can relinquish some of the control we had on the geo-political stage to other actors who are now emerging in their own right......I think you, and those who think like you, don't want the US to relinquish that position of power. I think you, and those who think like you, want the US to do whatever it takes to try and maintain that former position of dominant global power. But, I don't want that for our country any more: That position of dominance was tolerable during the Cold war but it has become intolerable now for those of us who think the US government should focus more of its resources on domestic issues and less on international issues....."

Link to Article: Administration Still Weighing Sudan Options - washingtonpost.com

[Orion27]

President Bush, wisely refused to act in Darfur today. The UN Secretary/General made a plea for more time "to give diplomacy a chance to work".

President Bush today offered Sudan a "last chance" to abide by U.N. Security Council resolutions calling for more troops in the troubled Darfur region, pulling back from a plan to announce new sanctions against the Khartoum government.

Speaking at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, Bush said that situation in Darfur--where as many as 450,000 have died from violence, disease and malnutrition since civil conflict erupted in 2003--is "unacceptable to me" and "the status quo must not continue." But he said he would heed a plea from U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon to give him "more time to pursue his diplomacy."

Diplomacy will hopefully work someday. We just need to give the United Nations more time to sort things out. Maybe they can get some negotiating tips from France.
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...s?hpid=topnews

[Warren Pease]

With China wielding veto power in the UN Security Council, it is unlikely that any strong sanctions/resolutions will be imposed on Sudan.

I'm not sure, though, why the US has to now back off the plan of freezing funds of key Sudanese persons. Seems like a good course of action and is based solely on the US Treasury and the US banks.

Until last night, the administration had been planning for the Treasury Department to begin blocking U.S. commercial bank transactions connected to the government of Sudan. The administration has also been planning to subject three individuals to personal financial sanctions for their alleged role in the violence -- one junior government minister, one military official and, in an effort to show balance, senior rebel leader Khalil Ibrahim.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

With China wielding veto power in the UN Security Council, it is unlikely that any strong sanctions/resolutions will be imposed on Sudan.

I'm not sure, though, why the US has to now back off the plan of freezing funds of key Sudanese persons. Seems like a good course of action and is based solely on the US Treasury and the US banks.

Why does the US have to be involved? The United Nations Human Rights Council designates Darfur as part of the Arab Region. Why not let Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt look after the civll rights of the people in Darfur. It's their region?
OHCHR - Human Rights in the World

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Why does the US have to be involved?

Short Answer: The US wants to be involved. Bush is concerned with the genocide in Darfur, and rightly so. There may be a power play going on with US vs. China as well. Sudan is China's Saudi Arabia in a sense.

Freezing the financial accounts of key figures has worked in the War on Terror, why not against the promoters of genocide? It's a small (specific to the US) form of sanctions that are otherwise being blocked by other UNSC members and best of all doesn't require a UN vote.

Originally Posted by Orion27 

The United Nations Human Rights Council designates Darfur as part of the Arab Region. Why not let Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt look after the civll rights of the people in Darfur. It's their region?[/url]

While it is their region, those countries don't have the best human rights records either. Hardly good arbiters of another countries citizens rights.

Anyway, the AU has had troops there for a while and there are more AU and new UN soldiers on the way. Hopefully, they will be able to accomplish more than before.

more reading:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...568753,00.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/...-UN-Darfur.php

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

Short Answer: The US wants to be involved. Bush is concerned with the genocide in Darfur, and rightly so. There may be a power play going on with US vs. China as well. Sudan is China's Saudi Arabia in a sense.

Freezing the financial accounts of key figures has worked in the War on Terror, why not against the promoters of genocide? It's a small (specific to the US) form of sanctions that are otherwise being blocked by other UNSC members and best of all doesn't require a UN vote.



While it is their region, those countries don't have the best human rights records either. Hardly good arbiters of another countries citizens rights.

Anyway, the AU has had troops there for a while and there are more AU and new UN soldiers on the way. Hopefully, they will be able to accomplish more than before.

more reading:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...568753,00.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/...-UN-Darfur.php

There are power plays all over the Globe. I think the UN knows best. The United Sates should just stay in it's own back yard. You can tell the world despises them everywhere they go. If we decide to help, most other countrie will refuse to participate. I think we should just let the UN negotiate. Anyway, Bush doesn't care about black people, just look at New Orleans and the Katrina devastation. Bush just says he's concerned about genocide but he's just interested in the oil they have there. With the Americans, it's all about oil and profits.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

There are power plays all over the Globe. I think the UN knows best. The United Sates should just stay in it's own back yard. You can tell the world despises them everywhere they go. If we decide to help, most other countrie will refuse to participate. I think we should just let the UN negotiate. Anyway, Bush doesn't care about black people, just look at New Orleans and the Katrina devastation. Bush just says he's concerned about genocide but he's just interested in the oil they have there. With the Americans, it's all about oil and profits.

I'm not sure where you are going with this.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

I'm not sure where you are going with this.

I'm saying wherever the Americans get involved, they're up to no good. Bush is a liar. I read about it everyday here in these forums and in the newspapers. The Americans should just stay in their own back yard. What's so hard to understand about that? You said it yourself. It's all about oil not about the genocide. Bush just talks about the genocide but he's really concerned about the oil.

[Aron Peterson]

The problem is many companies have had interests in Sudan. Today Rolls Royce finally pulled out of the country. Even with the renewed sanctions imposed on Sudan, Chinese and Indian companies are very close to the government and they are unlikely to care whether Janjaweed and government militia are killing villagers and cleansing ethnic black Africans considering the human rights violations in China and India. It's been going on since well before General Gordon tried to stop it.

[Aron Peterson]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

It's all about oil not about the genocide. Bush just talks about the genocide but he's really concerned about the oil.

I'm no Bush supporter, but you're talking crap. OPEC's power controls a large part of what the US can do in the world and Sudan's government is a friend of most OPEC member national governments. The US, the rest of the West and much of Africa don't want the Sudanese regime to stay in power but is mostly powerless if Sudan has ties to so many governments that the West relies on even if they almost all have terrible human rights records.

In other words, your black and white view of the world belongs in a racist conspiracy theorist suicide bomber handbook.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Aron Peterson 

I'm no Bush supporter, but you're talking crap. OPEC's power controls a large part of what the US can do in the world and Sudan's government is a friend of most OPEC member national governments. The US, the rest of the West and much of Africa don't want the Sudanese regime to stay in power but is mostly powerless if Sudan has ties to so many governments that the West relies on even if they almost all have terrible human rights records.

In other words, your black and white view of the world belongs in a racist conspiracy theorist suicide bomber handbook.

I'm Saying Bush is a liar ( you can read it everywhere ) and oil is the US's main interest.
And it's a fact Bush doen't care about black people. You can read that everywhere too.

[Aron Peterson]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

I'm Saying Bush is a liar ( you can read it everywhere ) and oil is the US's main interest.

Correction: oil is everyone's interests. There isn't a single person who hasn't got some investment in it including you. If you're not interested in it don't use a car, don't use any plastic products, don't use any product that requires shipping, and go live in a cave and drink rain water.

And who has profited most from wars over oil? OPEC nations have from the rising price of oil. The same nations that fail to crack down on sectarian violence and give shelter, arms and training to terrorists.

Of course, gumball conspiracy theorists can keep brainwashing each other that "George Bush" went to war to get "cheap oil" and to help companies like Halliburton. That company is now moving to Abu-Dhabi where it has more friends than it did in the US.

And it's a fact Bush doen't care about black people.

So what are Islamists doing in Sudan killing black people for the last 300 years and still trading in slaves for? I don't see any jihad squad going there to save any lives.

Grow up and see that every jihadi who contributes to chaos enriches the pockets of criminally corrupt people.