NationStates Jolt Archive

Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Darfur.. They have two things in common: 1) They were the sites of terrible atrocities (genocide) and 2) In both cases the UN did nothing at all to end the crisis.

How can it be that nations agree to outlaw crimes against humanity, but refuse to act when they actually occur? At this very moment people are being murdered in Darfur, women are being raped and people starved to death, locked up in camps by the Sudanese government. Why don't we care?

Today I heard the minister of foreign affairs of the UK say that an intervention in Sudan would only destabilize the country. The Allied intervention against the atrocities of the Nazi-regime also temporarily destabilized western Europe, but no-one here would accept that as a reason to abstain from the intervention. Are African lives simply worth less then European or American lives? :confused:

Are African lives simply worth less then European or American lives?
Yes. Allow me to quote from a reliable source--a textbook:


Body Count Conversion Rate

2,000 Massacred Congolese = 500 Drowned Bangladeshis = 45 Fire-bombed Iraqis = 12 Car-bombed Europeans = 1 Snipered American
America: The Book for you. It is sadly accurate...

Well, the UN is making moves to stop it, but far from prooving its own usefullness the UN is becoming progressively more and more toothless and pathetic. This is a situation where Europe and the US should be cracking out the unilateral actions: Who cares if the Sudanese hate us when they're busy killing untold numbers of people?

We should be pin-pointing the camps and bases being used by the militia and hitting them with cruise missiles. Sudan's air force is a joke it has absolutely no ability to bite back.

Hey, I care about Darfur - I want the UN to go in there w/a full mandate. But they won't!

*mutters under my breath how corrupt the UN is*

The African Union doesn't seem to care much either. So why should we.

Hey, I care about Darfur - I want the UN to go in there w/a full mandate. But they won't!

*mutters under my breath how corrupt the UN is*

America is on the security council as well and could force an action if it wanted.

However, the shrub has made his stance. We will punish them with economic sanctions!

Oh my gawd say it isn't so. That will teach them!

A war has never been waged in human history to protect humanity. We were always looking after our own asses. I say we go in. Fuck Geneva and kill as many Sudanese officials and soldiers and guerillas as possible.

The African Union doesn't seem to care much either. So why should we.

Ahhh then why should you care about the actions or inactions of the US?

The African Union doesn't seem to care much either. So why should we.
Becuase we're human! And should be doing it but no nation on the earth has the fucking balls to do so!

Ahhh then why should you care about the actions or inactions of the US?
Cause the actions of the US usually have a negative effect for the rest of us. See Madrid.

Weel, if the EU would get off it's assthey could do something about it, but the US, for good or for ill, is a little tied up right now. If we had 1990 troop numbers, something might be done but as it is we don't have the manpower to deal with it. I would, however, advise against sending in the blue berets given their history of non-action and atrocity.

http://users.tyenet.com/kozlich/srebblame.htm

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/UN/peace.html

1. Republicans in Congress criticized Bill Clinton for refusing to support the genocide in Sudan after the perpetrators of the genocide offered to turn Osama bin Laden over to Saudi Arabia in exchange for that support.

2. With the exception of a senate filibuster, those Republicans are now in complete control of the US government.

3. When the US supports something, the UN has a difficult time opposing it.

Cause the actions of the US usually have a negative effect for the rest of us. See Madrid.

Ahh so we should be concern over issues that are close to us and can affect us but others....

That is a very american attitude you have there.

Ahh so we should be concern over issues that are close to us and can affect us but others....

That is a very american attitude you have there.
Theres no need for name calling. :mad: I simply meant the African Union should be the one to resolve it. We can support them logistical. But the ultimate responsibility to bring it to an end should be theirs.

Theres no need for name calling. :mad: I simply meant the African Union should be the one to resolve it. We can support them logistical. But the ultimate responsibility to bring it to an end should be theirs.

Thought that would rile you up a bit! :p

One could argue that Africa should solve it's own problems. But if humanity is to advance then genocide is an action worthy of war.

Having the Americans, the EU, and anybody else riding over the hills would make people rethink organised genocide is acceptable.

It's a sad state of affairs when the Rwandans send what little they have and yet the powerful west does nothing.....

Personally if the US just nuked them all then we would have no problem. No need to waste pointless time and money with the UN, when you can disarm the US one nuke at a time and solve a stupid problem

America is on the security council as well and could force an action if it wanted.

However, the shrub has made his stance. We will punish them with economic sanctions!

Oh my gawd say it isn't so. That will teach them!
You know, if you ever had anything good, or kind, or decent, or respectful to say, I suspect I would faint dead away! :(

You know, if you ever had anything good, or kind, or decent, or respectful to say, I suspect I would faint dead away! :(

Pot, meet kettle.

22% of the UN's money comes from the US. All that we ask in return is not to let Rwanda happen again. Ok? Oh, yea and spend less time on Israel's wall and get back to more important issues.

Personally if the US just nuked them all then we would have no problem. No need to waste pointless time and money with the UN, when you can disarm the US one nuke at a time and solve a stupid problemLet me explain this in the way you understand best.
STFU

Looking at the poll results I would allmost think we do care about genocide. In a democracy that should mean that our governments care about it as well.


One could argue that Africa should solve it's own problems. But if humanity is to advance then genocide is an action worthy of war.

Having the Americans, the EU, and anybody else riding over the hills would make people rethink organised genocide is acceptable.

It's a sad state of affairs when the Rwandans send what little they have and yet the powerful west does nothing.....

I fully agree. It's great that the African Union tries to do something, but we cannot expect them to solve an issue we could hardly tackle.

If we let genocide go unpunished, we stimulate it. As there's a lot of potential for ethnic conflict all over the world, that's the last thing we should do.

The UN should do something, but that dosen't mean it will. Soon it will just be another point in the list of reasons why the UN is worthless and should be replaced. Of course, what do I know. The people in the UN probably have far more pressing concerns to take up, like condemning Israel for defending itself.

You know, if you ever had anything good, or kind, or decent, or respectful to say, I suspect I would faint dead away! :(

Sorry but I seem to have a problem calling ourselves the mightest nation ever and yet we sit and watch one million people get slaughtered in 100 days. We expect the world to feal sorrow because 3000 people died one fateful day and yet we care nothing that on the average 10000 people were getting hacked to death each day.

For all our bringing democracy and freedom talk, we only seem to do it when we get something in return.

So what is the respectful things I should be saying?

Help Darfur? AH! Why? They got no oil. Do you seriously think anyone will help them?

Well, you know, this makes me think of something. You see, here we have a nation where the current leaders are butchering thousands of people. You all seem to think we should intervene to prevent genocide and murder. Now, I seem to remember this nation called Iraq, with a guy named Saddam, where genocide occurred on numerous occasions and murder was a daily occurence. However, as I recall the nation that removed the leader, and is currently trying to piece the nation back together after decades of oppressive and damaging rule by a tyrant, was unilaterally condemned for its actions.


All I have to say to you hypocrites is that I don't really care if you think we should intervene. I, as an American, would refuse to aid you if you did. And without America's help, there wouldn't even BE an intervention. But when America takes care of the business that the UN is too pathetic to deal with, guess who gets hit with the shit storm? Yea, us. Too bad for the Africans, because apparently the US isn't allowed to help them. Their blood is on your hands, and maybe they'll get lucky and convince the French to fight for the enemy. At least they'd be able to win against the French.

Sorry but I seem to have a problem calling ourselves the mightest nation ever and yet we sit and watch one million people get slaughtered in 100 days. We expect the world to feal sorrow because 3000 people died one fateful day and yet we care nothing that on the average 10000 people were getting hacked to death each day.

For all our bringing democracy and freedom talk, we only seem to do it when we get something in return.

So what is the respectful things I should be saying?
See, the problem is that people like you protest when we do intervene, and when we don't you condemn us for being heartless. I have an idea. You go fight this time. My uncle, cousin, and brother-in-law have all done plenty enough for our country, and now I think its time for the people like you who talk all the time to do something

Well, you know, this makes me think of something. You see, here we have a nation where the current leaders are butchering thousands of people. You all seem to think we should intervene to prevent genocide and murder. Now, I seem to remember this nation called Iraq, with a guy named Saddam, where genocide occurred on numerous occasions and murder was a daily occurence. However, as I recall the nation that removed the leader, and is currently trying to piece the nation back together after decades of oppressive and damaging rule by a tyrant, was unilaterally condemned for its actions.

Problem Ace:
The US didn't say we are going there to prevent the slaughter. They had WMDs and were working with Bin Laden and Al-Q.

The preventing slaughter argument was a "Oh shit no nukes, genoicide, yea lets use that" argument.

Problem Ace:
The US didn't say we are going there to prevent the slaughter. They had WMDs and were working with Bin Laden and Al-Q.

The preventing slaughter argument was a "Oh shit no nukes, genoicide, yea lets use that" argument.

Question, Ace:

Does it really matter? Really? Because regardless of motive, we have removed a criminal from power, thereby ending a tyrannical reign, and we haven't seized oil deposits either. Basically, we are losing money like crazy, with no apparent benefit, aside from removing a dangerous man from power.

See, the problem is that people like you protest when we do intervene, and when we don't you condemn us for being heartless. I have an idea. You go fight this time. My uncle, cousin, and brother-in-law have all done plenty enough for our country, and now I think its time for the people like you who talk all the time to do something

Ah yes "people like you" so what am I? You don't know do you slick.

We didn't intervene in Iraq to save people.

You uncle, cousin, and brother-in-law have done a great service.

What have you done?

My granddads and great-uncles saw combat. One granddad served in Poland then in England. I have a cousin in Iraq right now.

I didn't serve because of a promise to my granddad. Viet Nam offended him but that is a different story. I didn't do the military thing but I did things from the civilian side. I'm ex-goverment.

So what have you done?

"people like you" :rolleyes:

Now, I seem to remember this nation called Iraq, with a guy named Saddam, where genocide occurred on numerous occasions and murder was a daily occurence. However, as I recall the nation that removed the leader, and is currently trying to piece the nation back together after decades of oppressive and damaging rule by a tyrant, was unilaterally condemned for its actions.

You are skipping a few steps here.

Mr Bush has used Saddam's crimes as an argument to invade Iraq, but he did so only because his other arguments were failing.

If the US really cares so much about the torturing in Iraqi prisons and the gassing of thousands of Kurds, then why didnt they do something when it occured? May I remind your that the US, and a number of European countries, was still an ally of Saddam when he was allready torturing dissidents? May I remind you that in 1988, when Saddam killed about 5000 Kurds at Halabya, American and European firms still sold weapons to him?

And now, after more then a decade, mr Bush suddenly realises the horrors of Saddam. Yea right..

Want proof?

The crimes of a U.S. ally

January 2, 2004

ALAN MAASS

[...]
"According to the Associated Press, Saddam used chemical weapons to kill an estimated 190,000 Kurds between 1983 and 1988--along with 50,000 Iranian soldiers, about one in 10 casualties on the Iranian side during the war. All the while, the Reagan administration downplayed Saddam’s poison gas massacres--even claiming at one point that its preferred enemy, Iran, was responsible.

In 1988, when a Senate Foreign Relations committee staff report exposed the killings of Kurds in northern Iraq, Sen. Claiborne Pell (D-R.I.) proposed the Prevention of Genocide Act to put pressure on the Iraqi government. But the Reagan administration orchestrated the measure’s defeat in Congress."

http://www.socialistworker.org/2004-1/480/480_05_SaddamHussein.shtml

The UN should do something, but that dosen't mean it will. Soon it will just be another point in the list of reasons why the UN is worthless and should be replaced. Of course, what do I know. The people in the UN probably have far more pressing concerns to take up, like condemning Israel for defending itself.

Yea and the fact that the US sits on the security council.....

One of the major points overlooked in the punish Saddam for genocide thing was that when Saddam Hussein was comitting genocide against the Kurds, we blithely supplied him with agricultural credits and military equipment.

Saddam Hussein should have been taken care of in 1991. The former Bush administration should have also taken care of the other genocides it overlooked, in the Balkans. We were afraid that a bunch of drunken old Yugoslavian militiamen busy raping Muslim girls was going to beat the most powerful armies in the world.

Honestly, if we actually intervened seriously in these places we would gain a lot more credibility.

And if the US doesn't do anything, the UN should have the right and obligation to do something. The UN is rendered almost ineffectual by the fact that its teathered by the Security Council. And the Security Council sucks.

I don't trust the US or the UN. The only people I trust nowadays are the Norwegians.

I believe what the point is is that the US should really be doing a lot more to stop flagrant abuses of human rights. At least motivate other nations and the UN to do something, at the very least. People are dying all the time and nobody cares. That just makes me sick.

And as much as I don't really like praising the Bush admin, I have to say that they have done some good things in at least getting the African Union into Sudan.

But what is really needed is a worldwide consensus not to let these things happen ever. If we step in and decisively and forcefully end one genocide, it will show other would-be perpetrators of crimes against humanity that the international community will not stand for it.

Question, Ace:

Does it really matter? Really? Because regardless of motive, we have removed a criminal from power, thereby ending a tyrannical reign, and we haven't seized oil deposits either. Basically, we are losing money like crazy, with no apparent benefit, aside from removing a dangerous man from power.

And yet we ignore the others. Oil is the issue here. Not humanity. The criminal argument is the desperate hope of not proving a clear and present danger to the United States. Nothing more then "he tried to kill my daddy"

Sanctions would be the best way to solve the crisis, but that hasn't passed through the Security Concil, partly because China has exclusivity to Sudanese oil fields.

Yea and the fact that the US sits on the security council.....
Yeah, the whole way the security council is set up helps it to make it inefficient as well.

Who says we don't care? Some of us are in Amnesty Intenational.

It's our bastard governments that don't care.

Cause the actions of the US usually have a negative effect for the rest of us. See Madrid.
I seriously doubt that the Janjaweed has the power of al-Qaeda.

I seriously doubt that the Janjaweed has the power of al-Qaeda.
What do the Janjaweed have to do with it? I responded to Black Forrests question about the US governments activities or lack of it.

Let's be honest here, it's because they're black. The compassion threshold simply seems to be set a bit higher when people are noticably different to us. It goes for every culture.

Let's be honest here, it's because they're black. The compassion threshold simply seems to be set a bit higher when people are noticably different to us. It goes for every culture.Ah TG, you hit on a basic truth of human culture. It is soo much easier to kill or commit autracious acts if you dehumanize the victim. They are not one of us, so they don't feel like we do or deserve the same compassion or mercy and acts committed against them do not carry the same moral or social stigma. It has been so since the dawn of man. Those outside the tribe are simply not thought of as fellow humans.

Why do you think in virtually every tribal society in the world the word in their language for 'Human' is the same as the name for their tribe?

Let's be honest here, it's because they're black. The compassion threshold simply seems to be set a bit higher when people are noticably different to us. It goes for every culture.

:eek: You just played the race card!

It does beg the question. Would it be allowed to go on if it was a white culture?

:eek: You just played the race card!

It does beg the question. Would it be allowed to go on if it was a white culture?
Former Yugoslavia.

:eek: You just played the race card!

It does beg the question. Would it be allowed to go on if it was a white culture?Define 'white culture'. If the tables were reversed and blacks were killing ethnic arabs, nah, I don't think it'd make any more of a splash.

It's a classic money over people scenario. Sudan has oil reserves. No major power wants to alienate the sudanese government. That's because the oil and energy companies who have their hand in all the major governments don't want them to. They're afraid the Sudanese won't let them play in their sandbox if they piss them off.

People die, but exxon still makes a profit. Money over people.