NationStates Jolt Archive

Darfur...the massacre that left 300,000 men women and children dead...

Sudan is in a state of crisis, a genocide we have not seen since Rawanda.

Entire tribes are being wiped out. Massacres, rape, murder, mutilation, starvation, you name it, it is happening as we speak. The Sudan government sits by and secretly backs the militas commiting these horendous acts. The UN is powerless, and the US refuses to move in to aid these people.

As a member of Amnesty International, and as a concerned denizen of Earth, I implore you to do what you can to help these people. I know that I can be a pretty humorous person...but now is the time to act. Do not sit by and watch this happen. Write to your senator, write to your government, do anything, just help.

http://www.savedarfur.org

I don't do this much...I really think this issue needs to be adressed.

Bump'd

One of the many reasons that I think of the Bush Administration as the worst in the history of America.

Oh sure, we can go and invade Iraq for no real reason, but we can't even spare a dime for nations in Africa that are in desperate need.

Absolutely.

Oh God, again with the Bush-blaming.
I really don't understand people. Saddam Hussein flicks off the UN and entire civilized world for a dozen years. He closes off his borders, he supports foreign terrorists, he doesn't comply with resolution after resolution. Bush finally goes in and takes him out, and you guys protest til my ears bleed.
Then comes Darfur. Do you guys demand Bush go through all UN hoops like he had to with Iraq? No. Just want him to immediately move in.
The US is trying to help. We were the ones who brought up the issue with the Security Council, but we're being blocked by France. Protest them for once.

So, Bush hasn't done anything wrong in the past four years? Pfff.

I say GOOD FUCKING JOB, France! It's never a bad thing to stay where you stand, and they did just that, despite massive pressure from America.

So, Bush hasn't done anything wrong in the past four years? Pfff.

I say GOOD FUCKING JOB, France! It's never a bad thing to stay where you stand, and they did just that, despite massive pressure from America.
You're misunderstanding me. France blocked US/UK backed resolutions aimed at punishing the Sudan government until they stopped the genocide.

So, Bush hasn't done anything wrong in the past four years? Pfff.

I say GOOD FUCKING JOB, France! It's never a bad thing to stay where you stand, and they did just that, despite massive pressure from America.You lack the ability to make sense.

That's what I get for speeding through posts. I didn't even see that last part, much less read it.

*kicks own ass, again*

Oh God, again with the Bush-blaming.
I really don't understand people. Saddam Hussein flicks off the UN and entire civilized world for a dozen years. He closes off his borders, he supports foreign terrorists, he doesn't comply with resolution after resolution. Bush finally goes in and takes him out, and you guys protest til my ears bleed.
Then comes Darfur. Do you guys demand Bush go through all UN hoops like he had to with Iraq? No. Just want him to immediately move in.
The US is trying to help. We were the ones who brought up the issue with the Security Council, but we're being blocked by France. Protest them for once.

I'm NOT trying to turn this into a debate about Iraq. So drop it now!

Than start being consistant in your international demands. Give the Sudan government a half dozen UN resolutions and a dozen years of breaking them. Then, when the president actually takes bold action to stop the slaughter, hit the streets comparing him to the Stalin and Hitler. Call him a mass murderer and oil monger. They do have oil in Sudan, you know. That's why the French blocked that US/UK resolution.

Yep, despite Kofi Annan being from Africa the U.N. still does nothing.
I'm not putting the blame on Annan entirely, but the only thing we hear about from him on Africa is about the AIDS epidemic there. If this continues, Africa may become an empty continent with the combined effects of AIDS and genocide....

President Bush, please do not make the same mistake Clinton did with Rwanda. Step in before this becomes a massive genocide. Like everything else, the world will wait until the U.S. takes a stand. It is up to us to take the lead. Save Africa.

The fact of the matter is that the Iraq issue is related to Darfur. The reason that we cannot just go in there guns a blazin is because so many troops are currently deployed in Iraq that we do not have the manpower to deal with Darfur on our own.

Don't get me wrong, it needs to be dealt with and it needs to be dealt with immediatly, but the US needs world support and a lot of people are still bitter over Iraq so it doesn't really help matters. That being said, the US does need to take a stronger stance on the Darfur issue.

Cpl Monastyrsky, Ilya, USMC
4th Force Service Support Group
6th Engineer Support Battalion
Headquarters & Service Compnay

Than start being consistant in your international demands. Give the Sudan government a half dozen UN resolutions and a dozen years of breaking them. Then, when the president actually takes bold action to stop the slaughter, hit the streets comparing him to the Stalin and Hitler. Call him a mass murderer and oil monger. They do have oil in Sudan, you know. That's why the French blocked that US/UK resolution.

Don't know if that's true. Probably. Wouldnt' suprise me if it were true given their sketchy record.

*shrug*

kerry wouldve been no better. the us has an extensive history of ignoring these sorts of things...or better yet, being behind them. take a look at argentina and the dirty war. or better yet...the whole institution of the school of americas.

www.soawatch.org

anyways...yea, sudan is bad. but it isnt a question of the president...not that i support bush. the us public has become idle. due to media pacification and an overindulging lifestyle, there is no longer a revolutionary america. i would say that the only thing to do about darfur is to act in some direct way. i dont think that one can really do anything in america by talking anymore. even as a pacifist, the short way out of the apathy of the typical american citizen is direct, probably violent, action.

ps...im not suggesting violent action as a superior form of wake up call...just stating it as a possibility...

I'm sorry. I must take back what I said before about the French. Here's an actual news report. I'd heard about before, and I must have gotten it mixed up in my head. Sorry again.

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/02/18/darfuroppose.shtml
The real villains are the Russians and Chinese.

*shrug*

kerry wouldve been no better. the us has an extensive history of ignoring these sorts of things...or better yet, being behind them. take a look at argentina and the dirty war. or better yet...the whole institution of the school of americas.

www.soawatch.org

anyways...yea, sudan is bad. but it isnt a question of the president...not that i support bush. the us public has become idle. due to media pacification and an overindulging lifestyle, there is no longer a revolutionary america. i would say that the only thing to do about darfur is to act in some direct way. i dont think that one can really do anything in america by talking anymore. even as a pacifist, the short way out of the apathy of the typical american citizen is direct, probably violent, action.

ps...im not suggesting violent action as a superior form of wake up call...just stating it as a possibility...

Unfortunatly I have to agree with you, Americans have become so apathetic that even 9/11 was only a short term wake up call. We have already gone back to sleeping. The problem is that wars are expensive, and that is why they are never fought for the high ideals you always see in movies. They are fought either for self preservation(defensive wars) or economic reasons(any other war) That is why I seriously doubt anything will actually get done in Darfur, in the cost/benifit analysis its just not benificial so governments are just going to continue to talk about the need for action so that they will be seen as humanitarians, but as far as actually commiting to action...

Cpl Monastyrsky, Ilya USMC
4th Force Service Support Group
6th Engineer Support Battalion
Headquarters & Service Company

I'm sorry. I must take back what I said before about the French. Here's an actual news report. I'd heard about before, and I must have gotten it mixed up in my head. Sorry again.

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/02/18/darfuroppose.shtml
The real villains are the Russians and Chinese.


That does make more sense.

What can I do to help?

What can I do to help?

Write to your government, write to the UN, write to Sudan (not gonna do much). Contribute to charity, donate food and clothing, etc.

The sorry thing is, these things aren't going to do much. The Sudan's not going to listen to our letters. We can either petition our government through rallies, or...

(Throws Roach-Buster a M4)

...Vigilante justice. Strap-up and meet me in Sudan, we'll clean house.

(Grabs AUG)

Write to your government, write to the UN, write to Sudan (not gonna do much). Contribute to charity, donate food and clothing, etc.

The sorry thing is, these things aren't going to do much. The Sudan's not going to listen to our letters. We can either petition our government through rallies, or...

(Throws Roach-Buster a M4)

...Vigilante justice. Strap-up and meet me in Sudan, we'll clean house.

(Grabs AUG)


Im all for going in and kicking some Sudanese government, jawa dudes asses...(i know the bad guys names start with a "J")...I also think if we get enough red necks in on this action we can have a army of at least a couple million.

HI HOOOO SILVER!

Oh God, again with the Bush-blaming.
Funny how you conservatives can take something that's actually perfectly valid (bush blaming, bush hating, peace making) and turn it into an appearant negative just by saying it in a trite little catche phrase. You ability to turn of critical though never ceases to amaze me.

I really don't understand people.

Try turning back on your capacity for critical thought. Note, critical thought doesn't mean thinking insulting things, it means analyzing arguments for possible flaws. Now the trick with the Bush administration is analyzing the flaws for possible arguments, but the principle is the same.

Saddam Hussein flicks off the UN and entire civilized world for a dozen years.

Crap. Saddam had caved to all demands, and WE flip the UN off more than anyone. To claim we have to ignore the UN because Saddam was ignoring the UN and that can't stand, regardless of how the UN feels about it. See the flaw in that argument?
He closes off his borders, he supports foreign terrorists, he doesn't comply with resolution after resolution.

Again, he caved to all resolutions before we attacked. WE closed his borders. Does the word embargo sound familiar? Plus we have a huge movement in this country to close our borders. A movement led by conservatives I might add.

Plus,

Well, technically it can't be Plus, because you haven't presented a single argument yet.


Bush finally goes in and takes him out, and you guys protest til my ears bleed.

Because no good came out of it. We turned Iraq INTO a terrorist haven. We have the whole world unifying against us. And Iraqis are seeing more bloodshed under our rule than they ever saw under Saddam. PLUS WE PUT HIM UP TO MOST OF IT!!!

Then comes Darfur. Do you guys demand Bush go through all UN hoops like he had to with Iraq? No. Just want him to immediately move in.
The US is trying to help. We were the ones who brought up the issue with the Security Council, but we're being blocked by France. Protest them for once.

France is stopping us from entering Darfur? I'd like to see a source. As for "bringing up issues" the Republicans just love empty gestures these days. Seen any real effort to stop abortion? Nope. Just dangling carrots in front of your noses and you go for it every year. How Dems ended up being the donkies I'll never know.

Donkies are rather nice animals, you know.

Anyway, about the issue at hand ---

We actually need to do *something* about this shit in Africa. It's the least-modern continent in the world, and many atrocities are committed each year. From slave labor to genocide, Africa's got it all, and it seems that with every year, America gives less of a shit about it.

Funny how you conservatives can take something that's actually perfectly valid (bush blaming, bush hating, peace making) and turn it into an appearant negative just by saying it in a trite little catche phrase. You ability to turn of critical though never ceases to amaze me.
I'm certainly not a Bush backer, but it amazes me at how there is a group of people that can find a way to blame Bush for anything and everything that goes wrong. There is the other side, those who find a way to pin everything that goes well on Bush, but they don't seem to be quite as loud and thus quite as absurd sounding at the Bush bashers.

Darfur...the massacre that left 300,000 men women and children dead...

Sudan is in a state of crisis, a genocide we have not seen since Rawanda.

Entire tribes are being wiped out. Massacres, rape, murder, mutilation, starvation, you name it, it is happening as we speak. The Sudan government sits by and secretly backs the militas commiting these horendous acts. The UN is powerless, and the US refuses to move in to aid these people.

As a member of Amnesty International, and as a concerned denizen of Earth, I implore you to do what you can to help these people. I know that I can be a pretty humorous person...but now is the time to act. Do not sit by and watch this happen. Write to your senator, write to your government, do anything, just help.

http://www.savedarfur.org

No offense to you, but this is just a question to most fo the world in general. Why didn't anyone say anything before? I've heard stories about slavery and genocide in the Sudan for about 20 years now.

No offense to you, but this is just a question to most fo the world in general. Why didn't anyone say anything before? I've heard stories about slavery and genocide in the Sudan for about 20 years now.

No offence taken. Yeah, I know that Africa has been in a world of shit for decades now. From Rawanda to Somalia to Sudan to South Africa, nothing seems to go right.

We need to straighten out this continent, but the sad thing is that anyone we remove will only result in more violence as warlords take hold.

Could all of this been prevented?

Yep, despite Kofi Annan being from Africa the U.N. still does nothing.
I'm not putting the blame on Annan entirely, but the only thing we hear about from him on Africa is about the AIDS epidemic there. If this continues, Africa may become an empty continent with the combined effects of AIDS and genocide....

Annan should just take the lead in his own hands, nevermind what the members of the UN say? 5 permanent members of the UN (security council) have this horrible thing called "veto-right", I bet you know that. Until we get rid of it, UN remains inefficient.

I think the reason the Bush administration doesn't do anything serious about that situation in Sudan is because they don't want to endanger their relationship with Saudi Arabia.
Arab mercenaries are commiting the atrocities in Darfour, remember? :rolleyes:

*shrug*

petitioning the govt wont help...theyre just as complacent as the people.

note: 9/11 was a VERY controlled reactionary wake up call. as far as im concerned, if the us didnt allow it, they backed it...but im labelled frequently as a conspiracy theorist...so dont take me up on that argument, because youll refute my evidence because it doesnt have an official stamp on it...*shrug*

about darfur. like i said, direct action IS the way to go. the govt has to many private interests, and sudan certainly wont help. nor will the un. like i said...leave it to the people...

One of the many reasons that I think of the Bush Administration as the worst in the history of America.

Oh sure, we can go and invade Iraq for no real reason, but we can't even spare a dime for nations in Africa that are in desperate need.

You're right. It's not a dime.

"Twelve African countries have been designated to take part in President Bush's planned $15 billion, five-year program to combat HIV/AIDS. Only two non-African countries have been selected to take part, both in the Caribbean. " http://www.aegis.com/news/ap/2004/AP040621.html

$15 billion. And that's just to fight HIV/AIDS. Never mind the food aid, trade incentives, etc.

Please remove your foot from your mouth. :)

I love how the same folks mad at the US for going into Iraq and Afghanistan are the same ones wanting to know why the US isn't in Sudan.

Where was the UN? Where was the EU? Where was the African Union? :rolleyes:

The US is the world's policeman, people are unhappy.
The US isn't the world's policeman, people are unhappy.

Go figure.

You're right. It's not a dime.

"Twelve African countries have been designated to take part in President Bush's planned $15 billion, five-year program to combat HIV/AIDS. Only two non-African countries have been selected to take part, both in the Caribbean. " http://www.aegis.com/news/ap/2004/AP040621.html

$15 billion. And that's just to fight HIV/AIDS. Never mind the food aid, trade incentives, etc.

Please remove your foot from your mouth. :)

Yep it is a good start but the USA could do more think it's only 3 billion to combate the deadliest diseace so far, for a comparison I think Americans spend more on Viagra a year then it. Also it is a problem with the USA stop with funding to organisation that informs about abortion and birthcontrols. But of course it's not just the USA that can do more, the european countries can also do alot more and the vatican is maybee even worse then the Bush administration.

Bu actually USA and EU would really don't need to help so mutch directly if they just give resources to locale organisation so they can funtion like AU. And also show they are true supporters of democracy buy help new democracies to get rid of old debts, because it's not fun for new democratic regime to be in IMF and the Worldsbanks lease and have to force to pay a lot of the taxpayers money to who's organisation, because there earlier dictator bougt alot of mercedes. Also the rich countries could help who's countries to get funtionally ecomonomies just buy stopping subsidies there own industrius ecpecially the agriculturale sector.

Uppvidinge

Yep it is a good start but the USA could do more


*Every* nation could do more. Where are the EU's matching funds? :(


think it's only 3 billion to combate the deadliest diseace so far, for a comparison I think Americans spend more on Viagra a year then it.


Do you know how much the French spend on wine? You cannot compare individual American spending to aid. Further, Americans give on their own as well, which doesn't even apply to the 15 billion.


Also it is a problem with the USA stop with funding to organisation that informs about abortion and birthcontrols. But of course it's not just the USA that can do more, the european countries can also do alot more and the vatican is maybee even worse then the Bush administration.


The donor can stipulate anything it wants. It may not seem fair to you or I, but it is fair to the donor. I give to certain charities *exclusively* due to their by-laws.

Don't want to make it into a cockfight who's is giving the most, because as you can see I also said that the european countries can do more. I just think that all rich countries should pull their shit together and do more and really the only thing they need to start with is to stop working against the poor countries.

Like for example it can be a big problem to interfere in a countries politics then giving aid, not because it just can be wrong thing for the country, but it can also lack support of the local people. Like for example you can stipulate that money will only go to christian, in a hope to spread the gospel, but most likely you will only increase the tension between religions in the region.

Don't want to make it into a cockfight who's is giving the most, because as you can see I also said that the european countries can do more. I just think that all rich countries should pull their shit together and do more and really the only thing they need to start with is to stop working against the poor countries.

Like for example it can be a big problem to interfere in a countries politics then giving aid, not because it just can be wrong thing for the country, but it can also lack support of the local people. Like for example you can stipulate that money will only go to christian, in a hope to spread the gospel, but most likely you will only increase the tension between religions in the region.

I don't see the US interfering in the Sudan. And I don't see us "working against" the Sudan, either.

Prior to the Darfur event, US policy seems to have largely been "leave that place alone, since they're killing each other". There was one break in that policy, when Clinton fired cruise missiles at a pharmaceutical plant there that he claimed had WMD. But like Bush's claim of WMD, there weren't any there. Many think it was just an attempt by Clinton to distract the world from the stain on a certain blue dress.

There is no such policy at US AID - that money only go to Christians. So I don't know where you're getting these fanciful ideas about US foreign policy.

Funny how you conservatives can take something that's actually perfectly valid (bush blaming, bush hating, peace making) and turn it into an appearant negative just by saying it in a trite little catche phrase. You ability to turn of critical though never ceases to amaze me.
My remark was in direct response to the two previous posts made by Potaria, and then Green Korea. The first mentioned this as an example of the Bush administration being the worst in history followed by Korea saying, "Absolutely." I did not turn this valid cause into a negative with trite little catch phrases. Your ability to ignore the obvious amazes me.




Crap. Saddam had caved to all demands, and WE flip the UN off more than anyone. To claim we have to ignore the UN because Saddam was ignoring the UN and that can't stand, regardless of how the UN feels about it. See the flaw in that argument?


Again, he caved to all resolutions before we attacked. WE closed his borders. Does the word embargo sound familiar? Plus we have a huge movement in this country to close our borders. A movement led by conservatives I might add.
Learn your history. Saddam did not comply with the demands he agreed to after the first Gulf War. The embargo was put in place in response to that. Remember Hussein Kamal? Saddam Hussein's brother in law. Thanks to his defection we were able to find Iraq's hidden weapons programs back in 1995. Those programs were against UN sanctions.
And then in the countdown to the current invasion, dozens of missiles were discovered that were capable of exceeding what the UN permitted. Saddam only bended over backwards to hide his transgressions.
France is stopping us from entering Darfur? I'd like to see a source. As for "bringing up issues" the Republicans just love empty gestures these days. Seen any real effort to stop abortion? Nope. Just dangling carrots in front of your noses and you go for it every year. How Dems ended up being the donkies I'll never know.
Look to the first post of the 2nd page. There you'll find an apology from me explaining I was wrong about the French, and a link showing the Russians and Chinese are the ones blocking the UN from helping Darfur.

Oh for the love of GOD!

I bring this issue up to raise awareness of human attrocities and look what happens! This isn't about Iraq! I had no INTENTION of turning this into a debate of Bush's current foriegn policy, only that people should ACT, and aid their fellow man!

If you want to discuss Saddam or Bush or any other sort of a**hole, take it somewhere else!

Jesus H. Christ!

:sniper:

Do you think anything short of military intervention will stop the genocide? I don't, and, as an American, I'd have no problem with troops being sent in to help stabilize the situation. But maybe we can get some support from the rest of the world just this once.

The Chinese and the Russians are the nations blocking UN action in the Sudan.

The Russians want to sell them weapons.

The Chinese want their oil.

The U.S. tried to call it genocide, but was shot down.

The U.S. should not go in without U.N. support.

The Chinese and the Russians are the nations blocking UN action in the Sudan.

The Russians want to sell them weapons.

The Chinese want their oil.

The U.S. tried to call it genocide, but was shot down.

The U.S. should not go in without U.N. support.
So the deaths of hundreds of thousands is outweighed by the need for support from the UN? Fuck that. We should be doing something. Perhaps shooting down the aircraft that the Sudanese government uses to support the Janjaweed militias and arming the people of Darfur.

So the deaths of hundreds of thousands is outweighed by the need for support from the UN? Fuck that.

Didn't seem to bother the world as regards Iraq. I thought that was one of the major criticisms of U.S. action there, ie. no UN mandate.

Why is it different in Darfur?

Didn't seem to bother the world as regards Iraq. I thought that was one of the major criticisms of U.S. action there, ie. no UN mandate.

Why is it different in Darfur?
Because Darfur is the second attempt at genocide by a regime that has had clear ties to OBL and Al Quaeda. Taking out Saddam didn't stop a genocide, and wasn't an example to terrorist states.

Because Darfur is the second attempt at genocide by a regime that has had clear ties to OBL and Al Quaeda. Taking out Saddam didn't stop a genocide, and wasn't an example to terrorist states.

Hey, you're forgetting how impressed the US is supposed to be after being scolded by all those Europeans for going off and doing something without UN permission. Heaven forbid we should do such a thing again!

Really, if I was President, I might not invade, but I would certainly destroy the armed forces of Sudan from the air (they wouldn't have any planes or vehicles left - or barracks - and any concentrations of troops larger than a few dozen would get bombed).

Then we'll see how they deal with the people they've been oppressing.

If you did it at night, and did it with Stealth bombers, you could probably deny the whole thing.

Hey, you're forgetting how impressed the US is supposed to be after being scolded by all those Europeans for going off and doing something without UN permission. Heaven forbid we should do such a thing again!

Really, if I was President, I might not invade, but I would certainly destroy the armed forces of Sudan from the air (they wouldn't have any planes or vehicles left - or barracks - and any concentrations of troops larger than a few dozen would get bombed).

Then we'll see how they deal with the people they've been oppressing.

If you did it at night, and did it with Stealth bombers, you could probably deny the whole thing.
I'd support that action. It seems like the right thing to do.

I think the Marsh Arabs and Kurds would be surprised to hear there was no genocide.

And while there may not have been direct ties to AQ and OBL, there were plenty of terrorists in Iraq.

I think the Marsh Arabs and Kurds would be surprised to hear there was no genocide.

And while there may not have been direct ties to AQ and OBL, there were plenty of terrorists in Iraq.
There was no ongoing genocide. I'm not denying that in the past Saddam was quite brutal, but intervening when we did didn't stop people from being massacred.

Write to your government, write to the UN, write to Sudan (not gonna do much). Contribute to charity, donate food and clothing, etc.

The sorry thing is, these things aren't going to do much. The Sudan's not going to listen to our letters. We can either petition our government through rallies, or...

(Throws Roach-Buster a M4)

...Vigilante justice. Strap-up and meet me in Sudan, we'll clean house.

(Grabs AUG)

I'll do what I can.

I think at this point, it seems that we cannot rely on the UN or the US to end the ethnic cleansing occuring in Sudan.

I think in the end, it may all fall down to a group of individuals.

I think at this point, it seems that we cannot rely on the UN or the US to end the ethnic cleansing occuring in Sudan.

I think in the end, it may all fall down to a group of individuals.
Who?

There was no ongoing genocide. I'm not denying that in the past Saddam was quite brutal, but intervening when we did didn't stop people from being massacred.

Oh, I think it was pretty much guaranteed he would've massacred again, given his history.

Regardless, I'm still thinking the world demands a consensus regarding U.S. intervention. Such consensus can only come from the U.N.

Question: How much does it cost to join Amnesty International?

Question: How much does it cost to join Amnesty International?

Nothing my friend, just show up and do what you can. Check online for locations near you.

Nothing my friend, just show up and do what you can. Check online for locations near you.

It's free!? :eek: Sweet! I'm definitely joining, then.

Who wants to get together, bust out some AKs, and kick some major sudanese militia posterior?

Who wants to get together, bust out some AKs, and kick some major sudanese militia posterior?

That's the spriit! I'm right behind you.

That's the spriit! I'm right behind you.
Is that legal? It could be fun.

Is that legal? It could be fun.

Does it matter if it is legal or not?

Innocent people are being slaughtered every day. No government is willing to do anything, for various reasons. If the will not do anything, we should.

Well, that's 3, half a fire team.

Is that legal? It could be fun.

Sure it's legal, as long as you don't get caught, in which case you're pretty much toast.

The blind leading the blind. Or, in your case, the drunk.

As civilians, we have the ability to work outside the boundaries of government, go in and not worry about breaking treaties, allowing us to take the fight to those who would kill, rape, and mutilate...catch is...if we're captured, there ain't no Geneva Convention, and our governments wouldn't be able to help us.

As civilians, we have the ability to work outside the boundaries of government, go in and not worry about breaking treaties, allowing us to take the fight to those who would kill, rape, and mutilate...catch is...if we're captured, there ain't no Geneva Convention, and our governments wouldn't be able to help us.


I have a feeling that any geneva convention wouldn't protect anyone from the sudanese militias.

Who wants to get together, bust out some AKs, and kick some major sudanese militia posterior?

Ok, no more video games for you for awhile... :D

Ok, no more video games for you for awhile... :D

Yes, everything looks fun until someone gets shot in the eye...

Well, if you want to and you're able, go right ahead. Head down to Sudan with some guns and bust some heads with my blessing. Just don't expect an easy ride.

Pick your targets with care...

*goes to Sudan*

If enough people volunteered, got some money together, went to Chad and armed and trained the refugees, and then crossed the border back into Sudan and fought the Janjaweed it would probably force the world to take some notice of the situation.

If enough people volunteered, got some money together, went to Chad and armed and trained the refugees, and then crossed the border back into Sudan and fought the Janjaweed it would probably force the world to take some notice of the situation.

Yes, there's nothing like being captured by Third World forces.

If enough people volunteered, got some money together, went to Chad and armed and trained the refugees, and then crossed the border back into Sudan and fought the Janjaweed it would probably force the world to take some notice of the situation.

Chad (whoever he is) probably would not take kindly to the launching of attacks against a neighboring country across it's border. Tend to make realtions even more tense and leaves them open for retaliation.

Yes, there's nothing like being captured by Third World forces.Meh, it's not like I'm doing anything exciting right now.

I believe that the processus to act upon the crisis is less than ok but better than nothing and so in comparison with East Timor which has last since the 1960s.

I'll speak of the US here because we're facing a certain US hegemony (in cooperation with the Brits). I express myself as such since they are hence the Monroe Doctrine the initiating sparkle to the establishment of funds for development and cooperation. The US has after 10yrs acknowledge the fact that ethnic cleasing happened in Rwanda. Collin Powell has therefore also managed to make a statement about Sudan. Efforts and lobbying are put into place.

The Darfur conflict has begun in 1983 after a period of political stability of 10 yrs. Since then, its a classic case of an (islamic) african interpretation over the concept of the different westerners socio-political application of Nationalism in the making of a Nation State or State Nation.

Furthermore, it has been proven that important ressources of oil are in the region of Darfur. Those ressources are about as much important as those in Saudi Arabia (and who thinks here of the 30% earth oil ressources in Argentina).

The African Union is actually doing some observing on the terrain although they are not experience and perhaps lacking the weight of the international community regarding the not so much cooperative administration.

The main problem is the refugees whom are still suffering and are in poor conditions (most of them are dying slowly).

The arguments of the manpower held earlier on by the proud USMC american patriot is difficult to be considered as relevant knowing that countries like Canada, Belgium, Denmark and Pakistan experience success through sending of 1000 to 500 troops. IT'S NOT A MATTER OF WAGING WAR. Its about convincing the population of the security matter and removing or addressing to the political elites in place of the lack of power they have in the context in which they are.

Its about disarmament, demobilization of actual troop and rehabilitation of the actors in the continuing conflict.

Occupying a country or a piece of land is not about fear or destruction with all the means necessary. Its about being the medium of democracy and letting natives have their ways of dealing without the easy access to means of harming or preventing smaller groups to social mobility when there are no need for such (look at Kabul for instance one step at a time). Its also about educating the military personnel of a doctrine based on the seduction power and the prevention of criminal acts.

I aint talking about putting flowers in the hair of the janjawid militia or the Darfur liberation army.

These are only elements in order to help/lead this thread in some substantial thinking.

1st Lt Chabot :headbang:
55th Service Batallion
CIMIC Land Force Quebec Area Coy (civilian military cooperation special force)

Question: How much does it cost to join Amnesty International?
Nothing my friend, just show up and do what you can. Check online for locations near you.
Oh! I somewhat doubt that. I have to make a 32 euro 'donation' every year. Somehow I doubt it's not free in where you live either. Not if you want the bulletins and stuff...

I believe that the processus to act upon the crisis is less than ok but better than nothing and so in comparison with East Timor which has last since the 1960s.

I'll speak of the US here because we're facing a certain US hegemony (in cooperation with the Brits). I express myself as such since they are hence the Monroe Doctrine the initiating sparkle to the establishment of funds for development and cooperation. The US has after 10yrs acknowledge the fact that ethnic cleasing happened in Rwanda. Collin Powell has therefore also managed to make a statement about Sudan. Efforts and lobbying are put into place.

The Darfur conflict has begun in 1983 after a period of political stability of 10 yrs. Since then, its a classic case of an (islamic) african interpretation over the concept of the different westerners socio-political application of Nationalism in the making of a Nation State or State Nation.

Furthermore, it has been proven that important ressources of oil are in the region of Darfur. Those ressources are about as much important as those in Saudi Arabia (and who thinks here of the 30% earth oil ressources in Argentina).

The African Union is actually doing some observing on the terrain although they are not experience and perhaps lacking the weight of the international community regarding the not so much cooperative administration.

The main problem is the refugees whom are still suffering and are in poor conditions (most of them are dying slowly).

The arguments of the manpower held earlier on by the proud USMC american patriot is difficult to be considered as relevant knowing that countries like Canada, Belgium, Denmark and Pakistan experience success through sending of 1000 to 500 troops. IT'S NOT A MATTER OF WAGING WAR. Its about convincing the population of the security matter and removing or addressing to the political elites in place of the lack of power they have in the context in which they are.

Its about disarmament, demobilization of actual troop and rehabilitation of the actors in the continuing conflict.

Occupying a country or a piece of land is not about fear or destruction with all the means necessary. Its about being the medium of democracy and letting natives have their ways of dealing without the easy access to means of harming or preventing smaller groups to social mobility when there are no need for such (look at Kabul for instance one step at a time). Its also about educating the military personnel of a doctrine based on the seduction power and the prevention of criminal acts.

I aint talking about putting flowers in the hair of the janjawid militia or the Darfur liberation army.

These are only elements in order to help/lead this thread in some substantial thinking.

1st Lt Chabot :headbang:
55th Service Batallion
CIMIC Land Force Quebec Area Coy (civilian military cooperation special force)
Putting flowers in the hair of the Janjaweed? They're brutal murderers, rapists and slavers. Not the kind of people you can convince to be peacefull. They invaded Darfur and began killing and raping the indigenous population out of existance.

by the way... there are no more janjaweed... these guys are working for the sudanese state... they are wearing the army state uniform and the only army that would employ you there is the darfur liberation army... you wont fight the janjawid anymore you'll be facing the sudanese state!

the grass is green and the sky is blue...

ferme ta yeule pis rame

Because Darfur is the second attempt at genocide by a regime that has had clear ties to OBL and Al Quaeda. Taking out Saddam didn't stop a genocide, and wasn't an example to terrorist states.
Tell that to the Kurds.

I think the Marsh Arabs and Kurds would be surprised to hear there was no genocide.

And while there may not have been direct ties to AQ and OBL, there were plenty of terrorists in Iraq.
Not to mention the fact that Saddam was publically announcing how much money he was sending to Palestinian suicide bombers.

Who?
How about the locals? The people who live there and decide they don't want to live the way they currently are anymore.

How about the locals? The people who live there and decide they don't want to live the way they currently are anymore.
Which ones? The ones being killed, raped and enslaved, or the ones buying and selling the slaves? It seems to me those that want change in Sudan are helpless to bring it about, and those who are happy with the status quo are willing to kill to defend it.

Darfur...the massacre that left 300,000 men women and children dead...

Sudan is in a state of crisis, a genocide we have not seen since Rawanda.

Entire tribes are being wiped out. Massacres, rape, murder, mutilation, starvation, you name it, it is happening as we speak. The Sudan government sits by and secretly backs the militas commiting these horendous acts. The UN is powerless, and the US refuses to move in to aid these people.

As a member of Amnesty International, and as a concerned denizen of Earth, I implore you to do what you can to help these people. I know that I can be a pretty humorous person...but now is the time to act. Do not sit by and watch this happen. Write to your senator, write to your government, do anything, just help.

http://www.savedarfur.org

Oh now isn't it unfair to suddenly suggest the US should be acting Unilatterally on this matter when it took such critisim from the US (and organizations like Amnesty International) for Iraq ? As far As i've been informed on this situation the US is following the same strategy the UN is... even if it is a sad failor

This is an ugly repeat of history. Remember the Holocaust? The little murder party Heinrich Himmler and his cronies had? During it, the world remained silent in the face of genocide and now the same thing is happening now. This has become some little issue in the news and not sure it is even mentioned in the halls of governments. I would have to agree with Bolol. Contact your MP, Senator, whatever....just get the word out!

This is an ugly repeat of history. Remember the Holocaust? The little murder party Heinrich Himmler and his cronies had? During it, the world remained silent in the face of genocide and now the same thing is happening now. This has become some little issue in the news and not sure it is even mentioned in the halls of governments. I would have to agree with Bolol. Contact your MP, Senator, whatever....just get the word out!

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

Finally someone just acknowleges it without putting in some comment about Iraq!

(Hands All the Germans a nuclear cookie)

This is an ugly repeat of history. Remember the Holocaust? The little murder party Heinrich Himmler and his cronies had? During it, the world remained silent in the face of genocide and now the same thing is happening now. This has become some little issue in the news and not sure it is even mentioned in the halls of governments. I would have to agree with Bolol. Contact your MP, Senator, whatever....just get the word out!

well this shows you really know nothing about the whole situation.. there are already UN forces in the region and have faced the problem in Dahfur.. unfortunatly we have only kept things the way they are (preventing them from becoming far worse) ... but diplomacy has proven ineffective.. I suppose you would suggest military intervention ?

Which ones? The ones being killed, raped and enslaved, or the ones buying and selling the slaves? It seems to me those that want change in Sudan are helpless to bring it about, and those who are happy with the status quo are willing to kill to defend it.
I don't know what to say then. Intervention probably isn't going to work since intervention almost always ends up being a complete disaster from the intended goal.

Well I have not the best knowledge, but trie to learn and also I try to give my understanding and thoughs.

I think they have a just signed a peace agreement for the southern part of Sudan, a conflict that killed over two million people in the last two decades. And already hundred of thousand have returned home. So that is a really positive thing that is happening in Sudan. But is is really important that peaceagreement will work, buy giving resource to rebuild the destroyed souther parts so the people can rebuild there lifes. Because it is almost as important and hard to secure the peace as it is to stop the violence. And already hundredthousand have return, and need the chances to start over.

Hopefully it can be a positive thing that lead to peace in Darfur also and it also exist a ceasfire even if it's not work that well. But it is also a risk that this two conflict affect eatcheter in a bad way, like for example a military intervention in Darfur can lead to new fithing in the south and also that the world society is just fucosed on Darfur and outside Africa Iraq and the Tsunami rebuildning, that they don't have the money that is despretly needed in south Sudan.

Another really bad thing is that westernmedias report to little about that happen in Africa. Because it is alot of conflits in Africa that the world comunity should help to stop preferly before getting violent. But also about positive things that happens in Africa and how the west can help them contiuny or atleast stop working against them. Like for example the violent conflict in northern Uganda or how active the Botwana goverment is to stop AIDS.

Like everything else, the world will wait until the U.S. takes a stand. It is up to us to take the lead. Save Africa.
Which only goes to prove the point I was trying to make in my thread on "Why people on here attack America and Americans." Everyone waits for the US to take action, then blames her when she does. It's one of the costs of being the sole remaining super-power, I suppose. :(

Annan should just take the lead in his own hands, nevermind what the members of the UN say? 5 permanent members of the UN (security council) have this horrible thing called "veto-right", I bet you know that. Until we get rid of it, UN remains inefficient.

Annan can do more than just talk about AIDS in Africa. How about actually call what's going on in the Sudan what it is: genocide. All he's said is the situation is very "troubling." Troubling?!? And I doubt you would see the US vetoing any action to stop the genocide. Now, the other members...

There was no ongoing genocide. I'm not denying that in the past Saddam was quite brutal, but intervening when we did didn't stop people from being massacred.

Uh yeah..... How about those mass graves? Looks to me that Saddam can't fill those graves anymore because he's in a jail cell.

Which only goes to prove the point I was trying to make in my thread on "Why people on here attack America and Americans." Everyone waits for the US to take action, then blames her when she does. It's one of the costs of being the sole remaining super-power, I suppose. :(

Hit the nail on the head. Knew I could count on my old bud, Entrusca!

Annan can do more than just talk about AIDS in Africa. How about actually call what's going on in the Sudan what it is: genocide. All he's said is the situation is very "troubling." Troubling?!? And I doubt you would see the US vetoing any action to stop the genocide. Now, the other members...
If UN says it's a genocide they are forced to military intervention and everyone seems to avoid it. Also USA, eventhough they have called it a genocide. I agree that Annan and all countries should do more, but I also understand it's a very difficult situation. Russian and China will veto against military intervention and that would weaken the already quite weakened UN.

IMO the AU should do more about it.

Anyway, as bad as it is, the worst humanitarian crisis is happening in Kongo, not in Darfur. Over 4 million killed during ten years of civil war.

Uh yeah..... How about those mass graves? Looks to me that Saddam can't fill those graves anymore because he's in a jail cell.
No ONGOING genocide. Those mass graves prove there has been a genocide, but it happened several years ago. No one was interested when it happened.