NationStates Jolt Archive

Think what you will of it ... i'm already jaded (with good reason obviously) enough to think there's another shoe waiting to drop ...
But Kristof might be kinder to him in the near future.

*ahem*

http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/News/0,,2-11-1447_1880753,00.html


Bush, Annan to work on Darfur
14/02/2006 16:20 - (SA)

Washington - United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said on Monday that President George W Bush shared his view that western countries must help put together a strong UN force for Sudan's violence-wracked Darfur.

Annan said he had "a very good conversation" about Darfur with Bush at the White House on Monday.

He said that "we did agree we needed a much-more effective force on the ground" to replace the beleaguered African Union force in Darfur.

Annan said the UN force should bring together "well-trained and well-equipped troops from Western countries, from Third World countries, that have participated over the years in peacekeeping".

He said: "We all need to pull together to make it happen. And the president (Bush) is in agreement with me."

Asked whether the United States leader had signalled his readiness to commit American troops, Annan replied: "We hadn't got to that stage yet because we are doing the planning.

Hopes everyone will pull together

"I think that when the planning is done and we come up with detailed requirements, then each government will have to indicate what they will offer and what they can do.

"I hope the US and other governments with capacity will pull together and work with us in putting the forces on the ground and making it happen."

Annan added: "I'm happy we have agreed to work together on the Darfur issue, working with other governments from Europe, Asia and other regions, to ensure we do have an effective security presence."

Bush mentioned his meeting last week with Rebecca Garang, the widow of Sudanese rebel leader John Garang, and efforts to implement a January peace deal that ended more than two decades of north-south civil war, which had left about two million people dead and displaced twice as many from their homes.

Bush said: "I appreciate the secretary's leadership on that issue."

Last week, Annan said he would urge Bush to help set up a strong UN force for the western region of Darfur, touching off warnings from Washington that such talk was "premature".

UN peacekeeping force

On February 3, the UN security council called for early contingency planning for a UN peacekeeping force to replace the beleaguered AU contingent in Darfur.

The 7 000-strong AU force, which was deployed in 2004, had been suffering from poor funding and inadequate resources to contain the escalating bloodshed in Sudan's troubled western region.

The war there broke out in February 2003, after ethnic groups launched a rebellion against Khartoum that was brutally repressed by the Arab Islamist regime of President Omar al-Beshir.

The combined effect of the war and one of the world's worst humanitarian crises had left up to 300,000 people dead and an estimated 2.4 million displaced.

I dont see why they feel a need to involve the USA, not that its a bad thing for anyone, since it will help the US's image if they do something like this, I think. However some muslim countries may be annoyed. I geuss Im just surprised that they felt so much consultation w/the prez was necessary at this point in thier planning.

Frankly, I'm tired of the the United States being called on to police the world. As sad as it is to know that millions die in Africa every day, I do not believe that thousands of Americans should die to protect them. I think that our time, money, and lives should be spent on other things.

Also, this is a purely thankless job as can be seen from the invasion of Iraq. The United States, having the greatest funding and most powerful military force is always the primary force, and then takes all sorts of abuse from Europe for not minding our own business.

I dont see why they feel a need to involve the USA, not that its a bad thing for anyone, since it will help the US's image if they do something like this, I think. However some muslim countries may be annoyed. I geuss Im just surprised that they felt so much consultation w/the prez was necessary at this point in thier planning.
Every little f*cking bit helps at this point. Hence (some of) my suspicion.
I can also see the Boltonator being an issue, as well as a few of the scandals that are of lesser and greater involvement of U.N. pursuits .... admittedly i don't know as much about it as i should.

Frankly, I'm tired of the the United States being called on to police the world. As sad as it is to know that millions die in Africa every day, I do not believe that thousands of Americans should die to protect them. I think that our time, money, and lives should be spent on other things.

Also, this is a purely thankless job as can be seen from the invasion of Iraq. The United States, having the greatest funding and most powerful military force is always the primary force, and then takes all sorts of abuse from Europe for not minding our own business.
Consider more involvement with the U.N. as a precursor to more appreciation from the U.N. for our next big venture in Iran ... *shrugs*

Someone needs to listen to Brittany Spears...you know with all her wisdom...and trust the president. Honestly I don't care about other people dying in Africa. Just like I don't care about the Shiites who were getting oppressed in Iraq...we shouldn't have gone over there. I am starting to miss the isolationist days.

Good start, I suppose, but I don't hold out much hope for virtually anything in which the UN is involved.

Why not put together a Chinese, American, Russian force and kill two birds with one stone: help Darfur and build the relationship between those three countries?

Good start, I suppose, but I don't hold out much hope for virtually anything in which the UN is involved.

Why not put together a Chinese, American, Russian force and kill two birds with one stone: help Darfur and build the relationship between those three countries?
Not a bad idea. *nods*
Somehow i sense there's more to your statement that you're not saying ...

Someone needs to listen to Brittany Spears...you know with all her wisdom...and trust the president. Honestly I don't care about other people dying in Africa. Just like I don't care about the Shiites who were getting oppressed in Iraq...we shouldn't have gone over there. I am starting to miss the isolationist days.
We know what you think of trollops in catholic school-girl uniforms *teehee*!

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=201522006

Good start, I suppose, but I don't hold out much hope for virtually anything in which the UN is involved.

Why not put together a Chinese, American, Russian force and kill two birds with one stone: help Darfur and build the relationship between those three countries?Wouldn't be much different from going through the security council & adhering to international law, would it?

Wouldn't be much different from going through the security council & adhering to international law, would it?
THAT would be the part Eutr's not saying. *nods*

THAT would be the part Eutr's not saying. *nods*
Who? Old Truss? Does anybody actually listen to that guy?

Consider more involvement with the U.N. as a precursor to more appreciation from the U.N. for our next big venture in Iran ... *shrugs*
I believe that we'll be asked to take the lead on Iran if things don't work out.

I don't for a moment believe that Russia and China will side with Iran. Largely because the only card that Iran can play aside from attacking Israel with missiles is screwing with ship traffic in the Persian Gulf.

China gets their oil from the Gulf, too. Screw with that, and they will be screwing China.

I think that's why Russia offered Iran a way out, and also why both went along with recommending Iran to the UNSC.

If Iran doesn't get the hint soon, the slow creaking machinery of the UN will roll around and the SC will ask the US to kick Iran's ass.

War, nukes, threats, etc., are bad for business. Something everyone understands. While they might not care about some genocide here and there in the world, they DO care about money and oil - just as much as the US does, contrary to what many on this forum believe.

Do you honestly think that if Iran threatened the Persian Gulf with their three Kilo submarines, that everyone would be happy with 260 dollar a barrel oil?

Nope. I think that, and not the nuclear program, would invite an ass-kicking by the US - firmly supported by all industrial developed nations.

I believe that we'll be asked to take the lead on Iran if things don't work out.

I don't for a moment believe that Russia and China will side with Iran. Largely because the only card that Iran can play aside from attacking Israel with missiles is screwing with ship traffic in the Persian Gulf.

China gets their oil from the Gulf, too. Screw with that, and they will be screwing China.

I think that's why Russia offered Iran a way out, and also why both went along with recommending Iran to the UNSC.

If Iran doesn't get the hint soon, the slow creaking machinery of the UN will roll around and the SC will ask the US to kick Iran's ass.

War, nukes, threats, etc., are bad for business. Something everyone understands. While they might not care about some genocide here and there in the world, they DO care about money and oil - just as much as the US does, contrary to what many on this forum believe.

Do you honestly think that if Iran threatened the Persian Gulf with their three Kilo submarines, that everyone would be happy with 260 dollar a barrel oil?

Nope. I think that, and not the nuclear program, would invite an ass-kicking by the US - firmly supported by all industrial developed nations.
I'm going to understand this quote as you agreeing with me. Far-out. *nods solemnly*

Who? Old Truss? Does anybody actually listen to that guy?
Wasn't he on The Daily Show's "Old Coot-off" episode, against that arsehole senator from my state?

Ah, don't you love curmudgeons, though? Aren't they just cuddly? :D