NationStates Jolt Archive

This is kind of surprising to me. I had thought that US politicians had basically decided to ignore the latest Sudanese genocide, but it seems some members of congress protested in front of the Sudanese embassy and even allowed themselves to be arrested in protest of the genocide. Now if they can only do something effective, like pass some legislation or muster some military force to punish Sudan we'll be all set.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060428/ap_on_go_co/us_darfur_protest

This is kind of surprising to me. I had thought that US politicians had basically decided to ignore the latest Sudanese genocide, but it seems some members of congress protested in front of the Sudanese embassy and even allowed themselves to be arrested in protest of the genocide. Now if they can only do something effective, like pass some legislation or muster some military force to punish Sudan we'll be all set.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060428/ap_on_go_co/us_darfur_protest

I approve of this.

This is kind of surprising to me. I had thought that US politicians had basically decided to ignore the latest Sudanese genocide, but it seems some members of congress protested in front of the Sudanese embassy and even allowed themselves to be arrested in protest of the genocide. Now if they can only do something effective, like pass some legislation or muster some military force to punish Sudan we'll be all set.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060428/ap_on_go_co/us_darfur_protest

It's good to see that there are some American lawmakers out there who give a care about the world outside of the middle east and America.

Way to go, congresspersons! You truly are setting the higher standard for politicians everywhere; we commend you.

I find it particularly telling that all five of them were democrats.

I find it particularly telling that all five of them were democrats.
No, there were three Democrats and two Republicans. At least one Republican anyway, as one was from Texas, and we all know no Democrat can be elected there.

No, there were three Democrats and two Republicans. At least one Republican anyway, as one was from Texas, and we all know no Democrat can be elected there.

WASHINGTON, April 28 (Reuters) - Five members of the U.S. Congress were arrested on Friday at a demonstration held at the Sudan embassy to protest atrocities in that country's Darfur region, congressional aides said.

The lawmakers, all Democrats, were Reps. Tom Lantos of California, James McGovern and John Olver of Massachusetts, James Moran of Virginia, and Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, aides to McGovern and Lantos said.

(Bold by me)

EDIT: Sheila Jackson Lee is a Dem from Texas, and a member of the congrssional black caucus. James Moran is a Dem from Virginia's 8th district.

I'd always thought the US was chomping at the bit to do something about Darfur, but the UN doesn't want anyone to intervene, because they're believing the bullshit from Sudan's government that it's a "civil war." Or at least that's what my history teacher told me.

At least one Republican anyway, as one was from Texas, and we all know no Democrat can be elected there.

Actually, Democrats from this state aren't necessarily moderate (with some exceptions). If you're a congresswoman from inner-city districts (like Shela Jackson Lee is), you're likely to be a liberal Democrat (and she is).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheila_Jackson_Lee

As to Sudan itself, would you send your children to stop the genocide, even if meant risking their lives? People who do nothing certainly have no right to complain about others who do nothing. People complain that neoconservatives are selective in their interventionalism, but so are liberals. I think people seriously need to ask themselves whether Milosevich was more dangerous than Saddam. Or whether the boundary between imperialism and benevolent inteventionalism is as clear as liberals would have us believe. There is no guarantee that we won't make things worse by our presence in Sudan, or be accused of imperialism, or of wanting Sudan's oil. People cast these things in the light that suits their prejudices best, whatever those prejudices may be.

Personally, I would prefer it if we as Americans would not get involved in other countries internal affairs at all even it that means ignoring the occasional genocide. African countries have serious cultural problems of racism and violence, and attempts to "civilize" them will fail and make things worse (as the original colinization of Africa did). We, and they in the long run, are much better off watching and waiting from the sidelines, and getting involved only when they present a direct threat to us or to our allies.

I'd always thought the US was chomping at the bit to do something about Darfur, but the UN doesn't want anyone to intervene, because they're believing the bullshit from Sudan's government that it's a "civil war." Or at least that's what my history teacher told me.
Please. The UN doesn't have a say in what the US does. We invaded Iraq even though the UN didn't approve.

As to Sudan itself, would you send your children to stop the genocide, even if meant risking their lives? People who do nothing certainly have no right to complain about others who do nothing. People complain that neoconservatives are selective in their interventionalism, but so are liberals. I think people seriously need to ask themselves whether Milosevich was more dangerous than Saddam. Or whether the boundary between imperialism and benevolent inteventionalism is as clear as liberals would have us believe. There is no guarantee that we won't make things worse by our presence in Sudan, or be accused of imperialism, or of wanting Sudan's oil. People cast these things in the light that suits their prejudices best, whatever those prejudices may be.

Personally, I would prefer it if we as Americans would not get involved in other countries internal affairs at all even it that means ignoring the occasional genocide. African countries have serious cultural problems of racism and violence, and attempts to "civilize" them will fail and make things worse (as the original colinization of Africa did). We, and they in the long run, are much better off watching and waiting from the sidelines, and getting involved only when they present a direct threat to us or to our allies.
We went into Serbia based on human rights abuses, went in with other orginizations (UN and NATO), had the support of the majority of Americans, and...well, to be blunt, wern't lied to. We did not go into Iraq based on human rights abuses. Neither Milosevich nor Saddam were a risk to America at all. Atleast we didn't try to pretend Milosevich was.
As I have no child, I couldn't send them. But I, myself, would be willing to go.
And no, we cannot allow genocide to just "happen". We've allowed that too many times resulting in the deaths of hundreds of millions, if not into billions at this point (it wouldn't surprise me if numbers were that high)
Oh, and the problems in Africa can largely be traced back to the colinization by Europeans. How is losing millions of your citizens making you better off? And why should we worry about our allies? Iraq was once an ally, as was Afghanistan. Today, we're at war with both.

We shouldnt send US army soldiers to the sudan because it is of no direct threat to America.

However if you find enough people that willing, one solution would be to make a voluteer corps consisting of private armed forces who are willing to risk their lives in order to stop the genocide.

Or we could provide logistical and financial support to the African Union peacekeepers while enforcing a no-fly zone over much of Sudan to both punish the government and protect villages in Darfur from attack by Sudanese airplanes and helicopters.

As to Sudan itself, would you send your children to stop the genocide, even if meant risking their lives? People who do nothing certainly have no right to complain about others who do nothing. People complain that neoconservatives are selective in their interventionalism, but so are liberals.
It is stupid not to be selectively interventionist. It's the criteria that matter most. Liberals are (or claim to be) driven by humanitarian concerns and human rights. They allege that neocons are driven by lust for oil. See the difference?

Also, colonisation, if done well, often improves a country. Most former British colonies are better off than they were before the Brits came. The USA can do it too, look at Germany and Japan.

Or we could provide logistical and financial support to the African Union peacekeepers while enforcing a no-fly zone over much of Sudan to both punish the government and protect villages in Darfur from attack by Sudanese airplanes and helicopters.
I don't trust the professionialism or the loyalty of AU troops. Also, before you have peacekeeepers you need to have peacemakers.

Personally, I would prefer it if we as Americans would not get involved in other countries internal affairs at all even it that means ignoring the occasional genocide.

This comment made me think of the Holocaust and America's non-involvement stance at first. Good thing the Japanese got us into it by bombing Pearl Harbor!

I'd always thought the US was chomping at the bit to do something about Darfur, but the UN doesn't want anyone to intervene, because they're believing the bullshit from Sudan's government that it's a "civil war." Or at least that's what my history teacher told me.

Try getting a clue on how the UN works. It is a FORUM for cooperative decisions made by it's member states. The UN is NOT an entity that has an opinion any more than the Congress is such a thing, except on those rare occassions when most parties agree. To make it even trickier, of course, unlike the Congress where you have two parties at the table, at the UN every single seat holds a different country's opinion and priorities.

Now, if the UN as an institution DID have an official opinion, it would be reflected in those statements of it's Secretary General.

And, to be blunt, Kofi Annan has been trying to convince the member states to take up the cause of the Darfur for about two years (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/24/AR2006012401136.html)

When it comes to intervention, what the UN wants to do can be condensed to "what the five permanent members of the Security Council" want to do. And, of that group of five, the US is certainly a member. And the OFFICIAL position of the US is presented to the Security Council by its Ambassador: Mr Bolton.

Let's see, well, he thinks that the Security Council doesn't need to be informed, (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/11/news/bolton.php) and that the solution is to sanction...... four people (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060418/wl_afp/unsudandarfurus_060418234857).



Oh yeah, that'll solve EVERYTHING.

This is kind of surprising to me. I had thought that US politicians had basically decided to ignore the latest Sudanese genocide, but it seems some members of congress protested in front of the Sudanese embassy and even allowed themselves to be arrested in protest of the genocide. Now if they can only do something effective, like pass some legislation or muster some military force to punish Sudan we'll be all set.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060428/ap_on_go_co/us_darfur_protest

Well, they have done more than the UN.:eek:

Iraq was once an ally, as was Afghanistan. Today, we're at war with both.

No the US is not at war with Afghanistan; we were at war with the Taliban and the terrorists they were hiding. The democratically elected government of Afghanistan is our ally. They are now involved in the war against terrorists as are many other allies.

Or we could provide logistical and financial support to the African Union peacekeepers while enforcing a no-fly zone over much of Sudan to both punish the government and protect villages in Darfur from attack by Sudanese airplanes and helicopters.

Or the UN could do that. Why does it always have to be the US? If we did something we would be accused of invading them, if we don't we are accused of allowing genocide. It is a no win situation for the US. The UN can sit back and do nothing and nobody points any fingers at them. :headbang:

No the US is not at war with Afghanistan; we were at war with the Taliban and the terrorists they were hiding. The democratically elected government of Afghanistan is our ally. They are now involved in the war against terrorists as are many other allies.
sorry, I misstated myself. However, we are allies with the elected government, which directly controls the capital and immediate area. The rest is still controlled by groups which are both unofficial and have no immediate ties to the US (this is how Afghanistan has been run since it became a modern state). However, it doesn't hurt my point. The term "ally" and "enemy" are not static. if we are going to be isolationist, then we damn well better go the whole way. After all, why should we help our potential future enemies?





and before anyone bothers, I'm not isolationist.

Or the UN could do that. Why does it always have to be the US? If we did something we would be accused of invading them, if we don't we are accused of allowing genocide. It is a no win situation for the US. The UN can sit back and do nothing and nobody points any fingers at them. :headbang:
The UN could. The US could. Hell, every country on Earth "could". It is about damn time someone stops sitting there saying "well, no one else is helping" and DO SOMETHING. Face it, our reputation can't get much worse at this point, and there is an international call to do something about Darfur. There was no such cry for Iraq (actually, there was an international call against action) which is why we are now hated for doing it.

Good. I just hope all this action against the genocide in Darfur will not translate into support for "saving" Darfur the way we "saved" Iraq, Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Afghanistan (twice), etc.

This is kind of surprising to me. I had thought that US politicians had basically decided to ignore the latest Sudanese genocide, but it seems some members of congress protested in front of the Sudanese embassy and even allowed themselves to be arrested in protest of the genocide. Now if they can only do something effective, like pass some legislation or muster some military force to punish Sudan we'll be all set.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060428/ap_on_go_co/us_darfur_protest
Good! Now if we can just disengage from Iraq, perhaps we can assist in Darfur with some of our own military.

That volunteers' brigade is a great idea. I'd join, except I'm far too scrawny to survive a war zone.

That volunteers' brigade is a great idea. I'd join, except I'm far too scrawny to survive a war zone.

Let them decide if you are too scrawny. :rolleyes:

Or the UN could do that. Why does it always have to be the US? If we did something we would be accused of invading them, if we don't we are accused of allowing genocide. It is a no win situation for the US. The UN can sit back and do nothing and nobody points any fingers at them. :headbang:


Yeah? Why DOESN'T the UN send over their Air Force to take care of that air cover, not to mention their Army to handle logistics?


:headbang:

People seem to forget that nearly two years ago, Congress voted in a resolution confirming the genocide, and calling for action. The administration has done nothing.

People seem to forget that nearly two years ago, Congress voted in a resolution confirming the genocide, and calling for action. The administration has done nothing.

The administration has done nothing, Congress has done nothing, the UN has done nothing, and the EU has done nothing. Shall I continue???

Yeah? Why DOESN'T the UN send over their Air Force to take care of that air cover, not to mention their Army to handle logistics?


:headbang:

The members of the UN have military forces that have been used in UN sanctioned operations in the past. So, where the hell are they now? Please don't tell me you have never seen the blue beters, blue helmuts, or aircraft with the UN logo on them.

The administration has done nothing, Congress has done nothing, the UN has done nothing, and the EU has done nothing. Shall I continue???
But as I was just saying...Congress has done something. It can't - in my limited understanding of US constitutional law - declare war. That's something for the executive. Furthermore, you're right: the EU has done sod all about this. That somehow excuses anyone else? Bullshit: it just means they're all equally guilty of sitting idly by?

And furthermore, you keep suggesting the UN has done nothing. The UN is not a nation, so it can't declare war - and you know the US would veto any SC resolution on humanitarian intervention - and it can't give aid (it certainly can't give aid while the US and EU fail to meet millennium goals). Maybe it should use the tools at its disposal, like the ICC?

But as I was just saying...Congress has done something. It can't - in my limited understanding of US constitutional law - declare war. That's something for the executive. Furthermore, you're right: the EU has done sod all about this. That somehow excuses anyone else? Bullshit: it just means they're all equally guilty of sitting idly by?

Your understanding is wrong. Under the Constitutio only Congress can declare war.

And furthermore, you keep suggesting the UN has done nothing. The UN is not a nation, so it can't declare war - and you know the US would veto any SC resolution on humanitarian intervention - and it can't give aid (it certainly can't give aid while the US and EU fail to meet millennium goals). Maybe it should use the tools at its disposal, like the ICC?

What makes you think the US would veto any resolution to provide intervention for humanitarian reasons? We have supported intervention in the past, remember Kosovo? You are correct when you say the UN cannot declare war, but if they can't (or won't) intervene to prevent genocide and provide humanitarian aid, what good are they?

Your understanding is wrong. Under the Constitutio only Congress can declare war.
Ok. I find that interesting. So my question is: why aren't they doing so, given they voted in a resolution confirming it was genocide?

What makes you think the US would veto any resolution to provide intervention for humanitarian reasons? We have supported intervention in the past, remember Kosovo? You are correct when you say the UN cannot declare war, but if they can't (or won't) intervene to prevent genocide and provide humanitarian aid, what good are they?
Yes, and you've opposed intervention in the past, remember Rwanda? And quit with the victim's complex already: I think everyone's fucked Darfur over in this, not just the US. But the US would veto it because a) it can't afford the deployment, given how stretched it is in Iraq, b) it would be unpopular domestically, and c) I can't see it arguing this as anymore than a domestic matter.

Now, the UN can't intervene without an SC resolution - which I've just said is unlikely. As to humanitarian aid...um, it has been providing humanitarian aid, and administering it, and calling on nations to give more than tuppence. You are right, though, that the UN is largely impotent if the major world powers set out to studiously ignore it.

Now, you didn't answer my question: would you approve of prosecutions at the ICC?

But as I was just saying...Congress has done something. It can't - in my limited understanding of US constitutional law - declare war. That's something for the executive. Furthermore, you're right: the EU has done sod all about this. That somehow excuses anyone else? Bullshit: it just means they're all equally guilty of sitting idly by?

And furthermore, you keep suggesting the UN has done nothing. The UN is not a nation, so it can't declare war - and you know the US would veto any SC resolution on humanitarian intervention - and it can't give aid (it certainly can't give aid while the US and EU fail to meet millennium goals). Maybe it should use the tools at its disposal, like the ICC?

Private Security Companies have offered to help, if someone will fund them. My opinion, they have extremely well in the past so why the hell not?

Private Security Companies have offered to help, if someone will fund them. My opinion, they have extremely well in the past so why the hell not?
Well that turned out a peach in the Congo...