NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060905/ap_on_re_af/sudan_darfur

And now the civilians have nothing to protect them from genocide. The UN won't do anything because China wants its oil from Sudan and Russia wants to seel weapons to the government and militias.

The UN won't get their force in there because 2 permanent membes of the security council have been blocking them at every move. Besides, we've seen how successful UNIFIL was.

Way to go UN and AU!:rolleyes:

*waits for someone to blame this on the US* ;)

This is an African issue, let them work it out.

This is an African issue, let them work it out.
Are there any African governments at all that aren't stunningly incompetent? Sudan doesn't even want UN peacekeepers. I might be wrong, but haven't the Sudanese government been accused of funding the janjaweed?
Ah, yes... it's in the article. I am stupids.
The government is accused of unleashing Arab militiamen known as janjaweed who have been blamed for widespread atrocities.
The Sudanese GOVERNMENT is (possibly) funding these people. Why would they agree to peacekeepers? I say we take them out.

Sudan wants to fight, not acheive peace. Why would it want a stronger peacekeeping mandate with the UN involved? It is perfectly happy with the war it has and accepts the massive death of the people living there.

This is an African issue, let them work it out.

If you havn't noticed, the African solution to most problems is genocide.

This is an African issue, let them work it out.

They've got a system in place already. Kill all the Darfur men and rape all the women so they'll give birth to Janjaweed children and the genocide's over. Personally I'm against that solution and I think maybe the US should go ahead and organize a coalition of nations willing to intervene. It's pretty clear the UN won't do anything about it, and maybe it will buy us some goodwill among black African nations.

Are there any African governments at all that aren't stunningly incompetent? Sudan doesn't even want UN peacekeepers. I might be wrong, but haven't the Sudanese government been accused of funding the janjaweed?
Ah, yes... it's in the article. I am stupids.

The Sudanese GOVERNMENT is (possibly) funding these people. Why would they agree to peacekeepers? I say we take them out.


Somal--- wait, bad example.

South Africa is a part of the West, it's on the African continent, so obviously it must be competant.

I love how some idiots on this board think that the UN can solve the Israel-Lebanon conflict when they have failed in almost every other effort to stop conflicts. They wouldn't even act in Bosnia and Yugoslavia. NATO had to act because Russia was blocking action.

It's too bad the AU doesn't have the muscle to force its stay.

*waits for someone to call for the dissolution of the UN*

If you havn't noticed, the African solution to most problems is genocide.

Actually, on a historical basis, it's a commonly attempted solution everywhere.

Sometimes fairly successful. Sometimes not.

People criticize me for offering it as a hypothetical technical solution, but history shows that I'm far, far from being alone.

Revulsion against genocide (with the exception of the victims) is a fairly recent historical development.

They've got a system in place already. Kill all the Darfur men and rape all the women so they'll give birth to Janjaweed children and the genocide's over. Personally I'm against that solution and I think maybe the US should go ahead and organize a coalition of nations willing to intervene. It's pretty clear the UN won't do anything about it, and maybe it will buy us some goodwill among black African nations.

why would you want to take troops away from more important problems like Iraq and the Israel-Lebanon ceasefire. And why should we give two shits about goodwill from Africa.

They've got a system in place already. Kill all the Darfur men and rape all the women so they'll give birth to Janjaweed children and the genocide's over. Personally I'm against that solution and I think maybe the US should go ahead and organize a coalition of nations willing to intervene. It's pretty clear the UN won't do anything about it, and maybe it will buy us some goodwill among black African nations.

Wouldn't that cause half of the third world to call us 'Imperialist Invaders' again? And since Sudan hid Osama once before in the past, if we do invade, unless we depose their government (earning us more imperialist points), they'll probably be more than happy to let al-Qaeda reign free in their country to get back at the country that stopped their ethnic cleansing.

Actually, on a historical basis, it's a commonly attempted solution everywhere.

Sometimes fairly successful. Sometimes not.

People criticize me for offering it as a hypothetical technical solution, but history shows that I'm far, far from being alone.

Revulsion against genocide (with the exception of the victims) is a fairly recent historical development.

Yea but unfortunately, that revulsion hasn't reached africa yet and is why it still goes on.

why would you want to take troops away from more important problems like Iraq and the Israel-Lebanon ceasefire. And why should we give two shits about goodwill from Africa, the wasteland of the world.

Neither of those issues is important as Sudan in terms of lives being threatened. Only 1,000 died in a month of fighting in Israel and Lebanon. Sudan's deathtoll is in the 100,000s

why would you want to take troops away from more important problems like Iraq and the Israel-Lebanon ceasefire. And why should we give two shits about goodwill from Africa.

I don't consider the Israel/Lebanon cease fire important at all. That fight should have gone along to it's natural conclusion. Now it's just another war waiting to happen. I don't know what we can possibly do in Iraq. It's going to become an Iranian puppet regime whether we like it or not because we've given them a democratically elected government and the majority Shia have backed parties that owe allegiance to Iran.

Africa, however, has enormous potential if they can get their act together. Even if they don't they've got tremendous resources that can benefit the USA through trade. Why let the Chinese gobble up all those rare metals and all that Uranium ore?

Wouldn't that cause half of the third world to call us 'Imperialist Invaders' again? And since Sudan hid Osama once before in the past, if we do invade, unless we depose their government (earning us more imperialist points), they'll probably be more than happy to let al-Qaeda reign free in their country to get back at the country that stopped their ethnic cleansing.

I wonder why the Janjaweed aren't imperial invaders? Just because they're ethnically Arab? Fuck it. Sometimes you do what's right regardless of what people think. As for Sudan hiding Osama, well, we can just blow up some of their pharmaceutical plants and stuff again. No big deal.

I wonder why the Janjaweed aren't imperial invaders? Just because they're ethnically Arab? Fuck it. Sometimes you do what's right regardless of what people think. As for Sudan hiding Osama, well, we can just blow up some of their pharmaceutical plants and stuff again. No big deal.

Does anyone else note how ironic it is that peoploe try to ignore the fact that the Janjaweed are an Islamic militia?

This kind of situation is exactly why the UN's Security Council's duties should be delegated to the General Assembly. There are far fewer vested interests to interfere in these kinds of conflicts that way.

Does anyone else note how ironic it is that peoploe try to ignore the fact that the Janjaweed are an Islamic militia?

Maybe because the people of Darfur are mainly Muslim as well people figure that religion isn't a factor. It really is more of an ethnic rather than religious thing over there IMHO.

Are there any African governments at all that aren't stunningly incompetent?

Botswana, Senegal. That's about it.

This kind of situation is exactly why the UN's Security Council's duties should be delegated to the General Assembly. There are far fewer vested interests to interfere in these kinds of conflicts that way.

You can vote in favor of things all you like.

Who would have the ability to project strategic force on demand around the globe?

It would be like sheep passing legislation in favor of vegetarianism for wolves.

Somal--- wait, bad example.

South Africa is a part of the West, it's on the African continent, so obviously it must be competant.

South Africa's government is blissfully incompetent. It's run by a dipshit who thinks AIDS is caused by poverty, not by HIV. The other morons aren't much better.

South Africa's government is blissfully incompetent. It's run by a dipshit who thinks AIDS is caused by poverty, not by HIV. The other morons aren't much better.

Kinda like electing Tom Cruise to be President of the US.

Kinda like electing Tom Cruise to be President of the US.

rofl

I don't consider the Israel/Lebanon cease fire important at all. That fight should have gone along to it's natural conclusion. Now it's just another war waiting to happen. I don't know what we can possibly do in Iraq. It's going to become an Iranian puppet regime whether we like it or not because we've given them a democratically elected government and the majority Shia have backed parties that owe allegiance to Iran.
The ceasefire is important because it could grow into a much larger problem if left unchecked. Granted Iraq is going to fuck over the west no matter how it turns out(thanks Bush) but I'd rather have a democratically elected government that is Iran's bitch than a failed state in civil war.


Africa, however, has enormous potential if they can get their act together. Even if they don't they've got tremendous resources that can benefit the USA through trade. Why let the Chinese gobble up all those rare metals and all that Uranium ore?
problem is they are Africans, and they will never get their shit together. So fuck em, let them deal with it themselves.

The ceasefire is important because it could grow into a much larger problem if left unchecked. Granted Iraq is going to fuck over the west no matter how it turns out(thanks Bush) but I'd rather have a democratically elected government that is Iran's bitch than a failed state in civil war.



problem is they are Africans, and they will never get their shit together. So fuck em, let them deal with it themselves.

Racist much?

Racist much?

this isn't a black/white issue so don't try to turn it in to one.

Kinda like electing Tom Cruise to be President of the US.

Mr. President, come out of the closet.

I'm not in the closet.

Come on Mr. President...

And now the civilians have nothing to protect them from genocide. The UN won't do anything because China wants its oil from Sudan and Russia wants to seel weapons to the government and militias.

The UN won't get their force in there because 2 permanent membes of the security council have been blocking them at every move. Besides, we've seen how successful UNIFIL was.

Way to go UN and AU!:rolleyes:

Why are you blaming the UN? Why don't you instead blame the responsible parties of the Security Council who use their veto's? Or the veto system itself? Blaming the institution does no good when the members are at fault.

You could blame the African Union parties who can't train, discipline or coordinate their troops into an effective alliance. Or you could blame the Sudanese Government for allowing genocide to occur, but if you want to blame an entity that we (our collective governments) all make up instead- then by all means shift the blame as faaaaar away as possible.


I love how some idiots on this board think that the UN can solve the Israel-Lebanon conflict when they have failed in almost every other effort to stop conflicts. They wouldn't even act in Bosnia and Yugoslavia. NATO had to act because Russia was blocking action.

I like the way you focus on the failures while avoiding the successes.....

Why are you blaming the UN? Why don't you instead blame the responsible parties of the Security Council who use their veto's? Or the veto system itself? Blaming the institution does no good when the members are at fault.

You could blame the African Union parties who can't train, discipline or coordinate their troops into an effective alliance. Or you could blame the Sudanese Government for allowing genocide to occur, but if you want to blame an entity that we (our collective governments) all make up instead- then by all means shift the blame as faaaaar away as possible.



I like the way you focus on the failures while avoiding the successes.....
I do place blame on Russia and China here. They have decided to place arms sales above millions of innocent lives. It's really sickening, but what can you expect from Putin and the Chinese?

I wouldn't really blame the AU too much because they really don't have the resources to deal with this problem effectively. They were there because they were trying to do what the UN was unwiling to do.

The fact on the UN is that they fail much more than they suceed. They decide to pass hundreds of resolutions against the Israelis whose only crime is existing and decide to let any crime by an Arab pass. What do you expect with Libya and Cuba on the Human Rights Commission?

<snip>


problem is they are Africans, and they will never get their shit together. So fuck em, let them deal with it themselves.

this isn't a black/white issue so don't try to turn it in to one.

Africans will never get their shit together because they're Africans, and it isn't a racial issue? Explain yourself. It seems like a pretty clear racist statement to me.

This is an African issue, let them work it out.

It's an African issue just as the Holocaust was a German issue.

Any time people are dying unjustly, it's everyone's issue.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060905/ap_on_re_af/sudan_darfur

And now the civilians have nothing to protect them from genocide. The UN won't do anything because China wants its oil from Sudan and Russia wants to seel weapons to the government and militias.

The UN won't get their force in there because 2 permanent membes of the security council have been blocking them at every move. Besides, we've seen how successful UNIFIL was.

Way to go UN and AU!:rolleyes:

This makes me sad that no one cares to what happens to people. :(

This is an African issue, let them work it out.

This is actually a world issue as people are suffering in the region. The organization responsible for helping these people apparently do not care about their suffering and that makes me even sadder :(

This kind of situation is exactly why the UN's Security Council's duties should be delegated to the General Assembly. There are far fewer vested interests to interfere in these kinds of conflicts that way.

Want to bet on that?

Are there any African governments at all that aren't stunningly incompetent? Sudan doesn't even want UN peacekeepers. I might be wrong, but haven't the Sudanese government been accused of funding the janjaweed?
Ah, yes... it's in the article. I am stupids.

The Sudanese GOVERNMENT is (possibly) funding these people. Why would they agree to peacekeepers? I say we take them out.


Well to play the Devil's advocate. There was an African nation once that was competent and well off and was a big player in African politics. Aparthied South Africa.
But then again I doubt they would have opted to help out Sudanese blacks. But they were competent and the most advanced scientifically. Of course they had the whole soceital and cultural problem of racism.
but from what I read in the Economist, ever since the Aparthied government has been abolished the economy in South Africa and its overall strength has succumbed to corruption, and is waning.

Of course there was also Rhodesia and there is Botswana but they are rather minor nations in size, but they are/were also competent. So I am not saying it is white rule pwns, or any racist agenda on my mind. Just wanted to point out the interesting fact that the most advanced nation in Africa was the Aparthied one, and now that it is gone the country is in decline.

What do you expect with Libya and Cuba on the Human Rights Commission?
Dialogue, as always when talking UN. There's UK, USA and Finland in there too, right?
EDIT: ok, Canada, France and Finland... none the same.