NationStates Jolt Archive

So when exactly will the U.S. and the world at large do something more then "encourage" Sudan to accept a peacekeeping force? The U.N. is supposed to protect human rights yet those same rights are being flagrantly violated in Sudan. When does the world stop trying to negotiate for peacekeepers and commit more direct action?

Whats would be your plan?

Part of me would love to jump in militarily, to stop the genocide. But I'm afraid it would end up another Iraq.

If we do nothing it becomes a Rwanda. It we step in, its somalia or iraq all over. Either way we will be criticized by the world, so why not step in and save some lives?

If we do nothing it becomes a Rwanda. It we step in, its somalia or iraq all over. Either way we will be criticized by the world, so why not step in and save some lives?

I say we stay out and save our own.

I say we stay out and save our own.

Sometimes a little evil(getting our boys in harms way), is need to do a greater good(saving hundreds of thousands lives from genocide)

The president has taken strong actions against those guilty of the ghastly atrocities unfolding in Darfur. He has been determined to aid those who are in desperate straits in Sudan, and the US has contributed a full 85% of emergency food supplies to the region. Bush has spoken out agains the perpetrators of these horrible deeds and has signed into law House Resolution 3127 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR3127:), which will impose sanctions on those guilty of the terrible acts being committed. To learn more about the president's policy towards Darfur, visit this web-site (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/05/20060508-7.html). There are many other excellent government sites documenting (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/36028.htm) the crisis in Darfur and providing accurate information and news (http://usinfo.state.gov/af/africa/darfur.html) from the region.

Genocide in Sudan (especially Darfur) is a controversal issue.

On one hand, entering it and stopping it would seem morally correct, and will save countless lives (forget about morals).

On the other hand, jumping in would make the genocide worse (as in Iraq).

On of the few issues that very few peopel (none of them political leaders) can decide on.

I don't know if Darfur/Sudan has any economic potential (oil/mineral resources, or lies in a convenient path for the transport of such resources to foreign markets, or perhaps something equally lucrative), but unless it does then it's almost a guarantee that the US will do nothing significant to help. "Humanitarian" supply drops and finger wagging are about all we're good for unless there's money to be had.

You're not wrong. I saw it too. The Citizen_Patriot post is a cut and paste of the original post by MeansToAnEnd before he deleted it.

Funny thing is, that was one of the more coherent and supported posts I've ever seen MTAE make. He actually cites sources and stuff. Maybe he just didn't want anything that educated to have his name on it so he could maintain his reputation?

No, it didn't. I accidentally wrote a post detailing something completely different from the situation in Darfur, and I realized my mistake too late.

That just scared me enough to buy a nightlight. I KNOW that post was posted before, and so do others. lol

Way to repeat everything the previous poster stated. Now I'm sure that an additional 10 people who have not even looked at this topic before are going to claim that Citizen_Patriot's post was, indeed, copied and pasted from mine.

Yeah, yeah. Save it for the judge. Your jig is up. When I made my original post in this thread, yours was still up there, and your stellar performance in several other threads with several other multis makes it totally obvious that we can trust you.

When your position has been that compromised, best to retreat and plan a new attack.

Seriously, enough with this. Unless one of you took a screenshot that can adequately back up your assertions, please don't post. You're just parrotting the insidious lies spewed by previous posters in an attempt to discredit me or Citizen_Patriot.


Umm, yes. Calm yourself down.

I don't see why it's enough to start defending yourself vigorously or to call others liers.


If I was accused of plagerism on a message board, I would just say "I didn't copy it" and leave it at that. Dunno why you're getting so defensive...

When you're 90, will you be able to recall every detail of this day perfectly and know your exact thoughts at the moment you allegedly saw the post?

When you're 90, who in God's Holy Name would remember accusing someone of copying someone's post on a message board decades ago?

If we do nothing it becomes a Rwanda. It we step in, its somalia or iraq all over. Either way we will be criticized by the world, so why not step in and save some lives?

I wasn't thinking just us. Just trying to find out what exactly it would take to make the U.N. or America or anyone else actually do something about genocide and not just condemn it. Be nice if the world would put up or shut up. Whining about it isn't going to do anything. If the U.N. doesn't have the will to stop genocide as they are supposed to do, why the hell is the U.N. there to begin with?


Come on now, get back on topic. I'm sure going after MTAE memory is fun but that is not what this thread is about.

Hey, I know. This is just like one of those things over in his slavery thread, where even if everyone else is making fun of you and believes you're a sub-human creature, if YOU think your dignity hasn't been compromised then you must be right. He's going to refuse to admit he did it until we basically get tired of listening to his garbage and stop responding, then he'll be able to claim victory to himself. It's OK, though. He'll mess up again. Maybe not here, but somewhere. And when he does, someone who remembers this WILL take a screenshot, and then he'll have nothing to say.

ANYWAYS, back on topic now!

Sudan: Go in an take control. We can't wait until 500,000 people are killed to do soemthing about it.

I remember seeing it as well actually, what about option 5: a jolt hicup.

ANYWAYS, back on topic now!

Sudan: Go in an take control. We can't wait until 500,000 people are killed to do soemthing about it.

Or the alternative as I see it. Send troops over there. Keep them there until enough get killed that the public demands their return, while thousands of locals are still getting killed and hundreds of thousands afterwards anyway. The whole time while the world is lambasting the US for more "Imperialism".

ANYWAYS, back on topic now!

Sudan: Go in an take control. We can't wait until 500,000 people are killed to do soemthing about it.

Be nice to see that happen. Somehow I don't see it though. It is not the worlds problem apparently. We can only watch and shake our heads at how the "savages" like to kill each other.

Or the alternative as I see it. Send troops over there. Keep them there until enough get killed that the public demands their return, while thousands of locals are still getting killed and hundreds of thousands afterwards anyway. The whole time while the world is lambasting the US for more "Imperialism".

As I suggested, it shouldn't just be Ameicans going in. The U.N. should take lead. They ARE there for peacekeeping supposively. Then if they get off their asses and go in they have to be allowed to actually DO something to prevent the genocide.

If we do nothing it becomes a Rwanda. It we step in, its somalia or iraq all over. Either way we will be criticized by the world, so why not step in and save some lives?


Maybe not. One lady that is over there said two ways to really get the attention is an air strike of the military airfields and take out the jets that routinely attack people and to block-aid their one port that handles the oil.

Or the alternative as I see it. Send troops over there. Keep them there until enough get killed that the public demands their return, while thousands of locals are still getting killed and hundreds of thousands afterwards anyway. The whole time while the world is lambasting the US for more "Imperialism".

Well thats very true, But this time its not Iraq though, because the US isn't going in over phooney WMD claims and constantly changing the story. Sudan has no financial gains for us, so it would only be seen as humanitarian, i would think. I'd rather have gone in there and done something now, then to 50 yrs down the road, wonder "what if we would have went in there?"

As I suggested, it shouldn't just be Ameicans going in. The U.N. should take lead. They ARE there for peacekeeping supposively. Then if they get off their asses and go in they have to be allowed to actually DO something to prevent the genocide.

Actually I would be more in favour of the UN heading it, although the US would be sending the most troops, money etc, like it always does.

Why the hell is the U.N. there to begin with?

That is a question that baffles millions today. The U.N does absolutly NOTHING nowadays. They just back up what the other major countries say.

If you use the fact that they gather "coalition forces", then you're wrong. Who's to say that nations can't team up without being a UN coalition to fight against a cause accepted by many countries?

I honestly think the U.N needs to do much more things in this world. I think that Woodrow Wilson would be ashamed of today's U.N.

Actually I would be more in favour of the UN heading it, although the US would be sending the most troops, money etc, like it always does.

The U.N. would also add legitimacy to any effort. Going in alone would cause some idiots to think it was another Iraq. It would also be a statement that the world will actually act when it says that it will not tolerate genocide.

That is a question that baffles millions today. The U.N does absolutly NOTHING nowadays. They just back up what the other major countries say.

If you use the fact that they gather "coalition forces", then you're wrong. Who's to say that nations can't team up without being a UN coalition to fight against a cause accepted by many countries?

I honestly think the U.N needs to do much more things in this world. I think that Woodrow Wilson would be ashamed of today's U.N.


Then again, he'd have called it the league of nations :p

Actually I would be more in favour of the UN heading it, although the US would be sending the most troops, money etc, like it always does.

And if we do, even w/ UN backing, the extremist muslim section of the population w/ still interpret that as "Western Imperialism" and continue the fight against the "Crusaders" until all have gone and the thousands die anyway.

I honestly think the U.N needs to do much more things in this world. I think that Woodrow Wilson would be ashamed of today's U.N.

Considering its basically turned into another League of Nations in ineffectiveness I would agree.

Like the group on the facebook website:

"Pull our troops out of iraq and send them to FUCK SHIT UP in darfur sudan"

Well, from my point of view, there are two possibilities, since I know that I don't have a puppet. The first is that all the posters who claimed that there were two identical posts submitted by myself and Citizen_Patriot suffered from the same hallucination. This seems quite unlikely. The second is that all those who stated something to that effect were liars. Actually, now that I reflect upon it, there is a third possibility. Maybe Zilam controls either you or the other guy as a puppet, which would account for the false assertions. Very interesting. Well, in either case, those three identities are either lying or mistaken.

Just one more reference to this.

1) You're reasons are bogus, and you can drive the Queen of England so stupid with your ideas that she'll attack Britian "for the British Empire".

2) Please, make REAL claims to support your defense. And yet, you still haven't answered my main question: Why are you so defensive about this small accusation?

Is this not a fallacy, to change the subject so that it LOOKS like you answered the question when you didn't?

Just one more reference to this.

You know, this topic really isn't about this at all. You're just forcing me to spam on an otherwise interesting topic.

Please, make REAL claims to support your defense.

How am I supposed to prove that another poster is not my puppet? I have no means of doing so. If you tell me a way to go about doing that, I will. Unfortunately, there is no such method.

Why are you so defensive about this small accusation?

I wasn't defensive about it until several people accused me. Such blatant lying is quite infuriating, especially since it is in the form of a character attack, more or less. If I allowed it to progress, I'd soon be accused of being a troll again. I refused to sit idly by while such gross lies were spun.

Just one more reference to this.

1) You're reasons are bogus, and you can drive the Queen of England so stupid with your ideas that she'll attack Britian "for the British Empire".

2) Please, make REAL claims to support your defense. And yet, you still haven't answered my main question: Why are you so defensive about this small accusation?

Is this not a fallacy, to change the subject so that it LOOKS like you answered the question when you didn't?


Why would Elton John attack England ?

Sudan to an argument about puppets? Life on the General *sighs*

Why not take it off-line?

Why would Elton John attack England ?

ROFLMAO :D

Perfect gee eh why reference there :D

That is a question that baffles millions today. The U.N does absolutly NOTHING nowadays. They just back up what the other major countries say.

If you use the fact that they gather "coalition forces", then you're wrong. Who's to say that nations can't team up without being a UN coalition to fight against a cause accepted by many countries?

I honestly think the U.N needs to do much more things in this world. I think that Woodrow Wilson would be ashamed of today's U.N.

Sudan refuses to let the UN in. And the UN cant force itself in as "peace keepers"...think about it...they must be invited in to keep peace or a resolution must be passed in the security council to allow a UN mission to go in and establish peace by a police action...

You see any body lining up ?

And if we do, even w/ UN backing, the extremist muslim section of the population w/ still interpret that as "Western Imperialism" and continue the fight against the "Crusaders" until all have gone and the thousands die anyway.

So true. Many eastern countries consider the U.N "Western Hypocrisy".

So true. Many eastern countries consider the U.N "Western Hippocracy".

That's not true, the UN is not considered an organization of occidental doctors.

Make sense, man.

Sudan refuses to let the UN in. And the UN cant force itself in as "peace keepers"...think about it...they must be invited in to keep peace or a resolution must be passed in the security council to allow a UN mission to go in and establish peace by a police action...

You see any body lining up ?

That is true, but if nobody does anything then people will keep dying.

I say get enough country to invade Sudan, overthrow their government, and elect new, trustworthy leaders to lead the Sudan.

Dunno, though. Could be VERY risky, and it could turn into another Iraq, only 2 times worse.

But, we can both agree that SOMETHING must be done...

That's not true, the UN is not considered an organization of occidental doctors.

Make sense, man.

Lol, I always spell that wrong. i meant hypocrisy :D

Lol, I always spell that wrong. i meant hypocrisy :D

molto bene

Sudan refuses to let the UN in. And the UN cant force itself in as "peace keepers"...think about it...they must be invited in to keep peace or a resolution must be passed in the security council to allow a UN mission to go in and establish peace by a police action...

You see any body lining up ?

They won't pass a resolution to stop the genocide because they have no backbone. They can never come to any sort of agreement on anything, just squabble amongst themselves and the violence and the poverty (starvation) going with it. Be nice if the U.N. would do something other than just talk.

They won't pass a resolution to stop the genocide because they have no backbone. They can never come to any sort of agreement on anything, just squabble amongst themselves and the violence and the poverty (starvation) going with it. Be nice if the U.N. would do something other than just talk.

They're too afraid to start another Iraq (except worse).

But I just KNOW that there's more than two ways (Do nothing, Invade) to solve this. It's too bad the U.N aren't thinking about these other reasons.

You know, this topic really isn't about this at all. You're just forcing me to spam on an otherwise interesting topic.



How am I supposed to prove that another poster is not my puppet? I have no means of doing so. If you tell me a way to go about doing that, I will. Unfortunately, there is no such method.



I wasn't defensive about it until several people accused me. Such blatant lying is quite infuriating, especially since it is in the form of a character attack, more or less. If I allowed it to progress, I'd soon be accused of being a troll again. I refused to sit idly by while such gross lies were spun.

Well, let me settle it. It IS your puppet. Are you going to call ME a liar?

Well, let me settle it. It IS your puppet. Are you going to call ME a liar?

Kat. Will you marry me? :)

They're too afraid to start another Iraq (except worse).

But I just KNOW that there's more than two ways (Do nothing, Invade) to solve this. It's too bad the U.N aren't thinking about these other reasons.

I don't know much about the Sudanese military but they can't be that tough. Besides sanctions I don't see what else there is but to talk, talk, talk. And it is hard to sanction a country that has nothing to sanction to begin with.

They're too afraid to start another Iraq (except worse).

But I just KNOW that there's more than two ways (Do nothing, Invade) to solve this. It's too bad the U.N aren't thinking about these other reasons.

There's other options? *head explodes*

IMO any intervention at all, economic, military, social, what have you, will just convince the extremists in charge that the West is anti-muslim.

But, just for debate sake, what other options do you propose?

My school is raising money to send to help in Darfur.

I think the UN should go in there and stop the genocide. As long as the US is part of those forces, and not expected to go in there by itself, I'm cool with sending our boys in there.

The reason it HASN'T happened? Take a look at the member nations on the Human Rights commission.

TO: Katganistan: Thank you.


TO: Everyone else

I don't know much about the Sudanese military but they can't be that tough. Besides sanctions I don't see what else there is but to talk, talk, talk. And it is hard to sanction a country that has nothing to sanction to begin with.

It's true, but then you have those numerous terrorist groups who will create an insurgency. Just like Iraq. It's military sucked, but the insurgents are a force to be rekoned with.

What other options do you propose?

Dunno if they'll work, but this issue required thinking outside the box.

Get another Middle Eastern nation to agree with the cause and work with them to do a covert operation.

Impersonate Sudanian soldiers and occupy the country, monitering what's going on.

OR, pull an America. Demand "pop" elections and have someone you want (who will carry out the policy of stopping the genocide) and have them run for the positions, praying the people will vote for him.

Like I said, these may not work. But if there is no other option, then I guess invasion is inevitable...

Well, let me settle it. It IS your puppet. Are you going to call ME a liar?

I'm afraid I must if you insist on saying that it's my puppet.

Take a look at the member nations on the Human Rights commission.

LOL, it's so true. The U.N is so focused on having every nation become equal that they completely ignored the past of some of these member countries.

Nowadays it seems that force is the only option to solve these problems. Peace is now a term that people associate with "fairy tales".

I'm afraid I must if you insist on saying that it's my puppet.

And thus we see how laughable your position is. How do I know it? Let me count the ways....

Oh yeah, that's right. Mod tools. But please, do continue.

My Plan.....DO NOTHING......first of all bush sux, hes handeling everything like crap, second....we cant blow them up or nuttin cause that would piss a bunch of other countries off then they would go against us, my opinion,,,,,hang them out to dry......forget sudan...talk to the other un delegates and see what to do......if they dont agree....send a secret attack force to take out their leader....get them out of there and then deny everything until the other countries understand that this way its better.

I'm afraid I must if you insist on saying that it's my puppet.
I'm sorry I have to ask, since ya'll have deleted the posts... Who is who again?!?

I'm sorry I have to ask, since ya'll have deleted the posts... Who is who again?!?

It's not important, really. The important thing was calling others liars (I think that's flaming no?) when they were not lying.

Kat. Will you marry me? :)

Sorry, she's spoken for... :-D

It's not important, really. The important thing was calling others liars (I think that's flaming no?) when they were not lying.Let me be the judge... No... lying isn't important at all... NAMES IS!

Sorry, she's spoken for... :-D

True dat. :D

My Plan.....DO NOTHING......first of all bush sux, hes handeling everything like crap, second....we cant blow them up or nuttin cause that would piss a bunch of other countries off then they would go against us, my opinion,,,,,hang them out to dry......forget sudan...talk to the other un delegates and see what to do......if they dont agree....send a secret attack force to take out their leader....get them out of there and then deny everything until the other countries understand that this way its better.

That sounds good, but it was tried before.

You remember the whole Munich massacres? The same result would happen if we were to do that, only with different people.

Also, if we take out their leader, the country will grow even more genocidal than it is now, unfortunatly.

I just need to know (since I'm not sure about everything about this genocide): how and why did this whole genocide start?

So when exactly will the U.S. and the world at large do something more then "encourage" Sudan to accept a peacekeeping force? The U.N. is supposed to protect human rights yet those same rights are being flagrantly violated in Sudan. When does the world stop trying to negotiate for peacekeepers and commit more direct action?

We're doing direct action in Iraq now, and the world is complaining

We're not doing direct action in Sudan, and the world is complaining

Either way the world whines, so why should anyone do anything. People need to accept help, and not be so proud.

Oh yeah, that's right. Mod tools. But please, do continue.

By "mod tools," do you mean IP addresses? If so, you should note that I use a school computer which is shared by various students.

By "mod tools," do you mean IP addresses? If so, you should note that I use a school computer which is shared by various students.

The answer to this question has been answered many times in moderation. So many that most of the folks posting here could tell you: we go on more than IP addresses alone.

We're doing direct action in Iraq now, and the world is complaining

We're not doing direct action in Sudan, and the world is complaining

Either way the world whines, so why should anyone do anything. People need to accept help, and not be so proud.

Really, when genocide is at stake, I wouldn't give a Shi'ite what the world thinks, I would go in with or without their support.

Unless, of course, the whining countries have nukes. Then, we'll negotiate.

So when exactly will the U.S. and the world at large do something more then "encourage" Sudan to accept a peacekeeping force? The U.N. is supposed to protect human rights yet those same rights are being flagrantly violated in Sudan. When does the world stop trying to negotiate for peacekeepers and commit more direct action?

when people care. Which they dont, including myself. Watch scrubs, or the gaints/cowboys game or something and dont worry about. Whats going on in the Sudan is probably a good thing.

Whats going on in the Sudan is probably a good thing.

Is this a bait to get me to flame you? The idea that you don't care is fine enough, it is awful but it is shared by enough who don't give a shit as long as it doesn't affect their own life. But trying to suggest that the genocide going on there is somehow a good thing... damn.

We're doing direct action in Iraq now, and the world is complaining

We're not doing direct action in Sudan, and the world is complaining

Either way the world whines, so why should anyone do anything. People need to accept help, and not be so proud.

The entire point is to get the U.N. (ie the world) involved to solve the problem. Not for the U.S. to take on the entire load.

The entire point is to get the U.N. (ie the world) involved to solve the problem. Not for the U.S. to take on the entire load.

I don't think the UN will ever get involved in a substantive way. Two members of the security council would block it. China's invested heavily in the Sudanese oil industry and Russia sells them weapons. Only unilateral intervention is possible and the US is the only nation that can pull it off. That means the peple of Darfur are fucked.

The US, after the stupid, wasteful invasion of Iraq, isn't likely to commit troops to Sudan any time soon. The rapes and murders will continue until the people of Darfur are destroyed.

I don't think the UN will ever get involved in a substantive way. Two members of the security council would block it. China's invested heavily in the Sudanese oil industry and Russia sells them weapons. Only unilateral intervention is possible and the US is the only nation that can pull it off. That means the peple of Darfur are fucked.

The US, after the stupid, wasteful invasion of Iraq, isn't likely to commit troops to Sudan any time soon. The rapes and murders will continue until the people of Darfur are destroyed.

Which is why we need to reshape the U.N. I don't see why people who have bad reputations of human rights themselves or have business relationships with those who violate human rights should have veto power over attempts to actually rescue people from a horrible life. But I guess it is how the world works. Why help people when you can make money?

And thus we see how laughable your position is. How do I know it? Let me count the ways....

Oh yeah, that's right. Mod tools. But please, do continue.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11977202

:D

This is definatley a UN situation. The US sends money to Darfur, but really if we go in it should be with the UN. It is time they prove they are worth something more than a pointless building where countries can push their personal agenda. It's their charter to uphold human rights and they are clearly failing as they did in Rwanda. Maybe its time for the US to save its hundreds of millions and pull out (of the UN).

This is definatley a UN situation. The US sends money to Darfur, but really if we go in it should be with the UN. It is time they prove they are worth something more than a pointless building where countries can push their personal agenda. It's their charter to uphold human rights and they are clearly failing as they did in Rwanda. Maybe its time for the US to save its hundreds of millions and pull out (of the UN).

Considering all the UN does is condemn but never act I really fail to see the point of that body. A tragedy like Sudan's situation is exactly what the UN is supposed to act on. Instead it sits back and wrings its hands.

I agree, either the UN gets a backbone or we need to stop supporting it.

Considering all the UN does is condemn but never act I really fail to see the point of that body. A tragedy like Sudan's situation is exactly what the UN is supposed to act on. Instead it sits back and wrings its hands.

I agree, either the UN gets a backbone or we need to stop supporting it.

The UN has no means to act. It has no standing army(which has been debated in the GA). That plus the domestic jurisdiction clause makes it difficult for the UN to do anything as far as intervention. This doesn't mean the UN is a failed organisation. It can recommend, but its on each individual member state to act.

The UN has no means to act. It has no standing army(which has been debated in the GA). That plus the domestic jurisdiction clause makes it difficult for the UN to do anything as far as intervention. This doesn't mean the UN is a failed organisation. It can recommend, but its on each individual member state to act.

Those are serious flaws of the UN that must be addressed. But no one will, because that would put the kabosh on most States' foreign policy.

I propose an attempt on Bashir's life. Clearly, these bastards (the Sudanese government) need to be taken care of. Not only do they ruthlessly repress their own people, they also sponsor anti-government rebels in CAR and Chad, and are clearly a threat to the whole region. I say, capture Bashir and publicly execute the genocidal fuckazoid.

Those are serious flaws of the UN that must be addressed. But no one will, because that would put the kabosh on most States' foreign policy.

I'm not saying the UN isn't in need of major reforms, believe me. But it is by no means a failed organisation. The Security Council, one of the 5 major organs in the UN and the main organ responsible for international peace and security needs the most work of all. The five permenant members were setup in a WW2 atmosphere, a lot has changed since then. The big 5 need to change, and there power needs to change. I don't think they should have veto power, it prevents anything from getting through.

I propose an attempt on Bashir's life. Clearly, these bastards (the Sudanese government) need to be taken care of. Not only do they ruthlessly repress their own people, they also sponsor anti-government rebels in CAR and Chad, and are clearly a threat to the whole region. I say, capture Bashir and publicly execute the genocidal fuckazoid.

I say we leave him alone.

The UN has no means to act. It has no standing army(which has been debated in the GA). That plus the domestic jurisdiction clause makes it difficult for the UN to do anything as far as intervention. This doesn't mean the UN is a failed organisation. It can recommend, but its on each individual member state to act.

If no nations are willing to commit troops for a joint operation under the UN then clearly it results in the same thing. The UN as a failure. It was supposively made in an attempt to not allow what occured in WWII to happen again. That includes what is going on in Sudan. Yet all you see is "we condemn" the actions going on there. What does that do? Absolutely nothing. Who listens to anything the UN has to say anyway?

If no nations are willing to commit troops for a joint operation under the UN then clearly it results in the same thing. The UN as a failure. It was supposively made in an attempt to not allow what occured in WWII to happen again. That includes what is going on in Sudan. Yet all you see is "we condemn" the actions going on there. What does that do? Absolutely nothing. Who listens to anything the UN has to say anyway?

Then its not the UN's fault, its the individual states. What the hell do you want the UN do to with no military capability at all? Send guys in waving UN flags saying 'hey stop it'? get real.

And no, what is happening the Sudan is NOT what the UN is designed for. It was designed for collective security, all nations will gang up on an aggressor nation. There was an aggressor nation that invaded its neighbours in WW2, not in the Sudan. Its an internal conflict, not really what the UN was designed to prevent.

The UN has no means to act. It has no standing army(which has been debated in the GA). That plus the domestic jurisdiction clause makes it difficult for the UN to do anything as far as intervention. This doesn't mean the UN is a failed organisation.

Then its not the UN's fault, its the individual states. What the hell do you want the UN do to with no military capability at all? Send guys in waving UN flags saying 'hey stop it'? get real.

And no, what is happening the Sudan is NOT what the UN is designed for. It was designed for collective security, all nations will gang up on an aggressor nation. There was an aggressor nation that invaded its neighbours in WW2, not in the Sudan. Its an internal conflict, not really what the UN was designed to prevent.

I would have to agree with your assesment.

Then its not the UN's fault, its the individual states. What the hell do you want the UN do to with no military capability at all? Send guys in waving UN flags saying 'hey stop it'? get real.

And no, what is happening the Sudan is NOT what the UN is designed for. It was designed for collective security, all nations will gang up on an aggressor nation. There was an aggressor nation that invaded its neighbours in WW2, not in the Sudan. Its an internal conflict, not really what the UN was designed to prevent.

Didn't the UN supposively say that it would not tolerate any genocide to take place? That it felt humanitarian missions were important? If they do not want to follow through with large portions of their mission statement thaen what is the purpose of their existing? All it seems to be is another League of Nations where you just talk and talk and talk and you never accomplish anything. The UN asks you to do something and a country can say "screw you" and ignore them. Pointless organization.

We should convince Egypt, CAR, and Chad to join forces, invade, and dog-pile the fuckers.

Didn't the UN supposively say that it would not tolerate any genocide to take place? That it felt humanitarian missions were important? If they do not want to follow through with large portions of their mission statement thaen what is the purpose of their existing? All it seems to be is another League of Nations where you just talk and talk and talk and you never accomplish anything. The UN asks you to do something and a country can say "screw you" and ignore them. Pointless organization.

Its not pointless. Again, if the nations are unwilling to send to troops, its the nations fault, not the UN. What more could the UN possibly do?

Its not pointless. Again, if the nations are unwilling to send to troops, its the nations fault, not the UN. What more could the UN possibly do?

I mean if the UN asks a country to take a certain action to change a situation that is viewed intolerable by the world and the country in question tells the UN to shove it then it kind of makes them ineffectual. There is no kind of recourse if you ignore what the UN wants you to do. Because the member nations do not want to take any kind of action it means that outlaw nations can do whatever they wish.

Unless you want to take action like the U.S. did, which is hardly an improvement.