I just learned about whats going on in the Sudan.
It doesnt get a lot of news coverage in the US.
Its crazy, conservative estimates of 10,000 being killed per month.
The militant Arabs are ethnic cleansing the black african Sudanese.
The Sudanese have no way of defending themselves.
The US should help them out, but they arent, some say its because there is nothing in it for us cause theres no oil over there. its messed up its like another hollocaust is going on and most people in the US dont even know about it.
The Crisis in Sudan
-
carl winslow
- Atomsmashasaurus Dex
- Posts: 994
- Joined: 14 Jun 2003 21:54
The Crisis in Sudan
Reginald VelJohnson
-
Senor Grommet
- Post Master General
- Posts: 3394
- Joined: 18 Oct 2002 20:25
- Location: Greater Santa Cruz, CA
it IS a sad situation.
But the US has no business going over to Sudan to help out. Just like China has no business helping out with the current drought in Arizona.
When the US learns to keep itself out of the problems of other countries, the world will be a lot better off.
But the US has no business going over to Sudan to help out. Just like China has no business helping out with the current drought in Arizona.
When the US learns to keep itself out of the problems of other countries, the world will be a lot better off.
My name: Jeremy Mirken, AKA Chocolatey Shatner, AKA jerk enemy rim.
I kick it with trunk chef elf and liz luck key my.
I kick it with trunk chef elf and liz luck key my.
I disagree. I think the US and any country that has the means should go and help out. But I think the methods used and the kind of help used need to be the best ways. Going over there with trigger happy soldiers and invading the country like what happened with Iraq is not a help at all. I don't think that force is the answer. If the leaders of the nations of the world - especially the leaders of the world powers actually decided to support the UN and could send over a strong UN peace keeping force with the full support of the major nations - rather than the clear lack of support that we've seen in the past - I think this would be an even better solution.
The current Sudan crisis has been going on for months and gets reported in Australian news fairly often...
The current Sudan crisis has been going on for months and gets reported in Australian news fairly often...
-
Senor Grommet
- Post Master General
- Posts: 3394
- Joined: 18 Oct 2002 20:25
- Location: Greater Santa Cruz, CA
The point of this thread is not to one-up the US news sources as you attempted to do here:
"The current Sudan crisis has been going on for months and gets reported in Australian news fairly often..."
Back to the subject: your suggestion Jeremy, while seemingly sensible, just won't happen in the real world. I actually don't know, but when was the last time that a rescue mission of the type and magnitude you speak was sent to help a struggling/wartorn nation (I really dont know the answer)? If anything, Sudan will get a few soldiers from a few countries.
The reason I believe the US should stay out is three-fold:
-1st, our president is a moron and cannot actually "help" other countries without hurting them
-2nd, the US has so many domestic problems that need fixing, our resources could best be spent here on our home soil, benefiting those unfortunate people in our country who suffer each day.
-3rd, aren't there about 200 other countries in this world that could potentially aid Sudan? Why does it have to be the US every time? How about countries like Switzerland, Canada, Norway, Germany, Australia, Japan, etc. What the fuck do they do while the US is called in for and delivers aid?
If all these god-damn foreign countries would stop fucking themselves and eachother over, there would be less need for US "aid." Its about time that countries stop asking for "aid" from the US. First WE need to pull our head out of our ass and screw it on straight.
Just my opinion
"The current Sudan crisis has been going on for months and gets reported in Australian news fairly often..."
Back to the subject: your suggestion Jeremy, while seemingly sensible, just won't happen in the real world. I actually don't know, but when was the last time that a rescue mission of the type and magnitude you speak was sent to help a struggling/wartorn nation (I really dont know the answer)? If anything, Sudan will get a few soldiers from a few countries.
The reason I believe the US should stay out is three-fold:
-1st, our president is a moron and cannot actually "help" other countries without hurting them
-2nd, the US has so many domestic problems that need fixing, our resources could best be spent here on our home soil, benefiting those unfortunate people in our country who suffer each day.
-3rd, aren't there about 200 other countries in this world that could potentially aid Sudan? Why does it have to be the US every time? How about countries like Switzerland, Canada, Norway, Germany, Australia, Japan, etc. What the fuck do they do while the US is called in for and delivers aid?
If all these god-damn foreign countries would stop fucking themselves and eachother over, there would be less need for US "aid." Its about time that countries stop asking for "aid" from the US. First WE need to pull our head out of our ass and screw it on straight.
Just my opinion
My name: Jeremy Mirken, AKA Chocolatey Shatner, AKA jerk enemy rim.
I kick it with trunk chef elf and liz luck key my.
I kick it with trunk chef elf and liz luck key my.
-
BainbridgeShred
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
A few notes on Grommets post;
America news sources generally are recognizeed as being pretty poor, a survey done said that the US news spends more time covering celebrities than any other country. This is only one example of how poor the US media is though.
Regarding domestic problems, the US military has its own problems. Believe it or not despite the great job Clinton did, the US military has alot of doctrines that still focus on combat suitable to fighting the Soviet in Europe. We need to reshape our defense budget to be able to counter the challenges of the new millenia.
On your third point, why would any other country want to help Sudan? No country has any reason to get involved in a conflict with Muslims right now? The more the West gets involved with Muslim problems, no matter have righteous our intentions are, will be interpreted as the West fucking with Muslim business once again.
And also on your final point at the bottom, I think something needs to be said about "US aid". I'm not sure wether you were talking about military or economic, but what I'm talking about is how the idea of "US aid" is misrepresented as a term. The whole concept of US aid is kind of a proverbial mutual back scratching. What happens is this, say Nigeria has a drought, and their people need food, what the US would do, instead of just giving them money to buy their own from a country of their choosing, the US would buy grain from the US grain industry, and then give it to Nigeria so that the money spent on the grain will go 100% back into the American economy. So it isn't like the US is just giving billions of dollars away every year for nothing, this would ruin our economy.
America news sources generally are recognizeed as being pretty poor, a survey done said that the US news spends more time covering celebrities than any other country. This is only one example of how poor the US media is though.
Regarding domestic problems, the US military has its own problems. Believe it or not despite the great job Clinton did, the US military has alot of doctrines that still focus on combat suitable to fighting the Soviet in Europe. We need to reshape our defense budget to be able to counter the challenges of the new millenia.
On your third point, why would any other country want to help Sudan? No country has any reason to get involved in a conflict with Muslims right now? The more the West gets involved with Muslim problems, no matter have righteous our intentions are, will be interpreted as the West fucking with Muslim business once again.
And also on your final point at the bottom, I think something needs to be said about "US aid". I'm not sure wether you were talking about military or economic, but what I'm talking about is how the idea of "US aid" is misrepresented as a term. The whole concept of US aid is kind of a proverbial mutual back scratching. What happens is this, say Nigeria has a drought, and their people need food, what the US would do, instead of just giving them money to buy their own from a country of their choosing, the US would buy grain from the US grain industry, and then give it to Nigeria so that the money spent on the grain will go 100% back into the American economy. So it isn't like the US is just giving billions of dollars away every year for nothing, this would ruin our economy.
I'm sorry if it came across as if I was trying to one up US news or something like that. People were commenting that they'd just heard about it and my comment was related to that in that I've known about the Sudan crisis for a while. It is suprising that something that consistantly makes headlines as an international disaster in Australia doesn't get mentioned in other countries.
Some people would say that the last time a rescue mission such as what I'm talking about happened successfully was East Timor - 2002 where a UN force lead by Australia went into the country and managed to stop most of the violence that was occuring - obviously there have been enourmas massacres in the past in East Timor and it's likely that many lives were saved.
However a more cynical person would point out that Australia is now blatently stealing oil and natural gas from East Timor and will hopefully be brought to justice (the issue is being investigated by the UN)
Regarding your 3 reasons:
Reason number 1: (bush is a dick) - I completely agree with this - I find it very hard to see the current US administration sending in a military force and creating a more peaceful environment. I think even if they sent the military force into a currently peaceful country it would create more unrest.
Reason number 2: (The US should spend on its self) - Personally I would prefer countries to do what they think is in the global interest rather than self interest. I think it's possible to allow for some money to be spent on helping other countries while still providing good support for the society. I do think that at the moment it would be very hard for the US to justify helping Sudan to a great deal due to the amount of money being spent on killing arabs in the middle east. The US for a long time as used aid as something to be used only for self interest. Most of the countries that recieve US aid are forced to do something in return. For example when you look through the "Coalition of the killing" you'll see many countries that are wartorn/famine hit and cannot support themselves at all - let alone wage war on a country thousands of miles away. Ethiopia is a great example of this. These countries are dependant on foreign aid - especailly US aid. Not only that but the aid the US (and other countries give) is not aid that will help their situation at all - but rather aid that either helps the ruling class or keeps the nation dependant on that aid (ie food but not aid to help growing their own food). A great example of this is Australia giving over $300,000,000 aud to Papua New Guinea - of which an estimate $200,000,000 aud goes to supporting the ruling class and less than $60,000,000 goes to helping the people. $300,000,000 per year if directed in the right direction is more than enough money to fix the problems of Papua New Guinea and turn the nation into a self sustainable nation. Obviously that wouldn't be in Australia's best interests because it would mean they would probably start opposing our imperialism and may stop supporting us on other matters.
Reason number 3: (The US gives more than its share of aid) - The US is the 20th most generous country in the world in aid donated per person and the 21st most generous country in the world in aid donated per gdp. There are only 21 countries in the world that give significant amounts of foreign aid - here is the list per gdp:
1. Denmark $1.04 per $100
2. Norway $0.93 per $100
3. Netherlands $0.79 per $100
4. Sweden $0.73 per $100
5. Luxembourg $0.72 per $100
6. Switzerland $0.47 per $100
7. France $0.40 per $100
8. United Kingdom $0.29 per $100
9. Finland $0.28 per $100
10. Germany $0.25 per $100
11. Belgium $0.25 per $100
12. Japan $0.24 per $100
13. Ireland $0.24 per $100
14. Austria $0.18 per $100
15. Australia $0.17 per $100
16. Spain $0.15 per $100
17. Canada $0.13 per $100
18. Portugal $0.13 per $100
19. New Zealand $0.12 per $100
20. Italy $0.06 per $100
21. United States $0.06 per $100
But this is beside the point. I said in my last post:
edit: here are the sources I used.
www.nationstates.com
www.theage.com.au
www.aidwatch.org.au
Some people would say that the last time a rescue mission such as what I'm talking about happened successfully was East Timor - 2002 where a UN force lead by Australia went into the country and managed to stop most of the violence that was occuring - obviously there have been enourmas massacres in the past in East Timor and it's likely that many lives were saved.
However a more cynical person would point out that Australia is now blatently stealing oil and natural gas from East Timor and will hopefully be brought to justice (the issue is being investigated by the UN)
Regarding your 3 reasons:
Reason number 1: (bush is a dick) - I completely agree with this - I find it very hard to see the current US administration sending in a military force and creating a more peaceful environment. I think even if they sent the military force into a currently peaceful country it would create more unrest.
Reason number 2: (The US should spend on its self) - Personally I would prefer countries to do what they think is in the global interest rather than self interest. I think it's possible to allow for some money to be spent on helping other countries while still providing good support for the society. I do think that at the moment it would be very hard for the US to justify helping Sudan to a great deal due to the amount of money being spent on killing arabs in the middle east. The US for a long time as used aid as something to be used only for self interest. Most of the countries that recieve US aid are forced to do something in return. For example when you look through the "Coalition of the killing" you'll see many countries that are wartorn/famine hit and cannot support themselves at all - let alone wage war on a country thousands of miles away. Ethiopia is a great example of this. These countries are dependant on foreign aid - especailly US aid. Not only that but the aid the US (and other countries give) is not aid that will help their situation at all - but rather aid that either helps the ruling class or keeps the nation dependant on that aid (ie food but not aid to help growing their own food). A great example of this is Australia giving over $300,000,000 aud to Papua New Guinea - of which an estimate $200,000,000 aud goes to supporting the ruling class and less than $60,000,000 goes to helping the people. $300,000,000 per year if directed in the right direction is more than enough money to fix the problems of Papua New Guinea and turn the nation into a self sustainable nation. Obviously that wouldn't be in Australia's best interests because it would mean they would probably start opposing our imperialism and may stop supporting us on other matters.
Reason number 3: (The US gives more than its share of aid) - The US is the 20th most generous country in the world in aid donated per person and the 21st most generous country in the world in aid donated per gdp. There are only 21 countries in the world that give significant amounts of foreign aid - here is the list per gdp:
1. Denmark $1.04 per $100
2. Norway $0.93 per $100
3. Netherlands $0.79 per $100
4. Sweden $0.73 per $100
5. Luxembourg $0.72 per $100
6. Switzerland $0.47 per $100
7. France $0.40 per $100
8. United Kingdom $0.29 per $100
9. Finland $0.28 per $100
10. Germany $0.25 per $100
11. Belgium $0.25 per $100
12. Japan $0.24 per $100
13. Ireland $0.24 per $100
14. Austria $0.18 per $100
15. Australia $0.17 per $100
16. Spain $0.15 per $100
17. Canada $0.13 per $100
18. Portugal $0.13 per $100
19. New Zealand $0.12 per $100
20. Italy $0.06 per $100
21. United States $0.06 per $100
But this is beside the point. I said in my last post:
and I mean it. I only mentioned the US because you mentioned the US. I believe that if you can help stop huge massacres of over 100,000 people per year you should do it. Obviously there are some very greedy countries out there. But the non greedy countries shouldn't say "well if they won't do anything than I won't" - it might be unfair that Denmark gives so much more aid proportionally than anybody else but if they didn't think of all the people who would suffer. Lets do what's good for humanity not what's good for ourselves! A great example of generosity is New Zealand. Refugees come to Australia fleeing conflicts from around the world - especially the middle east - somewhere where Australia is partly responsible for the growing unrest - and our responce is to do everything we can to stop them from getting into our country. We actually spend more than $1,000,000 per person in getting rid of them. Imagine what good that money could be used for if we weren't so greedy, racist and inhumane. NZ - despite not having any obligation to do so - takes in many of the refugees and treats them in a humane and generous manner. It's pretty clear to me which country is the nicer, friendlier country and I am sure that history will see it that way as well.Jeremy O'Wheel wrote: I think the US and any country that has the means should go and help out
edit: here are the sources I used.
www.nationstates.com
www.theage.com.au
www.aidwatch.org.au
-
BainbridgeShred
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
First of all props to Jeremy for pointing out a problem with his own countrys neo-impearilism too, I see a lot of people from other Western Nation that knock the US foriegn policy but fail to look at their own countries quasi-impearilist measures. To justify this I am not specifically talking about military impearilism, but more economic impearilism. It's kind of funny that Ghandi and the Indians rebel peacefully and sucsesfully to kick a Western power from ruling their government, only to have another Western power come in 50 years later and control their country. India is the jewel of the US economic empire, just as India was once the jewel of the British Empire.
Anyways back to the point... Jeremy... I'd agree with you that in a perfect world the US and any country who has the means to should intervene in occuring and potential mass genocides, however in a perfect world mass genocides wouldn't exist! The problem with sticking our noses into all international conflicts is people like Osama bin Laden are able to convince under-educated people that the US is enforcing their way of life on all the countries that they "help". This is sometimes true and sometimes false. Either way, the more we get involved the more harm we'll face.
My solution is to pull back to a more isolationistic approach, but maintain a strong military in case a conflict truely worth fighting in does pop up. If we do continue to spread our empire, either militaristicly in Iraq, or economically in places like the sub-continent of India and the rest of South East Asia, we will continue to see terrorist attacks and mass angst towards our country/countries.
Anyways back to the point... Jeremy... I'd agree with you that in a perfect world the US and any country who has the means to should intervene in occuring and potential mass genocides, however in a perfect world mass genocides wouldn't exist! The problem with sticking our noses into all international conflicts is people like Osama bin Laden are able to convince under-educated people that the US is enforcing their way of life on all the countries that they "help". This is sometimes true and sometimes false. Either way, the more we get involved the more harm we'll face.
My solution is to pull back to a more isolationistic approach, but maintain a strong military in case a conflict truely worth fighting in does pop up. If we do continue to spread our empire, either militaristicly in Iraq, or economically in places like the sub-continent of India and the rest of South East Asia, we will continue to see terrorist attacks and mass angst towards our country/countries.
Thanks for the props. I am a hardcore anti nationalist. I don't get much chance to bag out Australia since most people on this forum don't ever try to defend the country or even in many cases know who our leader is.
A peace keeping force that gets sent into Sudan should not take sides or try and force western ideals on the people. Democracy is not necessarily the best form of government. In most if not all of the countries represented on this forum we believe it is - but have any of us lived under a non democratic system? How can we really know which system is right or wrong? It's clear from history that forcing opinions on people directly leads to more conflict. So going to Sudan should not be an effort to "westernise" the nation - but rather just to mediate and to stop the violence. There are two sides to any conflict and deciding which one is right and wrong would not help in bringing about peace.
This is my understanding of the Sudanese conflict:
Ultimitatly it's not a war about religion at all - although much of the media has been reporting it as such. In the early 80s a movement began in the South for independance and autonomy. They called themselves something like Sudanese Liberation Movement/Army and the Justice and Equity Movement and are fighting against the government and militias. I am a big supporter of such nationalist movements - that's why Subcomandate Marcos (from the ELZN - a mexican liberation army) is my avatar. It is the right wing government that is sponsoring the current militias that are killing thousands of civillians - however both sides are guilty of human rights abuses.
I notice that today the UNSC demanded that the violence stop. If that demand does not work the next step will either be sanctions or a peace keeping force. I think sanctions are the best idea assuming that they are "smart sanctions" which is much more common than the US imposed complete sanctions on nations that leave them starving and only effect the people. Already this week we've seen the UN force an arms embargo on Cote d'Ivoire (damn I wish I new how to put a hat over the o!) and something along those lines that punishes the leaders not the people would be appropriate for Sudan I think.
If military action is taken - it needs to a United Nations force and it needs to not interfer with the countries politics (ie. trying to overthrow the government) or take a side in the conflict - but disarm both sides and use force against anybody who try to keep the conflict going. I'm a pacifist and would much prefer the first option of some kind of sanctions - but if it comes to force it needs to be force against violence or else it will create another situation like the countless wars and unrest the US have caused by taking sides.
I believe that it's possible for countries to do things about problems without being attacked in retaliation. The reason Osama Bin Ladin and other fundamental muslims want to attack the US - despite what much of the US media (or at least much of it that I've seen) says is because the US is unjust in their efforts to create peace in the Middle East and is oppressing Islamic countries. This could be just coincidence but it's still a fact. The people of countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan are all mainly Islamic and all have been oppressed (justly or unjustly) by the US. Regardless of if this is coincidence or an actual campaign of attacking Islamic states is regardless - it leaves the US very open to be accused of being anti Islamic and surely they knew that as they continued to oppress those nations.Anyways back to the point... Jeremy... I'd agree with you that in a perfect world the US and any country who has the means to should intervene in occuring and potential mass genocides, however in a perfect world mass genocides wouldn't exist! The problem with sticking our noses into all international conflicts is people like Osama bin Laden are able to convince under-educated people that the US is enforcing their way of life on all the countries that they "help". This is sometimes true and sometimes false. Either way, the more we get involved the more harm we'll face.
A peace keeping force that gets sent into Sudan should not take sides or try and force western ideals on the people. Democracy is not necessarily the best form of government. In most if not all of the countries represented on this forum we believe it is - but have any of us lived under a non democratic system? How can we really know which system is right or wrong? It's clear from history that forcing opinions on people directly leads to more conflict. So going to Sudan should not be an effort to "westernise" the nation - but rather just to mediate and to stop the violence. There are two sides to any conflict and deciding which one is right and wrong would not help in bringing about peace.
This is my understanding of the Sudanese conflict:
Ultimitatly it's not a war about religion at all - although much of the media has been reporting it as such. In the early 80s a movement began in the South for independance and autonomy. They called themselves something like Sudanese Liberation Movement/Army and the Justice and Equity Movement and are fighting against the government and militias. I am a big supporter of such nationalist movements - that's why Subcomandate Marcos (from the ELZN - a mexican liberation army) is my avatar. It is the right wing government that is sponsoring the current militias that are killing thousands of civillians - however both sides are guilty of human rights abuses.
I notice that today the UNSC demanded that the violence stop. If that demand does not work the next step will either be sanctions or a peace keeping force. I think sanctions are the best idea assuming that they are "smart sanctions" which is much more common than the US imposed complete sanctions on nations that leave them starving and only effect the people. Already this week we've seen the UN force an arms embargo on Cote d'Ivoire (damn I wish I new how to put a hat over the o!) and something along those lines that punishes the leaders not the people would be appropriate for Sudan I think.
If military action is taken - it needs to a United Nations force and it needs to not interfer with the countries politics (ie. trying to overthrow the government) or take a side in the conflict - but disarm both sides and use force against anybody who try to keep the conflict going. I'm a pacifist and would much prefer the first option of some kind of sanctions - but if it comes to force it needs to be force against violence or else it will create another situation like the countless wars and unrest the US have caused by taking sides.
-
BainbridgeShred
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
I take the next step, I'm hardcore anti-patriotic. Patriotism makes no sense, no one has any reason being proud of or loving a country that they had no choice being born into. Patriotism kills wether it is under thr swastika, the sickle and hammer, or the red white and blue.Thanks for the props. I am a hardcore anti nationalist. I don't get much chance to bag out Australia since most people on this forum don't ever try to defend the country or even in many cases know who our leader is.
Code: Select all
I believe that it's possible for countries to do things about problems without being attacked in retaliation. The reason Osama Bin Ladin and other fundamental muslims want to attack the US - despite what much of the US media (or at least much of it that I've seen) says is because the US is unjust in their efforts to create peace in the Middle East and is oppressing Islamic countries. This could be just coincidence but it's still a fact. The people of countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan are all mainly Islamic and all have been oppressed (justly or unjustly) by the US. Regardless of if this is coincidence or an actual campaign of attacking Islamic states is regardless - it leaves the US very open to be accused of being anti Islamic and surely they knew that as they continued to oppress those nations. Also, the reason we were attacked on 9/11 is two fold (More than that actually but two main reasons). First being that the US was being arrogant (What's new) and trying to act like a legitimate middle man in the middle east peace talks, when we were as well all know giving billions and billions to one side.
The second reason is that the terrorists really do hate our way of life. Not to say that the care about what the fuck we do in our country, but it was clear the US was trying to send more and more forces to there established bases in the Middle East, while Capitalism did it thing in truely making the Middle East "western". This rightfully pissed a lot of people off.
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
The world may deserve criticism for what is being allowed to happen in the Sudan. But who can stop it?
I find the suggestion that the U.S. do anything militarily about it to be ABSOLUTELY ridiculous.
We wouldn't want to start a new imperialist, crusade would we?
The U.N. shows that a million or two blacks are expendable, and genocide is perfectly acceptable, as long as the U.N. thrives.
-n
I find the suggestion that the U.S. do anything militarily about it to be ABSOLUTELY ridiculous.
We wouldn't want to start a new imperialist, crusade would we?
The U.N. shows that a million or two blacks are expendable, and genocide is perfectly acceptable, as long as the U.N. thrives.
-n
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
What?!?
"We wouldn't want to start a new imperialist, crusade would we?" - If you (American govt) would work within the confines of the UN it would not cop such criticism.
If you offered your forces to the UN, then you (i know, i know; you = your f'ed up government) would be able to halt violence in the Sudan AND no one would call you imperialist.
The UN has no ability to implement justice when super powers are starting their own unjust wars and withholding their forces and aid from the countries that need it.
The UN is only as good as the countries that participate.
And unfortunately because of veto the UN is only as good as the US, Russia, Great Britain, France...
"We wouldn't want to start a new imperialist, crusade would we?" - If you (American govt) would work within the confines of the UN it would not cop such criticism.
If you offered your forces to the UN, then you (i know, i know; you = your f'ed up government) would be able to halt violence in the Sudan AND no one would call you imperialist.
The UN has no ability to implement justice when super powers are starting their own unjust wars and withholding their forces and aid from the countries that need it.
The UN is only as good as the countries that participate.
And unfortunately because of veto the UN is only as good as the US, Russia, Great Britain, France...
-Dale Jury
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
Frenzal said:
------------------------------------------------
If you offered your forces to the UN, then you (i know, i know; you = your f'ed up government) would be able to halt violence in the Sudan AND no one would call you imperialist.
------------------------------------------------
This sounds noble, but it would never happen, even if the U.N. had the military forces.
Somebody has economic interests and would veto.
Money is everything.
We would have had U.N. approval to invade Iraq if we bribed enough foreign officials.
Saving all those poor souls is in nobody's national interest.
Sudan's neighbors must have their own interests, and saving those people is not part of the plan.
Getting rid of those pesky Christians might be advantageous for some nations.
-n
------------------------------------------------
If you offered your forces to the UN, then you (i know, i know; you = your f'ed up government) would be able to halt violence in the Sudan AND no one would call you imperialist.
------------------------------------------------
This sounds noble, but it would never happen, even if the U.N. had the military forces.
Somebody has economic interests and would veto.
Money is everything.
We would have had U.N. approval to invade Iraq if we bribed enough foreign officials.
Saving all those poor souls is in nobody's national interest.
Sudan's neighbors must have their own interests, and saving those people is not part of the plan.
Getting rid of those pesky Christians might be advantageous for some nations.
-n
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
Frenzal said:
-------------------------------------
The UN is only as good as the countries that participate.
-------------------------------------
I agree completely, and I'll point out that it only takes France to fuck the whole thing up.
-n
-------------------------------------
The UN is only as good as the countries that participate.
-------------------------------------
I agree completely, and I'll point out that it only takes France to fuck the whole thing up.
-n
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
How the fuck can you blame france?
UNSC Veto totals from 1947 - 2002
Russia/USSR - 116
US - 76
UK - 30
France - 18
China - 5
From 1986 - 2002
US 29
UK 9
France 4
China 3
Russia 1
source = http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/Table ... to2002.pdf
What's the point of posting if you just make it all up.
A famous Stephen Barnes quote comes to mind right now.
UNSC Veto totals from 1947 - 2002
Russia/USSR - 116
US - 76
UK - 30
France - 18
China - 5
From 1986 - 2002
US 29
UK 9
France 4
China 3
Russia 1
source = http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/Table ... to2002.pdf
What's the point of posting if you just make it all up.
A famous Stephen Barnes quote comes to mind right now.
Hey Nathan, don't you worry about the Frenchies getting their fair share of criticism; the mother fuckers commited blatant terrorism and murder on Aotearoa soil. That, and they test their nukes in my backyard (the Pacific, not actually my backyard that would be bad for real estate values) and tell us it's completely safe while it leeches radiation right through the ecosystem.
But, as of the last 4-5 years the US has become particulary boneheaded with it's foreign policy, while to a certain extent the frogs have chilled out.
But, as of the last 4-5 years the US has become particulary boneheaded with it's foreign policy, while to a certain extent the frogs have chilled out.
-Dale Jury
I saw a horrible documentary on this and I really wanted to post my own opinions on the conflict. I'm going to post two possibilities of what's going on - as well as some international law definitions and a comment on the US at the end. My explantations are simplified versions of the problem - but I think they deal with the main issues and I don't have time to write a book about the conflict.
Scenario one:
Because of the Sahra Desert moveing south - Tribes from the north of Sudan are forced to the south. This land is fairly furtile and there are already lots of tribes there. The tribes that are already there feel resentment about their land being taken and fight against the invaders. This fighting includes destroying entire unarmed camps. The immigarting tribes respond with violence and the conflict grows.
The original inhabitants don't like this and they decide that they are going to break away from the entire country and make their own country. This brings the government into play - who don't want some of their most fertile land to become a new country. They do everything in their power to stop this happening - including employing the army and militias to kill, rape and torment the people who want to break away. They commit many human rights abuses. The rebels retailiate with human rights abuses of their own.
In this situation I would support the nationalists (the rebels) for the cause but not their methods. It is plainly obvious that killing innocent unarmed people or torturing prisoners will not help your cause at all and they need to realise this. The powerful government needs to take the moral high ground - rather than trying to use force - force in this situation will not work unless you kill every single one of the rebels - considering the amount of international attention this conflict now has - that is not going happen without severe repucusions!
Scenario 2:
Because of the movement of the Sahra desert - arab tribes are pushed down into West Sudan - onto the land of african tribes. The African tribes resent this and murder and destroy many of hte arab tribes. The arabs respond with more violence. Because the government takes no action - the africans decide they want a country of their own - governed by their own race. The Arab government of Sudan sends in troops and sponsors militias in an effort to wipe out the african tribes from this area.
This scenario is genocide in the case of the Arabs and in my opinion international law demands that other nations take every step possible to stop this from happening.
However - the only country to officially call the conflict genocide is the US. Both the UN, the UK and the African Union - have yet to make a decision. Genocide is the worst crime against humanity that can be commited. After the holocaust international laws were set up to stop such events ever happening again - in particular the 1948 Genocide convention. Most people interpret this convention to instruct that if genocide is occuring - all nations need to take every step possible to stop it from happening. The US don't follow this definition - and basically ignore the 1948 Genocide convention - but are calling the conflict genocide anyway.
The UK and the UN have yet to call the conflict genocide for two reasons - firstly it is possible that scenario one is the real reasons for the conflict. Genocide is fairly well defined as the intent of wiping out a race. It could easily be argued that the human rights abuses occuring on both sides of the conflict are not racially motivated but rather - the once prosperous tribes wanting to stay that way and not share the resources - prefering the other tribes to starve to death - and the government not wanting to give up high fertile land. The other important point is that the governments army - the army accused of commiting most of the human rights abuses - is mainly made up of Africans - not Arabs. Obviously it's the Arabs in charge - but many people would say that you can not commit genocide by using people of a particular race to kill people of their own race.
There is no doubt that human rights abuses are occuring - from both sides - but is their grounds to call it genocide? Both the UN and the UK follow international law and believe that they would be forced to send in military peace keepers if they believed genocide was occuring and oust the government - putting them up for the most serious crime in the world. They also believe that such action would create a failed state - the biggest country in Africa - that would create much more serious humanitarian problems and lead to many more deaths. They are not prepared to make such a decision on the possibility that genocide is being committed - but rather will only make the decision when they are absolutely certain.
Personally I wouldn't want to guess on the intent of the government - it is enough that human rights abuses are being committed but too complicated to say if it is because of racial and cultural reasons - or economic reasons.
It is safe to say that it is not religious reasons because many of the africans being killed by the Arab government are also muslims. People who believe that it has anything to do with Islam are definitly wrong. It's either racially motivated or economically motivated - it's very unlikely that it is religiously motivated!!
Now we get onto the US' role in this conflict. The US are currently fighting two major wars against the Islamic countries in Afghanistan and in Iraq. They are also supporting a war against Islamic people in Israel and are talking about fighting a war against another Islamic country in Iran. These countries are not arabic countries - but many people do not know that.
In the Sudan conflict we have a clearly Arab and Muslim government fighting against an African resistance with a variety of different religions. The US has been very vocal in their opposition to the Arab Government and as mentioned earlier are the only nation to call the conflict genocide - accusing the Arabs of committing the worst crime under international law.
This has pushed the conflict into mainstream media and has made it a well known conflict.
The connection I am making is one of anti arab/muslim sentiment from the US. If people are prepared to believe this then they are much more likely to support the wars against Islam in Iraq, Iran, Israel and Afghanistan. Of course it is possible that I am wrong and that is not a factor for the US call of genocide at all. There is a big possibility that genocide is being committed - so the US could be doing the right thing internationally.
Except for two points - number one - the US defines the international law on genocide differently to basically the rest of the world and aren't prepared to take any action on their claims.
And more importantly how many people have heard about the conflict in the Congo? Anybody? Maybe you know that there is a big war happening there? Well it's not just a big war - it is the biggest and bloodiest war that the world has seen since world war 2. It is estimated that over 1000 people die every day - that's more than one person every two minutes.
Yet is this being reported in the news? No. Is the US demanding things change in the Congo? No. Are they making a big issue out of this conflict? No. Are there Arabs or Muslims involved in this conflict? No.
Obviously you can't make any accusations or assumptions based on such evidence - but it doesn't send a very good message and it's easy to fill in the dots...
This post is my opinions on the situation only.
Scenario one:
Because of the Sahra Desert moveing south - Tribes from the north of Sudan are forced to the south. This land is fairly furtile and there are already lots of tribes there. The tribes that are already there feel resentment about their land being taken and fight against the invaders. This fighting includes destroying entire unarmed camps. The immigarting tribes respond with violence and the conflict grows.
The original inhabitants don't like this and they decide that they are going to break away from the entire country and make their own country. This brings the government into play - who don't want some of their most fertile land to become a new country. They do everything in their power to stop this happening - including employing the army and militias to kill, rape and torment the people who want to break away. They commit many human rights abuses. The rebels retailiate with human rights abuses of their own.
In this situation I would support the nationalists (the rebels) for the cause but not their methods. It is plainly obvious that killing innocent unarmed people or torturing prisoners will not help your cause at all and they need to realise this. The powerful government needs to take the moral high ground - rather than trying to use force - force in this situation will not work unless you kill every single one of the rebels - considering the amount of international attention this conflict now has - that is not going happen without severe repucusions!
Scenario 2:
Because of the movement of the Sahra desert - arab tribes are pushed down into West Sudan - onto the land of african tribes. The African tribes resent this and murder and destroy many of hte arab tribes. The arabs respond with more violence. Because the government takes no action - the africans decide they want a country of their own - governed by their own race. The Arab government of Sudan sends in troops and sponsors militias in an effort to wipe out the african tribes from this area.
This scenario is genocide in the case of the Arabs and in my opinion international law demands that other nations take every step possible to stop this from happening.
However - the only country to officially call the conflict genocide is the US. Both the UN, the UK and the African Union - have yet to make a decision. Genocide is the worst crime against humanity that can be commited. After the holocaust international laws were set up to stop such events ever happening again - in particular the 1948 Genocide convention. Most people interpret this convention to instruct that if genocide is occuring - all nations need to take every step possible to stop it from happening. The US don't follow this definition - and basically ignore the 1948 Genocide convention - but are calling the conflict genocide anyway.
The UK and the UN have yet to call the conflict genocide for two reasons - firstly it is possible that scenario one is the real reasons for the conflict. Genocide is fairly well defined as the intent of wiping out a race. It could easily be argued that the human rights abuses occuring on both sides of the conflict are not racially motivated but rather - the once prosperous tribes wanting to stay that way and not share the resources - prefering the other tribes to starve to death - and the government not wanting to give up high fertile land. The other important point is that the governments army - the army accused of commiting most of the human rights abuses - is mainly made up of Africans - not Arabs. Obviously it's the Arabs in charge - but many people would say that you can not commit genocide by using people of a particular race to kill people of their own race.
There is no doubt that human rights abuses are occuring - from both sides - but is their grounds to call it genocide? Both the UN and the UK follow international law and believe that they would be forced to send in military peace keepers if they believed genocide was occuring and oust the government - putting them up for the most serious crime in the world. They also believe that such action would create a failed state - the biggest country in Africa - that would create much more serious humanitarian problems and lead to many more deaths. They are not prepared to make such a decision on the possibility that genocide is being committed - but rather will only make the decision when they are absolutely certain.
Personally I wouldn't want to guess on the intent of the government - it is enough that human rights abuses are being committed but too complicated to say if it is because of racial and cultural reasons - or economic reasons.
It is safe to say that it is not religious reasons because many of the africans being killed by the Arab government are also muslims. People who believe that it has anything to do with Islam are definitly wrong. It's either racially motivated or economically motivated - it's very unlikely that it is religiously motivated!!
Now we get onto the US' role in this conflict. The US are currently fighting two major wars against the Islamic countries in Afghanistan and in Iraq. They are also supporting a war against Islamic people in Israel and are talking about fighting a war against another Islamic country in Iran. These countries are not arabic countries - but many people do not know that.
In the Sudan conflict we have a clearly Arab and Muslim government fighting against an African resistance with a variety of different religions. The US has been very vocal in their opposition to the Arab Government and as mentioned earlier are the only nation to call the conflict genocide - accusing the Arabs of committing the worst crime under international law.
This has pushed the conflict into mainstream media and has made it a well known conflict.
The connection I am making is one of anti arab/muslim sentiment from the US. If people are prepared to believe this then they are much more likely to support the wars against Islam in Iraq, Iran, Israel and Afghanistan. Of course it is possible that I am wrong and that is not a factor for the US call of genocide at all. There is a big possibility that genocide is being committed - so the US could be doing the right thing internationally.
Except for two points - number one - the US defines the international law on genocide differently to basically the rest of the world and aren't prepared to take any action on their claims.
And more importantly how many people have heard about the conflict in the Congo? Anybody? Maybe you know that there is a big war happening there? Well it's not just a big war - it is the biggest and bloodiest war that the world has seen since world war 2. It is estimated that over 1000 people die every day - that's more than one person every two minutes.
Yet is this being reported in the news? No. Is the US demanding things change in the Congo? No. Are they making a big issue out of this conflict? No. Are there Arabs or Muslims involved in this conflict? No.
Obviously you can't make any accusations or assumptions based on such evidence - but it doesn't send a very good message and it's easy to fill in the dots...
This post is my opinions on the situation only.
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
My France bash was predicated on the bribery scandal that buys their vote in the Security Council.
You could honestly say that the U.S. bribes other nations to get their way on the Security Council sometimes also .
Either way, if bribery from Iraq or U.S.A. or other countries can buy a veto on the Security Council, something is wrong with the organization. It is paralysed from protecting the helpless persecuted millions.
Hypothetically, any member could veto Sudanese "relief" , claiming that it would be a violation of Sudanese sovereignty or some other imperial campaign, or interfere with some neighborly trade deal.
Extra note:
A judge ruled that U.S. servicemen CAN be forced to serve under U.N. commanders and forced to wear their berets and patches.
-n
You could honestly say that the U.S. bribes other nations to get their way on the Security Council sometimes also .
Either way, if bribery from Iraq or U.S.A. or other countries can buy a veto on the Security Council, something is wrong with the organization. It is paralysed from protecting the helpless persecuted millions.
Hypothetically, any member could veto Sudanese "relief" , claiming that it would be a violation of Sudanese sovereignty or some other imperial campaign, or interfere with some neighborly trade deal.
Extra note:
A judge ruled that U.S. servicemen CAN be forced to serve under U.N. commanders and forced to wear their berets and patches.
-n
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
Fucking amazing news!!!!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/20 ... 274927.htm
Seriously this is the happiest news I have heard in such a long time!!
Obviously there is still a long way to go and peace cannot be assured but it's still amazing! I have high hopes.
And it demonstrates so well the fact that peace is better than war - here is a conflict - like so many other conflicts that ended with negotiation and understanding between the parties - not violence. It is clear that peaceful action achieves so much more than violence.
I hope the rest of the world can take note of this.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/20 ... 274927.htm
Seriously this is the happiest news I have heard in such a long time!!
Obviously there is still a long way to go and peace cannot be assured but it's still amazing! I have high hopes.
And it demonstrates so well the fact that peace is better than war - here is a conflict - like so many other conflicts that ended with negotiation and understanding between the parties - not violence. It is clear that peaceful action achieves so much more than violence.
I hope the rest of the world can take note of this.