Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?  
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17339 posts, RR: 46
Posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2462 times:

...i.e....a genocide?


E pur si muove -Galileo
51 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineN5176Y From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2452 times:

Who cares? It's only 700,000 dead black people... not really worth anyone's time.

User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17339 posts, RR: 46
Reply 2, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2449 times:

Nobody cared in Rwanda or the Dem Rep of Congo so I'm not surprised but I still don't understand the "reasoning".


E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineDtwclipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2449 times:

One word.......OIL

User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 4, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2449 times:

Because the UN is about redistribution of power and wealth and therefore hopelessly corrupt?

Because key UN players are profiting therefrom?

Because if too many people live in the third world, the UN will have to do something about supplying them with food, medicine, and sanitation which they are ill-prepared to do?

Those are just guesses, of course.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2451 times:

Because then the US and Europe would have to do something about it. Isn't there a UN treaty that requires member states to intervene in cases of genocide (since Rwanda). Meantime everyone is so bogged down in stupid crappy irrelevant Iraq, that these poor souls in Darfur get to be picked off slowly by the Jingaweed (I always think of Chris Evans when I hear that word), which by any definition of the word, is an Islamic terrorist movement.

Yes, its good to have consistent standards in foreign policy. You can bet if there was a couple of trillion barrels of oil under Darfur, the US would have been in there quicker than you can say "Halliburton".


User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 6, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2445 times:

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 5):
Yes, its good to have consistent standards in foreign policy. You can bet if there was a couple of trillion barrels of oil under Darfur, the US would have been in there quicker than you can say "Halliburton".

I would point out that France is free to intervene.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineN5176Y From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2443 times:

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 5):
Meantime everyone is so bogged down in stupid crappy irrelevant Iraq,

France and Germany aren't in Iraq. They've had plenty of oppurtunity to do something. But as usual, the French do nothing but bitch.

[Edited 2005-03-23 17:36:27]

User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2437 times:

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 6):
I would point out that France is free to intervene.

France tends only to intervene where they already have a power base, and/or a significant expat community. Darfur has neither. Sad but true.


User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17339 posts, RR: 46
Reply 9, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2437 times:

"You can bet if there was a couple of trillion barrels of oil under Darfur, the US would have been in there quicker than you can say "Halliburton"."

Wrong. The US has declared it a genocide. Thanks for playing.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2427 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 9):
Wrong. The US has declared it a genocide

Oh well that's all right then. As long as its declared. Don't chip a nail or anything actually doing anything about it.

Ain't representative democracy great ? You vote for them, and they'll happily participate in wars NOBODY agrees with, but when an event actually happens that the PEOPLE would rejoice to see an intervention against, what happens ? Sweet f*** all. And people wonder why the electorate simply can't be bothered any more. I'm talking about ALL western governments here, not the US.


User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 11, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2424 times:

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 8):
France tends only to intervene where they already have a power base, and/or a significant expat community. Darfur has neither. Sad but true.

Then lobby your own government - not us.
You just come off as another pointless US-basher.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19188 posts, RR: 52
Reply 12, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2419 times:

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 11):
You just come off as another pointless US-basher.

Why does everyone who moans about the USA get labelled as a 'US basher'? I would have thought that you and others would be sufficiently old and mature to shrugg off comments instead of taking them to heart like children who know no better.



"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offlineOly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6686 posts, RR: 11
Reply 13, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2419 times:

Politics.

If it was called a genocide they'd have to do something/get someone to do something and I suspect no-one wants to get bogged down in a conflict with poor communications, no airfields and no incentive to be there. Humanitarian reasons are easy to fall back on when a story is all over the news, but when no-one's watching and there's no apparent end game, why bother? Or am I being cynical?

And there are probably reasons for keeping in favour with the present Sudanese leadership so why p*ss them off by labelling them as a bunch of murdering tyrants and hauling them off to the Hague to face a trial.



wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17339 posts, RR: 46
Reply 14, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2417 times:

"Ain't representative democracy great "

More hypocrisy...when the US works with the UN people scream bloody murder for not taking action and waiting for the UN to act. When the US works with the UN and the UN doesn't do anything, and the US chooses to act on its own behalf, the same people scream bloody murder. No matter what it's the US' fault.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2416 times:

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 11):
Then lobby your own government - not us.

Yeah - that'll help. And anyway, isn't the US supposed to be leading the crusade against Islamic terrorism ? Or does killing hundreds of thousands of Africans by religious fanatics not count as terrorism ? Ask John Ashcroft, he'd know.

I'm not saying France or anyone else is any less guilty - they are ALL equally guilty in this sickening episode.


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13967 posts, RR: 63
Reply 16, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2412 times:

Isn´t UN involvement vetoed by Russia and China in the SC? AFAIK, they consider it an internal matter of Sudan and in their opinion, any country has the rights to use all means necessary to keep a province from seceeding, even if it means to kill the whole population of this province. Change the rules that a veto by a permanent member of the SC can be overruled and you´ll have a UN mission coming together, but of course, it will never come to this.

Then, Germany has been providing air transport for the troops of the "African Union Mission in Sudan", mainly to transport troops from Gambia and their equipment to their bases in Sudan.

You´ll only see German combat troops outside Germany either under a NATO, WEU or UN mission.
Germany will not enter any conflicts without a mandate of one of the organsations mentioned above.
And since Sudan is outside NATO and WEU territory and a UN mission doesn´t come together due to the Russian/Chinese veto, our hands are tied.
Then, I also wonder in how far other African nations like former colonial powers to interfere on their continent all the time. I think for the moment we should provide support for African troops to sort out the problems on their continent themselves.

Furthermore, your post is just again anti-UN and anti-European flame bait.

Jan


User currently offlineN5176Y From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2412 times:

Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 12):
Why does everyone who moans about the USA get labelled as a 'US basher'?

Because there are some people who moan only and constantly about the US for anything the US does. It gets annoying.


User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 18, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2405 times:

Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 12):
Why does everyone who moans about the USA get labelled as a 'US basher'?

Uhh, obvious?

Can you think of a better definition?
Besides, I did not actually call him one, I said it made him sound like one.
That better?

[Edited 2005-03-23 17:54:25]


Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17339 posts, RR: 46
Reply 19, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2395 times:

"Because there are some people who moan only and constantly about the US for anything the US does."

If only that were true. These people blame the US for every bad thing in the entire universe.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17339 posts, RR: 46
Reply 20, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2386 times:

Now that we've all blamed the US for Darfur, what about the other 190 countries that are part of the UN, particularly the Muslim/Arab countries that don't want to chastize a fellow Muslim/Arab country for doing things they do themselves?


E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2384 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 20):
Now that we've all blamed the US for Darfur

Who is blaming anyone except the Jinjaweed and pathetic Sudanese government ? Nobody. What might be nice is if the US, Europe, and everyone else got off their collective butts and acted for the good of humanity. Kosovo is a classic example, there was no UN resolution, because Russia vetoed it, but action was taken to prevent a genocide. How is Darfur different from that ?


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13967 posts, RR: 63
Reply 22, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2372 times:

JGPH1A,

Concerning Kosovo, you could at least argue that since former Yugoslavia is part of Europe, it is within NATO´s zone of responsibility, destabilising Europe, and the intervention was run as a NATO mission. Russia joined it grudgingly later because they were afraid of loosing influence in this area. Else the same applies as for Sudan: China and Russia vetoing foreing interventions in regions breaking away from a country, because these rules might be used in their own secessionist disputes (Chechnia, Taiwan, Tibet...). They want to keep their options open to punish anybody who dares to move away from the mother country.

Jan

Edit for typo

[Edited 2005-03-23 19:43:51]

User currently offlineMdsh00 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4124 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2365 times:

I think that the US might also be reluctant to go into Sudan, a Muslim country, for being labeled as "Imperialists."


"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a big fat white guy who is threatened by change."
User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16245 posts, RR: 56
Reply 24, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days ago) and read 2353 times:

The UN does not want to call it genocide because of the political implications that it will be required to act en masse, and it does not want to piss off various govts by using the G word. Just goes to show the UN has become a self-perpetuating political ball only interested in its own games.

Quoting N5176Y (Reply 1):
Who cares? It's only 700,000 dead black people... not really worth anyone's time.

It raises the question why African nations are letting this happen. Egypt, Libya, Nigeria, Kenya all have sizeable armies that could be mobilized, but aren't. Why do Africans tolerate other Africans killing yet other Africans?

This is an African genocide and yet ALL nearby African nations with the ability to stop it are doing nothing. Incredible. What a continent.

If African nations are unwilling to stop the genocide on their own doorstep, why should the rest of the world step in?



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
25 Post contains links and images Russophile : No, it is not. China has only ever used it's veto power in the SC on 4 occasions. 1) They vetoed the admission of Bangladesh to the UN 2) They vetoed
26 777236ER : Before you start whining about the UN, why isn't the US putting its moral high-ground to good use and sending troops in? No oil?
27 N5176Y : The US has no moral high-ground. We only care about corporate greed and oil. On the other hand, Europeans are generally concerned with poverty and so
28 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : ...too bad actions (or the apparently lack thereof) speak a hell of a lot louder than words
29 777236ER : Exactly. All the post-WMD blustering of 'helping the Iraqis' come to light when Sudan is left to fester.
30 MaverickM11 : "Exactly. All the post-WMD blustering of 'helping the Iraqis' come to light when Sudan is left to fester." There are 190 OTHER countries in the UN, wh
31 Post contains images Gkirk : I would ask why can't France send troops in, but I forgot they dont have any
32 Post contains links and images L.1011 : But Sudan DOES have oil! Just ask oil imperialist America's CIA! http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/su.html Natural resources: petrole
33 777236ER : Those countries didn't do anything about Iraq, and yet the US went in alone. Why not this time? There must be a reason. If anything, the Sudanese are
34 FDXMECH : >>>....and yet the US went in alone......
35 ConcordeBoy : of COURSE we went in *alone*.... why let the nearly dozen and a half countries who committed troops, and the 40+ others who contributed money, logisti
36 Post contains images MaverickM11 : "But Sudan DOES have oil! Just ask oil imperialist America's CIA! " Stop using facts! Everything the US does is bad, and only for oil  . "Those count
37 Post contains images 777236ER : OK, went in alone in so far as the majority of nations in the world were opposed to it, and went against the UN given there was no express resolution
38 MaverickM11 : "OK, went in alone in so far as the majority of nations in the world were opposed to it, and went against the UN given there was no express resolution
39 ConcordeBoy : ...claimed by whom, of any official relevance, exactly? ...and neither is anyone else, particularly the nations who pretend that they actually give a
40 777236ER : And I declare I have a huge penis. Declarations don't save lives, whether they're true, false or politically motivated. But it's not though. It's arg
41 MaverickM11 : "But it's not though. It's arguably the biggest world event in the first decade of the 21st century, so it has bearing on everything. " What is the co
42 777236ER : But it does for the UN's member states, which are the UN. I don't think the UN is somehow trying to make a malicious point of not using the term geno
43 777236ER : Well then surely the problem isn't a problem with the UN, but rather a general worldwide apathy?
44 Post contains links Schoenorama : Once again you've shown you haven't got a clue what the UN is all about and how it works. UN, as you apparently don't know, stands for United Nations
45 ConcordeBoy : ...again, it boils down to that pesky little concept of perception: Many would label "the problem" as the refusal of some to accept the fact that abj
46 MaverickM11 : "Once again you've shown you haven't got a clue what the UN is all about and how it works. UN, as you apparently don't know, stands for United Nations
47 JGPH1A : Technical point. SWA/Namibia was never a province of South Africa. It was a distinct territory ruled by SA on a League of Nations mandate after it wa
48 Schoenorama : Of course it is related to the UN. But you and others continuosly bash the UN for its inability to act on these global crisis, when in reality its th
49 777236ER : What does this nonsense have to do with Sudan? Surely the point can be extended to indicate general world apathy, not just indecision by the UN?
50 Yyz717 : 777236ER, if you are so concerned about the Sudanese, the best thing you can do is organize a protest outside the Egyptian embassy in London (which m
51 SlamClick : I thank you for suggesting a meaningful and to the point suggestion. It is first an African problem. If responsible African nations can 'act locally'
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Won't The DVD Player Work? posted Tue Nov 8 2005 02:31:59 by Swisskloten
Why Doesn't The UN Send Troops To Sudan? posted Fri Oct 1 2004 04:11:06 by Tbar220
What It Is To Be LIBERAL. posted Tue Jan 13 2004 14:35:35 by GloBaLeXpResS
What Is The Shaft And Where Does It Go? posted Tue Dec 11 2001 03:43:01 by Mcringring
What Age Do You Think It Is To Late To Have A Kid? posted Sun Oct 8 2006 03:49:18 by 747400sp
Tuesdays Stupid Thread : What Temperature Is It? posted Tue Jun 20 2006 22:05:24 by Garri767
The Great British Holiday, What Makes It Great? posted Wed Jun 7 2006 20:40:21 by AeroWesty
I Won The AustrianLottery! Thats What Mrs.Lu Says! posted Mon Apr 3 2006 19:25:18 by Kay
Football At The Maracana Stadium: What's It Like? posted Mon Mar 27 2006 22:02:02 by Himmelstormer
Why Did The USA Invade Iraq And Was It Worth It posted Mon Mar 6 2006 23:30:34 by Highpeaklad