MaverickM11
Topic Author
Posts: 15322
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:24 am

...i.e....a genocide?
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
N5176Y
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 10:39 am

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:30 am

Who cares? It's only 700,000 dead black people... not really worth anyone's time.
 
MaverickM11
Topic Author
Posts: 15322
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:32 am

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
 
dtwclipper
Posts: 6668
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 3:17 am

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:32 am

One word.......OIL
Compare New York Air, the Airline that works for your Business
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:33 am

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.
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:33 am

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".
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:34 am

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.
 
N5176Y
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 10:39 am

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:35 am

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]
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:38 am

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.
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
MaverickM11
Topic Author
Posts: 15322
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:38 am

"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
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:44 am

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.
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:45 am

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.
 
Pe@rson
Posts: 16014
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2001 6:29 pm

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:48 am

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."
 
oly720man
Posts: 5754
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 7:13 am

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:48 am

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
 
MaverickM11
Topic Author
Posts: 15322
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:49 am

"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
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:49 am

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.
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:50 am

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
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
N5176Y
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 10:39 am

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:51 am

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.
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:53 am

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.
 
MaverickM11
Topic Author
Posts: 15322
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:59 am

"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
 
MaverickM11
Topic Author
Posts: 15322
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 am

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
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:07 am

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 ?
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 3:23 am

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]
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
mdsh00
Posts: 3968
Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 11:28 am

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 3:31 am

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 avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 3:50 am

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?
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
Russophile
Posts: 1304
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 9:22 am

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 3:58 am

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 16):
Isn´t UN involvement vetoed by Russia and China in the SC?

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 a resolution called for a ceasefire in the Six Day War.
3) They vetoed plans to send ceasefire observers to Guatemala
1) They vetoed the UN sending more peacekeepers into Macedonia -- this was because of the Macedonians recognising Taiwan as "the" China.

Russia/USSR has used it's veto power on 122 occasions. Only on 3 occasions as the Russian Federation

1) They vetoed plans to end the UNFICYP mandate in Cyprus -- this is only a technical veto, and they will approve future plans -- 2004.
2) The other two vetoes were in regards to issues I'm not entirely sure about in relation to Bosnia/Herzegovina (1994) and Cyprus (1992)

The majority of USSR veto's have been in relation to admission of new members.

Full list is here:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/membship/veto/vetosubj.htm

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 16):
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.

You mean as in the case of Namibia in which the US and UK repeatedly vetoed calls over the year for it's 'independence' from South Africa?

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 16):
Furthermore, your post is just again anti-UN and anti-European flame bait.

Furthermore, your post is just again anti-Russian and anti-Chinese flame bait.  Yeah sure
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 4:01 am

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?
Your bone's got a little machine
 
N5176Y
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 10:39 am

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 4:05 am

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 26):
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?

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 social injustice. Or so they say.
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 4:47 am

Quoting N5176Y (Reply 27):
Or so they say.

...too bad actions (or the apparently lack thereof) speak a hell of a lot louder than words  Yeah sure
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 4:47 am

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 28):
...too bad actions (or the apparently lack thereof) speak a hell of a lot louder than words

Exactly. All the post-WMD blustering of 'helping the Iraqis' come to light when Sudan is left to fester.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
MaverickM11
Topic Author
Posts: 15322
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:19 am

"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, why aren't they doing anything?
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
gkirk
Posts: 23347
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2000 3:29 am

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:31 am

I would ask why can't France send troops in, but I forgot they dont have any  Wink Embarrassment
When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
 
L.1011
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2001 7:46 am

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:01 am

But Sudan DOES have oil! Just ask oil imperialist America's CIA! http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/su.html

Natural resources: petroleum; small reserves of iron ore, copper, chromium ore, zinc, tungsten, mica, silver, gold, hydropower

Economy - overview: Sudan has turned around a struggling economy with sound economic policies and infrastructure investments, yet it still faces formidable economic problems, starting from its low level of per capita output and extending to its devastating civil stife. From 1997 to date, Sudan has been implementing IMF macroeconomic reforms. In 1999, Sudan began exporting crude oil and in the last quarter of 1999 recorded its first trade surplus, which, along with monetary policy, has stabilized the exchange rate. Increased oil production, revived light industry, and expanded export processing zones helped sustain GDP growth at 6.1% in 2003 and 7% in 2004. Agriculture production remains Sudan's most important sector, employing 80% of the work force and contributing 39% of GDP, but most farms remain rain-fed and susceptible to drought. Chronic instability - including the long-standing civil war between the Muslim north and the Christian/pagan south, the ethnic purges in Darfur, adverse weather, and weak world agricultural prices - ensure that much of the population will remain at or below the poverty line for years.

Industries: oil, cotton ginning, textiles, cement, edible oils, sugar, soap distilling, shoes, petroleum refining, pharmaceuticals, armaments, automobile/light truck assembly

Exports - commodities: oil and petroleum products; cotton, sesame, livestock, groundnuts, gum arabic, sugar

Ya'll have a nice day now. Big grin
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:03 am

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 30):
There are 190 OTHER countries in the UN, why aren't they doing anything?

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 suffering much more than the Iraqis were.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
FDXmech
Posts: 3219
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2000 9:48 pm

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:22 am

>>>....and yet the US went in alone......<<<

I'm surprised at you 777. We went in *alone*?
You're only as good as your last departure.
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:26 am

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, logistics, land, and/or technical aid directly to the effort; interfere with your USA bashing?????
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
MaverickM11
Topic Author
Posts: 15322
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:34 am

"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 countries didn't do anything about Iraq, and yet the US went in alone. Why not this time?"

Are you immune to your own hypocritical B.S.? The US was at fault for going alone in Iraq AND now it's at fault for NOT going alone in the Sudan? Do you not read what you write?

[Edited 2005-03-23 22:58:37]
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:20 am

Quoting FDXMECH (Reply 34):
I'm surprised at you 777. We went in *alone*?

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 for war.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 36):
Are you immune to your own hypocritical B.S.? The US was at fault for going alone in Iraq AND now it's at fault for NOT going alone in the Sudan? Do you not read what you write?

The hypocritical one is you, apparently. It's now claimed the US (and others  Wink) went to war in Iraq to 'help the Iraqi civilians', which despite all the talk of WMD (the subject the British Parliament voted on) would be all very well if the action created a precedent.

It hasn't - the US is in no rush to send troops into Sudan to aid the clearly suffering Sudanese. So either there's been a change of policy, or the Sudanese aren't considered as important as the Iraqis, or 'helping the Iraqis' wasn't the real reason for attacking Iraq.

As for my own personal thoughts, I think the UN and Western nations should have stopped arsing about a long time ago and sent a multi-national force into the Sudan. For what it's worth, I also think Saddam Hussein should have been removed from power the first time around.

But given you are desperate the portray the UN as irrelevant, the US's hypocricy comes much more into focus?
Your bone's got a little machine
 
MaverickM11
Topic Author
Posts: 15322
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:31 am

"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 for war."

And now it's the US fault for following the UN rules. You are such an unbelievable hypocrite.


"The hypocritical one is you, apparently. It's now claimed the US (and others ) went to war in Iraq to 'help the Iraqi civilians', which despite all the talk of WMD (the subject the British Parliament voted on) would be all very well if the action created a precedent. "

See above. I've not claimed anything re: Iraq, nor have I mentioned Iraq at any point, nor is it relevant to the Sudan. You're the one bringing up the Iraq solely to fulfill your daily quota of US bashing, Monsieur Churchill.

*The US has declared Darfur genocide

*The UN has NOT declared Darfur a genocide. This means that one or more of the other 190 countries in the UN don't feel massacring Sudanese is genocide. What gives? I know to you that means it's the US fault because if brown people are dying then it can't be anyone's fault other than the US.

"But given you are desperate the portray the UN as irrelevant,"

Portraying the UN as irrelevant is like trying to portray a gynecologist in a male penal colony as irrelevant...it's not tough. And after millions of dead in Africa thanks to UN inaction, does anybody actually think the UN IS relevant?

[Edited 2005-03-24 00:38:30]
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:34 am

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 37):
It's now claimed the US (and others ) went to war in Iraq to 'help the Iraqi civilians',

...claimed by whom, of any official relevance, exactly?

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 37):
the US is in no rush to send troops into Sudan to aid the clearly suffering Sudanese

...and neither is anyone else, particularly the nations who pretend that they actually give a damn about the poor/suffering

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 37):
you are desperate the portray the UN as irrelevant

the UN needs no assistance from him whatsoever to perpetuate that perception.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:40 am

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 38):
*The US has declared Darfur genocide

*The UN has NOT delcared Darfur a genocide. This means that one or more of the other 190 countries in the UN don't feel massacreing Sudanese is genocide. What gives? I know to you that means it's the US fault but it's actually not; the US has done it's part and followed all of your dearly held UN rules in this case.

And I declare I have a huge penis. Declarations don't save lives, whether they're true, false or politically motivated.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 38):
Iraq is irrelevant

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. You have to see that, whatever the UN has or hasn't done, US claims of a humanitarian reason to the Iraq war are immediately shown to be false when they don't respond militarily to a genocide.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 38):
And after millions of dead in Africa thanks to UN inaction, does anybody actually think the UN IS relevant?

The UN's not irrelevant, but it's certainly ineffective. Then again, the UN is only as effective and decisive as its member states. When the UN works, it works well. When the UN fails, member states are free to go against it, or to take the decisive action they feel necessary. The US going against the UN wasn't a big deal, but the US going against the vast swathe of popular opinion around the world was.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
MaverickM11
Topic Author
Posts: 15322
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:46 am

"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 connection between Iraq and the sundry disasters in the Sudan? The Congo? Rwanda? Liberia? Ivory Coast? Would these have not happened had Iraq not happened?

"US claims of a humanitarian reason to the Iraq war are immediately shown to be false when they don't respond militarily to a genocide"

That's not why the US claimed to go into Iraq at any point, before or during the war, until well after the fact. We went into Iraq for more or less the same reasons Clinton lobbed bombs into Khartoum--because the US felt Iraq was a threat. Humanitarian effects were ancillary until after the fact and in retrospect.

Regardless, the Iraq situation has nothing to do with the Sudan. The question here is why is the UN not calling a spade a spade. Why is killing thousands of Sudanese anything but a genocide?
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:53 am

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 41):
Regardless, the Iraq situation has nothing to do with the Sudan.

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 genocide to somehow spite the US, I think it genuinely believes actions of 'genoicidal intent' are only being carried out by individuals, not under a mandate from the government.

However, the UN has pointed to, "killing of civilians, enforced disappearances, destruction of villages, rape and other forms of sexual violence, pillaging and forced displacement, throughout Darfur", which amounts to pretty much the same thing.

The ironic thing is, nations that agree with the US want to set up the ICC to deal with those responsible - something the US is vehemently against. Words are just words. The US is no more 'right' than the UN because it uses the word 'genocide' - both are being pretty complacent with what's going on.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:54 am

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 39):
...and neither is anyone else, particularly the nations who pretend that they actually give a damn about the poor/suffering

Well then surely the problem isn't a problem with the UN, but rather a general worldwide apathy?
Your bone's got a little machine
 
Schoenorama
Posts: 2305
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 5:15 am

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 9:35 am

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 30):
There are 190 OTHER countries in the UN, why aren't they doing anything?

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. The United Nations as such do not make decisions on such matters such as Darfur. For that, we have the UN Security Council. It's this Security Council which decides if, when and what should be done about Darfur, or any other global conflict. If no decision is taken, blame the Security Council Members.

And as things are right now, it seems that the US at the Security Council is blocking a draft proposed by France which would approve sending 10,000 UN peace-keepers simply because the Bush Administration opposses alleged war-criminals from the region to be send to the International Criminal Court in The Hague, as most Member Nations want, and would actually prefer to send them to a yet to be established special court in Tanzania. This is despite the fact that France's proposed resolution excludes non-ICC member nations (such as the US) from having their citizens eventually judged by the ICC.

Tomorrow (thursday) the Security Council will take a vote on this. Since US's own separate draft resolutions have not gained support from the majority of the Security Council, the US can either simply abstain from voting or veto. If the latter happens, it would be just another perfect example of how the UN Security Council is used by most of the permanent members for national interest rather than to solve international crisis.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/138993/1/.html & http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...tml?type=worldNews&storyID=7988494
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 9:41 am

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 43):
Well then surely the problem isn't a problem with the UN, but rather a general worldwide apathy?

...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 abject poverty will always exist, and attempting to eradicate it wholesale is more futile than cursing the tides.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
MaverickM11
Topic Author
Posts: 15322
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 12:57 pm

"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. "

Is the UN security council completely unrelated to the UN? I think not.

" If no decision is taken, blame the Security Council Members."

OK. The point remains.
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:46 pm

Quoting Russophile (Reply 22):
You mean as in the case of Namibia in which the US and UK repeatedly vetoed calls over the year for it's 'independence' from South Africa?

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 was taken from Germany in WW1. The mandate held (de facto if not de iure) after the UN took over from the League of Nations, but was subsequently challenged by the UN when SA introduced apartheid in Namibia as well.
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
Schoenorama
Posts: 2305
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 5:15 am

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 10:40 pm

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 42):
Is the UN security council completely unrelated to the UN? I think not.

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 the inability or rather unwillingness of individual Member Nations at the Security Council which prevents the United Nations Security Council from adopting resolutions and, thus, the UN itself in being usefull.

The latest developments at the Security Council as described in my post # 40 are a perfect example of how UN Security Council Member Nations, specially those with a Permanent Seat and thus a Veto, use global conflicts just as the one happening right now in Darfur, to push forward their own political (and mostly national) agendas.

Because of the Bush Administration's strong opposition to anything even remotely related to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, a significant step forward in solving the Darfur crisis and preventing further slaugther can be stalled today if the US decides to veto a resolution backed by a majority of UN Security Council Members.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 42):
OK. The point remains.

The answer to that is that the United Nations, contrary to what many seem to believe, cannot take arbitrary decisions on these matters all by 'itself'. That's up to the members of the Security Council. Putting a 10,000 force peace-keeping mission in Darfur, even when this force is entirely non-US, still requires a US vote on a UN Security Council resolution. Unfortunately, on many occassions, its items completely unrelated to the crisis at hand which prevents the Security Council, and thus the UN, from taking swift action and prevening further slaughter.
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Why Won't The UN Call Darfur What It Is?

Thu Mar 24, 2005 10:55 pm

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 41):
Many would label "the problem" as the refusal of some to accept the fact that abject poverty will always exist, and attempting to eradicate it wholesale is more futile than cursing the tides.

What does this nonsense have to do with Sudan?

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 42):
OK. The point remains.

Surely the point can be extended to indicate general world apathy, not just indecision by the UN?
Your bone's got a little machine

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests