quote:The State Department said Powell will visit the capital, Khartoum, on Tuesday as well as the western region of Darfur, where U.S. officials accuse Khartoum-supported militias of "ethnic cleansing" against black Africans.
At least this time, we are smart enough not to bring the word genocide into it. Then we might have to do something.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Even after the reality of genocide in Rwanda had become irrefutable, when bodies were shown choking the Kagera River on the nightly news, the brute fact of the slaughter failed to influence U.S. policy except in a negative way. American officials, for a variety of reasons, shunned the use of what became known as "the g-word." They felt that using it would have obliged the United States to act, under the terms of the 1948 Genocide Convention. They also believed, understandably, that it would harm U.S. credibility to name the crime and then do nothing to stop it. A discussion paper on Rwanda, prepared by an official in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and dated May 1, testifies to the nature of official thinking. Regarding issues that might be brought up at the next interagency working group, it stated,
1. Genocide Investigation: Language that calls for an international investigation of human rights abuses and possible violations of the genocide convention. Be Careful. Legal at State was worried about this yesterday—Genocide finding could commit [the U.S. government] to actually "do something." [Emphasis added.]
posted
Yeah. Apparently, I've been slacking lately. I usually rant about this about 4 times a year. You've been here 9 months and don't know this about me? And this wasn't even a decnet rant. It's rather short and unimpassioned.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seriously? We're too busy to be bothered? It's a good thing we're in Iraq for the right reasons, then.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or make Iraq an UN mission like it was supposed to be. At least something to show that we sorta have our priorities straight. Satyagraha
Posts: 1986 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see the Iraq situation as a United States thing, and not a U.N. thing. Saddam was constantly making threats and then saying the U.S. got what it was supposed to on 9/11, and offered those involved (family members specifically) money. For me Iraq declaired war on the U.S. when they threatened and attacked U.S. and British airplanes in the 1990s during a "treaty." The only difference between the bombings of Clinton and the war of Bush, is that Bush didn't limit the war to a few useless pin-strikes.
Of course, I don't believe in the U.N. mandate anyway, so there shouldn't be anything they do collectively. Governments should make treaties, partnerships, and decisions among themselves and not by the bully pit of World Government hand raising. We should be able to trust who we want to trust, and not told who to trust like some high school popularity contest. Luckily the U.N. "or else" policy is mostly dormant and harmless, making the U.S. the only power that everybody wants to do things -- while stabbing them in the back.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Africa is the UN's red-headed stepchild. They haven't done much concrete there in years beyond some basic "peacekeeping" posts.
And Kofi Annan? I think we've found a UN chief that really and truly prefers to walk through life and his duties oblivious to what is happening in his old backyard.
You could use Dag Hammerskjold as an electrical generation turbine right now since he's spinning so fast in his grave.
But this is definitely not the place for the US to go in and lead the way on the ground. Of course, it should be where the US goes before the UN and leads the way to get that organization to do something.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait, aren't all the conservatives concerned about "the people?" What they really need is a regime change to end the tyranny. Is it an oil problem? Why are the people in Iraq so deserving of our attention when Africa, and actual genocide, isn't?
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as this conservative is concerned what was happening in Iraq was genocide and what is happening in Sudan is genocide. Unfortunately, the UN was unwilling to act in the former's case so the US had to act on its own. This time maybe the UN will act but if not the US should do what it can in Sudan and it can't be a Clinton-like effort like what we saw in Somalia with no heavy armor or war planes and a strategy all too similar to Vietnam's. Unfortunately, we are overextending ourselves so what we can do in Sudan by ourselves is limited but nations like France, Russia, and China all have tons of relatively unused manpower that they could levy against the current situation. If their support does not come then the US needs to rally with as many of Sudan's neighbors as possible to put together a capable invasion force with occupation duties going almost entirely to what would be our allies in this hypothetical conflict. The only good news I can think of is that almost our entire air force and navy would be able to contribute as they are hardly needed at all in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stunning. We can mount a world war, but we can't manage to stage a war in two third world countries?
I haven't noticed change in my life since the start of the escapades in Iraq. There's been nothing like what happened during WWII going on. No rationing, no war effort, no nothing. I think the US could reach down and find some resources.
The American people just don't care. The President got them worked up to the point they thought they did care about Iraq, but he could do the same in Africa if he wanted. But, as you'll notice, Africa isn't in the New World Order strategy, er, I mean, the New American Century.
Seriously, you are saying, as a defense to be bystanders to genocide again that we can't muster the resources? I never again want to hear 'never again" in reference to genocide then.
For anyone who is Jewish that is reading this, how does this make you feel?
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
nfl, I think it would be more accurate to say the UN didn't move fast enough for the US government's timetable for Iraq.
If we had swallowed some pride and let some other groups have more control of the operations in Iraq (as well as secure the debt owed to "Old Europe" by Iraq, however shameful to "Old Europe" that is), I think the UN would have been with us.
It would have taken a lot longer time, sure. I think it would have been better for all involved in the long term though.
posted
Kayla, that doesn't wash considering the principle opposition to the Iraq war was that the UN should take the lead. Going in with insufficient resources might be worse than going in at all. Are we the only people in the world who can do something about this?
posted
It's definitly true that we don't care. However, invading and trying to stabalize an African country is much different than WWII.
On the front end, we were attacked back then. American responds to threats and hungers for revenge. Like it or not, we are not international Boy Scouts, running around the global neighborhood looking for people to assist.
The Western world has a horrible record when it comes to Africa, from European colonial messes to American ignorance. We can't even support a country, such as Liberia, when it asks for help and intervention. BTW, I was in favor of Liberian aid. When both the government and the rebel factions ask you to bring in some military, how can you turn them down ?
What finally decides it for Americans in the end is this : these countries have nothing. Now, I'm not just talking about oil, diamonds, etc... I'm talking little to no history of stable government, little to no infrustructure, etc. Americans have grown selfish. Why should we spend billions building roads, schools, etc in [insert 3rd world country] when we could spend that money on those same projects here. We have little/no intellegence resources in these countries. We have little/no military manpower left to secure these countries. Unless our government can convince us that the Sudan (or whatever African nation is most destitude this year) is the next terrorist training ground and that they're coming to get us soon, we're not going.
Posts: 349 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The cat's out of the bag, we're not going because we don't have money. Yup...money is more important than people, it's official.</rant>
My thoughts on the humanitarian aspects aside (as covered by the rant above, which everybody can -and will- ignore), if managed correctly, sending more aid elsewhere may just be the stimulas that the US economy needs, after all, sending people requires resources, which is something we are in abundance of, what we DON'T have is a way to use those resources, thusly we kick up production in our factories to make goods that can be used to help those third world countries, eh? eh? People need water? Build mobile water purification systems, our economy is moving, people have jobs, africa benifits, higher standard of living means less people revolting (because in general happy comfortable people don't fashion civil wars and commit genocide because "those damn [insert racial slur here]" aren't the reason for our poverty. What more? People will think better of America because we're not the bad guys, we're the ones that made their life better! Who knows, they might even say thank you by way of some sort of monitary reembursment once their economy is on it's feet, or produce a couple scientists. Mind you a plan like this wouldn't work in weeks or months, it'd take years, decades. But no, that's just a liberal talking, I should be more realistic, ignore the long term future, the world changes too much and people can't be trusted, ya better to listen to the realists and stay with what we know and what we have, it's a chaotic world out there and my own brother can't be trusted. I'll just look after my own chicken coup, let them mind theirs.
posted
It's not the money. It's the size of the military and the fact it's extended pretty far right now.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Kayla, that doesn't wash considering the principle opposition to the Iraq war was that the UN should take the lead.
Dag, that wouldn't wash from my side of the political spectrum, but the conservatives were all for going it alone.
And the tired "we aren't the world's police" and "we can't/don't want to/don't have the resources" and such are hooey. Have you given a nickle to the war effort? Have you rationed anything? Has anyone been drafted? Have you been affected at all?
No? Then I think we could manage to come up with the resources.
quote: "I don't like genocide," Bush said in January of 2000. "But I would not commit our troops." Officials in the Bush Administration say the United States is as unprepared and unwilling to stop genocide today as it was seven years ago. "Genocide could happen again tomorrow," one said, "and we wouldn't respond any differently."
What happened to stopping evil-doers? What about "Operation Sudanese Freedom?" What about a Sudan Humanitarian Mission?
The UN is spending a million dollars a day in relief efforts, though it would seem they mostly are getting people killed. They let the government know where their planes will be, people hear about it and show up for it and then get bombed by the Janjaweed militia, then the UN says it's too dangerous to bring in aid. I think they are doing more than enough as it is.
quote: "A year ago, I did give the speech from the carrier saying that we had achieved an important objective, that we had accomplished a mission, which was the removal of Saddam Hussein," Bush said.
"And as a result, there are no longer torture chambers or rape rooms or mass graves in Iraq. As a result, a friend of terror has been removed and now sits in a jail.
George Bush
Why not in Sudan?
quote: "On balance, I think things are going well," said Rep. Vito Fossella, R-New York, told CNN's "Crossfire" Wednesday. "We've liberated a country; 25 million or so Iraqis now can look forward to democracy and freedoms that we currently enjoy."
Why Iraq and not Sudan?
The House passed a resolution "condemning the Government of the Republic of the Sudan for its participation and complicity in the attacks against innocent civilians in the impoverished Darfur region of western Sudan." And the Senate passed a resolution that "deplores the inaction of some member states of the United Nations and the failure of the United Nations Human Rights Commission to take strong action with respect to the crisis in Darfur," and calls on the President "to ensure that the individuals responsible for crimes against humanity in Darfur are accountable for their actions."
quote: "China and France both have oil investments in Sudan and do not wish to alienate the government; Russia and some non-permanent members of the Security Council such as Pakistan view a [robust UN] resolution as an infringement of sovereignty. In ordinary times, the United States might be able to prod these countries in the right direction. But the Bush administration is devoting its very limited diplomatic capital to Iraq, and there is little left for Darfur. That is why the UN resolution may take weeks." (Washington Post, June 20, 2004)
30,000 are dead, 1,000,000 displaced and even with additional aid, at least 300,000 more are expected to die. And those are the low estimates. Up to 2,200,000 are displaced, 400,000 will starve to death and on top of that, no one can ever hazzard a guess as to how many will be killed out right.
The UN seems incapable of doing anything. Someone has to do something. What better way for the US to prove the UN is "irrelevant?" I'm afraid the US doesn't really want the UN to be irrelevant. Because then we actually would have to step up to the plate. And the US wants to have the UN around to blame all the bad stuff on. Or to say that it is their responsibility and not ours. We're too busy. We don't have the resources. We can't do more than we are doing. Bull.
quote: It's the size of the military and the fact it's extended pretty far right now.
We have nearly 1.2 million people in the military. And what, 130,00 in Iraq? That's a little over 10%. Are you seriously suggesting that we can't do more?
Ooh, cool beans. When you put Bush and Genocide into the google search engine, OSC's column is number 11!
He was discussing A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide and said:
quote: There are few good guys in this sad, sad book. But when you're done with it, you'll be grimly determined that from now on, America must become the good guy when it comes to genocide, or we don't deserve our current place of dominance in the world.
You don't have to be the "policeman of the world" to know that you can't stand idly by while whole populations are systematically murdered. And yet that is precisely what our policy has been ... to our shame.
While looking for information, I ran across this wonderful quote and it seems fitting, considering the posts so far.
quote: Goulty (UK special Sudan envoy) has callously declared: "[Humanitarian intervention in Darfur] would be very expensive, fraught with difficulties and hard to set up in a hurry" (The Telegraph [UK], May 31, 2004)---as if the difficulty of intervention trumped the moral obligations to prevent genocide.
Do the difficulties trump the moral obligations?
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry this took so long and I didn't respond more today. My husband had his gall bladder out so I've been kinda busy.
Oh, and all y'all knew this whole thing is going on because of 20 billion worth of oil they found in the Sudan, right? China, France, etc. have oil deals with the Sudan. The government needs those people off the land so they can get the oil. That's why they are being displaced. Well, that and it would seem they are the wrong kind of Muslim.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Realistically, yes money is more important to most Americans. Kayla mentioned the rationing of WWII. Create a national poll and ask which is more preferable: High gas prices or stablizing foreign countries. If you told people a new tax was added (say $1/gallon) to help provide food to starving countries/prevent genocide, I believe people vote against that tax.
Also as I said in my rant and as Dag said, we don't have the military resources left to occupy/stablize/rebuild another country. How many people here would volunteer for that ?
If we really wanted to help dirt poor African countries, we would eliminate our farming subsidies. They would be able to create an economy that may have a useful export or two. Roll half a billion dollars from our subsidy savings into the Peace Corps and allow them to supervise and teach the locals.
International humanitarianism is a wonderful and noble thing. Most Americans are not interested in it Posts: 349 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We are only using 10% of our military in Iraq and you don't think we could do anything in the Sudan? Maybe we should move some of the 900,000 in this country over there. Or some of the 30,000 "transients" or the 120,000 "floaters."
Heck Germany alone has nearly 75,000 of our troops. Are they still there for strategic purposes now that the cold war has ended?
We can do more. If we can't, we need to stop saying "Never again."
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
For it being 10% armed forces in Iraq, it seems like we had trouble even getting and keeping that many there; plentyful (too many) National Guard deployments, retirement and discharge deferments, tour of duty extensions.
As for never saying "Never Again!", well, I'm all for that. We're already huge hypocrits WRT international treaties. Broken treaties and empty promises have become our foreign policy and frankly that's terrible. I'd rather have us sit down and shut up as opposed to talking big and doing little.
Sorry to hear about your husband. Hope he recoups soon Posts: 349 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The National Guard is not the US Army. It is not supposed to have prolonged overseas deployments. It's made up of "weekend warriors", people that are trained one weekend a month. They are meant to help in national times of crisis: floods, hurricanes, etc. They are not reliable, long-term peace keepers.
Posts: 349 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again as a Jew I support as much intervention as possible into any conflict involving genocide. We should have entered the Second World War before Pearl Harbor, we should have intervened in Rwanda and stayed strong in Somalia, but we haven't because despite the past sixty years the American people refuse to involve themselves in another Vietnam and therefore will only commit volunteer troops. I think a draft is worth preventing genocide but the vast majority of Americans do not appear to be willing to make that committment.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What have you done, other than write a pesky and meaningless thread on a mostly unknown Forum? Don't ask people to do what you won't do yourself.
On the other hand, I would like to go in and kick some Sudanese Butt. However, as was mentioned there are two things that make that impossible. The first is that there is a very small military that is spread out in a vast world. Those hefty numbers you gave, as someone mentioned, is not the real military. Two, assuming what you say is true about the oil things, just imagine the headlines. "America Uses Suspected Genecide to Take Over More Oil"
World War II worked out just fine (relatively speaking) without a United Nations. Even if there was one, I believe what happened would still have happened. By the way, the fact that the U.N. isn't doing anything with this should already prove it is "insignificant" when dealing with real problems. The U.S. doing or not doing anything has nothing to do with showing this. After all, where is the French, the Russians, the Germans, and etc.? Oh yea, they have oil contracts -- just like in Iraq.
I would like to know that ONE thing the U.N. ever did other than spout rhetoric and raise hands. If you mention the first Iraq war, I count that as a failure. Sure we got them out, but we should have got them gone.
posted
I somewhat agree and disagree with both Dagonee and Kayla. We aren't going to do anything because to get involved in a war-torn, third world, (let's be honest) black country is not something the American public would support unless it could be shown to 'them' that it was vital to their life in some way. Same reason we didn't get involved in Rwanda. So, even if we didn't have Iraq and Afghanistan taking up our military resources--which we do--we wouldn't do it. I do agree with Kayla that we should, though. I also believe the rest of the world can send troops as well as we can.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, we could go in and put an end to the genocide in Sudan. And then we could watch the Michael Moore movie about it!
If we went into Sudan there would be another howl from the left and more protest marches in the street.
If we're going to hit another country it needs to be Iran, Syria or N. Korea. Those countries are threats to our national security. Sudan isn't. (Yet)
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
(*just back from the bars so if my posts aren't coherent, bear with me*)
Just to be fair, GDP and population-wise, I think the French are doing OK. Pretty sure they're heavily invested in the Congo (or one of their other former colonies), in addition to Kosovo...and possibly Haiti ? Either way, I like seeing countries clean up the messes they left before committing towards new projects. Any French posters to confirm this ?
Posts: 349 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The UN is presently treating the Sudan crisis as a Humanitarian Crisis, and they have a general interest in Africa but I can find nothing on the UN's physical interest in intervening what's going on in Sudan.
If there's anything that needs intervention by the UN it's Sudan, but I can't find anything on it other than on the humanitarian pages.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The first is that there is a very small military that is spread out in a vast world. Those hefty numbers you gave, as someone mentioned, is not the real military.
What is "the real military? According to the DoD, we have 1.4 million active troops around the world. The way I figure it, that would account for the 1.2 million of full time military troops and about 200,000 reserve troops/National Guard that have been called up. However, the DoD says that we have nearly 1.2 million troops in the US and US territories alone.
quote:The Western world has a horrible record when it comes to Africa, from European colonial messes to American ignorance. We can't even support a country, such as Liberia, when it asks for help and intervention. BTW, I was in favor of Liberian aid. When both the government and the rebel factions ask you to bring in some military, how can you turn them down ?
I'd just like to point out that the US *did* in fact send troops to Liberia, then allowed a joint UN/African Union force to take over the mission. I believe that disarmament and re-integration of the rebel factions is, after some fits and starts, beginning to progress.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kayla, find the percentage of those soldiers in American territory that are basically holding civilian jobs in a military uniform and you'll understand why those numbers are less impressive than they sound. Furthermore, its strategically stupid to deploy all of your armed forces so that there are none left to either deploy some place new that springs up suddenly or to simply defend your own ground. As unlikely as it may be, it is plausible in the unpredictable world we live in that, for example China, could suddenly have coup that puts into power a madman willing to go on a Hitler-like rampage.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"that is the way I figure it" is the problem. The question is how it is actually figured. I don't know the answer to that.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
nfl, isn't that what's happening in Sudan? Why keep the troops around for "in case" when you won't use them when "in case" comes up? Or are you saying that Sudan isn't a big enough problem to risk not being prepared if some other madman comes to power? Do we need a million soldiers in civilian jobs? It seems to me that we need more actual soldiers. Aren't all soldiers sent to boot camp? Aren't they all trained for combat? Isn't that the point of training them?
Occasional, what are the troop figures? I gave you the link from the DoD. Do you have better estimates?
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Canadian company Talisman Energy is still operating in the Sudan. Talisman Energy has also purchased Araxis' share in GNPOC. Current players in Sudan include GNPOC, Lundin Oil (IPC Sudan Ltd), Petronas, Sudapet, Gulf Petroleum Corporation (GPC), China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), National Iranian Gas Company, OMV, Royal Dutch / Shell, and Talisman Energy. TotalFinaElf are reportedly looking to return to their concession
quote:Although Sudan has been producer of oil and gas for a number of years, it is considered to be vastly under-explored.
because of
quote:Internal political unrest caused many companies to withdraw from Sudan and the deterioration in security conditions on the oil fields caused the oil companies to suspend all operations in 1984.
which was essentially caused by the muslimNorth collecting virtually all of the oil revenues, while the supermajority of the known reserves are located in the animist/christianSouth. Since
quote:The country's [known] oil reserves are estimated at between 600 million and 1.2 billion barrels with recoverable reserves estimated at greater than 800 million barrels. The country is also rich in natural gas with reserves estimated at 3 trillion cubic feet.
there had always been large potential profits to be had through armament sales to both the Northern government and the Southern (pre)rebellion.
When Southern politicians and political activists began demanding a more equitable share of the oil proceeds, the wealthy of the North saw no need: they had the guns and the soldiers, and control of the only source of income to buy plenty more. By their own cost-to-benefit analysis, the Northern wealthy assumed that it would be cheaper to suppress protestors than to compromise, and began a crackdown on the Southern political opposition. Which led to a Southern rebellion, and Southern sabotage and attacks on the oil fields and pipelines.
Which in turn led to bribes from oil companies to leave their property&personnel alone. Along with funding from other corporations and nations -- including those cut out of the oil deals made by the North -- enticed by possible new deals with the South, the Southern rebellion gained ever-increasing strength in the ability to purchase arms through the blackmarket.
With the scaling back of development by multinational corporations, the North lost useful control of the South resources. And thus as their wealth, and more importantly their credit, was bled by the war, the North finally decide thar the cost of continuing the war was greater than the cost of compromise.
quote:Since the early 1990's however, foreign oil companies began to return. In December 1996 the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company (GNPOC) was formed comprising the China National Petroleum Corporation, Petronas, Sudapet and Araxis which provided a much needed injection of capital, especially into developing the Unity and Heglig fields.
And due to the geopolitics of oil
quote:In November 1997 the United States imposed sanctions against Sudan on the basis that profits from oil were being used to fuel the civil war. The pressure of sanctions...
and the fact that the fighting and destruction was taking place in the South, the Southern politicians also had good cause to compromise: promising a share of future oil profits to the North in exchange for autonomy and possible future independence.
Unfortunately -- like other nations in which wealth was gained from exploitation of natural resources by outsiders rather than the work of the nation's citizens: eg SaudiArabia,Kuwait, et al -- there developed a large class of people who are untrained to do any work, and generally look down upon those who do. Unlike in the Arabian peninsula where the unproductive are given degrees in IslamicStudies and subsidized, the only skill in which many of the Northern upper caste civilians are trained is banditry through warfare. And with the end of the Southern war, the Northern upper caste turned its banditry on its own lower caste.
BTW -- The "Arab Muslims" versus the "Black Muslims" is misleading. The Northern caste lines aren't delineated that strictly by race. At its simplest, it is an upper caste "herders" versus lower caste "farmers" split, though the actual herders and farmers are ancestral. Essentially, "Arab" means herder ancestry, and "Black" means farmer ancestry: there are black "Arab Muslims" and arab "Black Muslims".
posted
Boot camp doesn't prepare you for combat, its only the very first step of training before a soldier is actually ready for combat. At best all those soldiers with civilian jobs could serve as weak infantry which is tactically useless in Sudan which would be a battlefield dominated by tanks. Besides, those soldiers do perform valuable services, whether they be involved in some form of research, they're lawyers, doctors, or they're even part of the training cycle.
As it is now most of our armor is deployed in Iraq, our special forces are in Afghanistan, and all we have left our soldiers deployed on bases and a good deal of airforce and navy. None of what we do have is capable of actually carrying out signifcant operations. We might be able perform another Kosovo but even there we ran out of cruise missiles in a hurry and we've already spend a good supply on Afghanistan and Iraq. I think our tactical situation may be even worse than that but since I don't work in the Pentagon I can only guess.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the subject of the race card, the military was criticized for targeting "black brothers" in both phases of the gulf war. If we actually targetted an African country, there would really be outrage. Even though genocide is generally about religion, our own action would be seen as genocide by own own color-blinded populace.
But Kayla, I'm glad to know you are now arguing that the war in Iraq is a good thing that should be duplicated elsewhere. I don't happen to agree because I feel our obligation to oust Saddam Hussein was based on us having put him in power to begin with.
Irony aside, it is sad that the state department wants to wriggle out of helping on this. They did something similar when Jews were trying to get out of Europe before WWII.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
pooka, surely you aren't referring to my comment about being in Iraq for the right reasons, are you?
nfl,
quote: Making the first visit to Sudan by such a senior U.S. official in more than two decades, Powell declined to specify what threats he would make when he meets Sudanese leaders later on Tuesday if they reject his demands.
But he warned that the United States is working on a U.N. resolution about Darfur which could lead to international sanctions against Africa's largest country.
While it's better than nothing, surely we can do more than threaten sanctions. Why are we threatening at all? Why not just do it? Why do you give a country like this more time? I just find the fact that a million people could die this year while we do nothing (next to nothing, now) sickening.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd guess it has something to do with international law and the UN's requirements. Just waltz in and attack and there will be objections no matter what the offense is. Anyone know more about this?
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mabus, I wasn't talking about waltzing in anywhere. Powell said if they didn't stop, we'd go to the UN to introduce some meaningless sanction. Why wait? Go, introduce it.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which is a problem. Rwanda only took 100 days. Also, in Kosovo, our State Department released figures that estimated 6,000 were killed, though the UN puts the figure closer to 10,000. So far in Sudan, 30,000 are dead and somewhere between 300,000 and a million are expected to die by the end of the year.
There have been changes in international attitude in the last couple of years. The ICISS issued a report The Responsibility To Protect which argued the "right to intervene" and said it was a "responsibility to protect."
It seems to me that ethnic cleansing isn't uncommon anymore. The US needs to take a hard look at it's policy toward genocide and come up with some a plan. When do we intervene? How quickly can we intervene? How will we intervene? Do we need to go to the UN? Do we need to spend a 100 days trying to build international support? Do we even have the capability of intervening in less than 100 days? How many people need to be killed/on the brink of death before we care enough to do something about it?
Just my opinion. However, if we want to remain the "only superpower" we ought to act like we know what the hell we are doing.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ethnic cleansing has always been common. Long before the Holocaust there were pogroms constantly throughout Europe, in fact Jews were essentially chased away throughout the world in what has become known as the Diaspora. Of course the Jews have not been the only victims. The Trail of Tears was the prominent example in American history. During the World War I era the Turks massacred millions of Armenians. These of course are only the ones that I'm aware of, I'm sure there are more examples that have been ignored by history.
The American people as a whole have never been willing to stick their necks out for someone else. We had to be attacked or at least threatened before we entered either of the World Wars. Attempts to protect allies from invasion in Korea and Vietnam were met with harsh resistance from the American public. No one wanted to get involved in Bosnia. No one was willing to finish off Saddam after the first Gulf War. we didn't even invade Yugoslavia during the Kosovo crisis. Clinton just sat back and prayed that Milosevic would give up before he ran out of bombs to drop on Belgrade. I agree the American government needs to come up with a plan to deal with instances of genocide/ethnic cleansing, I just don't realistically see that happening considering the attitude of the American people.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
