Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Discuss.

Discuss what? History? Current Events? Culture?

Uh... ya know the genocides happening/happened there. (sorry!) Current Events.

Last I heard is that the Sudan government had declared that the rebellion was defeated. But of course rebels claim they still control the villages. And currently there is a treaty or something that will finally put an end to the civil war.

i think the Rwanda genocide could have stooped if the west came in.

Anybody know the real reason why the U.S didn't stop the genocide?
It may be because Rwanda didn't hold any valuable resource to them.

that is really sad what's happening there. and great pity ppl can't get into any conclusions by disuccussion

(even that fight which happened in the parliament recently )

The UN didn't inform the rest of world of the Rwanda situation. Including the US. They said there were incidents but not exactly a genocide. The UN is at fault. Not to mention this happened after Syria/Bosnia. The US didn't want to get involved to save the world's ass again.

so the US prefered to save his own buissness instead and get some oil?

What oil? There is no oil in Rwanda. What is it with the oil argument?

The military applications were extremely shaky. How the hell can a soldier tell a Hu from a Tu? They're both black. They're both African. Who do you save? Who do you shoot? The situation was very complicated.

there is oil in iraque. so the mighty mr bush decided to take care of iraque's oil. instead of ppl dying in north korea, or afrika, and he said it is for goodness of the worl.


you shoot no one, you separate them for some time, and explain not not fight and help him to get to some conclusion. in peace.

The oil belongs to Russia and China. Not to the US. We are not gonna step on their toes just so we can get oil. WWIII.

North Korea is far too volatile. They have a madman at the wheel. With exceptional technology, armory and nuclear weapons.

Africa is Africa's problem. Nobody in the surrounding countries pitches in. Why should we?

I think Rwanda happened under Kofi Annan's watch so that makes him partly responsible. Saw a documentary saying that he tends to go soft on the US compared to Boutrous Ghali that's why there was concern in the UN when Annan became UN General. It's basic economic instinct to amass, and when there's nothing to gain the US will typically back off. So, the US shouldn't be a hypocrite by claiming it's the world's "police" if it's going to be selective on who to help.

Originally posted by Clovie


you shoot no one, you separate them for some time, and explain not not fight and help him to get to some conclusion. in peace.

Explain? To thousands of men and boys with machetes, machine guns, and artillery? To the people who raped, murdered, and tortured close to 500,000 children in a week?

Talking isn't going to do anything.

Night y'all

you know that what US is doing makes no sense.
they're going into some countries inside stuff (coz of some fake reasons) and at same time telling that they don't wanna mess with inside buisnesses of other countries.. (where they actually might be able to stop the genocide)

and i still think that killing everyone is not a solution. they have to be stopped not killed.

Fake reasons? What reasons? We invade Iraq and Afghanistan. Both which were successful.

Killing everyone was what the US wanted to avoid. We couldn't differ the enemy from the ally. Anybody could have said they were a Tu rather than a Hu. There was no differiantion. It would be a miltary disaster. In previous wars, we could tell who was the enemy and who was not. Not so with Rwanda.

erm..you're in US army of something?

No. I'm a college student. No way am I getting my ass blown to bits in some godforsaken desert.

coz you're talking like some minister of propaganda.

The defeat in Somalia made Americans wary of getting involved in
Africa, affairs.

For better or worse, many Americans probably just thought that
if the US sent troops there, they'd get killed as well. It's certainly
what some in the Clinton administration thought.

Good Lord, enough US bashing. I agree that if Rwanda had oil the US would have been there in a heartbeat but the US is not the ONLY country in the west nor is it the only one with the means to help other countries.

first off...if the world is so concerned of the events in sudan/darfour then why doesnt the world step in and do something and stop having a go at other nations for not doing anything

second of all...look what happened to the americans the last time they tried to intervene in the slaughter of people in an african country...somalia anyone?

what oil are you refering to?

Originally posted by jaden101
first off...if the world is so concerned of the events in sudan/darfour then why doesnt the world step in and do something and stop having a go at other nations for not doing anything

second of all...look what happened to the americans the last time they tried to intervene in the slaughter of people in an african country...somalia anyone?

Originally posted by jaden101
first off...if the world is so concerned of the events in sudan/darfour then why doesnt the world step in and do something and stop having a go at other nations for not doing anything

second of all...look what happened to the americans the last time they tried to intervene in the slaughter of people in an african country...somalia anyone?

great points.

Why is it America's responsiblity to go handle what's going on in Africa?

Where's the rest of the world? where's this alleged coalition of the willing? Sitting at home blaming the US for their inadequacies


Oh wait...they aren't getting involved for the exact same reasons that the United States aren't getting involved.....because no one is willing to dump billions of dollars to help solve a crisis in a country that has absolutely nothing to offer in return.

*mumbles* just listen to all the crap bush says..that america is taking care of everyone...and so on..
and .......whatever.*leaves*

you're right though Clovie. Bush puts on his happy face to the world and tells them everything is going to be alright. But you know when he gets home he kicks his dog around the oval office just to vent frustration.

poor doggie cry

and it is what annoys me about it.. coz either he is really doing something (like doing something about situation in Rwanda, and north korea, and everywhere) or he stops saying crap about it. it is all i'd like to happen.

It's the media and Bush's fault.

Every 2 minute conversation Bush has with the leader of another nation....he hosts a press conference. Either that or he'll have Condelezza hold a press conference to sum up the 2 minute phone call.

what for?

I don't know...if I had to guess....I'd say he likes seeing himself on camera.

but he looks terrible there.

he makes a fool of himself when he has press conferences. He is better taking photo-ops.

Nah, he can look/sound/act like a moron anywhere. The venue really isnt important..

You seem to be forgetting that it is the US alone that is using their own vetoes and acting unilaterally which enables the United Nations powerless, and that even though other nations such as France and Germany attempted to hold the American government from aggressive policies, they were helpless to do so. Considering the US has the most representative percentage in the UN, and has basically undermined UN faculties and laws that inflicts on US economic enterprise and US hegemony, that other nations trying to intervene fear the wrath of American sanctions and boycotts. Because every time that a nation does not wilt under US impositions and strongholds, they will inflict embargoes and sanctions that will limit that countries trade and markets, as the US controls the World Bank and the IMF.

Darfur is a perfect case for the US thinking and precedence. With absolute genocide happening in Sudan, and with the UN wanting the perpetrators to be found quickly and be trialled with the UN's International Crimes Authority and the ICC, the US has blocked the proceedings, and wants a new crimes body to take the case to justice. It would take many months for a governing body to be formed, and with the ICC created for exactly a case like this, international crimes against humanity, it would only be appropriate to use that medium. With the US blockade, the criminals continue with their killings, and the UN cannot continue with the legal ramifications.

The US is attempting to bypass the ICC because of its utter disdain for it. The appointment of John Bolton is yet another jab in the face of the UN and the rest of the world. This is how they approach foreign relations: The American way or else. Africans are being slaughtered, but unless the UN decides to be passive on US agenda, then they will continue to die by the thousands.