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

What are your thoughts on the situation in Darfur?

Do you think this is one of those things President Bush needs to address in his foreign policy, and if so, why has he conveniently ignored suffering in Africa, but bombed the hell out of Iraq?

If American stands for world peace, democracy and freedom, should America get involved and do something more about Darfur even thought Bush doesnt stand to gain a lot of money out of it and is risking his relationship with Arabia, or shall we just ignore it and not think about it because it makes us feel bad?

Click here to send a message to President Bush about Darfur.

Thoughts?

Well I think we realise that the Iraq thing was a mix of knotting up loose ends, family grudges, right timing, tragedy and stupidity.

Africa, to him, is probably one of those problems that he can continually say he's dealing with but do nothing about. Since the general populace have no REAL insight into the goings on.

-AC

It's not only Bush who is to blame it's the entire western world. No western country is doing its duty over there.

But no other western country claims to be world police, either.

Good Point, don't get me wrong I think Bush should do something about Darfur and a lot of other countries as well. Certainly since he claims to wage war in Iraq based on the ideas of democracy and liberty. If it's really true he should get rid of all other dictators as well, but everyone knows he ain't gonna.

Now I don't see why the rest of the world should be sitting around waiting for Bush to get of his ass, which he ain't gonna.

politics politics politics
ignorance ignorance ignorance

fact 1: the US government currently has more initiatives to help the people of Africa than any other country EVER

fact 2: the US has increased its aid to Africa by 3 times since the new administration came into office

fact 3: before someone says "sudan has no oil" which i know will happen given how uneducated some people on here are...sudan is actually rich in oil

fact 4: Sudan is currently heavily supported by China both economically and militarily...can anyone say "new cold war"

fact 1: Might be very well so, but I have no data on it.

fact 2: They can still do more, I'm not saying other countries shouldn't do more.

fact 3: Sudan is a pretty rich country indeed, the only reason I didn't bring up that arguement, altho I still think it holds grounds.

fact 4: A new cold war would be a shitty idea.

The US needs to accept the fact that it will lose its world domination

very simple fact - the entire western world needs to be involved in stopping this.. noone is doing anything when everyone should be doing all they can.. this is a horrible situation that has been going on for sometime now and needs to be reconciled ASAP

Originally posted by jaden101
politics politics politics
ignorance ignorance ignorance

fact 1: the US government currently has more initiatives to help the people of Africa than any other country EVER

fact 2: the US has increased its aid to Africa by 3 times since the new administration came into office

fact 3: before someone says "sudan has no oil" which i know will happen given how uneducated some people on here are...sudan is actually rich in oil

fact 4: Sudan is currently heavily supported by China both economically and militarily...can anyone say "new cold war"

Wow, well thank you for that illuminating report, Captain Obvious.

For one, the fact that america still holds Africa in debit is a pretty good indication of how much help they are receiving. Also, enlighten us with some reports and figures.

Second, no shit sherlock, sudan is rich in resources. I wonder why the conflict in sudan occured to begin with.

Perhaps the fact that Arabia is involved in the war has something to do with bush not having any part in it, or yeah it could be something else.

Also, what are your thoughts on Derfur. You told us everything apart from the reply to the OP.

Originally posted by bilb
very simple fact - the entire western world needs to be involved in stopping this.. noone is doing anything when everyone should be doing all they can.. this is a horrible situation that has been going on for sometime now and needs to be reconciled ASAP

Agreed. Le world is needed not just USA.

That's what I said minutes ago.

But the worlds needs to do a hell of a lot more than just Darfur

thats true fire.. very true.. but the atrocities in Darfur (IMO) need to be addressed urgently

So does the still continuing genocide in Congo, Ruanda and Burundi (that's been going for about 5 years now and nobody does shit about it)

Sometimes..I wish we weren't depended on to wipe the rest of the world's collective ass.

i understand that line of thinking Cine.. but if we are gonna claim moral high ground in places like Iraq & Kosovo then we need to be prepared to do the same everywhere

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
But no other western country claims to be world police, either.

Well let's see, Western Countries? Shall we start with the UN, who sat back and vetoed the use of troops to Rwanda, and who sat back and did nothing in the Cambodian massacres, or the Kosovo deals. Not to mention the way they allowed a Pakistani convoy in Somalia to be ripped apart because of their orders not to shoot back no matter what. And then we have the Oil For Food deal.

Yeah no other country claims to be the world's police, but the deputy's department isn't doing much either....maybe it's time the people we appointed to keep the peace in other parts of the world (the UN) start doing that job, instead of taking a Utopian stance every time they turn a blind eye to the massacres they were sent to prevent.

The UN needs to be heavily reformed but I seriously doubt Bush is all for that.

I'm not saying the US is the only one to blame.
But I get the feeling you are using the arguement: "The UN sucks at its job" as a reason why the US has the right to police the world.

Tell me if I'm wrong tho

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
Sometimes..I wish we weren't depended on to wipe the rest of the world's collective ass.

That's what the UN was sent to do, and so far they've done nothing but collect over 30 million in unpaid parking tickets, waste the taxpayers' money with that crumbling building they use as their debating club, and sit back and condemn each new act of ethnic cleansing as "horrible and tragic" and do nothing to stop it for fear of whatever it is they risk having happen to them if they fire a shot to stop someone from killng someone else in another country.

Originally posted by Fire
The UN needs to be heavily reformed but I seriously doubt Bush is all for that.

I'm not saying the US is the only one to blame.
But I get the feeling you are using the arguement: "The UN sucks at its job" as a reason why the US has the right to police the world.

Tell me if I'm wrong tho

No what I meant is that we relied on the UN to do it's job and take the risks they get paid for and all they do is sit back and underuse the power they have. Being a peacekeeper also means standing in harm's way. And if their military track trecord speaks of their dedication to peacekeeping, then they should just stick a fork in it's ass,because it's done.

No you're right, maybe we shouldn't be the world's police force, and we relied on the UN to help us out and do their part in our absence. Apparently we made the wrong choice. Noone appreciates what we do anyway so maybe it's time we just hung it up. Then if we do that, we're still bastards because we refuse to help, so we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

the UN its power is very limited, they are far too depended on the Security Council.

Well you might be right in your last sentence. But there is a difference between helping out the world and policing it.

True, helping someone and doing a job for them are 2 diff. things. Thing is, it seems that the rest of the world dosen't want to be helped, and then they sit back and wonder why they have the messes they have in their backyard. You can't have the cake and eat it too. In order to gain benefits, sometimes you have to take risks. And as long as the U.N. sits there and pretends to care, I don't know what to say.

I'm telling you it's all the fault of that blasted security council

sorry but i dont see that the UN serves any meaningful purpose these days other than make us feel like we are 'being civilized' while they sit back & do nothing & we ignore their 'condemnations' anyway

seriously, does the UN do ANYTHING besides send out press releases saying 'we condemn this' ??

Well the UN has tons of organisations working under it who do great work.

Originally posted by Fire
Well the UN has tons of organisations working under it who do great work.

yeah i know.. and its a bloody shame that the UN gets the credit while they do all the legwork

I'll see you on that one, Fire. The UNSC sucks.

And as further proof of their impotence, the great U.N. debate on gun violence was their biggest debacle yet. UN anti-gun spokeswoman Rebecca Peters has over 500 anti-gun groups with her and the endless funding of George Soros thru www.moveon.org

The point? The U.N. is blaming America's pro-gun attitude for the amount of small arms violence in Third World countries.

Uh yeah....AK-47's are Russian in design, not American, and the rest of the world carries them in 95% of the Third World. But yet it's all America's fault that murders are happening with Russian weapons.

And Rwanda's massacres took place with machetes,not guns.

As further proof of the U.N. intention to kill the headache by cutting off the head, they proposed a U.N. Gun Ban they want in 2006,where Americans could no longer own private firearms except for government officials, with no concessions to the countries proposing the ban.

How will banning guns in America help the Third World problem? Will that stop the next Hutu rebel from killing a Tutsi tribesman with an
AK-47?

Imposing on America's sovereignty and our Constitution is just another way to try to turn us into a Utopian Socialist police state where only the government has firearms,and thus ultimate control over us. By the U.N.?

Ain't happening....

Originally posted by Dagons Blade
I'll see you on that one, Fire. The UNSC sucks.

And as further proof of their impotence, the great U.N. debate on gun violence was their biggest debacle yet. UN anti-gun spokeswoman Rebecca Peters has over 500 anti-gun groups with her and the endless funding of George Soros thru www.moveon.org

The point? The U.N. is blaming America's pro-gun attitude for the amount of small arms violence in Third World countries.

Uh yeah....AK-47's are Russian in design, not American, and the rest of the world carries them in 95% of the Third World. But yet it's all America's fault that murders are happening with Russian weapons.

And Rwanda's massacres took place with machetes,not guns.

As further proof tof the U.N. intention to kill the headache by cutting off the head, they proposed a U.N. Gun Ban they want in 2006,where Americans could no longer own private firearms except for government officials, with no concessions to the countries proposing the ban.

How will banning guns in America help the Third World problem? Will that stop the next Hutu rebel from killing a Tutsi tribesman with an
AK-47?

I fail to see the connection... Yes we have guns (too many IMO) in the US but FFS as you pointed out we arent the only manufacturers or distributors of them.. and the machetes thing is spot on

Originally posted by bilb
yeah i know.. and its a bloody shame that the UN gets the credit while they do all the legwork

Lol over here a lot of people don't even know those organisations are part of the UN

Originally posted by bilb
I fail to see the connection... Yes we have guns (too many IMO) in the US but FFS as you pointed out we arent the only manufacturers or distributors of them.. and the machetes thing is spot on

The connection is that they are covering their own inadequacy by trying to pressurize us into disarmament, except for government officials who can have guns in their private residences while Americans would be barred from the same. What's fair about that? Are ordinary Americans less deserving of the right to self defense or shooting sports? The Constitution is for everyone, not the politicians exclusively.

The day guns are outlawed, outlaws will have guns, and the UN having control over America's Constitution and sovereignty is nothing but a larger scale plan to turn us into a shooting gallery. The politicians can have theirs, ordinary Americans can too.

Does any American here in this forum or anywhere else REALLY want the UN in control of our policies? Based on their own failings in other countries, and their lame excuses to try to disarm us, ask yourself what their ultimate plan is for America..

Bill Clinton is runnnig for UN General Secretary in 2006. He believes no American has a right to own a gun, and yet admits having his own. Working with the UN to fulfill the Democrats long standing wishes of a gun free America save for themselves. This is just 2 groups working together to defeat a common stumbling block to their Socialist supremacy. No govt. should fear law abiding citizens who earn their rights,nor should they suffer the removal of those rights because of the indiscretions of a few who don't respect them.

Why worrie, you have a Veto right so

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
Sometimes..I wish we weren't depended on to wipe the rest of the world's collective ass.

If the U.S. helps they are to be blame. If the U.S. doesn't help they are to be blame...either way the U.S. is always responsible for something. Go figure the logic of some people...

Originally posted by Dagons Blade
The connection is that they are covering their own inadequacy by trying to pressurize us into disarmament, except for government officials who can have guns in their private residences while Americans would be barred from the same. What's fair about that? Are ordinary Americans less deserving of the right to self defense or shooting sports? The Constitution is for everyone, not the politicians exclusively.

The day guns are outlawed, outlaws will have guns, and the UN having control over America's Constitution and sovereignty is nothing but a larger scale plan to turn us into a shooting gallery. The politicians can have theirs, ordinary Americans can too.

when i said i fail to see the connection i was agreeing with you

Originally posted by bilb
when i said i fail to see the connection i was agreeing with you

Oh ok, gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up. Cheers!

Originally posted by WindDancer
If the U.S. helps they are to be blame. If the U.S. doesn't help they are to be blame...either way the U.S. is always responsible for something. Go figure the logic of some people...

This is why the UN is shaking in it's shoes now as a result of Bolton's appointment as ambassador. Because now they know their free ride is over.

I said this at another earlier, and got called everything from a "white racist Republican C*****ucker" to a "gun toting maniac who probably laughs at every school shooting" and a " shotgun toting good ole boy whose NRA dues also covers his life insurance in the KKK."

Based on statements like this, I wonder which political party really has the worse problem....

Actually I should make my point of view a bit clearer:

Everyone knows that for years, the Democrats and Liberals have tried as hard as possible to ban guns in America, while promoting the right of their own ilk to walk free and do and say whatever the hell they want with no repsonbsibility for their actions. Anything right is swept away for the left and groups like the ACLU and other whiner groups back them up.

And now most of the backup and support of this anti-gun movement comes from the UN and the Democrats and Liberals, and each group is washing the others' hands.

Suppose, in a twisted way, that their plan is to turn America into a Socialist shooting gallery with a green light to persecute and abuse Conservatives and Republicans as revenge for the long standing oppression they deem themselves victims of? The new Salem witch hunts, as it were.

And using the Govt. to carry it out as Americans have no way to fight back because there ar no guns to do it with?

Might be a conspiracy theory, but based on the UN's past "condemnations" of large scale massacres, I can only imagine the glee they would feel when the UN and the EU had their total control over America.

Umm this thread isn't about guns. We don't sell guns in supermarkets here, we have less violent crime. Correlation and causation? Perhaps, perhaps not.
Anyway the thread is about Africa, U.N. and U.S. apparently.

Frankly those who question the validity of the U.N. must look at what they're own countries are doing within and without the U.N. I.e. introspection without the patriot goggles. The U.S. holds a permanent seat on the Security Council. This is the U.S. veto record from 1972 to 2002:

1972 Condemns Israel for killing hundreds of people in Syria and Lebanon in air raids.
1973 Affirms the rights of the Palestinians and calls on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
1976 Condemns Israel for attacking Lebanese civilians.
1976 Condemns Israel for building settlements in the occupied territories.
1976 Calls for self determination for the Palestinians.
1976 Affirms the rights of the Palestinians.
1978 Urges the permanent members (USA, USSR, UK, France, China) to insure United Nations decisions on the maintenance of international peace and security.
1978 Criticises the living conditions of the Palestinians.
1978 Condemns the Israeli human rights record in occupied territories.
1978 Calls for developed countries to increase the quantity and quality of development assistance to underdeveloped countries.
1979 Calls for an end to all military and nuclear collaboration with the apartheid South Africa.
1979 Strengthens the arms embargo against South Africa.
1979 Offers assistance to all the oppressed people of South Africa and their liberation movement.
1979 Concerns negotiations on disarmament and cessation of the nuclear arms race.
1979 Calls for the return of all inhabitants expelled by Israel.
1979 Demands that Israel desist from human rights violations.
1979 Requests a report on the living conditions of Palestinians in occupied Arab countries.
1979 Offers assistance to the Palestinian people.
1979 Discusses sovereignty over national resources in occupied Arab territories.
1979 Calls for protection of developing counties' exports.
1979 Calls for alternative approaches within the United Nations system for improving the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
1979 Opposes support for intervention in the internal or external affairs of states.
1979 For a United Nations Conference on Women.
1979 To include Palestinian women in the United Nations Conference on Women.
1979 Safeguards rights of developing countries in multinational trade negotiations.
1980 Requests Israel to return displaced persons.
1980 Condemns Israeli policy regarding the living conditions of the Palestinian people.
1980 Condemns Israeli human rights practices in occupied territories. 3 resolutions.
1980 Affirms the right of self determination for the Palestinians.
1980 Offers assistance to the oppressed people of South Africa and their national liberation movement.
1980 Attempts to establish a New International Economic Order to promote the growth of underdeveloped countries and international economic co-operation.
1980 Endorses the Program of Action for Second Half of United Nations Decade for Women.
1980 Declaration of non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.
1980 Emphasises that the development of nations and individuals is a human right.
1980 Calls for the cessation of all nuclear test explosions.
1980 Calls for the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.
1981 Promotes co-operative movements in developing countries.
1981 Affirms the right of every state to choose its economic and social system in accord with the will of its people, without outside interference in whatever form it takes.
1981 Condemns activities of foreign economic interests in colonial territories.
1981 Calls for the cessation of all test explosions of nuclear weapons.
1981 Calls for action in support of measures to prevent nuclear war, curb the arms race and promote disarmament.
1981 Urges negotiations on prohibition of chemical and biological weapons.
1981 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development, etc are human rights.
1981 Condemns South Africa for attacks on neighbouring states, condemns apartheid and attempts to strengthen sanctions. 7 resolutions.
1981 Condemns an attempted coup by South Africa on the Seychelles.
1981 Condemns Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, human rights policies, and the bombing of Iraq. 18 resolutions.
1982 Condemns the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. 6 resolutions (1982 to 1983).
1982 Condemns the shooting of 11 Muslims at a shrine in Jerusalem by an Israeli soldier.
1982 Calls on Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights occupied in 1967.
1982 Condemns apartheid and calls for the cessation of economic aid to South Africa. 4 resolutions.
1982 Calls for the setting up of a World Charter for the protection of the ecology.
1982 Sets up a United Nations conference on succession of states in respect to state property, archives and debts.
1982 Nuclear test bans and negotiations and nuclear free outer space. 3 resolutions.
1982 Supports a new world information and communications order.
1982 Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons.
1982 Development of international law.
1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment .
1982 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development are human rights.
1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment.
1982 Development of the energy resources of developing countries.
1983 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 15 resolutions.
1984 Condemns support of South Africa in its Namibian and other policies.
1984 International action to eliminate apartheid.
1984 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.
1984 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 18 resolutions.
1985 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.
1985 Condemns Israel for using excessive force in the occupied territories.
1985 Resolutions about cooperation, human rights, trade and development. 3 resolutions.
1985 Measures to be taken against Nazi, Fascist and neo-Fascist activities .
1986 Calls on all governments (including the USA) to observe international law.
1986 Imposes economic and military sanctions against South Africa.
1986 Condemns Israel for its actions against Lebanese civilians.
1986 Calls on Israel to respect Muslim holy places.
1986 Condemns Israel for sky-jacking a Libyan airliner.
1986 Resolutions about cooperation, security, human rights, trade, media bias, the environment and development.
8 resolutions.
1987 Calls on Israel to abide by the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of the Palestinians.
1987 Calls on Israel to stop deporting Palestinians.
1987 Condemns Israel for its actions in Lebanon. 2 resolutions.
1987 Calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon.
1987 Cooperation between the United Nations and the League of Arab States.
1987 Calls for compliance in the International Court of Justice concerning military and paramilitary activities against Nicaragua and a call to end the trade embargo against Nicaragua. 2 resolutions.
1987 Measures to prevent international terrorism, study the underlying political and economic causes of terrorism, convene a conference to define terrorism and to differentiate it from the struggle of people from national liberation.
1987 Resolutions concerning journalism, international debt and trade. 3 resolutions.
1987 Opposition to the build up of weapons in space.
1987 Opposition to the development of new weapons of mass destruction.
1987 Opposition to nuclear testing. 2 resolutions.
1987 Proposal to set up South Atlantic "Zone of Peace".
1988 Condemns Israeli practices against Palestinians in the occupied territories. 5 resolutions (1988 and 1989).
1989 Condemns USA invasion of Panama.
1989 Condemns USA troops for ransacking the residence of the Nicaraguan ambassador in Panama.
1989 Condemns USA support for the Contra army in Nicaragua.
1989 Condemns illegal USA embargo of Nicaragua.
1989 Opposing the acquisition of territory by force.
1989 Calling for a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict based on earlier UN resolutions.
1990 To send three UN Security Council observers to the occupied territories.
1995 Affirms that land in East Jerusalem annexed by Israel is occupied territory.
1997 Calls on Israel to cease building settlements in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories. 2 resolutions.
1999 Calls on the USA to end its trade embargo on Cuba. 8 resolutions (1992 to 1999).
2001 To send unarmed monitors to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
2001 To set up the International Criminal Court.
2002 To renew the peace keeping mission in Bosnia.

I would hazard a guess that most people are entirely overestimating the amount that their own country's foreign humanitarian aid is.
In the past 45 years the U.S. has given an inflation adjusted $50 billion. In a single year the Administration will spend more than $80 billion in military funding to Iraq.

I don't know current figures but U.S. foreign humanitarian aid in 1999, (which for some reason includes aid to Israel) accounted for approx 16% of total aid. If that has increased one should note that other countries have also increased their aid budgets. In 1999 the U.S. was last amongst industrialized nations in aid as a proportion of GDP.

"November and got almost no response. March appeal for $16 million got about $1 million. May 25 plea for $30.7 million has received $7.6 million."
There were three appeals for food aid to Niger from industrialized nations over the past year, before the situation became as dire as it has now. 3 million people now risk death from starvation.

Cool never got those figurs but I knew about a lot of them. Where did you find them X

I don't mean to single out the U.S., it does do a lot for the world, but Americans should realise their country has been no angel on the world stage and the U.N. does a lot of good work. The U.N. needs reform but not all of it's failings are entirely it's fault, and it is only as strong as the support it gets from it's member states.

Preaching to the choir boy

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Umm this thread isn't about guns. We don't sell guns in supermarkets here, we have less violent crime. Correlation and causation? Perhaps, perhaps not.
Anyway the thread is about Africa, U.N. and U.S. apparently.


All I'm saying is is that they have no right to impose on U.S. sovereignty or our Constitution, OR telling us who can and can't have what. I was just adding to the further list of follies that point to the UN and their attempts to kill a headache by cutting off the head. Anyhow back to the topic.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I don't mean to single out the U.S., it does do a lot for the world, but Americans should realise their country has been no angel on the world stage.

Oboy, here we go again, the old "Well you did some for the world, BUT..."

Who said we were angels? At least the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay didn't wind up with their heads cut off with the videos sent home to their parents to permanently traumatize them..

Oh and as far as the UN's "good deeds" go, you might want to include them seeing 9-11 as no reason for action, and their little Oil For Food deals AND their bending of the rules on UN Resolution 1441:

Unconditional inspection of Iraqi palaces regardless of the presence of American weapons inspectors.

Every time American inspectors were present Saddam would complain, and the UN would find a way to complain about bias, and make deals with the UN to buy his way out of the law they agreed to enforce, while Saddam used the bought time to shuffle his goods around in those convenient little 24-72 hour periods when he would shut the palaces and then reopen them.

1972 Condemns Israel for killing hundreds of people in Syria and Lebanon in air raids.
1973 Affirms the rights of the Palestinians and calls on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
1976 Condemns Israel for attacking Lebanese civilians.
1976 Condemns Israel for building settlements in the occupied territories.
1976 Calls for self determination for the Palestinians.
1976 Affirms the rights of the Palestinians.

They never put any pressure on Yassir Arafat to do anything about the extremists though, did they? As long as Arafat would say "I condemn this" each and every time something happened in the Gaza strip, everything was fine......

Originally posted by Dagons Blade
Oboy, here we go again, the old "Well you did some for the world, BUT..."
Who said we were angels? At least the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay didn't wind up with their heads cut off with the videos sent home to their parents to permanently traumatize them..
You're not taking into account the context of either action. Both are violations of international law, however they are not comparable acts. One is being committed by the elected Administration of the world's only hyperpower. The other is a deplorable act of violence committed by terrorist groups.

Originally posted by Dagons Blade
Oh and as far as the UN's "good deeds" go, you might want to include them seeing 9-11 as no reason for action, and their little Oil For Food deals AND their bending of the rules on UN Resolution 1441:
Unconditional inspection of Iraqi palaces regardless of the presence of American weapons inspectors.
Every time American inspectors were present Saddam would complain, and the UN would find a way to complain about bias, and make deals with the UN to buy his way out of the law they agreed to enforce, while Saddam used the bought time to shuffle his goods around in those convenient little 24-72 hour periods when he would shut the palaces and then reopen them.
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/saddam_rummy.jpg
Donald Rumsfeld shakes hands with Saddam Hussein, 1983.
"1984, U.S. and Iraqi consultations about Iranian draft resolution seeking UN Security Council condemnation of Iraq's chemical weapons use. Iraq requests to the U.S. preference for a lower-level response and one that did not name any country in connection with chemical warfare; the final result complied with Iraq's requests."

Obviously Saddam's complaints are incredibly persuasive then huh? He manages to sway both the US and according to you the UN too.

"The oil-for-food programme was derived from the US-sponsored Security Council resolution, passed in April 1995 but not implemented until December 1996. During this time, the CIA sponsored two coup attempts against Saddam, the second, most famously, a joint effort with the British that imploded in June 1996, at the height of the "oil for food" implementation negotiations. The oil-for-food programme was never a sincere humanitarian relief effort, but rather a politically motivated device designed to implement the true policy of the United States - regime change."
"Through various control mechanisms, the United States and Great Britain were able to turn on and off the flow of oil as they saw best. In this way, the Americans were able to authorise a $1bn exemption concerning the export of Iraqi oil for Jordan, as well as legitimise the billion-dollar illegal oil smuggling trade over the Turkish border, which benefited NATO ally Turkey"
"Likewise, using its veto-wielding powers on the 661 Committee, set up in 1990 to oversee economic sanctions against Iraq, the United States was able to block billions of dollars of humanitarian goods legitimately bought by Iraq under the provisions of the oil-for-food agreement."
"It has been estimated that 80 per cent of the oil illegally smuggled out of Iraq under "oil for food" ended up in the United States."
"United States had made it clear - through successive statements by James Baker, George W Bush and Madeleine Albright - that economic sanctions, linked to Iraq's disarmament obligation, would never be lifted even if Iraq fully complied and disarmed, until Saddam Hussein was removed from power."
Scott Ritter, Independent

BTW remind me again how many banned weapons and WMDs were found in Iraq.

Oh and post 9-11 "UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1368 (2001), whilst the General Assembly adopted Resolution 56/1, which unequivocally condemned the attack and began a process of dealing with the threat of international terrorism. Resolution 1368 emphasised that states have right to self-defence as stipulated under Article 51 of the Charter, whilst also calling on the international community to work together to counter the new menace."

Did the IRA's militant actions and attempt to assassinate Margaret Thatcher warrant a war on terror? No, of course not, because terrorism only began to exist after the 9-11 attacks. Just like WWII only began after the bombing of Pearl Harbour.

Originally posted by Dagons Blade
They never put any pressure on Yassir Arafat to do anything about the extremists though, did they? As long as Arafat would say "I condemn this" each and every time something happened in the Gaza strip, everything was fine......
How much pressure does the U.S. put on Israel? None. Pressure is constantly and consistently put on the Palestinian Authority to reform and to reign in on the militant factions. The militant factions are condemned, but the UN passing resolutions against militant factions is pointless.

Israel is a member nation of the United Nations. The PA under the title "Palestine" has "observer" status only in the United Nations.

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/images/children_by_year-lg.gif
The difference is one is due to the actions of a nation's army, the other is due to the actions of militant groups. The UN can act against the former but how does one expect it to act against the latter?

The PA do not govern a nation, most of their infrastructure is destroyed, their people have an unemployment rate estimate between 40-70%. What exactly did anyone really expect Arafat - an old man confined to a small compound - to do without the Israeli Administration's cooperation. Any power he had was purely symbolic.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Wow, well thank you for that illuminating report, Captain Obvious.

For one, the fact that america still holds Africa in debit is a pretty good indication of how much help they are receiving. Also, enlighten us with some reports and figures.

Second, no shit sherlock, sudan is rich in resources. I wonder why the conflict in sudan occured to begin with.

Perhaps the fact that Arabia is involved in the war has something to do with bush not having any part in it, or yeah it could be something else.

Also, what are your thoughts on Derfur. You told us everything apart from the reply to the OP.

links, facts and figures i posted on Africa can be found in the G8 thread if your interested

im sure you can find it all by yourself

as for the situation in Darfur

the situation is complex in Sudan..its seems the Government has decided to pick another fight now that the civik war in southern Sudan between the Islamic government and oppressed Christian factions...

now it seems they are going down the race route as oppossed to the religion route

like i also stated before...its frankly not as simple as going in and forcing the government militarily from what they are doing in Darfur because of the political involvment of China (China and Russia rejected any attempts to impose sanctions around Sudan's petroleum industry)

the political situation gets more complex when you consider that Ethiopia, Eritrea, Uganda and Kenya all support opposition groups in Sudan financially , logistically and militarily...not to mentio the US hepled financially as well

many nations can be accused of turning a blind eye but it was the US that proposed for 10,000 UN peacekeepers to be sent in

but the civil war itself is more likely to be a result of the way the British ran Sudan as a colony...namely to separate north and south

and the latest event doesn't help the situation either...namely John Gerang...the vice president of Sudan who was a leader of the opposition during the civil war...dieing in a helicopter crash

happy now?

True, a big stroke of bad luck on them in that part.

Not only Darfur.

And most of the ethnic cleansing that takes place is simply done through starvation and disease. Prior to the tidal waves that wreaked havoc in countries like Thailand, India, Sumatra, Ethiopia, Indonesia etc. , the Darfur conflict was priorotised as the worst current humanitarian crisis in the world.
Not much was done by the UN due to the fact that key members forming it, are constrained in their ability to react both to the conflict both pragmatically and ideologically.

The Russian goverment, with its weakened economy, struggles to meet its internal security dillemas in light of its persistant border conflicts, while the United States force deployments in Iraq and elsewhere, coupled to a recurring recruiting shortages for its armed forces, make intervention a numeric impossibility.

Moreover, in both of these nations, along with Britian and France, a strong lobby exists opposed to intervention in countries whose internal strife is not clearly related to the nation's own interest (America and France having suffered demoralizing losses in Vietnam, as well as in Somalia and Algeria, respectively).
A precedent to this effect has been established by the lack of a capable contigent of foreign peace keepers during the troubles in both Rwanda and Liberia.

While it is likely that there will be some accountability for those who have engaged in war crimes and crimes against humanity in the region on all sides of the conflict, it is not yet clear whether the mechanism by which such prosecution will be made will be either via the International Criminal Court, or through an ad hoc tribual as was used at Nuremburg, and following the ethnic conflicts in Rwanda and in the balkans.

The current Bush administration has stated explicitly that its remains opposed to the ICC, and supports the special tribunal mechanism as a general principal.

Conclusion: Before a decision may be taken, implemented and most of all, have its goals achieved, hundreds of thousands are bound to suffer death through bullets, starvation and disease.

All I know is that there are people dying all over th eworld from poverty & disease & starvation while we spend bazillions of dollars to kill Iraqis... seems our priorities are way less than noble

Originally posted by GCG
Not only Darfur.

And most of the ethnic cleansing that takes place is simply done through starvation and disease. Prior to the tidal waves that wreaked havoc in countries like Thailand, India, Sumatra, Ethiopia, Indonesia etc. , the Darfur conflict was priorotised as the worst current humanitarian crisis in the world.
Not much was done by the UN due to the fact that key members forming it, are constrained in their ability to react both to the conflict both pragmatically and ideologically.

The Russian goverment, with its weakened economy, struggles to meet its internal security dillemas in light of its persistant border conflicts, while the United States force deployments in Iraq and elsewhere, coupled to a recurring recruiting shortages for its armed forces, make intervention a numeric impossibility.

Moreover, in both of these nations, along with Britian and France, a strong lobby exists opposed to intervention in countries whose internal strife is not clearly related to the nation's own interest (America and France having suffered demoralizing losses in Vietnam, as well as in Somalia and Algeria, respectively).
A precedent to this effect has been established by the lack of a capable contigent of foreign peace keepers during the troubles in both Rwanda and Liberia.

While it is likely that there will be some accountability for those who have engaged in war crimes and crimes against humanity in the region on all sides of the conflict, it is not yet clear whether the mechanism by which such prosecution will be made will be either via the International Criminal Court, or through an ad hoc tribual as was used at Nuremburg, and following the ethnic conflicts in Rwanda and in the balkans.

The current Bush administration has stated explicitly that its remains opposed to the ICC, and supports the special tribunal mechanism as a general principal.

Conclusion: Before a decision may be taken, implemented and most of all, have its goals achieved, hundreds of thousands are bound to suffer death through bullets, starvation and disease.

good post

Posted by Xmarksthe spot:

You're not taking into account the context of either action. Both are violations of international law, however they are not comparable acts. One is being committed by the elected Administration of the world's only hyperpower. The other is a deplorable act of violence committed by terrorist groups.

Violations of International Law...well hey, I don't hear Amnesty International saying anything about Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, or anyone else who was beheaded while they were alive and screaming, or the multiple car bombs in Iraq, BUT they'll get everyone in Hollywood and La La Land to complain about the atrocities of "the world's only hyperpower."

Bottom line, I don't wanna hear it. The street runs both ways.

How much pressure does the U.S. put on Israel? None. Pressure is constantly and consistently put on the Palestinian Authority to reform and to reign in on the militant factions. The militant factions are condemned, but the UN passing resolutions against militant factions is pointless.

So what is Israel supposed to do? Sit back and let another holocaust take place? They're fighting back to make sure that dosen't happen again. It's called survival of the fittest.

Passing resolutions on militant forces makes sense though, because in a way it's the political answer to the way police make gang activity illegal, and Hamas, in essence, IS a gang--they have black market weapons, recruiting drives, and low intelligence and a bunch of wannabe's just waiting to be the next big cheese. So what's the difference between them and a gang?

This is basically the equivalent of the LA hoods, where the law and the thugs are battling it out. It's not so hard to see. There can only be one winner. It's not OK for Israel to have weapons but God be praised when that new shipment of AK's comes in...

The oil-for-food programme was never a sincere humanitarian relief effort, but rather a politically motivated device designed to implement the true policy of the United States - regime change."

And Saddam never gave the food to his people either, and contributed to their starvation. Perhaps you saw the warehouses loaded with UN food boxes on one special report after the major battles were over in 2003? And the countless reports of abuse and torture from former prisoners of the Republican Guard. Not to mention a guy who spent 12 years in jail for going out of country to buy milk for his family because Saddam had a ban on dairy products save for his family...millions of Iraqis made all of this up, right?

Regime change you say? Why not? Based on how he abused his people, ask yourself how keeping Saddam in power would have done any good either?

Through various control mechanisms, the United States and Great Britain were able to turn on and off the flow of oil as they saw best. In this way, the Americans were able to authorise a $1bn exemption concerning the export of Iraqi oil for Jordan, as well as legitimise the billion-dollar illegal oil smuggling trade over the Turkish border, which benefited NATO ally Turkey.

Yeah and Saddam made over 2 billion a year despite the sanctions and the smuggling he complained "hurt" him, and despite this thievery you speak of, it seemed that Saddam lived pretty well depsite the losses and abuse he claims to have suffered. Did you see any of his people living in 2 billion dollar palaces?

Turkey deserved the oil, after what Saddam did to the Kurds. Saddam was a thief and a scumbag, and you're complaining because someone ripped HIM off for once to benefit someone else whom he victimized?

Saddam's free ride was coming to an end anyway. And he owed the people around him for what he did to them, and we helped them get it.

Your point?

If you don't refute a point I've brought up am I to assume you concede on that matter, you seem to selectively quoting what suits your points or taking things without associated context from my posts.
Originally posted by Dagons Blade
Violations of International Law...well hey, I don't hear Amnesty International saying anything about Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, or anyone else who was beheaded while they were alive and screaming, or the multiple car bombs in Iraq, BUT they'll get everyone in Hollywood and La La Land to complain about the atrocities of "the world's only hyperpower."
In other words: They do bad things too, why can't I?
You do realise you're comparing the lack of adherence to the law of an elected Administration and the lack of adherence to law of individual murderers.
Originally posted by Dagons Blade
So what is Israel supposed to do? Sit back and let another holocaust take place? They're fighting back to make sure that dosen't happen again. It's called survival of the fittest.
That's ridiculous. Israel is a first world country, it has a GDP of over $120 billion (yet over the last 55 years the country has received around $90 billion in aid from the US as opposed to the continent of Africa (the actual topic of this thread) over the last 60 years receiving approximately $50 billion from the US). They are fighting to maintain land occupied during the Six Day War of 1967. They are fighting to maintain land conquered in the 1948 war. Israel is built on what was once Palestine, that is a fact.
Originally posted by Dagons Blade
Passing resolutions on militant forces makes sense though, because in a way it's the political answer to the way police make gang activity illegal, and Hamas, in essence, IS a gang--they have black market weapons, recruiting drives, and low intelligence and a bunch of wannabe's just waiting to be the next big cheese. So what's the difference between them and a gang?
This is basically the equivalent of the LA hoods, where the law and the thugs are battling it out. It's not so hard to see. There can only be one winner. It's not OK for Israel to have weapons but God be praised when that new shipment of AK's comes in...
Do you not understand the difference between the actions of a national army and the actions of militia. The Israeli Army answers to the Israeli Government and the Israeli Government is a signatory to the UN charter. Resolutions against militia are redundant.
Frankly things aren't as simple as you see on (FOX) news (I'm guessing?) Hizballah is a political party in Lebanon. Hamas provide social services in the West Bank and Gaza. Be clear though I do not support the violent actions of these groups, but likewise I do not support many of the actions taken by the Israeli Army, and the lack of scrutiny of the deaths of civilians.
BTW Is it OK for the Israeli Government to have nuclear weapons?
Originally posted by Dagons Blade
And Saddam never gave the food to his people either, and contributed to their starvation. Perhaps you saw the warehouses loaded with UN food boxes on one special report after the major battles were over in 2003? And the countless reports of abuse and torture from former prisoners of the Republican Guard. Not to mention a guy who spent 12 years in jail for going out of country to buy milk for his family because Saddam had a ban on dairy products save for his family...millions of Iraqis made all of this up, right?
Regime change you say? Why not? Based on how he abused his people, ask yourself how keeping Saddam in power would have done any good either?
Does the United States intend to enact regime change in every country where people are suffering or oppressed. Burma? Zimbabwe... oh wait that serves no strategic function? Maybe Uzbekistan... oh wait that wouldn't suit the Administration's "outsourcing"? Are they going to force the House of Saud out of power... oh wait that's where most of the US oil imports come from?
Prewar Iraq there were not daily bombing attacks in Iraq. The country had a stable power and water supply, which they do not now. They had some semblance of infrastructure and economy which they do not now. The UK-US forces have no real control of the rule of law beyond the green zone. Saddam is not in power. That is good.
However to argue that Iraq is better now is fallacy. Iraq cannot be argued as better or worse, it is different. That is all.
Originally posted by Dagons Blade
Yeah and Saddam made over 2 billion a year despite the sanctions and the smuggling he complained "hurt" him, and despite this thievery you speak of, it seemed that Saddam lived pretty well depsite the losses and abuse he claims to have suffered. Did you see any of his people living in 2 billion dollar palaces?
Turkey deserved the oil, after what Saddam did to the Kurds. Saddam was a thief and a scumbag, and you're complaining because someone ripped HIM off for once to benefit someone else whom he victimized?
Saddam's free ride was coming to an end anyway. And he owed the people around him for what he did to them, and we helped them get it.
Did you not read the quote correctly. Turkey was complicit in oil smuggling. The US legitimised this and illegal oil trade to Jordan. Estimated 80% of the illegal oil ended up in the US. the The US was complicit in illegal oil trade when it was advantageous regardless of where the money went.

so your just another hypocrit who is for one war but against another...is that it?

Originally posted by jaden101
so your just another hypocrit who is for one war but against another...is that it?
Ouch. You got me. Your rationale is too formidable for anyone to overcome.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
If you don't refute a point I've brought up am I to assume you concede on that matter, you seem to selectively quoting what suits your points or taking things without associated context from my posts.
Frankly I'm not for any war. I've never met anyone who's "for war". There was no stated reason for war in Iraq that can't be applied to other nations. A country has been plunged into a state of relative anarchy because of personal vendetta, ideology, strategic importance and/or oil. Take your pick.

Is it something in the water in the States that makes you think that blind faith in your Administration is good? Is it treason to look at your government objectively and question it's actions? Do you think I'm personally criticising you when I criticise the actions of your Administration? Patriotism is nice and all but if it's to the extent where you can't look at who runs your country and say "you shouldn't be doing that" then it goes against democracy, no?

the finger of blame cannot be pointed solely at the US for this...the reason France and Russia both opposed the war was that they had already recieved payments from Saddams regime to actively try and get the UN imposed sanctions against iraq lifted because they had already signed illegal oil deals with iraq...not to mention the fact that as gesture of reward to their actions in trying to get the sanctions lifted...they would be getting oil at below market prices...which is also illegal

hence it can be argued that that it was the nations that were opposed to the war that were interested in the oil...and never gave a second thought to the people of iraq

and i dont think we need to bring up kofi annans sons links to illicit oil deals that were contradictary to the oil for food programme

*Addressing quotes and rebuttals by Xmarksthespot*

you don't refute a point I've brought up am I to assume you concede on that matter, you seem to selectively quoting what suits your points or taking things without associated context from my posts.

No concession. I just see things differently. Your views are yours and mine are mine. No sense fighitng with each other over it. And how many times have you or others here or any other boards taken selective quotes and other things "w\o associated context"? Hearing only what we want to hear, happens every day and we're all guilty.

But to show you I have some intelligence, I will try to answer your facts and opinions with my own and at the end of the day it's only an opinion.

That said, here we go:

In other words: They do bad things too, why can't I?
You do realise you're comparing the lack of adherence to the law of an elected Administration and the lack of adherence to law of individual murderers.

Only one side is being looked at as evil...and the day I hear Amnesty International and similar groups condemn the Al Qaeda beheadings and the kidnappings of people who had nothing to do with their war, then I will think differently. Since when do individual murderers get preferred status among civil rights groups?

Prewar Iraq there were not daily bombing attacks in Iraq. The country had a stable power and water supply, which they do not now. They had some semblance of infrastructure and economy which they do not now.

Agreed. But it's the actions of AL Qaeda in Iraq and not the actions of the Coalition that is causing this...what would happen if Iraq became stable and Al Qaeda's jobs were on the line because people realized that their answer to things wasn't the right one? Of course they're going to participate in calculated interference because they'll do anything to promote their agenda and exert their influence because peace is a
threat to their jobs. It's gonna get worse before it gets better (IF it gets better, I'll agree with you on that.) Point well taken.


Did you not read the quote correctly. Turkey was complicit in oil smuggling. The US legitimised this and illegal oil trade to Jordan. Estimated 80% of the illegal oil ended up in the US. the The US was complicit in illegal oil trade when it was advantageous regardless of where the money went.

I see your point, and you're saying that we allowed illegal oil in return for funding the smugglers, who perhaps wound up using that money for their terror cells, thru your statement of concern for "where the money went." I understand you, but what I'm saying is this is probably nothing compared to the money that the Saudis give to the underground terror network they have been funding all along but are too blind to admit.

One deal as compared to a lifetime of support for religion inspired terror. Dosen't make it right, but how many illegal activities have the Arabs engaged in over the years? I suppose that's ok though...

Does the United States intend to enact regime change in every country where people are suffering or oppressed. Burma? Zimbabwe... oh wait that serves no strategic function? Maybe Uzbekistan... oh wait that wouldn't suit the Administration's "outsourcing"? Are they going to force the House of Saud out of power... oh wait that's where most of the US oil imports come from?

Yeah well apparently there's not enough "World Police" to go around. That's why the UN was supposed to be our reserve force. What's wrong with them getting off their asses and risking the lives of their "peacekeepers" for once instead of letting them sit by as observers every time someone becomes a victim of the violence they so openly condemn?

As to Africa, I think you're forgetting that 17 U.S. Army Rangers died trying to get food to Somalis despite the fact that their thugs turned the entire country against us. We sent American Marines to Haiti a while back. We can't be everywhere,and where the govt. decides to do policing is not in my control or anyone else's...

BTW Is it OK for the Israeli Government to have nuclear weapons?

Is it OK for Iran, the birthplace of Islamic radicalism, to be pursuing nuclear programs? You think they wouldn't use them? They'd love to..you know it and I know it.

Hizballah is a political party in Lebanon. Hamas provide social services in the West Bank and Gaza.

I'm well aware of who they are, don't think I'm THAT uninformed.

Social services? Yes I'm sure they'll continue to provide bomb vests and subscriptions to Jihad monthly and continue to do so until they can no longer...oh and let's not mention possible forcible conscription of the only son of every family in order to fill their ranks. You know it happens..blind loyalty in return for their social 'services.'

I do not support many of the actions taken by the Israeli Army, and the lack of scrutiny of the deaths of civilians.

Fair enough, and neither do I, but tell that to AL Qaeda in Iraq, who killed nearly 2000 civilians in their car bomb attacks in the past 2 years. Everyone bitches about the Israel\Palestinian and the American allegations, but the yet the extremists in Iraq are seen as freedom fighters taking down the great American war machine and everyone supports them to compensate for their own feelings of helplessness against "the system" or "The Establishment" to quote some of America's finest pipe dreaming Utopians...1969 all over again.

Yes indeed, X. Selective quoting and the tools implemented to reinforce the opinions born of them are used to daily advantage. You made your point, and based on that I hope you are mature enough to realize that that's the way it is. Dosen't make it right, but who said life was fair?

From the general world viewpoint I guess America is supposed to sit back and allow cold blooded killers to dictate their policy as well as the world's in general, as the threats to Denmark and other countries recently made by Al Zawahiri point out. Sorry, wrong answer.

Anyway back to the topic: Darfur and S. Africa and the alleged underuse of American power to do anything to stop it. In other words, America is directly responsible for it,and nothing we do will improve our image because we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

Gotcha'. Have a nice day.

Originally posted by jaden101
the finger of blame cannot be pointed solely at the US for this...the reason France and Russia both opposed the war was that they had already recieved payments from Saddams regime to actively try and get the UN imposed sanctions against iraq lifted because they had already signed illegal oil deals with iraq...not to mention the fact that as gesture of reward to their actions in trying to get the sanctions lifted...they would be getting oil at below market prices...which is also illegal

hence it can be argued that that it was the nations that were opposed to the war that were interested in the oil...and never gave a second thought to the people of iraq

and i dont think we need to bring up kofi annans sons links to illicit oil deals that were contradictary to the oil for food programme

BINGO, there you go. Now what was this about America being the only oil greedy nation?

And this ties into Darfur and other places that the UN could
have helped, as was the original topic of the thread. BUT the UN didn't because of the role of their peacekeepers as observers instead of active military peace enforcers. They'd rather sit and practice non violence instead of risking the lives of one of their soldiers doing the job they were sent to be doing.

Yeah the US might be World Police headquarters, but the sherrif's dept. isn't doing anyhting remarkable either...

Originally posted by Dagons Blade

Yeah the US might be World Police headquarters, but the sherrif's dept. isn't doing anyhting remarkable either...

i agree.. altho i still think the US should be doing more.. ALOT more

Originally posted by Dagons Blade
Yes indeed, X. Selective quoting and the tools implemented to reinforce the opinions born of them are used to daily advantage. You made your point, and based on that I hope you are mature enough to realize that that's the way it is. Dosen't make it right, but who said life was fair?

From the general world viewpoint I guess America is supposed to sit back and allow cold blooded killers to dictate their policy as well as the world's in general, as the threats to Denmark and other countries recently made by Al Zawahiri point out. Sorry, wrong answer.

Anyway back to the topic: Darfur and S. Africa and the alleged underuse of American power to do anything to stop it. In other words, America is directly responsible for it,and nothing we do will improve our image because we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

Gotcha'. Have a nice day.
Agree to disagree type situation then.
Anyway on the actual topic. If we are to lay any blame on the UN and the US, one should also look at the failure on the part of the African Union not just in Darfur but in the region as a whole. Yes, the AU troops lack the resources to quell the violence and thus have been ineffectual. Yes, the AU lacks proper infrastructure to properly intervene in such situations at present, however it does not lack a voice. And so far it's use of that voice has been relatively unsatisfactory on major issues.
There seems to be a culture of mutual silence between African leaders, including the head of the AU and SA Pres. Mbeki, or misinformation to both the world and their own people about issues such as Zimbabwe and the AID's epidemic.

Originally posted by bilb
i agree.. altho i still think the US should be doing more.. ALOT more

Yeah, right, whan and IF we get done wasting money on all the other shit we do for the ungratefuls of the world (I.E. the ones we really shouldn't be spending money on and doing favors for..)

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Agree to disagree type situation then.
Anyway on the actual topic. If we are to lay any blame on the UN and the US, one should also look at the failure on the part of the African Union not just in Darfur but in the region as a whole. Yes, the AU troops lack the resources to quell the violence and thus have been ineffectual. Yes, the AU lacks proper infrastructure to properly intervene in such situations at present, however it does not lack a voice. And so far it's use of that voice has been relatively unsatisfactory on major issues.
There seems to be a culture of mutual silence between African leaders, including the head of the AU and SA Pres. Mbeki, or misinformation to both the world and their own people about issues such as Zimbabwe and the AID's epidemic.

Thanks for the reply, it's nice to not have people shouting and yelling like I have seen at other political discussions. That's all I was pretty much saying as you were, that there is more that can be done by groups as a whole, and the AU needs to start seriously cleaning the slate.

One thing NOT helping them is the multitude of tribal factions that all want their cultural\linguistic\ethnic supremacy in the spotlight of the world stage, as well the their leaders' own personal prejudices that might stand in the way of helping their neighbors and getting a solid coalition of unity to present to the AU. It's always the trick ain't it,getting the masses to pull together...

there seems to be this bizzare misconception that the US has the military power to be able to somehow send troops to every war torn, dictator run hell hole throughout the world and solve all their problems all at once...

as it stands there are US forces in over 130 countries...many deployments still harking back to legislation post WW2 that US forces would ensure non militaristic stances of countries such as Japan and Germany

the Japanese, even today on the 60th anniversary of the dropping of the A bomb on hiroshima...they are asking the US and UN to be able to employ a more militaristic role in order to support US troops in Iraq

here is a link to a good site for US deployments throughout the world

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat.htm

Originally posted by jaden101

there seems to be this bizzare misconception that the US has the military power to be able to somehow send troops to every war torn, dictator run hell hole throughout the world and solve all their problems all at once...

as it stands there are US forces in over 130 countries...many deployments still harking back to legislation post WW2 that US forces would ensure non militaristic stances of countries such as Japan and Germany

the Japanese, even today on the 60th anniversary of the dropping of the A bomb on hiroshima...they are asking the US and UN to be able to employ a more militaristic role in order to support US troops in Iraq

here is a link to a good site for US deployments throughout the world

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat.htm

Right you are. As a result of the McArthur decree, occupational forces were left in Japan to make sure that they never started up again, and in Germany to stop not only a second round of Nazism but also the long standing Cold War standoff. Sort or worked out good in the end because we have a good realtionship with Japan and Germany was reunited and except for China, Communism is all but history. And now we face the future threats, and inthis war there is no uniform for us to ID the enemy or any HQ to bomb. This is a true test for the future forces of the world.

none of that really seems to matter when people are suffering dont you think?

Originally posted by bilb
none of that really seems to matter when people are suffering dont you think?

people would suffer a hell of a lot less if other countries got off their asses and helped...the US is easily critcised because of the mistakes they make in full public view...other countries that turn a blind eye to every problem of try and exploit these countries and stay out of the limelight...

i'm certain many problems could be solved if every civilised nation took some responsibility instead of moaning that the US doesn't do it all especially when they at least try (and sometimes fail) to do it themselves

a bit of backbone is all it takes...guess thats a bit to much to ask of the French...they've never been known for their collective bravery

Originally posted by jaden101


i'm certain many problems could be solved if every civilised nation took some responsibility instead of moaning that the US doesn't do it all especially when they at least try (and sometimes fail) to do it themselves


agreed

Originally posted by jaden101
people would suffer a hell of a lot less if other countries got off their asses and helped...the US is easily critcised because of the mistakes they make in full public view...other countries that turn a blind eye to every problem of try and exploit these countries and stay out of the limelight...

i'm certain many problems could be solved if every civilised nation took some responsibility instead of moaning that the US doesn't do it all especially when they at least try (and sometimes fail) to do it themselves

a bit of backbone is all it takes...guess thats a bit to much to ask of the French...they've never been known for their collective bravery

Yeah considering the French tanks have one speed in forward and four in reverse

And yes, a bit of backbone is all it takes...it's easier to blame the country with all the guns and bombs. As if other countries haven't made mistakes in full public view? But yet somehow the U.S. isn't allowed tomake any, because WE'RE supposed to do it all because personally we've given too much to other countries and I think to a degree they expect us to do it, and when we don't, we're still sons of bitches.

Damned if we do, damned if we don't...

I say, we don't do anything, maybe Aid but don't bust a Vietnam or something ( we probally won't anyway ) we didn't do anything about the Kerma Rouge ( Cambodia was under N. Vietnam Communist goverment, mass slaughter of Cambodian populace) we didn't do anything in Czecoslovakia. I say that if we were to interferr we may have even MORE people hateing the U.S. as it is, this world is full of ignorance, and alot of hate if based on lack of knowlegde, bias, rascism, or any other ism, greed and just plain Propaghanda . I know that its horrible taht people are being slain but, it may possible just lead to EVEN more slaying if U.S. would interferr. The U.S. has a very Violent past and still has a violent present and probally a future. Amazing how people have STOP comeing to the U.S. and that movement to a new nation never looked so good. If only people could lay down there arms, and listen. Open their ears and listen to what everyone has to say and forget the hate but it will never happen. That will only be the way world peace will be attained. World Domination never works, and never will.

Oh and by the way, the french are quite smart i wouldn't want to be a leader of a nation and have my nation target for attack just for being involved in some Military Pact against a country(s) that wouldn't be able to repell the U.S. army very long.

See i like bush, you know why? couse for some reason hes an example, an example that shows that ANY ONE can be the U.S. President and taht you can get away almost anything. Now please tell me how the man, who said Iraq had weapons of Mass destruction get reelected? exspecially after Iraq Deosn't have them. Listen if they wanted us Nuked. they would of done it already long ago. Besides Saddam Hussein doesn't hate Americans he talks and has Befriended his guards at his prison and also befriended the staff which works there.



Ok One more thing? Every Hear taht during the Cold War that the Russians were Spreading Communism? and had a Huge Pact with some Communist states? What the hell do you think the U.S. is doing? The Same damn think, just spreading democracy? did we even ASK Iraqi's if they wanted Saddam gone? did we? now all they have is some makeshift Gov't and an assload of "Insurgents" ( there freedom fighters i think you would fight to kick out the invaders during an occupation stage)

Posted by Shaid:

Saddam Hussein doesn't hate Americans he talks and has Befriended his guards at his prison and also befriended the staff which works there.

He's trying to get into the heads of his captors for his own purposes-the more people identify with him and say "hey he ain't so bad after all" the more people he will have on his side.

His sons were woman murdering scum, and HE was scum for what he did to the Kurds and Iranians. He sat in billion dollar palaces while his people had no food at all. Their time was up.

Ok One more thing? Every Hear taht during the Cold War that the Russians were Spreading Communism? and had a Huge Pact with some Communist states?

You speak of the Warsaw Pact, this was the result of a meeting between Stalin, Churchill, and Truman which divided East and Weste Europe into tactically controlled political spheres, and Russia got ALL of Eastern Europe after West Germany.


Amazing how people have STOP comeing to the U.S. and that movement to a new nation never looked so good.

Uh yeah..America allows people from many other countries thru our doors, give them a 9 year tax deferment, and yet no American can own property overseas or obtain permanent residency anywhere else in the world..everyone hates us until they need more money and then our image improves as long as the money is there.

Another thing...people take their freedom for granted. They say and do shit that cvould get them killed in other countries. If Americans went to other countries said HALF of the shit foreigners say on our soil, we'd be dead by now or locked up.

Like it or leave it, but people don't really know how good they have it here.

Since World War II, it's been the era of dictators. The world has seen the worst Dictators during the past 60-70 years. The majority of them had been involved in World War II.

As for Sudan, Sudan is another in a long line of African problems that have dated back since the colonial era. Africa has seen a rise in evil dictators who want absolute power. One of the most notorious was Idi Amin in Uganda.

Originally posted by Dagons Blade
Yeah considering the French tanks have one speed in forward and four in reverse
And yes, a bit of backbone is all it takes...it's easier to blame the country with all the guns and bombs. As if other countries haven't made mistakes in full public view? But yet somehow the U.S. isn't allowed tomake any, because WE'RE supposed to do it all because personally we've given too much to other countries and I think to a degree they expect us to do it, and when we don't, we're still sons of bitches.
Damned if we do
Actually it's more like damned if you don't think about the long term consequences of what you're doing, or do think about them but do it anyway.
Such as supporting the Shah overthrow of Mohammed Mossadegh, which resulted in two decades of autocratic repression, culminating in the Islamic Revolution of Ayatolla Khomeini. Then subsequently arming and supporting Saddam Hussein to try and overthrow Khomeini. Then having to prevent the now armed Hussein from invading and conquering Kuwait. Then starving and bombing the people of Iraq for a decade to try and overthrow him. Then launching a poorly planned war on a false premise to finally remove him from power.

Originally posted by Dagons Blade
damned if we don't...
Or damned if the consequences of inaction are blatantly obvious and yet nothing is done anyway.
Such as three calls (although not only to the U.S. one should note in all fairness) from the UN for food aid to Niger being left largely unanswered. Resulting in the potential starvation of millions.

wow...im amazed...you actually managed to get a huge amount of middle eastern history without actually mentioning the soviet union or the cold war at all...amazing when you consider that every action taken by the US in the middle east for 30 years up until the fall of the Berlin wall was about finding ways to defeat the soviet union without resorting to blowing each other up with nuclear weapons

im impressed at your selective history...very narrow of you

Originally posted by jaden101
wow...im amazed...you actually managed to get a huge amount of middle eastern history without actually mentioning the soviet union or the cold war at all...amazing when you consider that every action taken by the US in the middle east for 30 years up until the fall of the Berlin wall was about finding ways to defeat the soviet union without resorting to blowing each other up with nuclear weapons

im impressed at your selective history...very narrow of you
I was simply showing that it's a lot more complicated than "damned if you do and damned if you don't".

There's some dramatic irony in defending of former U.S. Administration policy by accusing use of selective history.

Every action in the Middle East of the U.S. up until the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989?

Frankly I'm no historian, I only know what I know. If you're a history buff though then you fail to mention that Mossadegh nationalized Iran's oil, and the British were displeased to say the least and subsequently crippled Iran's oil industry. You also fail to mention that the U.S. and Britain sought oil contracts with Mossadegh, which he refused. Mossadegh enacted socialist reforms and had a strained alliance with the communist Tudeh Party. U.S. fearful supposition that he would increase ties with the Soviet Union brought about Operation Ajax - a plan for a coup d'etat of Iran.
Enlighten me.
How exactly did the overthrow of Mossadegh aid in defeating the Soviet Union?
How did the installation and support of the brutal autocratic Shah aid in the fall of the Soviet Union?
How did the backing of Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq War aid in the fall of the Soviet Union?

Since "every action taken by the US in the middle east" was purely to end the Cold War, what about Chile? In your view was the coup d'etat against Salvador Allende and the installation of Augusto Pinochet also vital to ending the Cold War?

Even if any of these actions did play a role in the fall of the Soviet Union, did the U.S. care at all about long term regional security after it had achieved it's aims?

no...and therin lies the problem...particularly in reference to Afghanistan and the mujahadeen




its quite simple...you put someone into power...they start to support the enemy...then you put someone else in power

its what the US do...and they are quite good at it

and one final point...did i say the actions helped bring about the fall of the soviet union?....i merely stated they were all part of the cold war...a major factor of which was always going to be who could get the best of the oil rich countries




i'm not and nor do i wish to be...but i too can read wikipedia as you have

quote:
Even if any of these actions did play a role in the fall of the Soviet Union, did the U.S. care at all about long term regional security after it had achieved it's aims?


no...and therin lies the problem...particularly in reference to Afghanistan and the mujahadeen


Yeah after the war with the Russians, Bin Laden threw the bone that the U.S deserted Afghanistan and that gave him the perfect venue for his bullshit as he began recruiting more people for the Taliban.

He eventually was kicked out of the UAE for, correct me if I'm wrong, threatening to kill the Saudi royal family or trying to kill his father or something?

Maybe we might not have had this problem if we had been in the area at the time to provide regional security, but I don't think anyone wanted us there at that time..I don't know...this thing and that thing and the other thing, but we wound up training our own worst enemy anyhow. Go figure...

Originally posted by jaden101
i'm not and nor do i wish to be...but i too can read wikipedia as you have
One of my hobbies when I have the time. I'm relatively well read on the big picture (as I see you are) but the details elude me.

Your semantics implied you thought these actions were purely motivated by wanting to end the Cold War. The Administrations wanted to exploit oil rich countries to end the Cold War? Or the Administrations simply wanted to exploit oil rich countries? I guess this simply shows history is open to interpretation.
The sad thing is today people still debate the history of the Middle East but I suspect in 20 years time no one will even know or remember there was genocide in Darfur.

oh no.. not wikipedia again

a sad fact indeed...but is the oil in the middle east going to last 20 years...if not then i can see it being forgotten pretty easily aswell

good point

Everything and everywhere will eventually be forgotten. Like everything else happening today will probabaly be forgotten as well. It's human nature to throw away what we no longer deem useful. That's never changed.