Genocide in Darfur

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

Originally posted by Dagons Blade
damned if we don't...

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.

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

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?

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

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?

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

If you're a history buff

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

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 😐

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.

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.