Brucie:

I don't know but read the readers comments at the end of that article:


"the un ignored darfur because they were too busy accepting bribes from iraq. now they present a page document that states the obvious. they should have done something a long time ago when there was a chance.
halfe from USA


to hell with non intervention, the african union is so structurally incapable of dealing with this and the sudanese government is aparently unwilling. call in the peacemakers, i have a great per sticker for it, 'shoot a gun in darfur, and we'll fire ten back at you'. how long before this descends into guerilla warfare, and reignites the north south conflict? and the sad thing is that no one will read this, because everyone's benevolence stops at the borders of their own in groups, which here, is either israeli, arab, american, or iranian. sovereignty should not be a absolute principle, as evidenced by the victims of darfur.
Chuck from Canada


kofi annan should use some of the blood money his son & he received from oil for food programs to help those poor souls. its a shame the world community has let this happen, including the us
Matt from Texas


the problem with all of the conflicts. is that we wait too long to do anything to stop them. saddam should never have been allowed to go as far as he went before being stopped. the people of dufar should not have been ignroed this long. the fight agains terrorism should have started long ago with the first bombings.kidnappings.. executions.etc. we let things build to enormous strengths before we do anything about it.
penni from usa


the people of the us would like to help, but the eu will have to lead on this. any american peacekeepers here would be accused of occupation. we can back you guys and the canadians with cash and logistic support. but the current political climate will not allow americans in that region. on another note five hundred us marines just went to the philipines to help rebuild after the floods there. or maybe we are invading.
Cal from USA


great job u.n....you have done soo much for the people of the darfur region. im sure you would have made iraq a success also. congrats for all your hard work. not
david from usa


once again no pauline or margaret on here outraged at the d e aths in dafur or revaling in the misery of the people
Danno from USA


ever notice how a darfar article only gets a dozen or so comments, wheras an article that says something like "cia provides bleak comments of iraq" gets hundreds. this is a very strange phenomenon. its also strange that you never see any of the mighty anti us warriors on here. as much as i hear people like margaret, carlo chas, robert from canada, and others scream about human rights, you would think they would take more interest in this article. moosleems are being killed and here. where is all the pious moosleem outrage? oh, i forgot, when an arab does it, its ok.
Kuphir from Amriqi


all of you ignorant fools blaming kofi for the disaster in sudan should be ashamed of yourselves. when it comes to african no country in the un security council is ready to help, but when it comes to iraq with oil, you are ready to commit coalition of willing to sacrifice your sons blood for oil.
Freeman from unknown


i think you are all missing the point. the reason we dont get fired up about this is because it is m0slums doing genocidal acts against xtians. that doest make the headlines. get real.
ethoman from usa


freeman the un is so willing to blast the us for iraq. they knew of the genocide in darfur and did nothing. if they are going to be the flagship of peace and love in this world it should be for all. by the way i watched some of the relief pictures on the news and saw usa written all over the food being given out. must have been my imagination.
Halfe from USA


why should the us do anything about darfur? let kofi go there with his blue helmet and try to stop arabs from sl aught ering chr&isti#ans. the only thing the understand is the business end of a gun.
Average Joe from USA


if the us decided to go in people would start yelling about us invading again. they would say that we were after darfur's oil so that we would control a larger percentage of the worlds oil supply. they would say that we only went it because we would get to fight against arabs. see the problem is that everyone just wants to tell the us what to do. we are the most powerful country in the world and everyone wants to be in that position. so they tell us that we should do this and should do that. it does not matter what we do people will not be happy because we have the power and they don't. the insurgents in iraqi do not care about the iraqi people or about freedom they care about power. they want to control the country so they want the us out. france votes against the us to hide thier complicity and because they want power to control what the us does. see you all look at it from the wrong point of view.
Reason from Colorado
   

because the us doesn't care about power we can do what we need to. we can do what is right for the iraqi people and make them free. we don't need to care about the oil because people will sell it too us anyways. they want to be our friends because we have the power. so we will fight for the iraqi people to be free. when we can we will fight for dafure. i am sure that we will be sending food and medical to dafure as soon as we can make sure that it gets to the people that need it.
Reason from Colorado   


you all fools who cannot reason correctly, us was not in rwanda because there was no oil. us was in kuwait because there is oil. she is not in sudan because there is no oil, but in iraq because there is oil. we invaded iraq through kuwait, why didn't we install "democracy" there first then iraq? i do not understand something is missing
Freeman from unknown


freeman, sudan does have large deposits of oil. so there goes your reasoning. look things up before you make these wild assumptions.
Reason from Colorado


in response to 'reason from colorado'. the us wants to control the worlds oil reserves, not because it needs all the oil in the world, but because whoever controls the oil has enormous wealth and power. if the us controls the worlds oil, it controls the world.
Brown from Canada


brown, the us controls the world anyway, whats the point in direct control over oil? i see "boycott american goods" on these posts sometimes and its always an amusing part of my day. when the american stock market crashed before one and the us was no where near what it is now economicaly, our citizens were hungry, but ppl all over the world were worse, they starved. oil is nothing if you have the ability to export the myriad other things ppl need to l iv. e. food for an example.
jim from jamestown"

M