BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan

Subject: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: dianavan
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 12:45 AM

So, its more important to be in Iraq than in Sudan or Haiti?

While America argues about oil and so-called democracy, 50,000 people in the Sudan have been murdered by the Janjaweed Militia and now it is rumored that the govt. of Sudan is amassing Arab militia in the south. This act of genocide by their own government has displaced more than a million people.

Meanwhile in Haiti, 2000 are presumed dead in the wake of tropical storm Jeanne and many more are facing starvation and disease... and where is the great America?

Has either candidate suggested that maybe there are greater priorities than Iraq?

...and the people are lulled into apathy by an election campaign that is a media event.

The new Iraqi army doesn't even have adequate armour! How many U.S. troops will be required to bolster this new puppet govt?

What happened to the compassionate America I once believed in?

(Their busy protecting what they think they are entitled to. Another countries resources.)

Sorry this is so long winded. I'm feeling desperate again.

F*** Off George Bush!

d

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 03:09 AM

You are a little off-kilter with one of your statements/questions. There is an American presence in Haiti, albeit minimal. And I am like many another in this day and age; I have been bombarded with so many lies from politicians and their media mouthpieces in recent years that I have to hesitate when I hear words like "weapons of mass destruction" and "genocide" and "humanitarian intervention" that I am loath to form an opinion on the situation, wherever it may be. And there's oil in Darfur. Take Milosevic---the NATO powers had everyone believing that , definitely, this man was a murderous monster who had slaughtered countless thousands of human beings in an orgy of "ethnic cleansing". Now?---They are having one helluva task finding enough evidence of such actions to make the charges viable in the Hague court! So when do we start believing again what we hear? I do think that the U.N. should take some direct action; and that means ALL of the U.N. organisation ---of which America is, believe it or not, a member. We want no repeat, surely, of the Iraq "coalition of the willing" fiasco.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 04:58 AM

Thanks Dianavan, I've mentioned the Sudan crisis in several threads, hoping (seemingly in vain) to drag the attention of US 'Catters away from the navel-gazing of their show-biz presidential election.

Glad someone else has noticed the wholesale starvation going on elsewhere in the world. I personally care far more about these abandoned innocents than I do about the BS and razzamatazz that surrounds the election of another liar to the US Presidency.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 30 Sep 04 - 05:23 AM

Told you it was a waste of time Dianavan.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 30 Sep 04 - 05:58 AM

UK here SJ but I doubt it was a waste of time... There are things people comment on and things people do. I would not be surprised to learn donations have gone out from here to the crisis from US contributers to this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Sep 04 - 08:39 AM

Amen, dianavan....

I've brought this up in several threads but don't hold your breathe waiting for Bush to do one danged thing about it... It just isn't as entertainin' for the NASCAR dads and moms as blowin' the Hell outta someone in Iraq... And, unfortuneatly, it is all about entertainein' dumbed down Americans while the military industrialists fleece them.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Sep 04 - 11:14 AM

I've said this before on other threads on this subject, but I wouldn't be encouraging the US government to lead any initiatives involving Sudan unless we want the Sudan to end up like Afghanistan or Iraq have ended up. Think about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: dianavan
Date: 30 Sep 04 - 12:57 PM

Carol C - I, too, would not want the U.S. to lead an initiative involving Sudan. I think it will take an international initiative but I would like to see the U.S. provide more in the way of media awareness and humanitarian aid. I do think, ignoring this problem smacks of racism.

Is it better to bring democracy to our 'Aryan' brothers than to provide protection for 'black' Africans who are being slaughtered by their own government? Is it better to protect our supply of oil or provide food, water and medicine to Haitian who have been devastated by a natural disaster?

I weep for the America that was once the champion of the oppressed.

Under George Bush, America has become the oppressor. A greedy, self-serving nation of racists.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Sep 04 - 02:25 PM

The problem as I see it, dianavan, is once again one of controlling the oil supply. If the US does nothing right now, and allows the Sudanese government to kill and displace thousands and/or millions of Black African Muslims, then they can go in and do in Sudan what they did in Iraq, using the excuse of ethnic cleansing and/or genocide to remove the Arab Muslim government and take control of the oil. It's all about oil for the US. Do a filter search here in the Mudcat on the word Sudan and see what comes up.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Sep 04 - 02:30 PM

The US has always been a greedy self-serving nation of racists. This is nothing new. The US is one of the reasons Haiti is as impoverished as it is. This has been going on for a long, long time.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 30 Sep 04 - 02:39 PM

That's a little too all-encompassing for comfort, CarolC; you just condemned each and every US citizen to the hottest regions of hell. I'mm sure you didn't mean it quite the way it read (though to add credence to your statement you might draw attention the other meaning of "US", as in "we-us"). Just joking!

Creeping a little from the thread, it strikes me that 50 years ago we Europeans were condemning the US for being too inward-looking and we wanted them to get out and help. While now we are closer to a situation where we'd prefer them to stay at hope and stop "helping". Ironic, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 30 Sep 04 - 02:41 PM

...Meant "at home" - some hope!

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: Wolfgang
Date: 30 Sep 04 - 03:25 PM

Do a filter search here in the Mudcat on the word Sudan and see what comes up. (CarolC)

Good idea:

Since they evidently don't have any oil, it probably won't catch Cheney's attention. (SRS)

If the US does nothing right now, and allows the Sudanese government to kill and displace thousands and/or millions of Black African Muslims, then they can go in and do in Sudan what they did in Iraq, using the excuse of ethnic cleansing and/or genocide to remove the Arab Muslim government and take control of the oil. (Carol)

I wouldn't be encouraging the US government to lead any initiatives involving Sudan (Carol)

What hidden agenda has brought them (the media) out of the woodwork ...spreading more hatred toward Arabs perhaps? (CarolC)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 30 Sep 04 - 03:34 PM

As memory serves- 800,000 or so were killed in Rowanda while Clinton and the UN did nothing.    It is interesting to me that the same people who criticize Bush for doing nothing in Sudan, are the same ones who said we needed an international coalition in Iraq.   Mean while the UN has sat back under Kofi and watched genocide in Rowanda, Bosnia, and Sudan without doing anything.

The US is criticized for being Unilateral in Iraq and criticized for not being unilateral in Sudan.   What a bunch of hypocrites.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Sep 04 - 03:51 PM

The problem, Larry, is that the UN has said plenty about the situation in Sudan, but unfortunately, because of the way it was originally set up, the UN has no teeth and can't back up it's policies. The US military has acted as the UN's teeth in the past--when the US administration felt like it (which is to say, when UN policy and US foreign policy were in agreement, e.g. the Korean "police action").

So you can't really fault the UN for not being "able" to do much. Their "rent-a-cop" is busy elsewhere.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Sep 04 - 08:11 PM

I'm sure Mr. Bush would be only too happy to send troops to straighten out the situation in the Sudan. All that would be needed is for all warring parties to send him a signed agreement that after he declares the enemy vanquished--- (the declaration of course being the whole point of sending troops)---that American soldiers will only be greeted with cheers and American flags. After the bitter disappointment of Iraq, where certain individuals have had the temerity to oppose Mr. Bush AFTER he had declared victory-- (a clear violation of the the rules)-- this will likely be his precondition.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 01:12 AM

I'm not sure what your point is, Wolfgang, but I would prefer it if the US would not try to be the leader in any initiative in Sudan for the reasons I have given on this thread as well as others. If the US does it, I will be suspicious of its motives because of its past record in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You evidently have been weirdly selective in choosing which statements of mine to quote here in this thread. You start off your post with an entirely innacurate quote from SRS about the Sudan not having any oil. As I'm sure you know from reading some of my posts you've neglected to provide quotes from, I have documented the fact that Sudan does indeed have oil. Quite a lot of it. I will be suspicious of any initiatives the US tries to lead in the Sudan precisely because of this.

On the subject of why the US media was all of a sudden noticing the situation in Sudan which had been ongoing for several decades at the time I made that post you quoted, I still would like to know why they completely ignored it for so long, and only just recently decided it was worthy of comment. I think they do indeed have a hidden agenda.

You seem to think your assignment is to follow me around and interpret the real meaning of my posts for everyone here in the Mudcat. Problem is, you're projecting your own bullshit onto me. You are amazingly consistent in mischaracterizing what I'm trying to say. I notice you don't like it much when others mischaracterize what you're saying though. I'd say that's pretty hypocritical of you, Wolfgang.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: dianavan
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 11:06 AM

Larry K - You said, "The US is criticized for being Unilateral in Iraq and criticized for not being unilateral in Sudan." Who said they want unilateral action by the U.S. anywhere?

Fact is, the U.N. turned their back on Rwanda and now they're turning their back on the Sudan. For the U.N. to be effective, the U.S. must also be involved but hopefully, under U.N. command. Maybe this time, they won't abandon their efforts.

We're talking about genocide! Stopping genocide is not the same as imposing democracy. For the world to sit by and watch this happen and do nothing is a crime! I call it racism.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 11:40 AM

The important question in my mind, dianavan, is why the government of Sudan is encouraging the Arab militias to conduct this genocide. The Arabs in Sudan have been bickering with the Black African Sudanese for generations over the land in question. It started becoming a genocide (several decades ago) when the Sudanese government started equipping the Sudanese Arabs with a lot of deadly weaponry. The result of this has been that the land gets cleared of its inhabitants. The Sudanese Arabs would like this to be so they can have the land that the Black African Sudanese have pretty much always inhabited. But I'd say the Sudanese government has no intention of letting anyone have that land until they've pumped all of the oil out of it.

My next guess is that when (and not until) all of the people have been cleared off of the land, that's when the US government will step in and say in outraged tones about the Sudanese government, "They committed genocide against their own people! They must be removed." And then they'll topple the Sudanese government and take control of the oil. This will be much easier for them to do since the Sudanese government will have already done all of the dirty work of removing the people from their land.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: dianavan
Date: 02 Oct 04 - 04:34 AM

I do believe you may be right about that Carol C.

It may not play out exactly that way but basically, yeh, commit genocide (and I include those that stand by and watch), watch civil war occur, rush in to stop it and enjoy the spoils. I think its called divide and conquer.

Fill it up, America! (and this includes Canada) Besides the genocide you are allowing to happen, you are destroying the environment to boot. Way to go!

So much for the plaque at Dacchau - Never Again! Yeh, right!

Maybe since the U.S. is so busy, and Canada is so broke, Israel might like to send a few troops to the Sudan. Perhaps Russia or China. Go figure...

d

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Oct 04 - 04:41 AM

Don Firth

As I have brought up in other threads, the US HAS declared that there is genocide going on in Sudan- But the UN refuses to make that statement, since it would require the UN to take action, which the UN is unwilling to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim genocide in Sudan
From: beardedbruce - PM
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 07:29 AM

From Sunday's Washington Post:

"the admnistration will continue to press other countries to press the United Nations to press Sudan's government. The uncertainty of this strataegy was immediately apparent after Mr Powell spoke. Brushing aside the evidence, France and Germany declined to call the killings genocide. ... China, the leading foreign investor in Sudan's burgeoning oil fields, said it might veto a tough Security Council resolution."

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: dianavan
Date: 02 Oct 04 - 01:47 PM

What does France and Germany call so many murders?

...and China 'might' doesn't mean China will.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: dianavan
Date: 02 Oct 04 - 01:51 PM

From the Taipei Times:

"The council on Sept. 18 passed a resolution calling for an international commission to investigate claims of genocide in Darfur.

It also gave the thumbs-up for a significantly expanded African Union force in Darfur, and threatened sanctions against the Khartoum government if it doesn't act to rein in Arab militias blamed for killing over 50,000 people and forcing 1.2 million to flee their homes.

Last week, Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo, who heads the African Union, said the 53-nation body can quickly mobilize up to 5,000 troops to help end the looting and killing in Darfur but it needs hundreds of millions of dollars to deploy the force.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: dianavan
Date: 02 Oct 04 - 02:00 PM

...and this from a Pakistani source:

Sudan says US armed Darfur rebels

CAIRO: The United States helped train and arm rebels from west Sudan who rose up against the Sudanese government last year, Sudanese President President Omar Hassan Al Bashir said in remarks published on Thursday. "Who else than the United States is behind this ... They took rebels to Eritrea, and set up training camps for them, spent money on them, armed them and gave them Thuraya mobiles (telephones) to speak between anywhere in the world," Bashir told Egypt's Al Ahram daily when asked about the involvement of foreign powers in Darfur. The US embassy in Khartoum declined to comment on the report.

Sudanese officials have previously said the United States has exploited the Darfur crisis to further its own political agenda in the region and to exploit the country's oil and other resources. Sudan produces up to 320,000 barrels a day of crude.

"Eritrea ... was the land used, but the training, spending and planning was paid for by foreign powers, at the head of them the United States, represented in its agencies," Bashir told the semi-official Egyptian daily in the interview in Khartoum. He said encouragement came from US pressure groups, such as right-wing Christians. Bashir said he had evidence and documents to support his charges, but he did not give details. "There are many ways to resolve it, and the ways are known internationally, but those who lit the fire don't want to put it out," he said. The UN Security Council has threatened Sudan with possible sanctions if it fails to stop the violence in Darfur. A ceasefire between the government and rebels agreed in Chad in April has proved shaky. reuters


All of this for oil. Please people, do something, anything, to cut down on your consumption. It just ain't worth it.

d

d

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Oct 04 - 02:22 PM

All of this for oil. Please people, do something, anything, to cut down on your consumption. It just ain't worth it.

Amen to that, dianavan.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: GUEST,Yorkshire Lad
Date: 02 Oct 04 - 02:24 PM

Have any of you seen the destruction in Samarra on to-days news, the BBC pictures are horrific, men women and children dead and dying, homes flattened from air raids, what an evil society that can send terriorists in aircraft to bomb the defenceless.
God help the Iraqi people who are suffering while the majority of Americans couldn`t care less.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Oct 04 - 02:31 PM

It's not that they don't care, Yorkshire Lad, it's that they are being misinformed by their government and their news media, and they just don't understand what's really going on.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: GUEST,Yorkshire Lad
Date: 02 Oct 04 - 02:57 PM

Thank you Carol, surely the majority cannot be so naive as to believe the lying propaganda I see daily on Fox News, the despair on the face of those Iraqi people would make any sane person seeth with anger.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Oct 04 - 05:00 PM

I'm very sorry to have to tell you, Yorkshire Lad, that many of them do indeed believe what they see on Fox. And it's not just Fox that is misleading them. All of the mainstream media sources are misleading them. What we are being told is that we are there to help those people whose faces show so much dispair, and that we are doing a good job of it. The majority of people in the US do believe this.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: GUEST,Yorkshire Lad
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 06:48 AM

Quite simply I despair, and if the guy in the sky isn`t really pie in the sky, I pray that others may see the light.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: GUEST,THE CURATOR
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 09:41 AM

Having read with great interest the above comments, I am relieved to see there are still some people in this mad world still with feeling and understanding. I can assure you no one has any idea what it is like to see fear in the eyes of innocent people who just happen to unfortunate enough to live in a country invaided by a surpressive army. I know because I was once part of that army.I served in Northern Ireland and the Balkans.My father always said that war was started by old men and fought by young men, who's job it was not to question. Well I have been part of group who now feels it is their right to question. I ask the Bush and Blair double act, does the sight of dead women and children caught in yesterdays air strikes in Iraq not affect you ? 75% of those hospitalised yesterday were under 21.My own head still buzzs with actions I myself was involved in, there is no limits in the actions of modern armies to obtain what the leadership wants. Believe me I was told it, as an order.Those who support the actions of these two misguided individuals, and they are misguided, Bush is there to impress daddy, and be the son daddy wanted, not a failure. And Tony is there because British still haven't paid American back the money to cover World War one, let alone World War Two.Must accept that when your armed thugs go into other countries and attempt to rape nations of their faith, traditions and resources, that people will fight back. Not always on the blood soaked soil of their own country.So less tears please when large holes appear in the cities of your countries. Look at yourself and the leadership you elected.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 12:40 PM

We didn't elect Bush, THE CURATOR. Gore got more votes than Bush. The US Supreme Court intervened in that election and the result is that the US has a president who lost the popular vote. It's a big mistake to think that the US is a democracy these days. It is not. It's a hegemonic kleptocracy.

And now, this year, with all of the questions about the fallibility of the voting machines and how easy it is to tamper with them, many of us don't have very high hopes for a legitimate election this time, either. Of course, even if Kerry is elected this time around, it will be because someone with a lot of money and a vested interest in certain outcomes will have made that possible, and he will also be owned by huge, money and power hungry corporations, just as Bush is.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Oct 04 - 01:45 AM

ABUJA, Nigeria (Reuters) -- The African Union has recommended a four-day postponement of peace talks over Sudan's Darfur region after a transport mix-up left delegates stranded across the continent.

The AU-sponsored talks between the rebels and the government come against a backdrop of the imminent deployment of thousands more troops to monitor renewed fighting in Darfur, where 1.5 million people have been driven from their homes.

U.N. officials said they feared an end to the rainy season could lead to fresh fighting and urged governments to do more to help speed African Union troops to the troubled area.

Rebels and AU officials traded blame over who was responsible for failing to airlift rebel negotiators from Kenya, Sudan, Ethiopia and Chad to the talks in the Nigerian capital, which analysts say have little chance of success.

A previous round collapsed last month without an agreement on the conflict, which the United Nations says has caused one of the world's worst humanitarian crises.

After a 30-minute opening ceremony, which went ahead despite the absence of several senior rebel delegates, the AU special envoy for Darfur, Hamid al-Gabid, suggested formal talks should begin on Monday.

Government negotiators said they still wanted them to start on Saturday.

Delegates are expected to hold preliminary consultations on the agenda and timetable on Friday.

African force
The AU's Peace and Security Council agreed on Wednesday to expand its force in Darfur, deploying more than 3,000 troops to bolster 150 ceasefire monitors and 300 AU troops already there.

The force's main job will be to monitor a ceasefire agreed in April which both sides accuse each other of violating.

Najeib Abdelwahab, Sudan's state minister for foreign affairs, said Khartoum wanted the rebels to recognize the ground situation had substantially improved.

"The government has made serious efforts in the security and humanitarian fields. But as they say, it takes two to tango," he told Reuters.

A U.N. official said while there had been progress in getting food, water and sanitation to Darfur's 2 million people in need, the security situation was deteriorating for aid workers and local inhabitants.

"I told the Security Council that security is long overdue ... and that every effort now has to be made to bring in the African Union observers and troops," said U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland.

"Every effort has to be made to ensure that the rebels and others do not use the end of the rainy season to step up fighting."

A U.N. official in Khartoum said on Wednesday there were reports of a heavy bombardment in north Darfur.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the United States commended the AU's efforts to end the conflict and called for more international help.

"We also urge the international community to respond generously to fund the vital programs that support the victims in both Chad and Sudan. Only when the people of Darfur can safely return home will the job be done," McClellan said in a statement.

Arms
After years of skirmishes between Arab nomads and non-Arab farmers over scarce resources in arid Darfur, rebels took up arms early last year.

Rebels accuse the government of using Arab militias, known as Janjaweed, to loot and burn non-Arab villages. The Sudanese government admits arming some militias to fight the rebels, but denies any links to the Janjaweed, calling them outlaws.

The United Nations estimates 70,000 people have died from malnutrition and disease in the last seven months alone, a figure the Sudanese government disputes.

There are no reliable estimates of how many have been killed in the violence, which the United States has called genocide.

Analysts said both sides had an interest in dragging out the talks and that they were unlikely to reach a deal to resolve the crisis in Darfur, a region the size of France.

Ahmed Mohamed Tugod, the chief negotiator for the JEM rebel movement, said the success of the talks depended on "whether the government genuinely wants to resolve the real problems or not."

"I don't think there is any pressure on us, our position is very clear. We are not going to sign the humanitarian protocol unless we sort out the security issues," he told Reuters.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 10:52 PM

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- "Sudanese forces" have removed several thousand people from a refugee camp in the Darfur region, despite assurances they would not, U.N. officials said Tuesday.

"As far as I'm concerned it has to stop ... and people will also have to be brought back, said Jan Pronk, the U.N. envoy to Sudan, who said the situation there is deteriorating. "Stop it and reverse what has happened."

Pronk said "a couple of thousand" refugees had been moved from El-Geer on the outskirts of Nyala in South Darfur to Sherif, just north of Nyala.

He said the government had misrepresented the facts in the case.

"The government has told these IDPS (internally displaced persons) that this was happening in close consultation with the United Nations and in consultation with nongovernmental organizations, which is not the case," he said.

U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard said preliminary reports indicated that between 3 a.m. and 9 a.m. (midnight to 6 a.m. GMT), 15 trucks were used to relocate "a proportion of the population" north of the Nyala camp.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Nov 04 - 05:57 PM

In southern Darfur, several thousand people who were forced out of a camp in the middle of the night returned to find the site destroyed and its generators and water pump looted, U.N. officials said Friday.

The camp, known as El Geer, was at the center of an outcry Tuesday when security forces allegedly forced people who had taken refuge there and in nearby camps to leave.

The top U.N. envoy to Sudan, Jan Pronk, called it a violation of international law.

full article

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: DougR
Date: 06 Nov 04 - 06:18 PM

Carol C: your post of September 30, 2:30 P.M. What a bunch of horse pucky you sling. The United States is the most generous country in the world. And you call it greedy! What a pile of you know what.

Dianavan: one conflict at a time. Perhaps you should be directing your criticizems at France, Germany and Russia. Their armies don't seem to be particularly occupied at the moment. Well, I guess Russia is having a bit of trouble of it's own, though, now that I think about it.

What about the U.N.? Should it be a bigger player in the Sudan? Perhaps if Kofi got more involved there, he might have less time to try to screw things up for the coalition in Iraq.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: dianavan
Date: 06 Nov 04 - 06:28 PM

DougR - Here is the point.

Saddam wasn't bombing the people of Iraq. What is the U.S. doing there? Bombing the people of Iraq! The people of Iraq hated Saddam but they hate the U.S. even more.

Now maybe if the U.S. directed their energy to more humanitarian efforts, they might once again be called the good guys.

From the article linked above:

"The United Nations has called Darfur the world's worst humanitarian crisis, saying the conflict has claimed 70,000 lives since March, mostly through disease and hunger.

A U.N. report released last Wednesday said the violence has affected 2 million people and mentioned strong indications of war crimes "on a large and systematic scale."

d

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Nov 04 - 06:46 PM

dianavan,

You miss the point that the UN IS NOT taking action.

See my post here of 12 Sep 04 - 07:29 AM

And why do you try to hijack a thread about Sudan to Iraq? Aren't there enough threads about Iraq? Or do you think that Iraqi lives are worth so much more than Sudanese?

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Nov 04 - 07:00 PM

DougR... generous in giving poverty and death, in robbing other countries of their resources and propping up oppressive dictatorships in order to secure wealth for our most priveleged few. Not so generous in leaving people alone to live their lives in freedom.

You're the one who's full of horse pucky. You know nothing of the world. Pity too... you've had so long to learn. But you just keep your little velvet-lined blinders on and ignore the suffering all around you that has been created by the people whose asses you have your mouth so firmly attached to.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: dianavan
Date: 06 Nov 04 - 07:20 PM

beardedbruce - You are a fucking idiot.

How can I hijack a thread that I started. What do you mean your post of Sept 12? The thread wasn't even started until Sept 29.

Learn to read. Maybe if you start reading, your intelligence will increase and you will stop voting for warmongers like Bush.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: dianavan
Date: 06 Nov 04 - 07:24 PM

Actually, I guess you can read at a somewhat functional level or you wouldn't be able to post at all. You do need, however, to improve your comprehension and your ability to think critically.

I guess you are another good, little, functionally literate, consumer.

Lick Bush boot you fool.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Nov 04 - 07:26 PM

Pardon me. My post of 02 Oct 04 - 04:41 AM , quoting from the other thread on Sudan that was hijacked.


As I have brought up in other threads, the US HAS declared that there is genocide going on in Sudan- But the UN refuses to make that statement, since it would require the UN to take action, which the UN is unwilling to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim genocide in Sudan
From: beardedbruce - PM
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 07:29 AM

From Sunday's Washington Post:

"the admnistration will continue to press other countries to press the United Nations to press Sudan's government. The uncertainty of this strataegy was immediately apparent after Mr Powell spoke. Brushing aside the evidence, France and Germany declined to call the killings genocide. ... China, the leading foreign investor in Sudan's burgeoning oil fields, said it might veto a tough Security Council resolution."


And you ignore the FACT that I presented, that the UN is doing NOTHING.

My apologies- you are entitled to take your own thread anywhere you want, unlike the rest of us here who have to go where the posts lead us...

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Nov 04 - 07:57 PM

dianavan


hardly a valid arguement on your part. Shall I judge your intelligence from your posts? It appears to me that you are ignorant of the facts, and make no attempt to learn what they are.

I will admit to being a lousy typist, sometimes rash in my postings, and opinionated- like most of us here. If you choose to think that I am less intelligent than you for having my own opinions, feel free- but try posting some numbers as to YOUR intelligence, and see if you have anything further to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: dianavan
Date: 06 Nov 04 - 08:30 PM

beardedbruce - what makes you think that your thread regarding Sudan was hi-jacked? The last post on that thread was Sept. 13. This thread was started on Sept 29.

The U.N. is doing nothing because its hands are tied due to the unilateral action of the U.S. in Iraq. If the U.S. had stronger allies, Russia and China wouldn't be so bold.

Its my understanding that Russia and China are supplying arms to the Sudanese govt. while the U.S. is supplying arms to the rebels. What kind of action do you suppose the U.N. should take when it is their own members who are creating the conflict?

Don't you think it is best settled at the table? Once the problem is resolved, the U.N. can provide humanitarian relief but why would they enter a conflict only to find they are caught between? Don't blame the U.N. when it is the U.S. and Russia and China who have a callous disregard for the lives of Africans.

d

P.S. I don't even know my IQ. I do know that I can survive without oil.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Nov 04 - 08:39 PM

dianavan,

"beardedbruce - what makes you think that your thread regarding Sudan was hi-jacked? The last post on that thread was Sept. 13. This thread was started on Sept 29."

My apologies, again, if I did not make myself clear. I am not accusing you or this thread of hijacking the earlier one- I was merely stating that it had been hijacked. I did not intend to place any of the blame upon you.



"The U.N. is doing nothing because its hands are tied due to the unilateral action of the U.S. in Iraq. If the U.S. had stronger allies, Russia and China wouldn't be so bold."

I do not understand this. You are stating that because the US acted unilaterally, the UN cannot follow the US statement that this is genocide, and mobilize forces?


"Its my understanding that Russia and China are supplying arms to the Sudanese govt. while the U.S. is supplying arms to the rebels. What kind of action do you suppose the U.N. should take when it is their own members who are creating the conflict?"

Why should this be different than Iraq, then? There, France and Germany were violating the UN sanctions, and objecting to US interferring with their profits, but everyone her thinks that is ok. Why not have the UN deal with Sudan????



"Don't you think it is best settled at the table? Once the problem is resolved, the U.N. can provide humanitarian relief but why would they enter a conflict only to find they are caught between? Don't blame the U.N. when it is the U.S. and Russia and China who have a callous disregard for the lives of Africans."

I do not think that to allow genocide to continue, when it is known, is ever right.

I think it is more than the US , Russia, and China. Where are the voices from Europe? The rest of Africa? All the other nations that make up the UN? READ my post- the US has declared this to be genocide, but the UN will not, since that would require action under the charter.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: dianavan
Date: 06 Nov 04 - 10:22 PM

It is my understanding that this issue is on the table at the U.N. It is difficult to declare that genocide is occurring when there are so many outside forces involved. If the U.S. would stop arming the rebels, I believe the case for genocide would be more easily defined. At present, the people are collateral damage of a war. Just like in Iraq.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Nov 04 - 10:23 PM

If the US stopped arming the rebels, there would be no need for UN intervention- the black population would be dead.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Nov 04 - 11:11 PM

I'm stickin' with my earlier observation that if it ain't entertaining for the NASCAR folks it ain't gonna get done uner Bush...

Blow the Hell outta some folks and all is well...

Yes, it is way late for the US to do more than "talk". Bush is good at talk but can't walk the walk...

Meanwhile, upwards of 1,000,000 Sudamese will die while Bush, and others, enertain the NASCAR crowd blowin' the crap outta Iragis.

That's the way it looks from these Wes Ginny hills anyway...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Nov 04 - 11:26 PM

Bobert,

The problem is that the US went to the UN, like you all keep saying it should, and the UN said it would study the problem. Do you think we should act unilaterally, without the help of our loyal allies like France and Germany?

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Nov 04 - 11:33 PM

Tell ya what, BB. If the US would intervene in Sudan they would be seen ad heros by the French and the Germans...

Big difference when on one hand you invade a country for what you can gain and another on what you have to give.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Nov 04 - 11:38 PM

Bobert:

From: beardedbruce - PM
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 07:29 AM

From Sunday's Washington Post:

"the admnistration will continue to press other countries to press the United Nations to press Sudan's government. The uncertainty of this strataegy was immediately apparent after Mr Powell spoke. Brushing aside the evidence, France and Germany declined to call the killings genocide. ... China, the leading foreign investor in Sudan's burgeoning oil fields, said it might veto a tough Security Council resolution."


The French will not see us as heros, no matter what we do. They still ( the government, NOT the people) resent the fact that they needed us in WWII.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Nov 04 - 11:49 PM

Since when is the UN of any importance to you, bb?

Yer wrong on the French...

Anything that the US could do as the world's remaining "super power" that looks humanitarian can't hurt the US's reputation.

Attacking countries fir oil don't fall in that category..

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Nov 04 - 11:59 PM

Bobert,

You keep claiming that the US invaded Iraq for oil. We are not taking their oil- if anything, we are shipping IN oil. The oil that does come out is being sold on the open market, and we are not making money on it. So, why do you think that we attacked anyone for oil?

With the cost of the attack, it seems to me that we would have gotten a lot more oil by just buying it with the money.

You keep making this claim- So, what evidence do you have?

If I am wrong on the French, you are wrong on the oil.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 12:12 AM

No, bruce. You are wrong on both counts...

The evidence of the neocon/bush on the invasion of Iraq is "in the pudding"... Rvery concievable excues for the invasion has been dismissed except the oil. WMD's? Nope. Nukes? Nope. Al Quida? Nope, etc. Whats left? Oil!!!

Oh, democarcy you say, BB? Hmmmm? If Bus is so intersted in democracy he'd be pushing for it here at home...

No, an action based on nuthin' more than concern for ones fellow man can't be put down as ones greed... thus the Sudan....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 12:16 AM

Bobert

What about little green men, or blue ones? You haven't ruled them out, so they must be the cause...

ANd it is France and Germany that do not want to call it genocide, since that requires the UN to act. The US has already said it is- the UN is refusing to deal with it.

So, we should UNILATERALLY invade Sudan, and put things to right- and the whole world will love us?

Can I PLEASE get some of what you are smoking?

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 02:11 AM

My understanding is that the UN has sent people to Sudan to help protect the Black Sudanese.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 02:19 AM

CarolC

They have sent some observers, who are not allowed to interfere, just make comments.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 02:29 AM

The ONLY troops there are to protect the UN observers. Like in Rwanda, if there is violence, they are supposed to leave.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: dianavan
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 03:00 AM

beardedbruce, I agree, oil is an oversimplification. Its oil for the war machine, the weapons industry, the jet fuel, the armies and the re-constuction contractors, the t.v. evangelists and their investment companies.

What makes you think the genocide would be occurring if there was no conflict? Seems to me that Arab militia armed with American assault weapons might be causing a fair amount of instability in the region.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 03:10 AM

dianavan

Tha Arab militias are supported by the government, NOT the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 03:18 AM

and I do not see that the US is getting any oil from Iraq. What is pumped seems to be going out to the world market, where we buy just like everybody else.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: dianavan
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 04:21 AM

Are they? Is that for certain? Apparently the Sudanese Government denies that.

How do we know?

The important thing now is to mount a humanitarian relief. Since Doctors without Borders and CARE International have left Iraq. Maybe they will be able to help in the Sudan.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 11:05 AM

beardedbruce, the point isn't that the US is getting the oil. The point is that the oil supply is now under the control of US oil companies. That's been the point all along. We here in the US, you and me... the little guys... we were never intended to benefit from anything our troops do overseas.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 12:10 AM

KHARTOUM, Sudan (AP) -- Police drove through a Darfur camp for displaced people on Wednesday, smashing makeshift homes with their trucks, a UN spokesman and Amnesty International said.

It was the second alleged government raid in two weeks on El Geer camp, near Nyala in southern Darfur.

cnn story

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Nov 04 - 05:46 AM

GENEVA, Switzerland (AP) -- The United Nations refugee agency said Thursday it is pulling staff out of part of Sudan's conflict-ravaged Darfur region to protest government restrictions on the aid workers.

Jean-Marie Fakhouri, Darfur chief for the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, said the agency decided to act because Sudanese officials have barred its aid workers from leaving Nyala, in southern Darfur, since Oct. 20.

"It is extremely frustrating for our staff to be forced to sit idle," Fakhouri said in a statement. "If we are not going to be allowed to do our work in South Darfur, then UNHCR has no choice but to go elsewhere where the needs are just as great."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/africa/11/11/sudan.un.ap/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Nov 04 - 01:32 AM

Where's Freda when she's needed? I need someone to help me sort this out. The news is so confusing!

Do I have it right when I understand that this cannot really be called genocide because although it happens to be Arabs killing Africans, it is really a struggle over grazing land and water? Apparently the Africans are the cowboys and Arabs are the sheep herders (or goats as the case may be) - so we have nomads wanting to use the same land and water as the cattle farmers?

Apparently the Arab govt. of Sudan has enlisted the Janjaweed militia to quell a rebellion by the African farmers. Trouble is, the Janjaweed went overboard.

So where does the oil come in? Where is the oil?

It is definitely time for a coalition of forces to maintain peace in the region until the real source of the problem can be sorted out. I understand Germany is sending in their troops. I sure hope its not a unilateral action.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Nov 04 - 01:41 AM

The oil is the excuse that the people here who don't want any distraction from their single-minded hate of the Bush administration pull up to let themselves ignore the slaughter of "2 million" since 1983... ( see previous Sudan threads.) If they say "oil", they can blame Bush, regardless of what the facts are.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Nov 04 - 01:48 AM

http://search.cnn.com/pages/search/advanced.jsp?Coll=cnn_xml&QuerySubmit=true&Page=1&QueryText=sudan&query=sudan

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Nov 04 - 02:35 PM

dianavan, the Sudanese government is using the Arab militias to help them clear the land where they want to have unfettered access to a fairly large oil deposit. The US is sort of egging things on a bit by backing rebel forces on the side of the Black Africans so that the government of Sudan will have a more of an excuse to continue clear the land of the Black Africans. The Arab militias are hopeing that when it's all over, they will be able to claim the land in question. But the US will very probably wait until the land is cleared of the people who have the most legitimate claim to the land (the Black Africans), and then it will depose Sudan's Arab government on the pretext that it has committed genocide, and take control of the oil.

This article, posted by Freda in another thread, does a good job of showing the inconsistancies in the policy of the US in this matter:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sudan/story/0,14658,1318643,00.html

The fact that beardedbruce is only concerned with the situation in Sudan but has not shown an equal amount of righteous indignation about the crises of similar magnitude in both northern Uganda and eastern Congo, illustrates his bias in this regard.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Nov 04 - 09:49 PM

Canadian P.M Paul Martin says he is going to provide traing to the A.U. to become peace keepers in Sudan. He thinks its a better idea to have African peace keepers who have an understanding of the culture. He has also offerred money and supplies and urges other nations to step forward.


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1100389810591_84?hub=Canada

I wonder what the U.S. contribution will be?

Over to you, beardedbruce.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 03:08 PM

What I am learning about Sudan is truly frightening.

The Sudanese Liberation Army (the rebels)are backed by the U.S. and Christian Fundamentalist groups who oppose the Arabization of the African majority.

The govt. of Sudan (mainly Arab and Moslem) are comitting atrocities in the Darfour region with the help of the Janjaweed militia. There are also reports of assistance from Syria who may be providing chemical weapons. This is their response to the rebellion.

There is, of course, a struggle to control vast oil reserves.

Here we go again.

If U.S. interests would stop supporting rebel armies, these conflicts might be settled peacefully, at the table. Instead, we have to wait until the situation reaches the point of a humanitarian crisis. Why would the U.S. give military backing to Garang (who leads the rebellion) instead of trying to achieve a peaceful resolution to the conflict? Do they think that war is the only answer?

d

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 03:34 PM

My understanding is that the Black Africans in this situation are Muslims also.

And I think you'll find the answers to your questions by looking at who has the most to gain from getting the land cleared of its people.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: Peace
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 04:31 PM

Good observation, Carol C.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 07:39 PM

Carol C. - I'm not sure but I think that the Black Africans are probably both Muslim and Christian. The leader of the rebellion is definitely Christian, however.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 11:42 PM

The north of Sudan is largely Muslim. The south is largely Christian. Darfur is in the Muslim part of Sudan and the Black Africans in Darfur are Muslim. The rebels are largely from the southern part of Sudan and they are largely Christian. The Black Africans who are being driven from their land in Darfur are Muslim. Darfur is where most of the conflict is happening right now.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: dianavan
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 01:20 AM

Thanks Carol - I am also confused because apparently there is the Sudanese Liberation Army and the Sudanese Peoples Liberation Army.

No wonder it is taking the international community so long to figure out whats actually hapening there.

It looks like Canada is definitely training members of the AU to become peace keepers so that aid can get through to the displaced. Apparently, the Sudanese want anything but the U.S.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 02:10 AM

The BBC Panorama report last night finished with a mother counting on her fingers - the number of her murdered children..........

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: freda underhill
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 04:36 PM

Monday, 8 November, 2004,BBC news
UN body probing Sudan 'genocide'

A UN-appointed commission has arrived in Sudan to decide whether genocide has taken place in the region of Darfur. The five-member panel has three months to reach a conclusion. The United States has already called the situation in Darfur genocide but the Sudanese say the US declaration is politically motivated. African Union mediators have been meeting separately with Sudanese government and Darfur rebels in ongoing peace talks in Abuja, Nigeria.

Speaking to the BBC, Sudanese Foreign Minister Mustafa Uthman Isma'il said Khartoum welcomed the commission's arrival because it was confident that no genocide had taken place. Mr Isma'il said the US was the only country to assert genocide had occurred in Darfur and blamed rebels for the humanitarian, security, and political problem there.
A UN spokesman in Sudan, George Somerwill, said the body's mandate is to investigate of reports of violations of international law and human rights law in Darfur "by all parties" and to determine "whether or not acts of genocide have occurred and to identify the perpetrators of such violations".

Italian judge Antonio Cassese heads the body. more here..

UN body probing Sudan genocide

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 06:50 AM

Let's call it what it is: It's not about the faith in Darfur, it's the centuries old racism in that part of the world raising its ugly head.

'Abd' (arab.) means 'slave/servant' and can also be used to denote a black African (as opposed to a more white looking African from North of the Sahara).

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 10:02 AM

Wolfgang - Thats probably true, but I think its more complicated than racism.

There are at least three regions involved. An Arab govt. and two or three rebellions. Throw U.S. arms and a struggle for oil into the mix and we get real confusion.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: GUEST,Rick Fanning
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 10:13 AM

Well, for my little input on this and other subjects. The solution is simple enough... people in these overpopulated countries need to quit having so many babies. Bear with me on this. I'm not certain of the corrolation here, but I do know that studies have been done on overpopulation in rat colonies and these studies showed that when the population density reached a certain level the rats became violent toward each other and even started killing one another. I believe similar observations have been made of chimpanzee colonies.

Why do people want to keep bringing children into a world of poverty, cruelty and death? Have they not yet determined what causes children? Is the drive to perpetuate their genetic make up so prevalent that it suppresses logic and common sense? How large a country is Sudan that we can talk about "millions" being murdered? Why does a woman have to count her murdered children on both hands? Does she feel compelled to replace the ones that are lost? It is all so insane. If the world population were at a sustainable level (about 1/100 of what it is now) we could all be able to live a very comfortable and pleasant existence.

The happenings in Sudan are simply repeats of what has been happening in various locations on this planet for centuries, wherever man has chosen to defy nature and produce progeny much too numerous for the land to support.

Sometimes what seems to be the simplest solution to anything is actually the hardest to attain.

I welcome all "civilized" responses.

Rick

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 10:23 AM

I agree with you, Rick, but you can't make people do what you want them to do. Is that a reason to condone murder? I don't think so.

What seems to make the most sense to me is to allow the African people to control their own resources so that they can begin to control their destiny. Perhaps through education, they will then be able to control their population. Who knows? I only know that when women and children become the victims of warring men, its time to call a halt.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: freda underhill
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 10:28 AM

If the poverty stricken people all around the world just went and died, we'd have no more problems, is that what you're saying? how "civilised!"

Try living in a third world country, and you'll find they're people just like you and me, with all the same potential and every right to live.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: Wolfgang
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 05:53 AM

The solution is simple enough... people in these overpopulated countries need to quit having so many babies (Rick F.)

One solution, and not a very humane one as Freda has remarked. You could also look at it another way: Our birth rate once was as high as is now theirs. We now live in more densely populated areas than they do. Our birth rate went down as the riches available to a larger percentage of the population increased. So here's another take at the solution:

Make the riches of the world available to them too and the birth rates will go down as ours did.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: freda underhill
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 06:45 AM

from shoe shine boy to president - an inspirational story of a Peruvian peasant who was given a chance by the Peace Corps:

Alejandro Toledo, President of Peru, is a man of Indian descent. In 1946, he was born into a family of peasants in Cabana, in the area of Ancash in the province of Pallasca. One of 16 children, Toledo was born and raised in the grimy port village of Chimbote. His father was a bricklayer and his mother sold fish at markets, and he himself worked as a shoeshine boy. At age 16, with the guidance of members of the Peace Corps, Toledo enrolled at the University of San Francisco on a one-year scholarship. He continued his education, obtaining a partial soccer scholarship and making up the difference by pumping gas.

In addition to two masters degrees, he earned a Ph.D. in economics from Stanford, where he met his wife, Elaine Karp, a Belgian-born American anthropologist. Currently a business-school professor, Toledo previously served as chief economic adviser to the president of the Central Bank and minister of labor under President Fernando Belaúnde. He also did a stint at the World Bank.
He became President of Peru on a very small majority, and has preached a centrist platform, pledging to award small-business loans to farmers, balance the budget, lure foreign investment, and create jobs. Toledo's moderate campaign and carefully selected issues have found broad appeal.

During the electoral campaign, Toledo promised, above all, more jobs to the Peruvian voters. At least, he intended to create them mostly through the private sector. However, he not only promised the moon to peasants, but almost anything to all economic sectors. On his governmental agenda, Toledo has further privatizations in 2002, more support for education and schools, a reduction of the large army of state employees, a plan of decentralization, to improve respect for human rights, an army without corruption, an independent and efficient system of justice and police without corruption, a constitutional reform with the abolition of its authoritarian traits introduced under Fujimori, the fight against drug dealers and much more. Very soon it will become clear which promises Toledo will be able to fulfill.

....................

Ive put this in to illustrate the point that all people need is access to education. I'm not saying he'll be a perfect President, but this is a story of someone from a poor family of 16 children - should they have been asked not to have so many children?

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 08:10 AM

Well, we could provide them with information about and access to birth control-

OOOPS! The right-wing, fundamentalist "christian"[sic] U.S. of A.
sez we can't do that....

There's "compassion" for ya.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: GUEST,Lepus Rex, cookieless
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 09:24 PM

OK, this has been bothering me for months now:

The use of the terms "Black Africans" and "(White) Arabs" in this thread is completely inaccurate. Those White "Arabs" who make up the Janjaweed militias that are slaughtering the "Black" indigenous Darfuri tribes are, in fact, also "Black," and also indigenous Africans. They are not the "pure" Arab descendants of Mid-Eastern Arabs; they are Arabised locals, Bedouins, basically, but natives ones. They are "true" Africans. To divide Darfuris into "Whites" and "Blacks" may be an exciting idea for some, for whatever reason. But it is wrong, and a distraction that will do nothing to help the Darfuri peoples. Can't blame you all for being so very fucking wrong, really, as most of the news coming out of Darfur uses these misleading terms. As do those Darfuri "Blacks" and "Arabs" themselves, actually... Yanno, there was an excellent article about Darfur a while back, by an expert on the topic, no less... I'll post a link when I find it.

Anyways, now you know. Don't take my word for it, of course. I could be full of shit. The information is freely available, and you should research it yourselves. It's a horrible situation, but a fascinating subject. When you do, why not help to ratchet down the "racial" hysteria, which is doing nothing but further dividing the people of Darfur, and of Africa in general?

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Nov 04 - 10:08 PM

Lepus, the term Arab refers to people who speak Arabic. It does not in any way indicate the color of their skin or their genetic background. I have used "Black Africans" in my posts because I haven't been able, in any of the searches I've done on this subject, to find any other term to use for those people in this situation who aren't "Arabs" (according to the definition I've just given). However, the Janjaweed are not the people whose families have been living on and farming the land that the non-Arabic people are being chased off of. The "Arabs" in this scenario have been encroaching upon the land that the "non-Arabs" have been living on for a very long time.

But I definitely agree that anyone who tries to use race and genetics to try to categorize the people involved is using that issue as a way to manipulate people and promote hatred toward Arabs.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 18 Nov 04 - 02:19 AM

(There's that cookie)

Ah, cool, Carol. But I know there are others who, thanks mainly to the shitty media coverage, haven't a clue. It's been disturbing to see what's happening in Darfur used, as you mentioned, to stir up anti-Arab hatred. And to see false American-style racial rhetoric thrown into the mix to pull Black and liberal heartstrings. I mean, the thought of some keffiyeh-clad Omar Sharif looking motherfucker raping his black slavegirl is just such a moving image. And more division is just what the Darfuri peoples need right now. Dumbasses.

Ah, and here's that article I mentioned, by Alex de Waal. Fascinating, concise background and history of the current conflict, if you haven't read it yet: Counter-Insurgency on the Cheap

(And hope I didn't come off like a dick with that last post... It reads a bit snarkier than I meant for it to... Been trying to cut back on those useful "smileys," but maybe I shouldn't. :P )

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 23 Nov 04 - 06:13 AM

anyone who tries to use race and genetics to try to categorize the people involved is using that issue as a way to manipulate people and promote hatred toward Arabs. (Carol)

I've never been fond of ex cathedra bans of certain thoughts or explanations. The implication that anyone using a particular line of thought is promoting hatred toward Arabs is disingenious at best.

Perhaps it is the theme for a new thread but I fail to see why short term environmental influences (personal experiences, culture) can be used to explain conflicts and why long term environmental influences acting upon genetics are off limits.

Whether it applies to Darfur I don't know, but if you cross Africa from North to South you cannot fail but notice that roughly spoken the Sahara divides people having different skin colour and facial features. The average genetic distance between these two groups is larger than the average genetic distance between other groups living close to each other.

A land I know from own experience is Chad. The North-South conflict is evident in that country and it goes along a genetic divide. In addition to that come religion (Muslim in the North, Christians in the South, and others of course), language (Arab in the North, others in the South) and culture (nomadic in the North, farmers in the south). If you look at the people in general and then at the faces in the government you see easily that the whiter skinned people have a greater chance to get a position in the government.

This could have many reasons but I do not see why of all possible reasons genetics should not be discussed.

Like in the very interesting article linked to by Lepus Rex:

they were regarded as true Muslims only if they adopted Arab values and culture...
northern Sudan was becoming polarised along racial rather than religious lines...
The atrocities carried out by the Janjawiid are aimed at speakers of Fur, Tunjur, Masalit and Zaghawa

The author discusses many reasons, culture, language, race, and others. I fail to see that mentioning the racial aspect among others makes him a promoter of hatred against Arabs.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Nov 04 - 12:15 PM

Putting words in my mouth again, Wolfgang.

I was talking specifically about Sudan in this instance. I was not making an across the board generalization about all conflicts. And I was talking specifically about the behavior of the US government and news media, and the reasons they are categorizing the people in Sudan the way they are. I was not speaking about the origins of the conflict. In the case of Sudan, the use by the US government and news media, of race and/or ethnicity is a purely manipulative ploy to garner support for an agenda that is motivated entirely by profit motive.

And in the case of the US government and media, they will use any excuse they can find to promote hatred of Arabs (and Muslims).

Lepus Rex knew what I was saying. That's because he knows how things work with the US government and news media as well as I do.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 02:42 PM

I did not put words in your mouth, Carol, I did quote you. But I appreciate your attempt to give your words now an explanation how they should be read.

Most of my post was just general thoughts, not directed at you. I only took your statement as a starting point for it made me think whether I could agree with it in a general sense and I found I couldn't.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 07:43 PM

Wolfgang, since I was replying to something that Lepus Rex had said, my response was worded in a way that I figured (correctly) he would understand. Your need to understand my meaning is not out of order, but you might consider putting your requests for information in the form of a question rather than a statement. That way you won't appear to be telling me what I said. And that way, I can tell you what I mean by what I say myself.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 08:21 PM

One: Please stop bashing the whole of the United States for what 52% of the voting population (if it wasn't rigged) approves of.

Two: Just what do you actually want us to do?

If we stop arming the rebels the Janjaweed will surely wipe them out. They've got no qualms about it now.

If we go in without the UN someone will definitely say that we did it for the oil.

If we don't go in someone will definitely say we did it for the oil.

If we do go in with the UN in the lead, we'll be hog tied by the same beurocracy that has a stranglehold on anything that happens there. And need I remind you that the UN has proven to be just as greedy as numerous scandals have illustrated.

I do know one thing. I want it to stop but I'm not sure that you can just lay it all at the feet of the US. There is an African community. There is a muslim community. There is a world community. None are taking action.

On top of this because of the present administration we are presently stretched pretty damn thin, regardless of what the Pentagon says. Should we withdraw troops from Korea to cover this? I for one don't think so. Should we withdraw from Iraq? As much as I'd like that I do believe that at this point it would mean a civil/religeous war. Should we pull out of Afghanistan (troops that weren't pulled for Iraq) and let Al Quaida re-assemble and the war lords go at it again?

And where else should we be? The Ethiopeans seem to be starving again. One of the other African potentates (I forget who) is fomenting violence against citizens because of their skin color (white) and seizing their farms. The Congo seems to be pretty damn unstable as well. Although we currently support Israel I'm pretty sure nobody really wants us to get between them and the Palestinians. There are still civil rights violations on a grand scale in China and Cuba. And come to think of itthe Protestant and Catholic Irish are being civil to each other for the time being but who knows when that could go up in flames? And just north of us the Quebecois would still like a seperate French Canada and have been violent in the past.

It's all very complicated with no easy answers. I'd like for the US to stop meddling but at the same time I know it wouldn't stop anything that's going on.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: dianavan
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 10:09 PM

Since Canada is training peacekeepers from the African Union to go into the darfor region so that humanitarian aid can get through, it would probably be a good idea for the U.S. to stop arming the rebels.

How complicated is that?

d

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 10:20 PM

Until the peacekeepers actually get there I think that would be a bad idea. I wouldn't be surprised if the peacekeepers get shot at by both sides. Somalia didn't go quite as planned for similar reasons.

Not that it excuses us from the involvement but do you think China or any other nation for that matter wouldn't just step in and fill our shoes?

And considering that it is the Gov't of Sudan that is arming and allowing the Janjaweed to massacre the citizens (not just hold the fort and keep the peace) should we not support the rebels?

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 24 Nov 04 - 10:28 PM

Yeah, the great and glorious UN!
This just in folks:

UNITED NATIONS - Linked in the past to sex crimes in East Timor (news - web sites), and prostitution in Cambodia and Kosovo, U.N. peacekeepers have now been accused of sexually abusing the very population they were deployed to protect in Congo.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: dianavan
Date: 24 May 05 - 12:58 AM

Something is very, very wrong with U.S. foreign policy. I have just learned that the reason Bush doesn't do more to stop the Sudanese govt. from arming the Janjaweed, is that Sudan is an ally in the War Against Terror. Thats right, folks, the CIA get alot of information and co-operation from the Sudanese govt. In fact, the U.S. is dependent on Sudanese Intelligence.

Now combine the fact that the Bush administration is oil hungry and dependent on Sudanese intelligence for their war, it isn't very likely that the U.S. will do much about the killing and rape in Darfur is there?

So while the U.N. tries to drum up some cash, and the AU (with limited troops) continues to try to stop the mass killings, Canada plans to send personnel but the government of Sudan says no to the peacekeepers. Meanwhile, the Sudanese govt. and the U.S. govt. are sharing intelligence and strengthening their alliance.

Whats with this Arab/U.S. touchy-feely partnership?

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: Peace
Date: 24 May 05 - 01:11 AM

D'van,

Re Canada sending peacekeepers. I corresponded with the son of an old friend some years back when Canada was involved in 'peacekeeping' operations in the former Yugoslavia. This young man from the PPCLI was shaken at the task they had. When I asked why, he replied, "There is no peace to keep."

I hope we do not send our kids into that type of CF ever again.

There is a bigh difference between 'peacekeeping' and establishing the conditions under which peace can be given a chance. Our troops are up to either task, but these people calling the shots had better go or get off the pot as to what type of operation it is before hand.

I know you are aware of this, but I needed to mention. Thank you for your remarks in the above post. I wasn't aware that Bush was so tight with the Sudanese government. Guess he didn't watch "Blackhawk Down."

Bruce

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: GUEST,Giok
Date: 24 May 05 - 09:39 AM

I agree with Joe Offer on this one.
G..

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: gnu
Date: 24 May 05 - 09:59 AM

Ya got that right brucie. And, if someone told me the ROE, if attacked, included not returning fire without the express permission of the Minister, I'd refuse to deploy. Although that one got sorted out rather quickly after the first time our lads came under fire, it should have never happened. CF indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 24 May 05 - 11:21 AM

The African Union took a vote and decided that they want to use only their own military people for this effort. They said they will accept logistical support and financial aid from other countries such as Canada, but they do not want any fighters (or peacekeepers) from any countries other than African Union countries to be on the ground in Sudan.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: dianavan
Date: 24 May 05 - 08:46 PM

Carol C. - Canada has been providing the AU with assistance for quite some time. The recent endeavor to send more assistance is being rejected by the Sudanese government.

From the Globe and Mail, "OTTAWA -- The Sudanese ambassador says her country will not allow Canadian troops into Darfur despite an assistance package from the minority Liberal government that includes up to 100 military advisers to help the African Union maintain peace in that war-ravaged region of western Sudan."

Is Canada the only western nation providing assistance at this time?

Seems to me that anyone (including Jews of all nations) who have ever experienced genocide or ethnic cleansing should be joining forces to stop the mass killings in Darfur. Why the silence? Its the silence that allowed the holocaust in the 40's and its the silence that allows the rape and murder in the Sudan.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: GUEST
Date: 24 May 05 - 10:35 PM

'Seems to me that anyone (including Jews of all nations)'- why single them out?

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: podman
Date: 24 May 05 - 10:46 PM

How much of a military effort would it take to stop the roving cowards known as janjaweed? Can't the AU put up at least that much in men and material?

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: Peace
Date: 24 May 05 - 10:57 PM

"Although that one got sorted out rather quickly after the first time our lads came under fire, it should have never happened."

I think you are talking about this man.

Helluva leader. I went to a lecture/presentation given by two corporals and one sergeant from the peacekeeping forces he led. Word is he didn't let them down, and he took the flak for telling both Ottawa and the UN in NYC to kindly 'get their shit together'. Remarkable thing about Major-General Lewis MacKenzie is that he took the same risks as his men did. Gotta love a leader like that. And they did. I don't look upto many people these days, but he's one of 'em.

BM

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 24 May 05 - 11:42 PM

There are several articles about what is going on there right now in this link:

Yahoo search

This article discusses NATO's and the EU's involvement and support:

http://au.news.yahoo.com/050525/21/ugxo.html

This article discusses the African Union's decision to not allow non African Union forces on the ground in Sudan, as well as Canada's involvement and assistance:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/cpress/20050517/ca_pr_on_wo/darfur_summit_2

Excerpt...

TRIPOLI, Libya (CP) - Seven African leaders meeting in the Libyan capital have rejected any intervention by non-African countries in Sudan's western Darfur region, and have authorized Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi to carry on trying to get conflicting parties to reach a settlement.

In a statement issued at the end of the two-day meeting Tuesday, leaders of Egypt, Libya, Chad, Nigeria, Sudan, Gabon and Eritrea decided to "reject any foreign intervention in the Darfur problem, and dealing with it should be through its African framework."

In Brussels, Belgium, the African Union's president, Alpha Oumar Konare, said at NATO headquarters he was seeking logistical support but insisted that troops on the ground will be exclusively African. NATO will consider the request Wednesday.

The Sudanese ambassador to Canada has said her country would not allow Canadian troops into Darfur despite an assistance package from the minority Liberal government, announced last Thursday, that included up to 100 military advisers to help the African Union maintain peace in the war-ravaged region.

The Globe and Mail reported Tuesday that Ottawa would respect Sudan's wishes.

Paul Martin's Liberal government had proposed a $170-million assistance package for Darfur that included "an initial deployment of up to 100 Canadian military intelligence officers, strategic planners and logistics experts to assist the African Union peacekeeping operation in the region with military planning, intelligence and transport."

Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki, invited to the summit by Gadhafi, met with Sudanese President Omar el-Bashir on Monday in what the official Libyan news agency described as a step toward a "historic reconciliation." The two countries had accused each other of sheltering rebels their different territories.

The leaders called on other African countries to send more troops and police to reinforce the African Union's mission in Darfur and asked the international community to contribute by extending logistical support.

The African Union has about 2,400 troops and 244 civilian police trying to restore the peace in Darfur. On April 28 it voted to increase the force to 6,171 military personnel and 1,560 police by the end of September.

The seven African leaders said they would support reconciliation efforts between the people of Darfur, pay compensation and "try crime suspects in Darur according to the national judicial system."

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: dianavan
Date: 24 May 05 - 11:51 PM

Canada offers "an initial deployment of up to 100 Canadian military intelligence officers, strategic planners and logistics experts to assist the African Union peacekeeping operation in the region with military planning, intelligence and transport."

This was refused but then they, "...asked the international community to contribute by extending logistical support."

I don't get it. Isn't that what Canada was offering?

Whats wrong with this picture?

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: Peace
Date: 24 May 05 - 11:59 PM

Good question. Canada has as more experience with peacekeeping than any military in the world. Very good question.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 25 May 05 - 12:01 AM

What was refused were the troops. The African Union has accepted the logistical and financial support.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: Peace
Date: 25 May 05 - 12:10 AM

IMO, that will leave them where they are. Money's good; logistics makes sense. But without advice from military advisors who can assess the capabilities and fortitude of the troops who will be doing the job, there are going to be more casualties than there 'should' be.

No offence.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 25 May 05 - 12:12 AM

I suspect that they will be benefitting from the advice from countries like Canada, but it will be African Union troops who carry out the advice.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: Peace
Date: 25 May 05 - 12:16 AM

Could be that they're trying to 1) 'temper' their troops 2) and develop a NCO corp. However, it will be bloody.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: dianavan
Date: 25 May 05 - 12:46 AM

Carol C. - If logical support is what they want, why refuse intelligence officers, strategic planners and transport?

Thats the "troops" that were being offered.

Why turn it down?

I think Sudan doesn't want too many eyes on the ground. I think the Sudanese govt. doesn't want Canada to know that they are in "cahoots" with the U.S. I also think that the Arab govt. of Sudan knows that the African Union doesn't stand a chance of defeating the Arabs.

By allowing Canada or any other country to contribute meaningful support to the African tribes, how will the Arabs be able to get that pipeline through so that they can sell oil to the U.S.???

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 25 May 05 - 10:43 AM

Dianavan, it's not Sudan who refused troops. It is the African Union, which includes Egypt, Libya, Chad, Nigeria, Sudan, Gabon and Eritrea. I doubt that "troops" means the same thing as "intelligence officers and strategic planners". They can have all of those kinds of help stationed outside of Sudan while not using any of the actual troops (soldiers with guns) on the ground in Sudan.

If I were to try to guess about why they would want it this way, it would be that they are trying to establish some sovereignty within the African Union. Since there is a lot of oil in question, perhaps they want to make sure Sudan doesn't become another Iraq or Afghanistan, in which sovereignty exists only on paper, while the US and other countries are really in charge.

If you haven't already, I suggest reading the articles I posted links to. They do show that the African Union is not only accepting logistical and material help, they are actively seeking it out. And Canada is not the only country that is offering help. Nato and the European Union are also offering help.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: dianavan
Date: 25 May 05 - 08:38 PM

Carol C. - From your post above: "The Sudanese ambassador to Canada has said her country would not allow Canadian troops into Darfur despite an assistance package from the minority Liberal government, announced last Thursday, that included up to 100 military advisers to help the African Union maintain peace in the war-ravaged region."

BTW - When I say Arabs, I mean the present Sudanese government.

NATO is considering a request to help - That doesn't mean they are helping. Please provide a link that tells me that anyone else is even trying to help.

Not that it matters because, according to your quote, "In a statement issued at the end of the two-day meeting Tuesday, leaders of Egypt, Libya, Chad, Nigeria, Sudan, Gabon and Eritrea decided to "reject any foreign intervention in the Darfur problem, and dealing with it should be through its African framework."

I think that the intention is to avoid 'foreign' involvement but I still wonder why Canada was stone-walled when they are already helping the African Union in a very limited capacity. Its not as if they were sending in the armed forces. The troops that were being offerred were logistical support, strategists, intelligence and transportation.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 25 May 05 - 09:45 PM

Dianavan, there is an important difference between those two quotes...

"The Sudanese ambassador to Canada has said her country would not allow Canadian troops into Darfur despite an assistance package from the minority Liberal government, announced last Thursday, that included up to 100 military advisers to help the African Union maintain peace in the war-ravaged region."

And from me...

"They can have all of those kinds of help stationed outside of Sudan while not using any of the actual troops (soldiers with guns) on the ground in Sudan."

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 25 May 05 - 10:55 PM

NATO is considering a request to help - That doesn't mean they are helping. Please provide a link that tells me that anyone else is even trying to help.

Had you read the links I already provided, you would have seen this:

http://au.news.yahoo.com/050525/21/ugxo.html

"The North Atlantic Treaty Alliance (NATO) has agreed to provide air support, training and logistical help to African Union peacekeepers in Sudan's troubled region of Darfur.

NATO has agreed to provide the support in principle, ahead of an international meeting on the issue in Ethiopia later this week.

The alliance says it will help the African Union, which is expanding the number of troops in Darfur to 7,700 immediately and is considering a force of 12,000 by the end of the year.

The agreement will be discussed further on Thursday, when UN secretary-general Kofi Annan will meet EU and NATO leaders.

If the agreement is officially approved, it will be the first time NATO has had a mission in Africa.

However, NATO troops would be involved in a support role only.

The European Union has agreed to provide similar help."

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: dianavan
Date: 28 May 05 - 03:00 PM

From Reuters -

ADDIS ABABA (Reuters) - Donors have pledged nearly $300 million to fund a bigger African Union (AU) force to help end fighting in Sudan's western Darfur region, AU officials said on Friday.

The officials said Canada gave the biggest contribution of $133 million (C$168 million), followed by the United States with $50 million and Britain with $12 million. Smaller donations will come from other countries. The AU had requested $466 million to more than triple its force to about 7,900 troops.

"The donors also agreed to provide helicopters, armored personnel carriers, trucks and fuel," an AU official said.

...and how mush is going into Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: dianavan
Date: 30 May 05 - 01:10 AM

Here is a very good article regarding the the number of troops needed to end the violence in Darfur. It is becoming quite obvious that the AU simply does not have the strategies, troops or transportation needed to tackle the job. In addition, the rest of the world is not contributing enough money for the AU to be effective.

http://www.sudantribune.com/article.php3?id_article=9795

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: dianavan
Date: 05 Nov 06 - 01:57 PM

and now the U.S. has decided not to support a U.N. peacekeeping force in Darfur to stop what the U.S has described as genocide.

I guess this means the U.S. thinks genocide is O.K.

What are they thinking?

http://www.thenews.com.pk/update_detail.asp?id=12333

Subject: RE: BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 03:38 PM

refresh