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