BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan

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

refresh

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 12:10 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 - 12:01 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 10:02 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Peace
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 04:31 PM

Good observation, Carol C.