BS: Time to re-deploy to Sudan

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..