Darfur peacekeeping may fail

[micfranklin]

UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- A joint peacekeeping force will not be prepared to take over in Darfur by the start of 2008 unless Sudan quickly accepts units from outside Africa and contributing countries offer critical equipment, a top U.N. official warned Wednesday.

Jean-Marie Guehenno said the world could face a grim choice: either delay the takeover or start the deployment with an ill-equipped force that may not be able to protect its own peacekeepers, let alone civilians.

The United Nations has already been wrangling with Sudan over the U.N.-African Union mission for over a year while the conflict in Darfur has raged. More than 200,000 people have died since fighting broke out in 2003, and the peace process suffered a setback last month when key rebels boycotted talks in Libya.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/11/15/darfur.un.ap/index.html

So unless other nations in Africa reach a decision and take action along with the UN, another 200,000 people in Darfur will die. For me, I think they need to do everything they can to stop the madness.

[Kevin67]

Well the US cant do anything and the UN is corrupt and screwed up, so I sadly dont see any end to the genocide in the near future. I hope they get help or money soon, but most money we raise in the US is given to the wrong hands over in Darfur.

[crimzonsol]

Well the US cant do anything

Deja moo: The feeling that somehow you have heard this bull before.

the UN is corrupt and screwed up

I wonder why, it couldn't be because the Security Council makes the desicions and that Africa pays the bills, could it?

The US can do plenty, what is the use being the worlds only super power when we can't even stop a Genocide.

[micfranklin]

Well technically the US can do something about the Darfur situation but the question is do we really have to get involved in it?

[crimzonsol]

Well technically the US can do something about the Darfur situation but the question is do we really have to get involved in it?

Nope, the victims are black. Why would the US do anything about them?

[micfranklin]

Don't get me wrong, somebody has to step up and solve the problem and stop it before all the Darfuris are wiped out.

But does it have to be us to step up everytime?

[Cobra]

We are not responisble for Dafar. No one will do anything to stop it. There is nothing to gain and plenty to lose in trying for the countries that are able to step in. I'm sure they'll be some nice documenteries about it later but nothing will be done when it can count.

[AnnEsthesia]

Nothing to gain??? You mean besides stopping genocide? I think that is a much better reason than the reasons we are currently at war. And before one of the neocons pipes up.. no, 10 years later is not stopping genocide.

[Cobra]

Stopping the genocide will gain us nothing and is very risky. We do not want or need to get caught up in their problems.

[AnnEsthesia]

So much for "Never again."

[Cobra]

Yeah, it sounds nice tho. You'll here it again after this one and the blame can fall straight on the UN. If the US acted unilateral to stop this the condemnations would be flowing.

[AnnEsthesia]

And that has stopped us.. when? Oh right! They do not have anything we want. Got it.

[Cobra]

and.........if the US was to say screw the UN and put troops in Dafur today could you honestly say you would support such a move.

[AnnEsthesia]

Yep. :) To save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people? Yes. Far better than the clusterfuck we currently are engaged in for no real reason.

[Cobra]

and if the killing escalates and it leads to war with Sudan? Sending troops to dafur could turn out to be a real mess. People would say we were trying to re-colonize africa, ect.

[AnnEsthesia]

You mean as opposed to where we are now, in the middle of a civil war for... what? Oil? :) How much easier it is to sit and stand back and say "Nah, it is not worth us saving those people from genocide." Boy, wouldn't the world be a different place if we had said that and just watched as Europeans died when they were being slaughtered.

[Cobra]

We would have if we hadn't been attacked and declared war upon.

[micfranklin]

Here's how I feel: morally we should get out of Iraq and stop the genocide. But politically, it's not our business and the African governments and the UN need to step up and do something, this would be a drastic improvement on the Rwanda genocide.

[AnnEsthesia]

We would have if we hadn't been attacked and declared war upon.


I was not aware that Iraq attacked us or declared war upon us. When did that happen, again?

[Cobra]

Boy, wouldn't the world be a different place if we had said that and just watched as Europeans died when they were being slaughtered.
So Iraqis are Europeans now.

[AnnEsthesia]

Boy, wouldn't the world be a different place if we had said that and just watched as Europeans died when they were being slaughtered.
So Iraqis are Europeans now.


Huh?

[Cobra]

That's the quote I was responding to in the first post which you them responded back when did Iraq attack.

[AnnEsthesia]

Why would you think Iraqis are Europeans? Think back to when Europe was at war and genocide will happen and you will figure out to what I was referring.

[Cobra]

I don't but why would you respond to me about Iraq when you were talking europe. I was thinking you were referring to the WW2 genocides.

[AnnEsthesia]

I was talking about both what happened in the past that we claimed we would never allow to happen again and what is happening now. We cannot claim we won't go to war to stop a genocide when we are currently IN a quagmire for no good reason. Either we hold ourselves to the principle that we will never allow atrocities to happen when we can move to stop them, or we give up our pretense of being anything more than self-centered and uncaring.

Again, will we wait 10 years after the genocides are mostly over and only THEN go to Darfur and proclaim that we are there to stop the genocide? What would have happened if we had sat on our hands when Europeans were being slaughtered?

[Cobra]

What would have happened if we had sat on our hands when Europeans were being slaughtered?
The slaughter would have been prolonged but the thing is we would have sit on our hands had we not been attacked. We don't go to Europe based on some moral high ground.
Either we hold ourselves to the principle that we will never allow atrocities to happen when we can move to stop them, or we give up our pretense of being anything more than self-centered and uncaring.
No we do what we are doing. Pretenses are usefull even if not wholly accurate.

[crimzonsol]

But does it have to be us to step up everytime?

It never is us, we screw off until everything is safe because of the blood other other countries soldiers or we screw up with what we are doing *cough*Iraq*cough*.


We are not responisble for Dafar.

Yah we just turn the other way when it started to happen.


No one will do anything to stop it.

Except for Canada, India and Ghana again. Nobody hates them, maybe we should take a leaf out of their book.


I'm sure they'll be some nice documenteries about it later but nothing will be done when it can count.

Maybe because the only countries that care about it are screwed out of their money by us.

[Cobra]

Except for Canada, India and Ghana again. Nobody hates them, maybe we should take a leaf out of their book.
They can say they care all they want but they wont take any action to stop it anymore than we will. We've even pushed at the UN harder than them but China and Russia will block anything that is proposed.

[crimzonsol]

They can say they care all they want but they wont take any action to stop it anymore than we will.

Yah they weren't the ones who directly disobeyed the UN's orders to withdraw from Rwanda during the Genocide. Even with only a couple hundred soldiers and unarmed observers they managed to save atleast 20,000 Rwandans. Ghana is the only country in the world who has sent troops and finaces to every peacekeeping mission since it was accepted into the UN, even when it went through a civil warish thing. Canada is the one who is always left with our messess, they are the only ones in afghanastan determined to see it through to the end.


We've even pushed at the UN harder than them

Any proof for that? From what I have heard we are doing sweet fuck all to stop the genocide while Canada is funding the AU mission.

[micfranklin]

It never is us, we screw off until everything is safe because of the blood other other countries soldiers or we screw up with what we are doing *cough*Iraq*cough*.

What about our involvement in Bosnia and Serbia? Granted, that wasn't our responsibility to get involved but...

[Anti-Racism]

Don't we learn? First it was stop fascism in Iraq, now stop fascism in Darfur. How easily the sheep get led into pointless wars...

[NortheastCynic]

If you want to help stop the genocide in Darfur, donate to NGOs and other groups who are ACTUALLY TRYING to stop it...What you shouldn't do is take other individual's money to fund a war to stop it by force, which, you know, would result in several more American deaths.

-NC

[AnnEsthesia]

If you want to help stop the genocide in Darfur, donate to NGOs and other groups who are ACTUALLY TRYING to stop it...What you shouldn't do is take other individual's money to fund a war to stop it by force, which, you know, would result in several more American deaths.

-NC


I do. There are some really fantastic organizations working on Darfur. Sadly, the money sent to Darfur through individual donations will never be enough.

And better death to stop genocide than what we are doing in Iraq.

[NortheastCynic]

Being better than a terrible idea is not sufficient to make something a good idea, Anne.

-NC

[AnnEsthesia]

Well, I do not believe it would be any worse than what we are in now and it does not take a rocket scientist to know that we really WOULD be appreciated by the people we would save from torment and death.

[crimzonsol]

If you want to help stop the genocide in Darfur, donate to NGOs and other groups who are ACTUALLY TRYING to stop it...

Do I need to give you a history lesson about what happens when people without guns stand up to people with guns?

What you shouldn't do is take other individual's money to fund a war to stop it by force, which, you know, would result in several more American deaths.

I believe that the soldiers would be ok with dying so that others may live.

Being better than a terrible idea is not sufficient to make something a good idea, Anne.

True, but when you are choosing between the two which would you choose? The terrible one or the one that isn't half bad.

Well, I do not believe it would be any worse than what we are in now and it does not take a rocket scientist to know that we really WOULD be appreciated by the people we would save from torment and death.

Very true, soldiers are payed to save peoples lives, why don't we give them a chance to save lives.

[NortheastCynic]

Do I need to give you a history lesson about what happens when people without guns stand up to people with guns?Heh...No, and by the way, you'll find that there have been several very good examples of such a thing happening...One big one in America that I can think of: the Civil Rights movement. Another good one, the Indian liberation movement [unless Ghandi was packing and I haven't heard about it], etc. Regardless, my point stands that NGOs, when funded by individuals who claim to want to help Darfur, would be extremely effective in aiding refugees and putting political pressure on the government.

I believe that the soldiers would be ok with dying so that others may live.And I believe that if you want something done, you should be willing to pay for it...And if someone else does not want something done, then they should not pay for it.

True, but when you are choosing between the two which would you choose? The terrible one or the one that isn't half bad.This operates under the assumption that we HAVE to choose one of the...We don't, and nor should we.

Well, I do not believe it would be any worse than what we are in now and it does not take a rocket scientist to know that we really WOULD be appreciated by the people we would save from torment and death.Likewise, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if the United States military lays a hand on any part of any continent on Earth there will be negative repercussions, no matter how just we see our action as.

-NC

[AnnEsthesia]

Do I need to give you a history lesson about what happens when people without guns stand up to people with guns?Heh...No, and by the way, you'll find that there have been several very good examples of such a thing happening...One big one in America that I can think of: the Civil Rights movement. Another good one, the Indian liberation movement [unless Ghandi was packing and I haven't heard about it], etc. Regardless, my point stands that NGOs, when funded by individuals who claim to want to help Darfur, would be extremely effective in aiding refugees and putting political pressure on the government.

I believe that the soldiers would be ok with dying so that others may live.And I believe that if you want something done, you should be willing to pay for it...And if someone else does not want something done, then they should not pay for it.

True, but when you are choosing between the two which would you choose? The terrible one or the one that isn't half bad.This operates under the assumption that we HAVE to choose one of the...We don't, and nor should we.

Well, I do not believe it would be any worse than what we are in now and it does not take a rocket scientist to know that we really WOULD be appreciated by the people we would save from torment and death.Likewise, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if the United States military lays a hand on any part of any continent on Earth there will be negative repercussions, no matter how just we see our action as.

-NC


So then it is ok for anyone who is against the war we are currently in to stop paying their taxes for it? Great!

[NortheastCynic]

If by "okay" you mean something that I consider to be just, then yes.

-NC

[crimzonsol]

Heh...No, and by the way, you'll find that there have been several very good examples of such a thing happening...One big one in America that I can think of: the Civil Rights movement. Another good one, the Indian liberation movement [unless Ghandi was packing and I haven't heard about it], etc.

Can tell me when the side without guns was the minority and won?


Regardless, my point stands that NGOs, when funded by individuals who claim to want to help Darfur, would be extremely effective in aiding refugees and putting political pressure on the government.

How would the NGOs be able to put presure on the Sudanesse government?


And I believe that if you want something done, you should be willing to pay for it...And if someone else does not want something done, then they should not pay for it.

True, but the world doesn't work that way. The reality is tax ios colected and spent, so why not use it on something that would actually help people?

This operates under the assumption that we HAVE to choose one of the...We don't, and nor should we.

We do have to choose, unless Americans all of a sudden have accepted that they are responsible for their own actions. For some one called a Cynic, you aren't very cynical.

[NortheastCynic]

Can tell me when the side without guns was the minority and won?
I've already given you two such examples: the Civil Rights movement and Ghandi's Indian independence movement.
How would the NGOs be able to put presure on the Sudanesse government?
The same way countries do without using military force. In addition, NGOs are capable of helping those who have been victimized by the government.
True, but the world doesn't work that way. The reality is tax ios colected and spent, so why not use it on something that would actually help people?Simply because the world isn't that way does not mean that it shouldn't be that way...And it only becomes 'that way' if we make it that way as opposed to writing it off as impractical/impossible.
We do have to choose, unless Americans all of a sudden have accepted that they are responsible for their own actions. For some one called a Cynic, you aren't very cynical.We do have to choose? Are we talking about the same thing? We are talking about choosing between a terrible idea [Iraq] and a bad idea [Darfur]...There is no reason why we cannot choose the option known as "neither". Saying so is neither cynical or optimistic...It's simply a fact, we do not HAVE to involve ourselves in either Iraq or Darfur. This is not a cynicism vs. optimism debate...Though I appreciate the compliment.

-NC

[crimzonsol]

I've already given you two such examples: the Civil Rights movement and Ghandi's Indian independence movement.

I never new that the population of India was smaller than the British force stationed there. The US is a democracy things only change when the majority want it to.


The same way countries do without using military force.

Countries can only put pressure on other governments by A)threatening military action B)Threaten economic sanctions. C)Giving military aid to the governments opponents. Other than that it is impossible to influence Governments.

In addition, NGOs are capable of helping those who have been victimized by the government.

Thats the reason NGOs exsist, to do what the Government can't do.

Simply because the world isn't that way does not mean that it shouldn't be that way...And it only becomes 'that way' if we make it that way as opposed to writing it off as impractical/impossible.

Agreed. I do not believe in the system we are currently using, but I will do as much good as I can while the system is still in place.

There is no reason why we cannot choose the option known as "neither"

There is a reason, that reason is simple. By choosing neither, you are saying that you are not willing to let some small rights go so that other people may have a chance at geting rights. You seem to not want the public to presure the government into making desicions. That means that Bush and CO get to decide what happens to the tax money, and they went through 5 and 1/2 trillion dollars with out knowing where it went, where would you rather have your tax dollars?

It's simply a fact, we do not HAVE to involve ourselves in either Iraq or Darfur.

That does not mean that we should not be involved in Darfur or Iraq.

[NortheastCynic]

I never new that the population of India was smaller than the British force stationed there.My apologies, I missed the condition that the unarmed side must be the minority. The Indian independent movement would not qualify...The Civil Rights Movement still does.
The US is a democracy things only change when the majority want it to.The US is a constitutional republic where-in the Supreme Law of the land trumps majority rule [in theory]. The Civil Rights movement was unpopular throughout a significant chunk of the country from Birmingham to Boston.

Countries can only put pressure on other governments by A)threatening military action B)Threaten economic sanctions. C)Giving military aid to the governments opponents. Other than that it is impossible to influence Governments.
This simply is not true. It is difficult to influence governments in other ways...Not impossible.

Thats the reason NGOs exsist, to do what the Government can't do.
And/or to do things in a more efficient manner than the government can.

There is a reason, that reason is simple. By choosing neither, you are saying that you are not willing to let some small rights go so that other people may have a chance at geting rights. You seem to not want the public to presure the government into making desicions.Quite the contrary. I want the 'public' to get off their collective asses and make decisions for themselves.

That means that Bush and CO get to decide what happens to the tax money, and they went through 5 and 1/2 trillion dollars with out knowing where it went, where would you rather have your tax dollars?
In my wallet so that I can decide where they go myself.

That does not mean that we should not be involved in Darfur or IraThat was not what we were initially debating. Initially you claimed that we have to be involved in either Darfur or Iraq, I claimed that we do not HAVE to involve ourselves in either. It appears as though we agree on that issue and that our disagreement is a matter of 'should we' as opposed to 'are we obliged to'.

-NC

[crimzonsol]

My apologies, I missed the condition that the unarmed side must be the minority. The Indian independent movement would not qualify...The Civil Rights Movement still does.
The US is a constitutional republic where-in the Supreme Law of the land trumps majority rule [in theory]. The Civil Rights movement was unpopular throughout a significant chunk of the country from Birmingham to Boston.

No government would not champion a cause unless they thought that championing the cause would lead them to get more votes than their opponents. If the politicions who championed the civil rights movement or though it was a good idea were the minority than nothing would have changed, thus the majority of people would have to be behind the civil rights movement.

This simply is not true. It is difficult to influence governments in other ways...Not impossible.

The Sudanese government are the ones commiting the genocide. How would you connvince them to allow people in to prosecute them?

Quite the contrary. I want the 'public' to get off their collective asses and make decisions for themselves.

We both know that the public is happy to have someone else decide their lives for them as long as they think they get to decide who controls their life.

In my wallet so that I can decide where they go myself.

But your tax money is not going to be in your wallet anytime soon, so why not make the best of it while it is being used by the government while you atempt to change tax laws.

That was not what we were initially debating. Initially you claimed that we have to be involved in either Darfur or Iraq, I claimed that we do not HAVE to involve ourselves in either. It appears as though we agree on that issue and that our disagreement is a matter of 'should we' as opposed to 'are we obliged to'.

I guess that is true. So are we obliged to save Darfur?