1
   

Sudan: a Third Front?

 
 
Foxfyre
 
Reply Sun 8 Aug, 2004 10:49 am
How much teeth will the U.N. have this time? There is no way the Sudanese terrorists are going to back down. More to the point, is it possible most of the Sudanese people approve of what the militants are doing?

Thousands Protest U.N. Deadline in Sudan

By Ibrahim Ali Suleiman
The Associated Press
Wednesday, August 4, 2004; 9:03 AM

KHARTOUM, Sudan -- More than 100,000 people marched through Sudan's capital Wednesday in a state-orchestrated rally opposing a U.N. Security Council deadline for the government to disarm Arab militias blamed for killing thousands of people in western Darfur province.

Demonstrators also presented a memorandum to the U.N. envoy in Sudan demanding that U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan apologize for "misleading" people on the nature of the situation in Darfur, which the world body has described as the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. Annan visited the region last month.

Over 100,0000 Sudanese in Khartoum Wednesday march to the office of the United Nations to protest a security council resolution. (Abd Raouf - AP)

• Q&A: Darfur A brief explanation of the issues and current humanitarian situation in Western Sudan.
• Evangelicals Urge Bush to Do More for Sudan (The Washington Post, Aug 3, 2004)
• Powell Warns Sudan: Act on U.N. Demands (The Washington Post, Aug 1, 2004)
• U.N. Adopts Resolution on Sudan (The Washington Post, Jul 31, 2004)
• Annan to Appeal for Aid to Address Sudan Crisis (The Washington Post, Jul 28, 2004)
• E.U. Threatens Sanctions On Sudan if Crisis Persists (The Washington Post, Jul 26, 2004)
• World Opinion Roundup: Online media ask who is responsible for letting the situation in Sudan go unchecked until now.

"You, as the secretary-general of the United Nations, hold all the responsibility for escalating the crisis in Darfur, as your remarks formed the basis of the misleading, antagonistic Western propaganda against Sudan," the memorandum said in Arabic.

Annan issued a statement after his visit accusing "government security personnel" of threatening displaced people and expressing grave concern about "reports of continuing intimidation, threats and attacks against refugees."

The demonstrators' statement also accused Annan of collaborating with the United States and Israel in "expressing enmity to Sudan." It was signed by the Popular Association in Defense of Conviction and the Nation.

"No to America and its followers!" the protesters chanted.

In a resolution passed Friday, the Security Council said Sudan had 30 days to disarm the pro-government Arab militia known as Janjaweed, who have been accused by the United Nations and international aid organizations of waging a brutal campaign to drive Sudanese citizens of African origin out of Darfur.

If the militiamen are not disarmed, the council could impose a range of diplomatic and economic penalties against Sudan, a country almost the size of the continental United States.

An estimated 30,000 people have been killed in the 17-month conflict, while 1 million people have been forced to flee their homes. An estimated 2.2 million people are in urgent need of food, medicine and other basics.

A senior member of the ruling party, Mohammed Ali Abdullah, told the crowd Wednesday their protest was a warning to President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair against invading Sudan.

"Targeting Sudan means you will fall into a third swamp -- after Afghanistan and Iraq. There are lions here in Sudan which would like to confront the Americans," Abdullah said.

No Western government has threatened to invade Sudan, but France has deployed a few hundred troops along Chad's border with Darfur to stop Arab militia from crossing over.

After delivering the statement to U.N. envoy Jan Pronk, the demonstrators -- led by Ibrahim Ahmed Omar, the secretary general of the ruling National Congress party -- walked to the presidential palace in Shuhada Square.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39039-2004Aug4.html
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 4,354 • Replies: 83
No top replies

 
bermbits
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 06:44 am
US Involvement
It's not teeth the UN needs - it's something a bit lower down.

Maybe the US can and should get involved. Once the National Guard is depleted, we still have the Boy Scouts to call up.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 07:13 am
If George Bush hadn't emasculated the UN there'd be more hope for positive policing.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 07:22 am
Maybe France can double their troop strength in the region and deploy another 200 soldiers to squash this evil!
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 07:24 am
I think France is done with Colonial territory grabs.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 07:26 am
How would this be a colonial territory grab? I know France is above these sorts of humanitarian efforts, but c'mon, colonial territory grab?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 07:46 am
Sudan has an estimated oil production capacity of 230,000 barrels per day. lets go for it!
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 07:56 am
I was referring to France's xenophobic status. They're just not into policing the world anymore.
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 07:59 am
I think a lot of European countries are afraid to interfere with their imperialistic backgrounds.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 08:30 am
Quote:
How much teeth will the U.N. have this time?


The US is the teeth of the UN. But like dentures that have flown from an old man's mouth, we've been off happily chomping things up on our own and won't make it back in time to do anything about this.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 08:44 am
Foxfyre,

I am curious about your use of the word "terrorist" in this context. Does this word mean anything any more?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 09:26 am
FreeDuck writes:
Quote:
The US is the teeth of the UN. But like dentures that have flown from an old man's mouth, we've been off happily chomping things up on our own and won't make it back in time to do anything about this.


This strikes me as an curious comment. Some of the main complaints re the war in Iraq have been 'we have no business there' and 'we should have let the UN handle it'. But now the UN, the same UN that votes against US interests more often than not, can't function or rule without us? If US troops don't go, then nothing can be done?

While I appreciate that we are the last great super power and many of our 'allies' maintain minimal defense forces secure in the knowledge that US forces will save their bacon should it ever be necessary, I think its time our 'allies' stepped up to the plate and invested some of their own blood and treasure to help set a tilted world back upright. (This should not be interpreted that I think the US should necessarily have a hands off policy re Sudan).

ebrown writes
Quote:
Foxfyre,

I am curious about your use of the word "terrorist" in this context. Does this word mean anything any more?


ebrown, my definition of terrorist is anyone who creates chaos, and uses mayhem, destruction, murder, and fear to bend other people to the terrorist's will. Whether it is within the confines of government, civil war, or insurgency, to me it is all terrorism.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 09:37 am
Quote:

ebrown writes
Quote:
Foxfyre,

I am curious about your use of the word "terrorist" in this context. Does this word mean anything any more?


ebrown, my definition of terrorist is anyone who creates chaos, and uses mayhem, destruction, murder, and fear to bend other people to the terrorist's will. Whether it is within the confines of government, civil war, or insurgency, to me it is all terrorism.


This is not a very good definition. Anyone who uses military force does this. Are you saying that any military force is "terrorism".

Tell me one military action that didn't create chaos and use mayhem destruction "killing" and fear to bend people to the attackers will. (The word "murder" of course is subjective as it involves a judgement as to whether the killing in question was justified or not.)
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 09:42 am
Quote:
This strikes me as an curious comment. Some of the main complaints re the war in Iraq have been 'we have no business there' and 'we should have let the UN handle it'. But now the UN, the same UN that votes against US interests more often than not, can't function or rule without us? If US troops don't go, then nothing can be done?


What I find curious is that this administration and others who supported invading Iraq often went to great pains to describe the UN as irrelevant and impotent, as if we were not a permanent member of this body who has and frequently uses veto power. To say that the UN did nothing is to admit that the US did nothing.

Quote:

While I appreciate that we are the last great super power and many of our 'allies' maintain minimal defense forces secure in the knowledge that US forces will save their bacon should it ever be necessary, I think its time our 'allies' stepped up to the plate and invested some of their own blood and treasure to help set a tilted world back upright. (This should not be interpreted that I think the US should necessarily have a hands off policy re Sudan).


I could make the argument that a world gets tilted when there is an imbalance of power. But somehow I think that might be off topic. I agree that the problems in Sudan (and elsewhere) are the problems of the world, but I think it is disingenuous to take actions that undermine the authority and the ability of the UN, and then to ridicule it for its weakness.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 09:47 am
FreeDuck wrote:

... I think it is disingenuous to take actions that undermine the authority and the ability of the UN, and then to ridicule it for its weakness.


Well, you are surely correct ... but the conservatives here have chosen this as there premier argument :wink:
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 09:51 am
Yes, the concept of 'super power tilting the world' would make a good discussion, but perhaps best on another thread.

Idisagree that the US has weakened or emasculated the UN in any way. In the case of Iraq the UN was given more than enough opportunity to enforce its own resolutions and take a definitive stand on that situation. It refused (for reasons we now suspect may have been due to self interests of some top officials.) At the same time, we can just about count on the UN voting against the US in a large majority of the cases.

While cooperation is always preferable to unilateralism, and opportunity for cooperation should always be on the table, I will not support any elected official who deems it necessary to get the approval and/or consent of the UN before doing what is best and right for and by the United States.

At any rate, welcome to A2K FreeDuck.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 09:51 am
Right on and let me add that sometime in a past discussion Craven brought up a list of countries that have participated in past UN police actions. The list was huge. I don't think other countries skimp on military expenditures because they rely on our big stick. They just have better things to do with their GNP.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 09:52 am
And ebrown, feel free to offer your own definition of terrorist if you don't like mine. Smile
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 10:05 am
Foxfyre,

Would you consider the SPLA a terrorist group?
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2004 10:11 am
Foxfyre wrote:
And ebrown, feel free to offer your own definition of terrorist if you don't like mine. Smile


Your use of the word here is manipulative and intellectually irresponsible.

You are appealing to base emotions without reason. If you apply any reason to your rhetoric, you are going to run into problems very quickly.

You are peddling propadanda.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Sudan: a Third Front?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 4.55 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 02:16:09