5 Congress Members Arrested at Sudan Protest

There's no oil in Dafur( sic)!!!!

0 Replies

That's true, as far as I know, hence the lack of interest by the two oil executives in charge of the US government.

Joe(they don't know any different)Nation

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

That's true, as far as I know, hence the lack of interest by the two oil executives in charge of the US government.

Joe(they don't know any different)Nation

So you are saying that the situation is the fault of Bush?

Isnt it interesting that the same people that are saying Bush is bad for using the military are also saying bush is bad for NOT using the military.

0 Replies

What we are saying, MysteryMan, is that Bush priorities are all screwed up. He directs the military AWAY from the capture of Osama bin Ladin and into the morass of an invasion of Iraq ignoring 1) the advice of his best anti-terrorism experts (cut off the head of the snake) and 2) his own fathers's wisdom (on Iraq).

Meanwhile, his whole attitude towards the rest of the world, whether it is co-operation on global environment or balances of trade, monetary policy or globalization, the entry of both Pakistan and North Korea into the nuclear weapons club or any other multitude of subjects you might want to pursue, including Dafur, seems not to be connected to any real sense of reality, but on a kind of go-with-your-gut bravado which might have been fine if he had remained the hard-charging owner of a major baseball team, but does little to recommend him as the leader of the free world.

And please notice this: none of this is said in anger or hatred, it is merely the bald view of what I see as a failed leader.

Joe(got it?)Nation

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

What we are saying, MysteryMan, is that Bush priorities are all screwed up. He directs the military AWAY from the capture of Osama bin Ladin and into the morass of an invasion of Iraq ignoring 1) the advice of his best anti-terrorism experts (cut off the head of the snake) and 2) his own fathers's wisdom (on Iraq).

Meanwhile, his whole attitude towards the rest of the world, whether it is co-operation on global environment or balances of trade, monetary policy or globalization, the entry of both Pakistan and North Korea into the nuclear weapons club or any other multitude of subjects you might want to pursue, including Dafur, seems not to be connected to any real sense of reality, but on a kind of go-with-your-gut bravado which might have been fine if he had remained the hard-charging owner of a major baseball team, but does little to recommend him as the leader of the free world.

And please notice this: none of this is said in anger or hatred, it is merely the bald view of what I see as a failed leader.

Joe(got it?)Nation

Pakistan AND North Korea had nukes BEFORE Bush became President,so how can you blame that on him?

Darfur is the African Unions problem,or are you seriously suggesting Bush make it our problem?
If you are saying that,then tell us what you think hew should do to solve the problem?

Global Environment?
You mean the Kyoto accords?
Even countries that signed that are regretting it now.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

So you are saying that the situation is the fault of Bush?

Eh no - that wouldnt follow from Joe's post you quoted in eh - any way, really.

"lack of interest in" Not Equal

"cause of".

mysteryman wrote:

Isnt it interesting that the same people that are saying Bush is bad for using the military are also saying bush is bad for NOT using the military.

Lemme try to answer that point.

For me, the only justification for going to war, short of having to defend your own country against invasion, is to stop ongoing genocide.

That criterium would have been fulfilled in Iraq in 1988, but not in 2003.

It is fulfilled in Darfur.

Quite straightforward a position, I think.

I would, however, only want those soldiers deployed in a UN-mission, or in a coalition as close to representative as possible (a criterium that the NATO war against Serbia fulfilled far more persuasively than the US & UK's invasion of Iraq).

0 Replies

Quote:

I would, however, only want those soldiers deployed in a UN-mission

So you want US troops commanded by a Chinese or Cuban or Libyan or other foreign general,instead of our own generals?

Are you willing to go along with that?

0 Replies

Sigh.... it's not, unlike the neo-con mindset, about BLAME. It's about statesmanship, leadership, being the head of the mightiest nation on earth and blowing the job.

Oh yeah, and please get bent out of shape about us being in the UN and having our forces be part of an international force, that's always a good dodge.

Having seen the job our generals have done in Iraq, maybe we ought to try a few from elsewhere.

Then you can blame them.

Joe(god, just how thick is that crust?)Nation

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
I would, however, only want those soldiers deployed in a UN-mission

So you want US troops commanded by a Chinese or Cuban or Libyan or other foreign general,instead of our own generals?

Are you willing to go along with that?

I would imagine it would rather work like Serbia. Or Afghanistan. Are there any Cuban troops in Afghanistan?

0 Replies

I was gonna reply but I see Old Europe has beat me to it..

mysteryman wrote:

So you want US troops commanded by a Chinese or Cuban or Libyan or other foreign general,instead of our own generals?

Are you willing to go along with that?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

But nimh ... how can the US take military action without UN approval?

Sorry Tico, had overlooked this one.

In principle, it can't. So I wished the US did its very best to push the UN into giving such approval. It might well still not work, but now they're not even trying.

In emergency case, I'd even approve of an intervention without UN approval, if backed by a near-representative coalition (no, an Iraq-style coalition of US+UK+St. Kitts doesnt count - I'm talking about the kind that supported the NATO war on Yugoslavia). Eg, if the African Union and the EU would back up the US, you'd have a pretty convincing mandate even without approval from Russia and China.

Again, neither the US nor the EU seems to even be considering, let alone pushing for such a course of action though. Bunch of intermediate steps are not being taken either. Hence my kudos to those Congressmen trying to (re)attract attention to the issue even if they have to cross a line or two.

0 Replies

Firstly, there is plenty of oil in Southern Sudan - which is the reason why China was not willing to support a UN mission in Sudan.

The second country not willing to go in was Russia, who had a lucrative deal with Sudanese government. Sold them a bunch of M-16s (those were later used in terror raids, accompanying the Janjaweed on their way).

Thus it's a failure of the Big 5 to come together on such an important issue as stopping and preventing genocide. And I'll be the first one to agree that Security Council does need grand overhaul. To say the UN failed, however, is wrong, because UN is specifically designed so that it is dependent on individual countries' will. It's in the Charter, otherwise it would be one dangerous organization that no country would support. It is the individual countries who have failed Sudan. Without them UN cannot authorize any mission (thankgod, as I'm sure many would agree).

Secondly, Sundanese regime is Muslim, but the Janjaweed militias are Arabic nomads (original groups anyway), who killed Muslims and non-Muslim animists and Christians alike. Arabic does not equal Muslim, mind you. So it's a bit more grey than just black. Plenty of sources online... available to anyone willing to read up.

0 Replies

There are interviews to listen to, books to read, articles to browse.....

Basic background: ekklesia

Paul Rusesabagina, of Rwanda, has lots to say on the topic. I think it was him on an NPR show talking about Arab Nations needing to step in. A concerned American started a grass-roots charity to collect money to funnel to the AU to help their finances. The restriction is that they can't use the monies for weaponry. I dunno how they make sure the money goes to aid, food, shelter, etc...... Here and Now

0 Replies

Yep, Rusesabagina is the former owner of the Hotel Milles Colines in Kinshasa, who saved about a thousand people during the Rwandan genocide. The concerned American group is the Genocide Intervention Fund started and ran by college students from Swarthmore (sp?). Excellent idea, fully commited people. I've donated a few hundred dollars to them and god knows I've little money to spare.

0 Replies

nimh,

Quote:

In emergency case, I'd even approve of an intervention without UN approval, if backed by a near-representative coalition (no, an Iraq-style coalition of US+UK+St. Kitts doesnt count - I'm talking about the kind that supported the NATO war on Yugoslavia). Eg, if the African Union and the EU would back up the US, you'd have a pretty convincing mandate even without approval from Russia and China.

So,a 56 nation coalition,including countries like Japan,Australia,and other industrialized nations means nothing?

FWIW,
Let Africa sort out the problem.
We dont want to interfere where we arent wanted,and nobody has asked for our help.
Remember,the US is the source of all evil in the modern world and everything we do is wrong.
So,lets do nothing and let them either solve it themselves,or let them all die.
Either way,it wont be our fault.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

So,a 56 nation coalition,including countries like Japan,Australia,and other industrialized nations means nothing?

FWIW,
Let Africa sort out the problem.
We dont want to interfere where we arent wanted,and nobody has asked for our help.
Remember,the US is the source of all evil in the modern world and everything we do is wrong.
So,lets do nothing and let them either solve it themselves,or let them all die.
Either way,it wont be our fault.

Um..... omigod.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

nimh,

Quote:
In emergency case, I'd even approve of an intervention without UN approval, if backed by a near-representative coalition (no, an Iraq-style coalition of US+UK+St. Kitts doesnt count - I'm talking about the kind that supported the NATO war on Yugoslavia). Eg, if the African Union and the EU would back up the US, you'd have a pretty convincing mandate even without approval from Russia and China.

So,a 56 nation coalition,including countries like Japan,Australia,and other industrialized nations means nothing?

FWIW,
Let Africa sort out the problem.
We dont want to interfere where we arent wanted,and nobody has asked for our help.
Remember,the US is the source of all evil in the modern world and everything we do is wrong.
So,lets do nothing and let them either solve it themselves,or let them all die.
Either way,it wont be our fault.

Holy cow! that's all i have to say.

0 Replies

mysteryman reminds me a bit of Ghandi.

0 Replies

If we do nothing,how can we be blamed for the outcome?

We should neither allow,nor prevent,whatever happens in that region.
So many people say we (the US) are always sticking our nose where it doesnt belong,so lets do nothing and let someone else solve the problem.

5 Congress Members Arrested at Sudan Protest

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know