Darfur? Fuck 'em. They don't have the resources to attract US business.,

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

Please ignore.

[forgethell]

1. So we should land troops there?

Or what, exactly, are you suggesting?

[kittenpants]

2. you don't necessarily need to offer a solution in order to acknowledge

the genocide that is being ignored. And it's obvious if there were some sort of financial draw to the region we would be in there years ago.

[forgethell]

7. I disagree

If you see a problem, and bring it to your boss, you should also have a proposed solution. No, you don't have to, but he'll respect you more, and you are more likely to see the solution installed. Works the same way in politics too.

For instance, I think many of the criticisms of Georgie's policies would carry more weight with the American voter if the Democratic leadership were offering their own solutions rather than just carping. Social Security, for example.

[kittenpants]

8. what is your solution?

I can't say I know one. I WOULD advocate sending US troops as peace keepers if we weren't already overextended. But honestly I don't know if that would make much difference. Definitely more humanitarian aid is needed though.

[forgethell]

16. I haven't been

complaining about the problem, so I do not see why I should offer a solution.

However, I think the "peace-loving" nations of the world, who oppose American interventions, should send their own troops. The UN, maybe, could authorize action, and the mighty French could send their troops. They do not seem to have a problem with it elsewhere in Africa, even without UN approval.

Failing that, I don't see it as America's problem, unless we have a lot of international backing, including most of the expense and troops. We are not the policemen of the world, nor are we responsible for all the evil therein.

[kittenpants]

21. you're the one that can't allow discussion w/o solutions being offered.

so don't get testy with me!:evilgrin:

[forgethell]

28. No, no,

first off, I didn't complain about Darfur being a problem, so I have no obligation to provide the solution. Secondly, out of the goodness of my heart, I offered a solution: let the French and the UN handle it. With troops.

[The Magistrate]

25. In My View, Mr. Hell

Sending U.S. forces to shut this down would be appropriate. To my way of thinking, who sends forces to halt the thing is immaterial. It seems to have been fairly well established, as a customary practice, anyway, that soveriegns have no right to commit massive crimes against the common standards of humanity on their own subjects.

One of my own principal objections to the U.S. venture in Iraq is precisely that it was certain to tie up so great a proportion of our forces in a fruitless occupation duty as to prevenr the use of U.S. force in other areas where it would be more appropriate....

[forgethell]

29. True, and

theoretically, I have no real problem with US troops being sent in this situation. But, as you say, we are over-extended at this time. Let the French handle it. Or the UN.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

5. yes send troops

send air support, send a fucking SEAL team. who cares. send something.

oh that's right, we can't we are busy liberating oil elsewhere.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

22. What's the significance of the ER Burroughs quote?

(The Mucker, Chapt. 12)

[forgethell]

30. It's from

Henry Herbert Knibbs. Burroughs was quoting him. It's from a poem called "Out There Somewhere. For the complete poem:

http://www.angelfire.com/trek/erbzine14/erbz950.html#THE%20POEM%20THAT%20INSPIRED%20THE .


Down where the clouds lie on the sea, he found his sweet Penelope,
With buds of roses in her hair and kisses on her mouth.

The significance? Well, aside from the fact I enjoyed both the poem and The Mucker, there is none. I change my sig from time to time, and I'm a romantic at heart. And I found my Penelope.

[unhappycamper]

3. Nope. We have no business reason to invade and occupy.

From the * environmental side of the equation, we'll be doing our bit to slow global warming by reducing CO2 emissions (people.)

[KlatooBNikto]

4. You are wrong.Southern Sudan sits on potentially one of the biggest

sources of new oil in the world.Both India and China have active explorations going on there.

[kittenpants]

6. that's interesting--I'm surprised we aren't more involved then.

Is it because the oil has already been monopolized by China or is it just because * doesn't care about Africa as a "nation"?

[KlatooBNikto]

9. That is about to change with Wolfowitz at the top of the World Bank and

Bush/Blair trumpeting their "concerns" for the suffering peoples of Africa.I am underwhelmed.

[Adelante]

23. But we *are* involved

Bush cares very much about Sudan's oil and that's why we do nothing to stop the genocide. We are appeasing the Sudan government, they are our allies in the war on terror, we eventually get their oil, that's the deal.

[Igel]

10. Darfur's in NW Sudan.

The south is mostly Xian and animist.

Darfur's primary resource seems to be ... grit?

[KlatooBNikto]

11. The people in Southern Sudan have been the targets of the genocidal

pogroms of the North which is mostly Muslim Arabs.After their homelands have been ravaged these unfortunate people have wandered and arrived at camps like Darfur where, instead of finding relief, they are subjcetd to even harsher conditions.

[Igel]

13. I didn't realize there was a large S. Sudanese population

that sheltered in Darfur.

My impression was that the South's returned to relative peace. Maybe the occasional skirmish, but that particular bit of genocide's been pretty much resolved ... after a long, long bout of it.

[wtmusic]

27. Not even close

Sudan -- estimated 1.7B barrels

Saudi Arabia -- est 262B barrels

http://www.worldreport-ind.com/sudan/energy.htm

[Igel]

12. That's what I like about a discussion group like this.

There'll be people on both sides of every issue oblivious to the other side.

The US has managed to call what's going on in Sudan 'genocide'. The UN has managed to say it's not, but it's bad anyway. This limits multilateral actions sanctioned by international law.

The UN's approved a limited African Union presence there, and more's needed. Much more. But unless they've been given explicit instructions to shoot to defend the locals, they can only defend themselves. The UN can't violate Sudanese sovereignty without genocide being asserted, and so needs permission from Sudan on how many troops can be stationed where.

Some decried the motivations for * taking as strong a stance as he did, in the media and in the UN. But he mostly lost in the UN. He should have fought a lot harder. They key word was "genocide": had it been found to have occurred, France and China and Russia would have to do something. They didn't want to do anything: this is a conflict of interest that went barely reported.

At least this genocide's making the newspapers and news shows. The one against the Xian/animist south got no takers for a decade, forced to the back pages. Then, every bombing of women and children in a food line, or the strafing of a church service, was met with equally valid and credible counter claims that the events never happened, or there were only armed men in the area. The same claims are made for Darfur, but nobody believes them.

[kittenpants]

14. thanks for all the info in your post.

I admit I don't know as much as I should about the intricacies of the situation. I guess there are too many scandals, too little time.

[Vladimir]

15. Indeed they do

A bit of analysis on the Southern conflict:

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=15785

The data on Sudan's extensive oil reserves:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/sudan.html

And do note in this link: there might well be oil in Darfur... it just hasn't been explored preperly yet.

A good bit of analysis on the Darfur situation:

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2004/593/593p17.htm

PS I might as well add that, in my opinion, no Western troops should intervene in Darfur. We should however fully support the AU efforts there.

[NNguyenMD]

18. it sounds like the only way for the AU troops to get a broader mandate is

to twist China's arm.

We may not be able to send troops, but we can back up the rebels in this virtual civil war going on there, and offer them our intelligence capabilities (satelites), vehicles, air support, and other useful resources. I mean, it not like its the first time we've supported a one side of a civil war without having to fire a shot, we just give them lots fo guns.

Sounds like a throwback to our involvement in the Contras during the eighties, but that kind of support is exactly what would have stopped the Rwandan genocide much quicker than the 100 days that it lasted. In the end it was Paul Kigame's (now President of Rwanda-he doesn't do genocide of his enemies despite what they did to his people) Rwandan Liberation Front that overthrew the Intarahamwe and Hutu government, ultimately ending the killing in Rwanda. His army was the solution to stopping genocide, and we could have backed him up militarily within the blink of an eye with better communications equpment, airlifts, air strikes, vehicles, jamming equipment you name it. But we just sat on our hands instead.

The same support we invested in supporting right wing dictatorships in Central America, could have saved thousands of more people in Rwanda, and it would not have been unprecedented, Clinton could have just invoked the same rational Reagan and Bush I used in supporting the political groups whom they thought were better suited for the nations of central america.

[Vladimir]

20. However,

would this help be given purely for altruistic reasons given the oil reserves there? I think not. Would China sit on its hands? Again, I doubt it. What you are proposing, and by the way I accept that its proposed in good faith, would end up as a war by proxy in Sudan between China and the US for favourable deals on Oil, which I am unwilling to support. I know its a horrific situation, but its my honest opinion that any involvement by us beyond supporting the AU would just make it worse. Even if it stopped the immediate genocide, the question is also do you then create a situation where the genocide repeats itself a few years down the line because the underlying tensions remain unresolved. I think only an AU brokered deal can lead to some sort of lasting peace - but I could be wrong.

[NNguyenMD]

24. But don't you feel that if the AU can't to get a broader UN mandate,

where China has a permanent seat on the security council, they're probably never going to get one. And who would expect the AU to act alone in solving this matter, without the political and material support of ANY major powers much less the UN.

And you are probably correct, giving military support to the Rebels in the Sudan would become a proxy war between US backed Rebels and the Chinese backed Arab government. It would have happened in Rwanda between the US and France had we given open military support for the RPF to take down the French supported Hutu government. The French were supplying the Intarahamwe and Hutu Army with weapons throughout the entire genocide. Even after the genocide, the French troops who arrived made sure that members of the Hutu militias had access to the foreign aid in the refugee camps near Rwanda's border with the Congo. In that situation it was the French backed Hutu vs the nobody backed Tutsis.

It happened between the USSR and the United States when we backed the Contras against the Soviet backed Sadinistas. We were stepping on the invested Oil interests of Russia and France when we invaded Iraq. It didn't scare us then to get involved, it shouldn't scare us anymore now. You're going to be stepping on the toes of another nation in almost any situation when taking a side in another nations civil war.

The problem I have isn't pissing off China, its recognizing a government that chooses to systemactically annihilate an entire ethnic population, not just by supporting militia groups like the Janjaweed, but by using their own army and airforce to commit genocide on a desperate population of black Africans. Thats not a government that you can negotiate with. Military force used to overthrow the government is what stopped the killing in Rwanda, and I'm willing to bet that it'll be the only answer to stopping the genocide in the Sudan.

Hands down, I agree that putting our men on the ground is a mistake, because then the situation converts from being military support to a new Vietnam. But if we just let everything move on in the same path without interference, it'll only prolong the genocide thats being committed. That is all that doing nothing will accomplish.

The UN isn't giving the AU the support they need now, and so long as China is warming its permanent seat on the Security council, they are never going to get it.

In my opinion, supporting the AU means, "Hey guys, if you see them committing acts of murder and genocide we want you to shoot back and we want you not to just defend yourself, but openly engage the Janjaweed militias and Sudanese Army so that they can't kill anymore people. You have our political support and our military backing if you want it."

During Rwanda, the state department was obsessed with maintaining the cease fire between the RPF and Hutu government. They were basically saying to Kigame "Stop your attacks and they promise that they're not going to kill anymore of the helpless Tutsis, thousands of whom they've already murdered. Don't worry, we trust them on good faith that they'll stop the widespread genocide." That was the extent of the US involvement in Rwanda. Because the world chose not take a side, because they not recognize who were the good guys who wanted to stop the killing, the Tutsis paid with their lives.

As far as ethnic tensions go, well that would be a function of the AU to maintain the peace in the region. The Rwandan government today does not engage in revenge executions, on the contrary because the jails are so full now the government has instituted a judicial system that forces the two ethnic groups to come to terms with each other, with victim and killer still living side by side in the same neighborhoods.

I know I sound like a conservative hawk, but I just feel very strongly about this because I am amazed that today after the Holocaust, and Rwanda, this is happening all over again. The fact that its happening in an African nation, to black African people only underlies the extraordinary global racism that allows this kind of devastation happen to defenseless blacks.

[Vladimir]

26. I do appreciate what you are saying

about stopping the genocide. Just a few points:

1) My problem vis-a-vis the proxy war isn't that you'd piss off China - who gives a rat's arse about that. Its that in these kinds of wars, the third world does the dying, and I am not convinced that it wouldn't just escalate the killing. Especially if the Darfur refugees started winning, and bear in mind what was said above about a proportion of the refugees in Darfur being from the south of the country, it could end up just as bloody with a more "equitable" distribution of dead bodies. And possibly revive the conflict in the South too.

2) I agree absolutely that the message now being sent to the AU is a mixed one, but remember that the AU does not want to call this a genocide and the US government does. That is not to say it isn't genocide, I am fairly convinced that it is, but the AU isn't toning its language down for no reason. They may well have one eye on the South of the country, and feel that getting into a shooting match with the militias in the North would jeopardise that bit of peace-making. They may just lack the will, or they may be acting out of self interest or whatever. But if this was called a genocide, and the UN intervened, who's to say they would stop anything? You are right, our governments ought to let the AU know that if it asks certain questions, it will get certain answers. But the AU have to ask first IMO, and for that matter they are asking. Our answers have been quite lukewarm so far though, and here we can and must do better.

3) Just to reiterate something from my previous post, the reason I keep going on about the AU is that a conflict like this needs a lasting solution, and I can't see any other body that is going to provide one. Maybe the UN could, but they are about as likely to agree on Darfur as I am to win the lottery.

4) Beyond this specific conflict, our first order of the day, and I am sorry to sound trite, in all of this should be to immediately stop selling any weapons to any regimes anywhere. That, and an immediate and unconditional 100% debt write-off (+ reparations where appropriate for the colonial era) for the third world, would go a long frigging way to easing these sorts of problems.

I don't think you sound like a hawk btw. and I do share your concerns. I am just very very jaded when it comes to intervention by our governments in any form anywhere.

[Sapphire Blue]

17. National day of action on Darfur

National day of action on Darfur

Since the Darfur genocide began in 2003, up to 400,000 people have lost their lives. More than 2.5 million people have been displaced, their livelihoods and villages destroyed by government forces and their proxy militias, and thousands of women and girls have been raped.

The religious community in the United States has the power to help end the genocide and quell the humanitarian crisis that has come in its wake. Now is the time to make our voices heard.

Sojourners, in partnership with Africa Action, Cedar Ridge Community Church, and the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, is organizing five Sundays of public worship in Washington, D.C., to focus on Darfur. But our voices will only have traction if they are joined by a chorus of your voices and prayers around the country. Please join us for a National Day of Action on Darfur on Sunday, July 10. As we'll be worshiping and providing political witness at the White House here in Washington, we ask that you join us in your own community. We're asking you to talk to your pastor, rabbi, or faith leader about including Darfur in your worship service on the weekend of July 10.

Sojourners also is compiling prayers, liturgies, and other worship resources, which you can receive by e-mailing [e-mail] .

For more information about the services in Washington, D.C., go to http://www.worship4justice.org /

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=sojomail.display&issue=050609#5

[K-W]

19. If it cant be capitalized its worthless.

Thats what it means to be an American.

[Vladimir]

31. Kick n/t

[Vladimir]

32. Kick n/t