Families 'burnt alive by Sudanese militia'

Absolutely sickening. Will we wait for the UN to fiddle? It kind of looks that way.

 

Isn't this pretty much what was happening in Rwanda ten years ago? The same Rwanda that Bill Clinton and lots of other people were saying "we should have done more" ten years later?

 

This is absolutely amazing. A month or two ago, we were remembering Rwanda and everyone was saying "this must never happen again."

Despite the fact that our government more or less declared the UN "irrelevant" a year and a half ago, I am still happy to criticize the UN for inaction.

Of course, it is the security council that drives the UN, so what have we, and others done there?

I am seriously asking. It is unfortunate that politics in this country would play a role, but it is hard to blame either party for not beating the drum for action in Sudan as that wouldn't play very well with all of the important, though self-serving, issues already in front of the voters.

What this truly calls for is long, long, long range action and planning. It is time for us and our allies to focus on, and develop policies and relationships in Africa to advance huge sections of the continent. If we really want to set up a grand democratic experiment in a troubled part of the world, how about Africa?

 

Well, Chris, I think we should go a bit farther... Koffi Annan needs to be replaced at the U.N. for his inaction on this matter and other African catastrophes which he has ignored....

For its part, the United States would like to act --- and should act -- on these matters, but it is the United Nations that should take the lead. The fact that it has not leads me to believe that drastic change needs to occur at the very top of the U.N.! It is for this reason that President Bush is right to ignore the United Nations; it is no longer an organization fulfilling its mandate!

How many thousands will die in Africa before the U.N. acts? Why does Koffi do nothing? Ask that? Find out the reasons for that!

IntheNet

 

The issue in the Sudan deserves immediate attention. (I think everyone here agrees with that). Is there anyone here who thinks the US should not take some sort of unilateral action here?

 

I am up for it, provided we have th capability. I honestly don't know the extent -- financially and militarily -- of the commitment to be successful.

 

And let's all remember that right now, there is a definitely diplomatic lull. I believe someone posted an article yesterday talking about how every four years during the US Presidential elections, international issues are kind of put on hold. Unfortunately, because the campaigns are just getting into full swing (well, let's be honest, they've been going full out since February) a lot is going on that just isn't being paid attention to and unfortunately, a humanitarian crisis such as this is just going to get worse before people step up and do something about this.

The US could take the lead on this, but we are up to our ears in Iraq.

But I am curious, when was the last time that France, Germany, or Russia actually stepped up to lead in a humanitarian crisis such as this? While the US may be the lone superpower remaining on the planet, how tough could it be to take out a Sudanese militia (rhetorical question...)?

 

Hows "never" sound?

France wouldn't give a leper a cane!

IntheNet

 

Just curious, but what would you have the United States do?

If it requires troops, I would only agree to that if Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Ralph Nader, Superdave, Mel, and all the other liberals around here came out and stated publicly that we should commit troops.

Don't hold your breath...

 

France won't be going, look at this

http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/features/politics/61640

And Mel says that the Democracy Now! website is the best news source. Au Contraire!

 

Logic by IntheNet:

1. The UN should act.
2. The US provides leadership in the world.
3. The US is on UN security council.
4. The UN does not act.

Therefore, the US should ignore the UN.

 

The only burning that bothers the UN delegates is when their filet mignon is overcooked

 

Wait. Are people being slaughtered in the lands where the oil companies want to drill? That could play into if/when/how we intervene.

 

Already happening in Nigeria. Nicer oil, too, lots of it. How come nobody's liberating those poor slobs?

 

1) I didn't know Nigeria was not friend of US interests.

2) Nigeria approx. 140 million ppl. Your army cannot occupy and control (badly) more than one country. Well, without a draft.

 

Perhaps those opposed to the Iraq war can clarify whether "unilateral" US action
would be justified here? Or would that be some kind of "crime" against international law?

 

Quick action to stop genocide is justifiable. I think I know where you are going with this. Yes, there were mass graves in Iraq -- the numbers are still unclear -- but the slaughter was a decade ago which does not justify unilateral action now.

Similarly with Rwanda 10 years ago. Immediate action would have been justifiable, but it never happened.

I just read this morning that the latest US proposal in the UN is a vague warning with a call for action by the Sudanese government within 30 days. At that time, we would look for stronger sanctions. This will not get anything done as a huge slaughter could happen in that time frame.

Apparently, it is russia and china who are gumming up the works in the UN to proetect their interests in the Sudan.

Maybe it is time for swift NATO action.

 

Well, I think we can draw a conclusion based on Rwanda, Iraq, Sudan etc that the "international community's" or individual nations will to act or lack thereof is based entirely on self-interest. Once again in Africa it will be no surprise to see Sudan left to rot by either the UN or individual nations. As long as they still pump oil (most of their revenue is going on the military to keep it like this), who cares?

 

oxymoron alert!!