Genocide in Sudan, why is noone talking about it?

[raildogg]

Darfur killings were genocide, nothing less: US:-
Washington | February 02, 2005 10:39:18 AM IST

The United States has said that it still believes genocide had taken place in Sudan despite a UN commission's conclusion that killings in Darfur were crimes against humanity.

"We stand by the conclusion that we reached that genocide had been occurring in Darfur...Nothing has happened to change those conclusions. We stand by those conclusions," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher told reporters yesterday.

He said Washington wants a UN and African Union tribunal that would be based in Arusha, Tanzania, to bring the culprits to justice, and sanctions against Sudan.

Boucher's comments came two days after a report by the United Nations International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur, which concluded that the Government of Sudan did not pursue a policy of genocide in Darfur but that crimes against humanity and war crimes have been committed that may be no less serious and heinous than genocide.

"We believe that the best way to address these crimes, as detailed in the report, is to establish a UN and African Union tribunal that would be based in Arusha, Tanzania. It would involve African countries integrally in the process," Boucher said.

The UN commission suggests taking the matter to International Criminal Court(ICC). But Washington, which do not recognise ICC's jurisdiction over its own citizens, are averse to the idea.

"Some of the atrocities which were committed in Darfur - detailed in UN report - predate setting up of ICC, hence it would not have jurisdiction in those cases. On the other hand, he said, if African-UN tribunal was set up, it would involve African countries in the process. PTI

-----------

This is from article 4 from the New Yorker

Amina Abaker Mohammed occupies a simple mud hut with a thatched roof outside a refugee camp in northern Chad. Until earlier this year, she lived in Darfur, the western region of Sudan, where the Sudanese government is pursuing a campaign of ethnic cleansing against non-Arabs.

article 1
article 2
article 3
article 4

Did we not learn anything from Rwanda? Here we have janjaweed Arabs committing genocide against the blacks in Sudan and what is the world doing?

And I thought mankind said, after the Holocaust, we won't let this happen again

 

[beyoku]

ditto, same thing under clinton watch, 1 over 1 million people killed in under 100 days. - not a peep. people dont care about this. American lives are worth more than Iraqi, and you probably have to take 10 africans to = 1 iraqi.

 

[JackStorm]

I've made comments before about people seemingly paying zero attention to this before. But what do you expect? People are busy in their own little world.

 

[Genx87]

The U.N. doesnt want to classify it as a genocide because then they are obligated under their charter to step up to the plate and actually do something. It is no surprise their own assessment states it wasnt a genocide.

This is another example of the UN being a failed organization. One of the scuttlebutt rumors is Kofi Annan is worried the Arab pact will vote to oust him as the leader of the UN if he puts his foot down on an Arab govt committing genocide on non-arabs.

What a brilliant organization.

 

[Brackis]

Originally posted by: Genx87
The U.N. doesnt want to classify it as a genocide because then they are obligated under their charter to step up to the plate and actually do something. It is no surprise their own assessment states it wasnt a genocide.

This is another example of the UN being a failed organization. One of the scuttlebutt rumors is Kofi Annan is worried the Arab pact will vote to oust him as the leader of the UN if he puts his foot down on an Arab govt committing genocide on non-arabs.

What a brilliant organization.

Don't try to shift the blame for this atrocity. The United States is a member of the UN and the biggest player in the UN. Therfore we have just as much of a duty, if not more, than any single UN officer to press the matter.

 

[Genx87]

Don't try to shift the blame for this atrocity. The United States is a member of the UN and the biggest player in the UN. Therfore we have just as much of a duty, if not more, than any single UN officer to press the matter.

Why would the United States have "more" of a duty than the United Nations?
Because we pay 26% of its budget? Kofi Annan has had his chances and blown two genocides from his own backyard.

The guy is nothing but a blowbag. He should go back to selling hotdogs at Augsburg college again. At least he couldnt screw that up.

 

[Brackis]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Don't try to shift the blame for this atrocity. The United States is a member of the UN and the biggest player in the UN. Therfore we have just as much of a duty, if not more, than any single UN officer to press the matter.

Why would the United States have "more" of a duty than the United Nations?
Because we pay 26% of its budget? Kofi Annan has had his chances and blown two genocides from his own backyard.

The guy is nothing but a blowbag. He should go back to selling hotdogs at Augsburg college again. At least he couldnt screw that up.

NO...go back and reread what I said... Stop putting words in my mouth
Since we pay for 26% of their budget means we should be pushing the UN, the international community, and providing troops and aid to save the people of Sudan who are being killed. Just because you don't like Koffi Anan doesn't give you the excuse to not help dying Sudanese

 

[magomago]

Horrible. The government should die and rot. Though honestly I would think blacks are EASILY the majority in Sudan...I mean hell Sudan mean "Country/Land of Blacks" in arabic!

This is another example of the UN being a failed organization. One of the scuttlebutt rumors is Kofi Annan is worried the Arab pact will vote to oust him as the leader of the UN if he puts his foot down on an Arab govt committing genocide on non-arabs.

I doubt that. The problem is a lack of vested interests in Sudan.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Genx87
The U.N. doesnt want to classify it as a genocide because then they are obligated under their charter to step up to the plate and actually do something. It is no surprise their own assessment states it wasnt a genocide.

This is another example of the UN being a failed organization. One of the scuttlebutt rumors is Kofi Annan is worried the Arab pact will vote to oust him as the leader of the UN if he puts his foot down on an Arab govt committing genocide on non-arabs.

What a brilliant organization.

I don't think you can say the UN is a failed organisation. The UN has been doing its best to bring international attention to this situation. Is the UN in a position to go into Sudan with it's own army? I'm not sure that it is. The UN is more a diplomatic institution than a military institution, right?

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: Brackis

Originally posted by: Genx87

Don't try to shift the blame for this atrocity. The United States is a member of the UN and the biggest player in the UN. Therfore we have just as much of a duty, if not more, than any single UN officer to press the matter.

Why would the United States have "more" of a duty than the United Nations?
Because we pay 26% of its budget? Kofi Annan has had his chances and blown two genocides from his own backyard.

The guy is nothing but a blowbag. He should go back to selling hotdogs at Augsburg college again. At least he couldnt screw that up.

NO...go back and reread what I said... Stop putting words in my mouth
Since we pay for 26% of their budget means we should be pushing the UN, the international community, and providing troops and aid to save the people of Sudan who are being killed. Just because you don't like Koffi Anan doesn't give you the excuse to not help dying Sudanese

Koffi Annan is a impotent leader who has no credibility after blunder after blunder. I have no expectations of the UN stepping up on this issue as well. Also, we cannot solely blame the UN for this, Europe and America, along with the neighboring countries have to be held accountable for this.

Anyone who defends the UN definately has his or her facts wrong. Israel conducting anti-terror operations gets the attention of the Arab nations right away, but when fellow Arabs commit genocide against blacks, then where are these Arab nations expressing their outrage? Hypocrisy at its finest.

 

[HalosPuma]

Originally posted by: JackStorm
I've made comments before about people seemingly paying zero attention to this before. But what do you expect? People are busy in their own little world.

I can't think of any economic value that Sudan offers the US. Why spend my tax-dollars and American lives on internal conflicts? Haven't we learned from our peacekeeping problems in Somalia a decade ago?

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Genx87
The U.N. doesnt want to classify it as a genocide because then they are obligated under their charter to step up to the plate and actually do something. It is no surprise their own assessment states it wasnt a genocide.

This is another example of the UN being a failed organization. One of the scuttlebutt rumors is Kofi Annan is worried the Arab pact will vote to oust him as the leader of the UN if he puts his foot down on an Arab govt committing genocide on non-arabs.

What a brilliant organization.

I don't think you can say the UN is a failed organisation. The UN has been doing its best to bring international attention to this situation. Is the UN in a position to go into Sudan with it's own army? I'm not sure that it is. The UN is more a diplomatic institution than a military institution, right?

Name one place that the UN has suceeded in where thier military is concerned....and by success I mean someplace where thier troops haven't raped or killed innocent civilians AND acomplished some sort of peace....a continuing peace.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: Brackis

Originally posted by: Genx87

Don't try to shift the blame for this atrocity. The United States is a member of the UN and the biggest player in the UN. Therfore we have just as much of a duty, if not more, than any single UN officer to press the matter.

Why would the United States have "more" of a duty than the United Nations?
Because we pay 26% of its budget? Kofi Annan has had his chances and blown two genocides from his own backyard.

The guy is nothing but a blowbag. He should go back to selling hotdogs at Augsburg college again. At least he couldnt screw that up.

NO...go back and reread what I said... Stop putting words in my mouth
Since we pay for 26% of their budget means we should be pushing the UN, the international community, and providing troops and aid to save the people of Sudan who are being killed. Just because you don't like Koffi Anan doesn't give you the excuse to not help dying Sudanese

Koffi Annan is a impotent leader who has no credibility after blunder after blunder. I have no expectations of the UN stepping up on this issue as well. Also, we cannot solely blame the UN for this, Europe and America, along with the neighboring countries have to be held accountable for this.

Anyone who defends the UN definately has his or her facts wrong. Israel conducting anti-terror operations gets the attention of the Arab nations right away, but when fellow Arabs commit genocide against blacks, then where are these Arab nations expressing their outrage? Hypocrisy at its finest.

Maybe a problem with the UN is that the people who get elected as leader are the type of people who offend no-one, by consistently avoiding taking controversial positions?

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Genx87
The U.N. doesnt want to classify it as a genocide because then they are obligated under their charter to step up to the plate and actually do something. It is no surprise their own assessment states it wasnt a genocide.

This is another example of the UN being a failed organization. One of the scuttlebutt rumors is Kofi Annan is worried the Arab pact will vote to oust him as the leader of the UN if he puts his foot down on an Arab govt committing genocide on non-arabs.

What a brilliant organization.

I don't think you can say the UN is a failed organisation. The UN has been doing its best to bring international attention to this situation. Is the UN in a position to go into Sudan with it's own army? I'm not sure that it is. The UN is more a diplomatic institution than a military institution, right?

Name one place that the UN has suceeded in where thier military is concerned....and by success I mean someplace where thier troops haven't raped or killed innocent civilians AND acomplished some sort of peace....a continuing peace.

I just said, the UN is more of a diplomatic institution, than a military institution.

 

[Wheezer]

ok so again I ask, name one place they have succeded......

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Genx87
The U.N. doesnt want to classify it as a genocide because then they are obligated under their charter to step up to the plate and actually do something. It is no surprise their own assessment states it wasnt a genocide.

This is another example of the UN being a failed organization. One of the scuttlebutt rumors is Kofi Annan is worried the Arab pact will vote to oust him as the leader of the UN if he puts his foot down on an Arab govt committing genocide on non-arabs.

What a brilliant organization.

I don't think you can say the UN is a failed organisation. The UN has been doing its best to bring international attention to this situation. Is the UN in a position to go into Sudan with it's own army? I'm not sure that it is. The UN is more a diplomatic institution than a military institution, right?

Name one place that the UN has suceeded in where thier military is concerned....and by success I mean someplace where thier troops haven't raped or killed innocent civilians AND acomplished some sort of peace....a continuing peace.

I just said, the UN is more of a diplomatic institution, than a military institution.

Thats the problem, the UN cannot find itself being anything in these modern times where you need rapid troop deployments. The UN is nothing but a debating society. It is a failure of the world, how everyone let this organization become absolutely meaningless.

Tell me, how is debating whether this is a genocide or not going to help these people? The inept, clueless officials have been debating for years whether to call this a genocide or not, and NOT doing anything to help these people. And yes, Kofi Annan is afraid to act because he'll lose a lot support from the Arab nations. What a disgrace

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Wheezer
ok so again I ask, name one place they have succeded......

What do you mean by success?

What do you think the UN's role is?

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: HalosPuma

Originally posted by: JackStorm
I've made comments before about people seemingly paying zero attention to this before. But what do you expect? People are busy in their own little world.

I can't think of any economic value that Sudan offers the US. Why spend my tax-dollars and American lives on internal conflicts? Haven't we learned from our peacekeeping problems in Somalia a decade ago?

What did we gain from sending aid to the tsunami struck nations?

A role of a superpower is to step up in times of international crisis. America MUST do something here and not just pay lip service to it. We contributed billions to the tsunami relief efforts yet we don't do a single thing here, this is really appalling. If America wants to be credible and respected around the world it must act here in SOME way, otherwise our title of "Superpower" will lose credibility. We cannot count on the shameless French and other Europeans on this matter, and I have no words for the UN.

After all, we liberated the Nazi prisoners, with the help of allies of couse during WW2 when we weren't so dominant.

America has a moral obligation to do something here as well.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Genx87
The U.N. doesnt want to classify it as a genocide because then they are obligated under their charter to step up to the plate and actually do something. It is no surprise their own assessment states it wasnt a genocide.

This is another example of the UN being a failed organization. One of the scuttlebutt rumors is Kofi Annan is worried the Arab pact will vote to oust him as the leader of the UN if he puts his foot down on an Arab govt committing genocide on non-arabs.

What a brilliant organization.

I don't think you can say the UN is a failed organisation. The UN has been doing its best to bring international attention to this situation. Is the UN in a position to go into Sudan with it's own army? I'm not sure that it is. The UN is more a diplomatic institution than a military institution, right?

Name one place that the UN has suceeded in where thier military is concerned....and by success I mean someplace where thier troops haven't raped or killed innocent civilians AND acomplished some sort of peace....a continuing peace.

I just said, the UN is more of a diplomatic institution, than a military institution.

Thats the problem, the UN cannot find itself being anything in these modern times where you need rapid troop deployments. The UN is nothing but a debating society. It is a failure of the world, how everyone let this organization become absolutely meaningless.

Tell me, how is debating whether this is a genocide or not going to help these people? The inept, clueless officials have been debating for years whether to call this a genocide or not, and NOT doing anything to help these people. And yes, Kofi Annan is afraid to act because he'll lose a lot support from the Arab nations. What a disgrace

And what would you like to have done about the situation in Sudan? Who would do it? How would it be funded?

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Brackis

Originally posted by: Genx87
The U.N. doesnt want to classify it as a genocide because then they are obligated under their charter to step up to the plate and actually do something. It is no surprise their own assessment states it wasnt a genocide.

This is another example of the UN being a failed organization. One of the scuttlebutt rumors is Kofi Annan is worried the Arab pact will vote to oust him as the leader of the UN if he puts his foot down on an Arab govt committing genocide on non-arabs.

What a brilliant organization.

Don't try to shift the blame for this atrocity. The United States is a member of the UN and the biggest player in the UN. Therfore we have just as much of a duty, if not more, than any single UN officer to press the matter.

But we don't have the duty to help Iraqi's? Come on, we don't have the means to help them right now, its all up to the UN to do something.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: raildogg
After all, we liberated the Nazi prisoners, with the help of allies of couse during WW2 when we weren't so dominant.

America has a moral obligation to do something here as well.

The vast majority of the Nazi their prisoners were liberated by the Russians. Unless you mean some of the captured Nazi scientists and doctors getting the choice of going to jail or working for the US government.

 

[dpm]

Originally posted by: raildogg

What did we gain from sending aid to the tsunami struck nations?

A role of a superpower is to step up in times of international crisis. America MUST do something here and not just pay lip service to it. We contributed billions to the tsunami relief efforts yet we don't do a single thing here, this is really appalling. If America wants to be credible and respected around the world it must act here in SOME way, otherwise our title of "Superpower" will lose credibility. We cannot count on the shameless French and other Europeans on this matter, and I have no words for the UN.

After all, we liberated the Nazi prisoners, with the help of allies of couse during WW2 when we weren't so dominant.

America has a moral obligation to do something here as well.

It would be nice if there was a Superpower like that, but the world has never seen a dominant power like that - truly benevolant and free from self interest.

You bring up the example of the second world war - but remember, Britain and France were happy to sign away Czechoslovakia before they drew the line, and America only joined the war when one of its colonies was attacked, Nazi prisoners or not.

Why can we expect these countries to act in a crises that does not directly concern them today, when they wouldn't then?

 

[conehead433]

The only reason the US would go in Sudan is if they had any natural resources we wanted. Now if a few thousand people lose their lives somewhere where there is oil, well you already know about that.

 

[Brackis]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Brackis

Originally posted by: Genx87
The U.N. doesnt want to classify it as a genocide because then they are obligated under their charter to step up to the plate and actually do something. It is no surprise their own assessment states it wasnt a genocide.

This is another example of the UN being a failed organization. One of the scuttlebutt rumors is Kofi Annan is worried the Arab pact will vote to oust him as the leader of the UN if he puts his foot down on an Arab govt committing genocide on non-arabs.

What a brilliant organization.

Don't try to shift the blame for this atrocity. The United States is a member of the UN and the biggest player in the UN. Therfore we have just as much of a duty, if not more, than any single UN officer to press the matter.

But we don't have the duty to help Iraqi's? Come on, we don't have the means to help them right now, its all up to the UN to do something.

Come on!?!?! thousands of people are dying, this is just as, if not more important.
As for your excuse that the UN is more equipped and responsible than the United States, please simply shut your mouth and come back in five years when you understand what the United States is and what the UN is.

If you knew anything about the world you would realize Sudan is a place of genocide, but also a place where slavery and terrorism are rampant. Isn't this what we set out to abolish under W? It's sad to see that instead we have become a nation of selective imperialism and colonization

 

[Infohawk]

Nobody talks about it because because the US government doesn't give a flying crap. And it's totally consistent with their history-- just not their rhetoric. If you listen too much to their rhetoric, clearly you will be confused.

Originally posted by: raildogg
The UN is nothing but a debating society.

So then why is one of the purported reasons for the Iraq war the UN debating society resolutions that Saddam has ignored?