Genocide in Sudan, why is noone talking about it?

[yllus]

Whether or not U.S. forced tied up elsewhere...what's your point? Does the world require the United States' handholding to do the right thing? The regions where halting genocide are actually achievable are few. Case studies: Rwanda, Yugoslavia.

In situations where the indigent population is not politically sophisticated enough to generally abide by the rule of law, what can really be done? You can put peacekeepers on the streets by the thousands and effect some small change, but only the passage of time will really make a difference. Now you tell me: In how many countries of the world are citizens willing to put their soldiers on the line for minimum a decade to bring minimal change to Sudan? Having a bunch of glorified policemen in the country is going to accomplish very little. If you want to 'interfere' by imposing a new system of government and forcing action to take place from the top-down, then we're talking constructive change. Somehow I doubt the lot of you are going to tout that.

 

[Red Dawn]

Sounds like a job for Canada

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: broon
So we invade Iraq and stop genocide but it's bad. We don't go into Sudan and it's bad. Help me understand.

the "genocide" (i don't classifiy that as genocide because it was not done for ethnic/racial reasons imo) in iraq ended over 10 years ago.

It was done for ethnic (kurds) and religious(remember, Saddam was secular, but in the Stalin sense) reasons. But yeah, it ended a while ago, so saying that we stopped a genocide is quite wrong.

 

[miketheidiot]

The UN can't pass any resolution without american consent, and this is just another case of us not giving it (and russia and china). If our governemnt actually cared, they could make a push for it and most likely the russians and chinese would get onboard. This is why nothing was done in rwanda, we didn't want to, and if we had made a push for it, most likely everyone would have gotten on board and done something about it. Somewhere in this thread someone talked about it being americans moral responsibility to help the iraqis, who even at their worst were in a better place than sudan is now. People talk about using the threat of force aginst Iran for their very mild (relatively) human rights abuses, but the use of force is completely out of the question in regards to sudan. People even legitimize the invasion of iraq because of regular old fashioned human rights abuses and a pair of "genocides" long past.

As the leading world power, it is the responibility of the US to lead in such instances.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
The UN can't pass any resolution without american consent, and this is just another case of us not giving it (and russia and china). If our governemnt actually cared, they could make a push for it and most likely the russians and chinese would get onboard. This is why nothing was done in rwanda, we didn't want to, and if we had made a push for it, most likely everyone would have gotten on board and done something about it. Somewhere in this thread someone talked about it being americans moral responsibility to help the iraqis, who even at their worst were in a better place than sudan is now. People talk about using the threat of force aginst Iran for their very mild (relatively) human rights abuses, but the use of force is completely out of the question in regards to sudan. People even legitimize the invasion of iraq because of regular old fashioned human rights abuses and a pair of "genocides" long past.

As the leading world power, it is the responibility of the US to lead in such instances.

What a joke! Are you suggesting that the United States would veto a resolution to bring UN troops to Sudan? Or that the rest of the world simply doesn't have the political will to pass this resolution on its own? Moreover, why does this action have to go through the United Nations to begin with? Play the U.S.'s game - build an independent coalition that does not abide by the UN and get in there. So, why is it this isn't being done? Are you saying the world minus the U.S. is just too stupid to task things properly?

As the leading world power, it is the responsibility for the U.S. to do what's best for the U.S. While instituting regime change was the moral thing to do in Iraq and Afghanistan (whether the U.S. administration misled the nation is a separate issue), the war was waged because Iraq was percieved by the majority as a threat. Simply, self-interest is the be-all and end-all of political action on the international scene. That's a damned shame, but that's reality.

Interesting that you consider the U.S.'s moral responsibility to lie in the 'worst' problems in the world. Gee, you'd think the logical and moral thing to do is to go everywhere and do everything you can. Opening up a democracy in the Middle East in a country ripe for democracy maximizes the positives of what the U.S. could do today. Opening up a democracy in the Sudan would be excellent as well, and accomplish almost the same results - but policing the streets? Gimme a break. That has accomplished nothing in the past and will continue to accomplish nothing but serve as killing fields for the soldiers sent in but kept restrained from actually being useful.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: yllus
What a joke! Are you suggesting that the United States would veto a resolution to bring UN troops to Sudan? Or that the rest of the world simply doesn't have the political will to pass this resolution on its own? Moreover, why does this action have to go through the United Nations to begin with? Play the U.S.'s game - build an independent coalition that does not abide by the UN and get in there. So, why is it this isn't being done? Are you saying the world minus the U.S. is just too stupid to task things properly?

As the leading world power, it is the responsibility for the U.S. to do what's best for the U.S. While instituting regime change was the moral thing to do in Iraq and Afghanistan (whether the U.S. administration misled the nation is a separate issue), the war was waged because Iraq was percieved by the majority as a threat. Simply, self-interest is the be-all and end-all of political action on the international scene. That's a damned shame, but that's reality.

Interesting that you consider the U.S.'s moral responsibility to lie in the 'worst' problems in the world. Gee, you'd think the logical and moral thing to do is to go everywhere and do everything you can. Opening up a democracy in the Middle East in a country ripe for democracy maximizes the positives of what the U.S. could do today. Opening up a democracy in the Sudan would be excellent as well, and accomplish almost the same results - but policing the streets? Gimme a break. That has accomplished nothing in the past and will continue to accomplish nothing but serve as killing fields for the soldiers sent in but kept restrained from actually being useful.

It's not that the world minus the U.S. is too stupid, far from it; it is that the world minus the U.S. isn't very capable of doing anything. There are very few countries that have the capability to move large numbers of troops and equipment. (as in you wouldn't run out of fingers on one hand counting them)

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Sounds like a job for Canada

Heh, sounds like a job for the UN, im sure we'd gladly commit troops to the mission.

I haven't been following this sudan issue, doesn't get a whole lot of press. Are there any countries pushing for a mission in sudan?

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Strk
It's not that the world minus the U.S. is too stupid, far from it; it is that the world minus the U.S. isn't very capable of doing anything. There are very few countries that have the capability to move large numbers of troops and equipment. (as in you wouldn't run out of fingers on one hand counting them)

Okay, let's take that as true. What is the problem with funneling all travel through France's airlift capacity? Germany's? China's? Russia's? Spain's? That's a lot of capability right there. Establish a strongpoint at an airport a la Afghanistan and keep unloading. It's doable - it's just not getting done. It's not even being talked about, IIRC.

Moreover, what is wrong with the world's people in not demanding that those capabilities become a reality in other countries than the U.S./U.K.? Widebody jet makers would be all too willing to quadruple construction and meet that need.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Strk
It's not that the world minus the U.S. is too stupid, far from it; it is that the world minus the U.S. isn't very capable of doing anything. There are very few countries that have the capability to move large numbers of troops and equipment. (as in you wouldn't run out of fingers on one hand counting them)

Okay, let's take that as true. What is the problem with funneling all travel through France's airlift capacity? Germany's? China's? Russia's? Spain's? That's a lot of capability right there. Establish a strongpoint at an airport a la Afghanistan and keep unloading. It's doable - it's just not getting done. It's not even being talked about, IIRC.

Moreover, what is wrong with the world's people in not demanding that those capabilities become a reality in other countries than the U.S./U.K.? Widebody jet makers would be all too willing to quadruple construction and meet that need.

Because not all countries can afford it. I mean, you have a few countries with $30+ billion military budgets, but most don't have that. You also have issues with Germany, because it is limited on what it can build. (Japan has the same restriction)

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Strk
It's not that the world minus the U.S. is too stupid, far from it; it is that the world minus the U.S. isn't very capable of doing anything. There are very few countries that have the capability to move large numbers of troops and equipment. (as in you wouldn't run out of fingers on one hand counting them)

Okay, let's take that as true. What is the problem with funneling all travel through France's airlift capacity? Germany's? China's? Russia's? Spain's? That's a lot of capability right there. Establish a strongpoint at an airport a la Afghanistan and keep unloading. It's doable - it's just not getting done. It's not even being talked about, IIRC.

Moreover, what is wrong with the world's people in not demanding that those capabilities become a reality in other countries than the U.S./U.K.? Widebody jet makers would be all too willing to quadruple construction and meet that need.

Because not all countries can afford it. I mean, you have a few countries with $30+ billion military budgets, but most don't have that. You also have issues with Germany, because it is limited on what it can build. (Japan has the same restriction)

I completely disagree. France alone could easily establish a secure landing zone for troops in Sudan if it so wished. Ditto Russia and China. Japan and Germany could amend their consitutions quickly if the political will was there, and their defensive forces could easily be expanded for offensive operations. That's no excuse. That these nations have no aim to do any of these things and put an end to this humanitarian disaster is evident.

 

[Stunt]

Sidenote: CIA says it's a genocide...if it is, they should be pushing the UN on this...so should other contries...are there any pushing the UN to do something?

(internal conflict since 1980s; ongoing genocide) (2004)

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: broon

Originally posted by: Infohawk

And none of even the official reasons was to stop genocide. Do you know what genocide is?

And? Saddam had a goal to eliminate the Kurds. Even if the US didn't use that as a reason to invade, stopping it was a result.

Ok before everyone flames, Saddam was bad. But he was stopping an ARMED Kurdish rebellion within his country that was getting out of control. If a simliar thing happened in America, especially in a place disliked by a major portion of the conservative population, like say California, Bush would lay the smack down. If they started taking cities or getting stronger you better believe they would be crushed by any means possible.

 

[HalosPuma]

Originally posted by: 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.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here on this one. I was also against the US giving my tax-dollars to the tsunami victims. We have our own people to take care of after all of the hurricanes this season.

We're so dominant, like every past empire on earth, due to our military. Humanitarian causes do not create a superpower - having a massive arsenal of weapons to destroy your enemies many times over does.

It's best not to get involved unless it affects our interests. Let them fight amongst themselves and kill each other off. Besides, if they don't die from war, they will die from starvation.

Are you willing to sacrifice our soldier's lives to fight another country's civil war? It doesn't say anywhere in our Constitution that Congress can send soldiers to fight other country's internal affairs.

 

[HalosPuma]

Originally posted by: ITJunkie

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?

Yet it is okay to invade Iraq because of economic values?
This isn't a stab as much as an honest question.

Yes. Our national security benefits from a liberated Iraq. Helping Sudan doesn't do anything for us.

 

[Infohawk]

A liberated Iraqi actually doesn't do all that much for US national security. They're just as likely to hate America for its support of Israel and middle-east intervention. If anything, a free society would make terrorism easier to multiply because there are no strict police powers.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
A liberated Iraqi actually doesn't do all that much for US national security. They're just as likely to hate America for its support of Israel and middle-east intervention. If anything, a free society would make terrorism easier to multiply because there are no strict police powers.

The more involved we are in the middle-east the more pissed off the people there will be and the more likely it is that those people will become terrorists.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
A liberated Iraqi actually doesn't do all that much for US national security. They're just as likely to hate America for its support of Israel and middle-east intervention. If anything, a free society would make terrorism easier to multiply because there are no strict police powers.

Hellloooo this isnt about Iraq ... there are zillions of other threads to discuss Iraq

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: broon

Originally posted by: Infohawk

And none of even the official reasons was to stop genocide. Do you know what genocide is?

And? Saddam had a goal to eliminate the Kurds. Even if the US didn't use that as a reason to invade, stopping it was a result.

We could have also stopped his plan it by nuking all the kurds, what's your point? The Iraq war had nothing to do with genocide and hence that's why it doens't pay to compare it to Sudan.

I think you go a little too far when you say the Iraq war has nothing to do with genocide. There is the issue of the gassing of the Kurds, and gassing of Iranians in the Iranian war, and the issue of the WMD is at least theoretically tied to potential future genocide.

For myself, I don't know what can be done about Sudan, other than what we are already doing. It took more than a decade to decide to act decisively in Iraq, and then it may have been a mistake. So my own belief is the people of the United States don't know what to do about Sudan, not that they don't want to help.

Africa is another one of those regions, like southeast Asia, that were kind of the battleground for the Cold War, there are lots of problems left over from Soviet influence and our influence in trying to thwart each other..

 

[MadRat]

The U.S. has a rare opportunity to form a continent-wide alliance across Africa by forging the AU (African Union) into a real multinational military force. Not since the French Foreign Legion has Africa enjoyed the prospects of a static force from which to brace a stable future. The AU could be made to work literaaly as another NATO, only one concerned with containment of radical Islamic terrorism. The Sudanese government is not a terroristic force per se, but they do prop up the Janjaweed which are true terrorists. The AU has a good target to build unity, and that is the heart of the Janjaweed.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: Infohawk
A liberated Iraqi actually doesn't do all that much for US national security. They're just as likely to hate America for its support of Israel and middle-east intervention. If anything, a free society would make terrorism easier to multiply because there are no strict police powers.

The more involved we are in the middle-east the more pissed off the people there will be and the more likely it is that those people will become terrorists.

being less involved yields the same result. ..or worse.

I completely disagree. France alone could easily establish a secure landing zone for troops in Sudan if it so wished. Ditto Russia and China. Japan and Germany could amend their consitutions quickly if the political will was there, and their defensive forces could easily be expanded for offensive operations. That's no excuse. That these nations have no aim to do any of these things and put an end to this humanitarian disaster is evident.

yup, they find their positions of impotence convenient, and are not likely to change it as such.

 

[0roo0roo]

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.

atleast we have an excuse. we are busy in iraq. what is morally superior europe occupied with. plus they are the ones with the faith in the un.

And these Arab nations well .... they cry when Israel kills a few terrorists and conducts anti-terror raids, but when their fellow Arabs commit genocide against blacks, then its not big deal to them.

yup the joys of antisemitism. holding others to higher standards than themselves, and not caring at all unless its something with israel.

 

[0roo0roo]

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/hotel_rwanda/

 

[shurato]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/hotel_rwanda/

That movie kinda had me in tears. To the guy who said let them kill themselves off... your a fvckin disgrace to humanity.

 

[realsup]

People here are not talking about it because it is just Christians being killed. The religion of peace are only killing them because they deserve it.

 

[0roo0roo]

yes... "the religion of peace". never forget the quotation marks.