Some questions on the possible intervention in Sudan.

[Tripledoc]

Re: Re: Some questions on the possible intervention in Sudan.

Originally posted by molly bloom
Oh, I don't know- somnething to do with a group called Al Qaeda, the killing of thousands of Americans and non-Americans in attacks on the United States, a war in Afghanistan, and a war in Iraq.

Yes, but the alleged genocide happened after Afghanistan but was not flaunted by the press before Abu Graib needed to taken off the news.

Of course, with people's attention elsewhere, might it not also be an advantageous time at which to undertake a scheme of ethnic/race cleansing in an undeveloped part of a country not renowned for media friendliness and accessibility?

Again why was this not reported earlier then, if it began 1 and a half years ago. Let me see, the commencement of the alleged genocide would then have coincided with the invasion of Iraq. So equally if a genocide was under way in the Sudan, then it would be difficult for the Bush administration to explain how precisely now was a good time to get rid of Saddam Hussein, if the Sudan was given higher priority on the human rights scale. A scale which, it seems can be manipulated to whichever ends serve the West best.

Where is the factual evidence of genocide?

You mean other than the deserted, bombed out and burnt villages, the displaced persons' camps, the refugees in Chad and southern Sudan?

That sounds more like ethnic cleansing. But this is a civil war between two factions which has been going on for a number of years now and it should be seen in that context.

I love the way you characterize the United Nations as part of some conspiracy- that's precisely the standpoint of the right wing extremists in the United States who talk about black helicopters and how the General Secretary wants to institute rule by the godless U.N. .

It seems all too true then, that extremes turn to meet each other in a banally predictable fashion.

Sophistry. Show me one instance when the UN has acted against the basic interests of the West.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Tripledoc


As you know the US only attacks weak disarmed nations.

The British Empire, 1776.

The Spanish Empire, 1898.

The Triple Alliance, Imperial Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire, April, 1917

Imperial Japan, December 1941.

Nazi Germany, December 1941

Red China and North Korea, 1950-1953


Be very wary of making such ludicrous statements on a site visited by people with an interest in history.

Unless you have a vested interest in making yourself appear more foolish than you may be.

[Tripledoc]

Molly Bloom. Of course Amnesty have to seem objective.

The point is that no action, military or economic, have been taken against the Us or Israel. So every one knows that in these circumstances, nither Israel or the US will make amends. Everyone knows that. Now, if Amnesty makes a damning report against a third world country, then this is used by the western politicians to justify military intervention. Mainly to get the bleeding heart liberals to toe the line. But the liberals are merely useful idiots.

Don't you see any problems in that?

[molly bloom]

Re: Re: Re: Some questions on the possible intervention in Sudan.

Originally posted by Tripledoc

That sounds more like ethnic cleansing. But this is a civil war between two factions which has been going on for a number of years now and it should be seen in that context.


Sophistry. Show me one instance when the UN has acted against the basic interests of the West.

Oh super, just 'ethnic cleansing'.

I'm so relieved, I can now go back to my life of sybaritic idleness and indulgence.

Gosh, I wonder why I bothered putting in those links to sites mentioning mass killings and rape as a weapon of war. Just for local colour, I suppose.



'
A List of UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS against Israel


A list of UN Resolutions against "Israel"

1955-1992:
* Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".
* Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
* Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
* Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
* Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
* Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
* Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
* Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
* Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
* Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
* Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
* Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
* Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
* Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
*Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
* Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
* Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
* Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
* Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
* Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
* Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
* Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
* Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious
obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
* Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".

http://www.middleeastnews.com/unresolutionslist.html

Et cetera, et cetera....

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by molly bloom


The British Empire, 1776.

The Spanish Empire, 1898.

The Triple Alliance, Imperial Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire, April, 1917

Imperial Japan, December 1941.

Nazi Germany, December 1941

Red China and North Korea, 1950-1953


Be very wary of making such ludicrous statements on a site visited by people with an interest in history.

Unless you have a vested interest in making yourself appear more foolish than you may be.

Come on, I meant after the Second World War. That would be clear from the context.

BTW the Spanish Empire was in disarray when the US decided to gobble it up. Germany bled dry in the First World War until the US intervened. In the Second World War Germany was bogged down in Russia. Red China had just had ther entire eastern part of China pillaged by the Japanese.

[Tripledoc]

All those anti-Israeli resolutions mean absolutely nothing. And you know it.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Tripledoc


Come on, I meant after the Second World War. That would be clear from the context.

BTW the Spanish Empire was in disarray when the US decided to gobble it up. Germany bbled dry in the First World War until the US intervened. In the Second World War Germany was bogged down in Russia. Red China had just had ther entire western part of China pillaged by the Japanese.

Your capacity for self-delusion is very amusing.

There was no historical or age-determined context for your sweeping claim- that's the nature of ludicrous, sweeping statements.

You seem fond of making assumptions or claims, and not backing them up with detail- so bled dry was Imperial Germany (but one part of the Triple Alliance in 1917) that it was able to launch the Ludendorff Offensive from March to July of 1918, nearly a whole year AFTER the United States' declaration of war.

Nazi Germany 'bogged down' in Russia at what date exactly?

December 1941, when the United States declared war?

Or in 1943, a year and a half later, with the defeat at Stalingrad, possibly?

In fact, so 'bogged down' was Germany when America declared war, that a year later it was able to inflict losses in the Unterseeboot campaign in the Battle of the Atlantic amounting to 7.8 million gross tons of merchant shipping, and 26 000 merchant seamen casualties.

1950-1953 was 5 to 8 years AFTER the end of World War II and the occupation of part (not all of Western China) by Imperial Japan.

And the Chinese government was a collection of people who had defeated the Nationalists and were skilled at a war of attrition and willing to countenance human wave attacks by the Red Army.

Amnesty is under no obligation or form of duress from Western governments to appear 'objective'.

Which part of 'independent international worldwide organisation' is unclear?

[The Emperor Fabulous]

God damn Tripledoc...how's your colon look?

****, you've actually got to be at least in your large intestines...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
All those anti-Israeli resolutions mean absolutely nothing. And you know it.

You're absolutely right of course- they were all orchestrated by the Zionist-Israel Fan Club in the United Nations, so keen on sucking up to the United States and Israel.

You know, countries like Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Mauritania, Algeria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, the former Soviet Union, et cetera.

You'd make a very good recruiter for American War Bonds with your seemingly infinite capacity for self-deception.

I never thought I'd actually find myself sounding like a glee club for previous United States' governments, but paranoid fantasies do strange things to people.

I might have to read 'The Pentagon Papers' or 'The Declaration of Independence of the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam', to regain my normal perspective and composure.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by molly bloom
You seem fond of making assumptions or claims, and not backing them up with detail- so bled dry was Imperial Germany (but one part of the Triple Alliance in 1917) that it was able to launch the Ludendorff Offensive from March to July of 1918, nearly a whole year AFTER the United States' declaration of war.

The Ludendorf offensive was a joke. the German soldiers were so starved that when they finally got a few inches into untouched French territoty they began stealing cows, pigs and chickens and proceeded to drive them back to German lines. The whole offensive fizzed out at that point.

Nazi Germany 'bogged down' in Russia at what date exactly?.
December 1941, when the United States declared war?

Winter of 41, it was clear that Germany had lost the inititive in Russia. Also, unless I am a total illiterate I believe it was Hitler who declared war on the US.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Tripledoc


If the Christian militias, who themselves have committed numerous atrocities, in the South had air support they would probably use it too. Why is it a problem for you that Sudan uses the same machinery of death as the US and other advanced nations? Sounds a bit cowardly to me.

But that is the real issue here. I think that it is clear now that the US will not get involved becasue they know the Sudanes will be able to bite back. For instance the Russians have just sold advanced fighter jets to Sudan. As you know the US only attacks weak disarmed nations.

What do the Christian militias in the South have to do with the government sponsored and abetted genocide of the black non-arab muslims in the west, ie Darfur?

These airstrikes weren't against military positions, they were simple area attacks against villages to instill terror in support of the much more dangerous attacks of the Janjaweed. This is ethnic cleansing with an eye toward genocide. The idea is to instill enough terror in the populace that they will abandon their crops, their land and all of their property and flee headlong into the desert where they will either die, live in a squalid refugee camp where they can be easily monitored or leave the country.

Yea, and I'm sure the U.S. is scared to death of the advanced Sudanese jets. If airpower alone could do something here, I'd be all for getting involved.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Tripledoc

The Ludendorf offensive was a joke. the German soldiers were so starved that when they finally got a few inches into untouched French territoty they began stealing cows, pigs and chickens and proceeded to drive them back to German lines. The whole offensive fizzed out at that point.


Winter of 41, it was clear that Germany had lost the inititive in Russia. Also, unless I am a total illiterate I believe it was Hitler who declared war on the US.

Such a joke was it, that it opened a fifty mile wide gap in Entente defences, and advanced a staggering forty miles.

Ha ha, very funny, especially at a time when gains could be measured in feet or metres.

The Marne assault came within forty miles of Paris, and German guns were close enough to bombard the City of Light.

My, the Parisians must have been chuckling at the silly Offensive.

20 000 Allied troops died at the Battle of the River Lys in the offensive, with 80 000 injured.

Oh, how very droll.

In point of fact, the Americans declared war and continued to prosecute a war in which their opponents had one less ally to fight- the Russians gave up in December 1917 (formal armistice, December 5th).

That Nazi Germany declared war on the United States is not in question- and I did not claim the United States declared war first, only that it declared war.

Which it did.

http://tucnak.fsv.cuni.cz/~calda/Documents/1940s/Declaration%20of%20War%20on%20Nazi%20Germany,%201941.html

Declaration of War on Nazi Germany, 1941

DECLARATION OF WAR ON NAZI GERMANY

F. D. Roosevelt to the Congress:



' " I therefore request the Congress to recognize a state of war between the United States and Germany, and between the United States and Italy.


The Congress, promptly and unanimously adopted the following two joint resolutions declaring a state of war between Germany and Italy and the United States:

''Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it
''Resolved, etc., That the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States, is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.'' '


I think you may have mistaken me for someone with no interest in history.

Operation Barbarossa, the German invasion of Soviet Russia, began in June 1941, yes, but so convinced was Stalin that the Germans would succeed in capturing the capital, he had to be persuaded not to flee Moscow and he set up the seat of government in Kuibyshev.

"Later in the autumn, when the Germans were approaching Moscow, he (Stalin) betrayed his anxiety to Sir Stafford Cripps. He told the British Ambassador that Moscow would be defended to the last, but he also envisaged the possibility that the Germans might seize it. He went on to say that if Moscow fell, the Red Army would have to withdraw from the whole territory to the east of the Volga. He believed that even than the Soviets would be able to go on waging war, but that it would take many years before they could strike back across the Volga.

In November the Germans made an all-out attempt to encircle Moscow. Their vanguards advanced to within twenty to thirty miles of the capital. At one point they were only five miles away. All the Commissariats and government departments were evacuated to Kuibyshev on the Volga. In Moscow officials were burning the archives that had not been carried away.

On November 6, the anniversary of the revolution, the Moscow Soviet assembled, as usual, for a ceremonial meeting, but this time the meeting was held underground, at the Mayakovsky station of the subway. Stalin addressed the assembly in calm words, although he made the alarming admission that Russian troops "had several times fewer tanks than the Germans."

The evacuation of the government from Moscow was followed by riots and disorders. People thought that the city had been given up. Crowds stormed food stores. Members of the party destroyed their membership cards and badges. Anti-communists prepared to settle accounts with Communists and to win favor with the invader. Symptoms of anarchy appeared in many places all over the area between the fronts and the Volga. '

http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/stalin/lectures/Warlord.html

Had he only had the benefit of your hindsight, he could have sat down, had a delicious glass of Russian caravan tea and some blinis, caviare and sour cream.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Tripledoc


Come on, I meant after the Second World War. That would be clear from the context.

BTW the Spanish Empire was in disarray when the US decided to gobble it up. Germany bled dry in the First World War until the US intervened. In the Second World War Germany was bogged down in Russia. Red China had just had ther entire eastern part of China pillaged by the Japanese.

The Korean War, Vietnam and the entire Cold War (where we faced the possibility of nuclear annihilation) were after WW2. Seriously, quit spitting on your computer monitor as you post and make a reasonable point.

[molly bloom]

History- 1

Tripledoc's Assumptions- 0


I'm off to have some pho and green tea ice cream.

My palate needs cleansing.

[Tripledoc]

Sikander.

Are you seriously saying that Korea and Vietnam were strong nations? Cuba? Nicaragua? Angola? Panama? Grenada? Afghanistan? Iraq?

Molly Bloom.

When I said joke, I meant as in silly, stupid, ineffective, leading nowhere. Not as in funny haha. You have a tendency to take one sentence and run with it into the ground with wry sarcasm, while avoiding the real issue at hand. Which is, if you recall, the situation in Dafur. More precisely if the West should intervene.

And why do people have such a problem with keeping a civil tone on this board? Maybe this an issue for another thread.