Save Darfur!

[MOBIUS]

Good for them!

I say let the Sudan govt continue to ethnically cleanse the region as it has been since before we invaded Iraq and develop their oil fields - then America can buy the oil and everyone is happy!

[Arrian]

I see that it's America's fault again. Thanks for keeping me informed, MOBIUS!

-Arrian

[MOBIUS]

If you think it's as simple as that then you're a moron - thanks for the update, Arrian!

[Arrian]

Welcome back, MOB. So glad to see you!

I say let the Sudan govt continue to ethnically cleanse the region as it has been since before we invaded Iraq and develop their oil fields - then America can buy the oil and everyone is happy!

- said with obvious sarcasm, of course.

Who's the moron?

-Arrian

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Guardian
What I'd like to see is a more powerful UN, or a UN with teeth if you like.

I'd be happy to see a UN without a US in it.

[MOBIUS]

Me too - then we can stop pretending the US actually cares about the rest of the World apart from its own selfish needs

[GhengisFarb™]

When did we give you the idea we cared?

[Zevico]

Sudan being a UN Member is not necessarily a problem here - they can speak up for themselves and they can vote, but others can speak and vote against them. The main problem that has repeatedly paralyzed the UN over the years is that the 5 permanent members to the Security Council (the USA, UK, France, Russia and China) all have veto power, meaning that if any one of these votes against a resolution, then that resolution is dead.

I think the concept of the Security Council and its "permanent" members flawed. I have no idea how to fix it. I don't know whether taking away veto powers is a good idea, or whether the Security Council should be done away with altogether. But I think you misunderstood my argument: I said that the membership of Sudan and countries like it was the problem with the UN at the moment. The declarations of human rights, while a good base for international law, are ineffective if they cannot be policed. And they can't, in countries such as Sudan. Other parts of the UN charter are, once again, good in theory, but cannot be implemented. The reasons for this are manifold.
Firstly, the UN has no power in and of itself, regardless of whatever peacekeeping forces it may have under its command. What would happen in a Security Council without vetos when all of the countries voted against the US? Nothing. The US holds too much influence for anything to happen.

[Arrian]

The declarations of human rights, while a good base for international law, are ineffective if they cannot be policed. And they can't, in countries such as Sudan.

They could in Sudan if there was enough political will in powerful countries to do it. Where it really can't be done is, for example, a country like China. Nobody can tell the PRC what to do: they've got nukes and millions of soldiers. And yes, yes, I'm aware that the same thing applies to my USofA.

-Arrian

[dannubis]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
When did we give you the idea we cared?

So you're not going to cry like a litlle baby any time we (as in the rest of the world) flip you the finger and say to stuff it ?

I mean, what are you going to do right ? Going to eat "patriot sprouts" ?

[Arrian]

Hell no. Those things are disgusting.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

bumping before the weekend.

Y'all can debate the future of the UN, and the goodness or badness of the US all you want.

Meanwhile the horrors in the Sudan continue.

Please check the link for info on the rally in DC, and other rallies across North America.

[lord of the mark]

The Toronto Star:

Editorial: End Darfur carnage
Apr. 27, 2006. 01:00 AM

"It is barely a slap on the wrist to the architects of Darfur's agony.

Even so, the United Nations Security Council vote this week to impose sanctions on leading Sudanese figures stirs hope that the council may yet muster the resolve needed to curb the rape, butchery and ethnic cleansing that has killed more than 200,000 since 2003, and driven 2 million from their homes.

The UN was shamed into action by U.S. President George Bush, over the self-serving objection of China, Russia and Qatar. The council voted Tuesday to slap a travel ban on Maj. Gen. Mohamed Elhassan, a key Sudanese official, and to freeze his assets. Also targeted were Sheik Musa Hilal, a janjaweed ally of the regime, and two rebels, Adam Yacub Shant and Gabril Abdul Kareem Badri.

This sends a signal to higher Sudanese and rebel figures that the UN expects power and wealth-sharing peace talks in Abuja, Nigeria, to succeed, and soon. Otherwise the UN will consider stronger measures.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government should support this drive for stepped-up UN action, as the Canadian Jewish Congress urged this week at Holocaust Remembrance Day ceremonies.

Sudan recently barred UN staff from visiting Darfur, as scores more villages were razed. And yesterday the UN Children's Fund warned violence is rising, as is malnutrition.

If peace talks founder in the coming days, the UN should target Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, and serve notice that it will hold him accountable for genocide.

Meanwhile, Sudan's African neighbours should press al-Bashir to accept a U.S.-backed plan to send 15,000 combat-ready UN troops to Darfur to replace an ill-equipped African Union force of 7,000.

The UN has threatened for a year to get tough. It is past time to act."

[Arrian]

The US army is tied up in Iraq and Afganistan. I know Sudan isn't exactly a power, but can we spare yet more troops to intervene?

IOW, I think somebody else has to step up. We can push for it, but of course our credibility is shot to **** b/c of Iraq.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
The US army is tied up in Iraq and Afganistan. I know Sudan isn't exactly a power, but can we spare yet more troops to intervene?

IOW, I think somebody else has to step up. We can push for it, but of course our credibility is shot to **** b/c of Iraq.

-Arrian

we're talking 15,000 troops, and they dont have to be 1st world quality. They do need to be in sufficient number, with enough backup, and an expanded authority. Its more about the political push, than its about finding spare battalions.

I dont think Iraq has anything to do with it. We're not talking about hidden WMD's, but genocide being done more or less in plain sight. Though Sudan IS now trying to keep UN officials away.

The rally on Sunday will include speakers who were against the Iraq war, including Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and George Clooney.