Save Darfur!

[Wezil]

Closest rally for me appears to be Toronto. Sorry, but I won't endure that torture.

Strange since the map has a big red dot on my city...

[Arrian]

Oh, sure Iraq matters. I agree with you on the differences, but there are also some basic (very basic) similarities. Sudan has both oil and Muslims, and Bush's credibility is pretty close to zero.

That being said, this is the sort of thing the UN should be acting about and it appears that in spite of the above, the SC managed to do something. Not much, but something.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
Oh, sure Iraq matters. I agree with you on the differences, but there are also some basic (very basic) similarities. Sudan has both oil and Muslims, and Bush's credibility is pretty close to zero.

All the more reason why WE, the people, must speak out. To the admin. To congress. To our fellow citizens. and to the world, at least to that part of the world thats willing to listen.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
1. The UNSC has just passed personal sanctions on 4 individuals from Sudan implicated in genocide. Not much, I know,...

The words you seem you seem to be looking for are either "laughable on its face" or "doesn't even rise to the level of insincere action." I wouldn't be very optimistic of any substantive action being taken in the near future either.

2. If the UNSC wont act, that does not mean action is not necessary.

Well in the words of a large number of people attending this event, "What right do we have to deploy US military power without proper respect toward international opinion and against nations that pose no imminent threat to us?"

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
The words you seem you seem to be looking for are either "laughable on its face" or "doesn't even rise to the level of insincere action." I wouldn't be very optimistic of any substantive action being taken in the near future either.
Well in the words of a large number of people attending this event, "What right do we have to deploy US military power without proper respect toward international opinion and against nations that pose no imminent threat to us?"

1. Laughable on its face - er no. Personal sanctions against genocidaires can have SOME impact. And its a start, it recognizes some international responsility.

2. Who are you quoting? The same right we had in Kosovo - the right to intervene against genocide. The UN charter cannot be a shield for genocide (IMHO) , and
if Russia and China are going to veto any action against genocide, then we cannot wait on the UNSC to act. Rather we will have to act, and let the UNSC sanction us if they think we have commited aggression against Sudan. Lets see how far that gets, when three permanent members of the UNSC (US, UK, France) stand united. But we're getting ahead of ourselves. Sudan is not oblivious to what we do, nor are Russia and China. The most desirable course is for Sudan to agreee to a peace deal, and to accept a UN force. If they refuse, the next most desirable course is for the UNSC to act, and for Russia and China to determine that a veto is not worth the cost. Neither of those is likely if we do not maintain pressure. If those fail, we shall have to determine appropriate action.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
1. Laughable on its face - er no.

After a year and scores of dead, I do believe that I would call it a laughable action on the part of the UNSC. I fail to see how it is anything but if that is the best that can be done after all this time. A real start would have been to institute a stronger arms embargo against Sudan and China, France, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc for profitting from the slaughter going on their.

2. Who are you quoting?

Paraphrasing Nancy Pelosi and the National Council of Churches among others.

The same right we had in Kosovo

We had no right in Kosovo, according to international law anyway.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by DinoDoc
"After a year and scores of dead, I do believe that I would call it a laughable action on the part of the UNSC. I fail to see how it is anything but if that is the best that can be done after all this time. A real start would have been to institute a stronger arms embargo against Sudan and China, France, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc for profitting from the slaughter going on their."

a start is embargoing the country doing the genocide, not the countries that "benefit" from it. Why alienate France, whose help we will need if we are to get anything done?

You say that this action on the part of the UNSC is laughable. I dont see what action YOU are intending to do, or if you are intending to join in protests to get the UNSC or anyone else to do more.


"Paraphrasing Nancy Pelosi and the National Council of Churches among others."


I dont think Nancy Pelosi ever said that we needed UNSC approval to act against genocide. Did Pelosi appose intervention in Kosovo? Does she regret it now? If she is saying things on Iraq that you feel are inconsistent, by all means take it up with her. A quick glance at the sponsors of this march will show you that we are folks who disagree with each other on MANY things. But we agree on the need for action in Darfur.



"

The same right we had in Kosovo

We had no right in Kosovo, according to international law anyway. "

International law wrt genocide is debatable. Certainly the foreign ministries of the many nations that joined us in Kosovo showed they interpretated international law differently. Even those nations that opposed the action in Kosovo, accepted the results. No UNSC resolutions were approved, that I know of, condemning the NATO action in Kosovo.

[Dinner]

Kosovo was good because there was on going genocide being commited. The same can't be said about Iraq so that's why I put those two in different catagories.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
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.

Weren't you in favour of invading Iraq in the first place? You fit the profile of someone who would on this site, so I really don't understand why you suddenly give such a **** about this?

I mean some of us *points to self* were highlighting the well documented genocide that was already going on before we invaded Iraq looking for non existent WMDs

The bottom line is no one gives a **** about Darfur - I mean they can't even be arsed feeding the refugees...

Nah, we'll just quietly file that under Africa...

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Kosovo was good because there was on going genocide being commited. The same can't be said about Iraq so that's why I put those two in different catagories.

Except that Kosovo pales into insignificance compared to Darfur, it's just one is in Europe and the other is in Africa...

[Cyclotron]

Keep fighting the good fight, LotM. I would go, but I imagine there are few such marches in my neck of the woods.

[Jon Miller]

I have been of the opinion that something should be done about Sudan for a long time..

But while some in the US want to do something about it, many others don't care. And many in the rest of the world don't.

I would be a much bigger fan of Sudan than Iran, even if Iran is close to getting the Bomb.

JM

[GePap]

The word genocide is being abused. Kosovo was not ongoing "genocide". Albenians werew not being systematically exterminated. Ethnic cleasing does not equal genocide. IN Dafur there is obviously ethnic cleasing going on, but genocide??

Why must people misuse terms in order to add some cache to their arguement? Is ehtnic cleasing not enough of a crime itself, instead of trying to inflate the charges?

A more interesting question for me is why this has become such an international issue: after all, nowhere near as much was said about the war that began in 1989 and killed 10 time the people in southern Sudan, and little if anything was done about the war in Congo, which still has not really ended,killing far more millions.

So what is it about the abuses in Dafur that make it more worthy of intervention than much bigger crisises?

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by GePap
The word genocide is being abused. Kosovo was not ongoing "genocide". Albenians werew not being systematically exterminated. Ethnic cleasing does not equal genocide. IN Dafur there is obviously ethnic cleasing going on, but genocide??

Let's get caught up in semantics shall we!?

They are being driven from their lands, but just because they're doing it in a random and haphazard manner, Gepap here thinks that estimates of up to 400,000 dead does not constitute a 'genocide' because the Janjaweed (a different ethnic group/religion) aren't carrying around clipboards and being all systematic-like...

In fact I think the sheer randomness is all the more terrifying, with the people of Darfur playing a waiting game with death not knowing exactly which day will be their last - but reluctant to risk death as refugees in case the militias don't show up.

Indeed the randomness has a sort of slow burning 'systematic' logic to it - keeping things just underneath the West's gives a **** radar...

Why must people misuse terms in order to add some cache to their arguement? Is ehtnic cleasing not enough of a crime itself, instead of trying to inflate the charges?

Ha ha! Instead we've got someone adding some cachet to their argument by arguing away hundreds of thousands of deaths with semantics - how wonderfully anal...

A more interesting question for me is why this has become such an international issue: after all, nowhere near as much was said about the war that began in 1989 and killed 10 time the people in southern Sudan, and little if anything was done about the war in Congo, which still has not really ended,killing far more millions.

Indeed, instead of dealing with the really big issues like the deaths of millions around the world - we spend our time looking for non-existent WMDs in oil rich countrys!

So what is it about the abuses in Dafur that make it more worthy of intervention than much bigger crisises?

Nothing in particular, just somewhere to start...

[chequita guevara]

The difference between ethnic cleansing and genocide is that when you are slaughtering villages in a genocide, you plan to go to the next village and slaughter it too, and then the next, and the next, until all the people are dead. In an ethnic cleanings, you slaughter the people of one village, in the hopes that the people in the next village will run away.

This is not to minimize the horror of ethnic cleasing, but to point out, there is a difference.