Darfur

[Belial]

I can't believe there isn't a thread about the genocide in Darfur yet, but then again there wasn't anything around here about Oaxaca either. Its pretty comfortable in this bubble of ignorance isn't it?

[cappy]

Darfur is bad stuff.

[Belial]

Darfur is bad stuff.

Indeed, but still we turn a blind eye.

"They are not rich, not white, and not sitting on oil, so they can be damned." Western charity at its finest.

[margot]

At school the kids wear "save darfur" shirts and everyday our principal reads a fact about Darfur over the intercom and people have fundraisers etc. I don't really think that many people are ignorant/uncaring..just shows we don't really have control over what our government/military does.

[Wind]

a bunch of kids at my school went to the 'Save Darfur' rally in NYC a little bit ago.

[Reinas]

I can't believe there isn't a thread about the genocide in Darfur yet, but then again there wasn't anything around here about Oaxaca either. Its pretty comfortable in this bubble of ignorance isn't it?

When there is a thread about burritos, you know there's a problem.

Haiti, Rawanda, Somalia, etc. There are a number of countries suffereing from mass murder yet the world can't legally do anything about it.

Who knows what the UN's definition of genocide really is, but if a country's mass murder does not equate with their definition, the UN cannot legally interfere.

Truth of the matter is, Darfur doesn't matter much to the international community. The US has close intelligence ties with Sudan, those on the security council have their own ties to Sudan in which they don't want to jeopardize by UN interferance. China imports oil from Sudan, Russia does not want to open the door to international intervention in domestic affairs.*

Personal interests > humanitarian interests.

*Darfur: International Community's Failure to Protect - Nick Grono

[Samurai Drifter]

I can't believe there isn't a thread about the genocide in Darfur yet, but then again there wasn't anything around here about Oaxaca either. Its pretty comfortable in this bubble of ignorance isn't it?

What's the point of starting a thread about it? As if there are going to be differing opinions.

[Belial]

What's the point of starting a thread about it? As if there are going to be differing opinions.

Well, do you think we should go in?

[Samurai Drifter]

Well, I think we should, but at the same time I find it ironic that a lot of the same people who want interference in Darfur are the same people who say that the US shouldn't be the world's police.

If they want the UN to go in that's a different story, but it would also never happen, considering they're wrapped in red tape like a mummy.

[amy]

Actually the UN peacekeeping force of 20,000 is already approved. The Sudanese government is the only thing preventing them from going in. So the US and other countries now have to apply economic and politcal pressure on Sudan to allow them.

[Reinas]

Actually the UN peacekeeping force of 20,000 is already approved. The Sudanese government is the only thing preventing them from going in. So the US and other countries now have to apply economic and politcal pressure on Sudan to allow them.

But they won't. The UN as a whole's interest is the humanitarian aspect of the situation. The seperate countries that make up the UN, especially the Security Council, their interest is in the economic/political aspect of the situation.

I gotta agree with SD. Do you want the US policing the world or not?

[Belial]

I want the US, as the most powerful nation on the Earth, to use its power and its position to stop the clear murder of hundreds of thousands, yes. I do not want them to lie to me and go in to relatively stable situations under false pretenses for only monetary reasons.

[Cleese]

Only see this when its a slow news day. No one cares about Africa in the US anymore, sucks but thats really the way it is. :/

Ever since Somalia, the US was/is REAL hesitant about sending any thing resembling military aid to that continent.

[amy]

But they won't. The UN as a whole's interest is the humanitarian aspect of the situation. The seperate countries that make up the UN, especially the Security Council, their interest is in the economic/political aspect of the situation.

I gotta agree with SD. Do you want the US policing the world or not?

Bush has called the Darfur crisis genocide and since we've signed the Genocide Convention he is legally required to take action. I don't know if he can get tried in the ICC for inaction or what but I think "applying pressure" is much easier, more effective, less imperialistic, and more doable than sending military aid. There is just no reason for us to go in rather than act through the UN (even though we're not a member of it, gah.)

[Samurai Drifter]

Bush has called the Darfur crisis genocide and since we've signed the Genocide Convention he is legally required to take action.

And we all know international law means so much to Bush... :laugh:

[cappy]

it is not america's business. if there is a coalition formed under UN, we will donate troops. america should not act independant on this at all.

[I live in your sock]

Darfur? I've only heard of Sudan! oh noes....

[Baltar]

Throughout the last 50 years genocide in any country has been overlooked by the world.

I do feel this needs to change, but it's a harder battle then people think. This is not to say I'm not ready to to try and make people and the goverment aware, but pretty much pull as many people as possible.

As much as most of us oppose big goverment, start actually trying to write your senators and congressmen among other things. It's can't hurt in all honesty.

[Reinas]

Bush has called the Darfur crisis genocide and since we've signed the Genocide Convention he is legally required to take action. I don't know if he can get tried in the ICC for inaction or what but I think "applying pressure" is much easier, more effective, less imperialistic, and more doable than sending military aid. There is just no reason for us to go in rather than act through the UN (even though we're not a member of it, gah.)

Problem is how the US is going to apply pressure.

Bush can go in Sudan. He can go without the UN, he did it with Iraq. But public isn't raising hell for action against the genocide in Darfur. Which wouldn't make Darfur a priority right now. And the US has ties with Sudan, which would be severed if they were to take action against the genocide.

[amy]

What I mean by applying pressure is conditionally severing those ties, without military action.

If we go in alone the US will look ridiculous and just get more bad press. Anyone would look ridiculous. I really think it is impossible for an independent nation to go barging into a different country acting as if they are saving it from itself (even if they are, as in this case.) There has to be a forum for international discussion and debate about what is done. UN is there for a reason. :hardgay:

[Samurai Drifter]

^ Supposedly, but by the time they will take any action anyone they'd be trying to save will be dead.

[Ceraziefish]

I've a question; do people dislike the idea of an organization like the U.N., or just the U.N. itself?

[Samurai Drifter]

The idea is great, but in practice in its current form it's kind of disfunctional.