Talon Posted July 23, 2004 #1 Share Posted July 23, 2004 "Britian could send troops to help restore order in crisis-hit Sudan. Tony Blair has asked aides to draw up plans for mobilisation in the African country where conflict has left 1 million refugees at risk from famine and diseases. He said Britain had a 'moral responsibility' to help, but it was premature to say what form that would take. 'We rule nothing out but we are not at that stage yet,' he added. Mr Blair stressed the Government was the largest cash aid donor and was putting pressure on the Sudanese to stop the militias who have driven the refugees from their homes in Darfur. Britain is working closely with the EU and the African Union to resolve the crisis, he said. Mr Blair said he would speak to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan about the situation." Source: Scottish Metro, 23/7/04 Why has it taken the UN this long to act? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erikl Posted July 23, 2004 #2 Share Posted July 23, 2004 (edited) Why has it taken the UN this long to act? Black Sudanese have no oil. The perpetrators are Arabs, and the UN doesn't want to mess with oil reach Arab League members. The UN is busy condemning Israel for everything, so real problems, like genocides, serious human rights violations etc. are all non-important compare to this . Edited July 23, 2004 by Erikl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurnSide Posted July 23, 2004 #3 Share Posted July 23, 2004 Hrmm. I wonder how Bush feels about Britain moving in on his buddies... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC09 Posted July 23, 2004 #4 Share Posted July 23, 2004 It's about time. This has gone on long enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falco Rex Posted July 23, 2004 #5 Share Posted July 23, 2004 If there's one country out there that actually needs to be invaded for humanitarian reasons this is the one.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurnSide Posted July 23, 2004 #6 Share Posted July 23, 2004 Agreed Falco. It should have been Sudan right from the start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stellar Posted July 23, 2004 #7 Share Posted July 23, 2004 Hrmm. I wonder how Bush feels about Britain moving in on his buddies... If the British do it... I think it'll mean that Bush doesnt care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC09 Posted July 23, 2004 #8 Share Posted July 23, 2004 Congress Calls Sudan Atrocities 'Genocide' WASHINGTON - The U.S. Congress late Thursday night passed resolutions declaring that atrocities that have been unfolding in western Sudan are genocide and urged the Bush administration to do the same. The resolutions came as U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell met with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan Thursday, for the second time in three weeks, to discuss what he called a "humanitarian catastrophe" in Darfur. An estimated 30,000 civilians have been killed — most of them black Africans — and up to 1 million displaced since two groups from the Darfur region's African tribes took up arms over what they regard as unjust treatment by the government in their struggle with Arab countrymen over land and resources. The Arab militia, called Janjaweed, began attacking black villages, and some human rights groups have accused the militias of ethnic cleansing and genocide. But until the congressional resolutions late Thursday, U.S. officials had declined to label the killings a genocide. Passed unanimously in the House and Senate, the measures urge President Bush to call the situation in Sudan "by its rightful name" and urge his administration work with the international community to stop it. A 1948 UN convention obligates the international community to prevent and punish acts it has declared as genocide. U.S. officials and humanitarian groups accuse the Sudanese government of backing the militias — a claim Khartoum denies. Article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babs Posted July 23, 2004 #9 Share Posted July 23, 2004 I remember hearing on Fox news that arabs were burning villages etc. etc. ... killing the men and raping the women in Sudan... An arab told a black woman he was about to rape, "We are going to make a lighter-skinned baby!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erikl Posted July 23, 2004 #10 Share Posted July 23, 2004 As information comes from Sudan, I heared today in the news that Al-Qaeda Arab members from Sudan and other Arab countries are the ones doing the actual genocide, and they were invited to do so by the Arab government of Sudan . Why am I not surprised that Al-Qaeda has a hand in this genocide? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babs Posted July 23, 2004 #11 Share Posted July 23, 2004 Yeah, why am I not surprised? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talon Posted July 24, 2004 Author #12 Share Posted July 24, 2004 (edited) I'm kinda surprised America hasn't gone in already. Okay attacking Arabs is not going to improve Bush's standing in the Middle East, but can you imagine how opinion polls would reverse themselves in the west if US Coalition soldiers are seen on the media helping a victimised people fend off their agressors and restore peace to an area where millions are dying? I'm really surprised one of Bush's publicity guys hasn't thought of this already This is of course assuming that the gun-ho soldiers don't kill so many civilians the locals see us as the invaders ... maybe its best if the rest of the UN handle it Edited July 24, 2004 by Talon S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stellar Posted July 24, 2004 #13 Share Posted July 24, 2004 Okay attacking Arabs is not going to improve Bush's standing in the Middle East, but can you imagine how opinion polls would reverse themselves in the west if US Coalition soldiers are seen on the media helping a victimised people fend off their agressors and restore peace to an area where millions are dying? Same way they reversed themselves when the US went into Liberia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snuffypuffer Posted July 24, 2004 #14 Share Posted July 24, 2004 good point, there, Stellar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talon Posted July 24, 2004 Author #15 Share Posted July 24, 2004 (edited) Same way they reversed themselves when the US went into Liberia? Oh I said, they wanted it as a quick PR stunt for the run up to the elections, I never said anything about successfully puting a country back together again. The US has never been good at that. Sudan probably going to have civil conflict for some time to come, we'll never get rid of all those gorilla fighters. I'm talking about Bush being able to say "I'm a nice guy, I'm saving all these people, oh I just won the elction! Yeah, yeah, goodbye Sudan don't care if your still in chaos." Actually the US may be so bogged down in Iraq and with the public so against war, he may not be interested in risking a PR stunt in the Sudan Yeah, public opinion is so negative maybe Bush can't do anything without getting condemned Edited July 24, 2004 by Talon S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stellar Posted July 24, 2004 #16 Share Posted July 24, 2004 I can see it now... Bush looking over his balconey "Ahh, look at them, overjoyed that we went into Sudan! I'm definitly going to win the elections now! Oh look over there! It's John Kerry crying!" Wife turns on the TV "This is CNN. Recently confirmed reports reveal that US forces in Sudan are taking prisoners and torturing them. The general in charge of the prison claims that she had orders from the top to conduct these acts of torture." "sh**" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talon Posted July 24, 2004 Author #17 Share Posted July 24, 2004 I can see it now... Bush looking over his balconey "Ahh, look at them, overjoyed that we went into Sudan! I'm definitly going to win the elections now! Oh look over there! It's John Kerry crying!" Wife turns on the TV "This is CNN. Recently confirmed reports reveal that US forces in Sudan are taking prisoners and torturing them. The general in charge of the prison claims that she had orders from the top to conduct these acts of torture." "sh**" LOL Well, no matter what happens someone has to do something, even if it doesn't lead to a stabilised nation, or the pascifists attack it, anything is better than let this continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bathory Posted July 24, 2004 #18 Share Posted July 24, 2004 Sudan is a sovereign nation, the US has no right to go in and kill arabs in its thoroughly racist and imperialistic ways Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightbird Posted July 24, 2004 #19 Share Posted July 24, 2004 personally I am glad that finally something is going to be done about SUdan. but I would hope that the UN will not go the way of america and actually invade a country, killing innocent civilians, torturing them, and bombing their towns. I would prefer to see something more like what us aussies did in East Timor. no casulaties, rebuilding a war torn country, helping the innocent people, protecting them. it IS possible. and if america will go in there with the same gun ho attitude it went into Iraq with...personally...I hope they stay out and let other countries who do not always march on in and start shooting help to fix this problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatAstrofix Posted July 24, 2004 #20 Share Posted July 24, 2004 During last ten years probably 4 million ppl have died in Sudan... that's what I remember hearing from tv-news the other day. And ofcourse there are quite a few who have excaped to Chad... Their goverment is supporting the arab-troops, and it's said, that they kill all the edlerly ppl, throw babies in fire in front of their mothers eyes.. Goverment air-force is bombing fleeing ppl chased by arab-troops.. I can't even imagine the terror and deperation these ppl must be feeling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erikl Posted July 24, 2004 #21 Share Posted July 24, 2004 (edited) During last ten years probably 4 million ppl have died in Sudan... 2 million, not 4, but still it's a huge and horrible number. The thing is that in most African countries it's usually the Muslim Arabs who kill Christian or Pagan black people, but in Sudan the black population already converted to Islam centuries ago. The Arabs there just feel that they are superior, and they don't accept to cnversion of the black population. Edited July 24, 2004 by Erikl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatAstrofix Posted July 24, 2004 #22 Share Posted July 24, 2004 Rwanda, Zaire, nothing to do with muslims, just civil wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erikl Posted July 24, 2004 #23 Share Posted July 24, 2004 Sudan is a sovereign nation, the US has no right to go in and kill arabs in its thoroughly racist and imperialistic ways Well, I wrote it before in the Russian death squads' thread, so I'll just copy my earlier reply: "I think that any country which mass slaughter it's population, loses any rights to be sovereign. The leaders of a country which commit genocide or democide should be hang for crimes against humanity. This is the legacy my grandfather, may he rest in peace, left me from the German labour camps, and my grandmother's brother, who died in German death camps." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bathory Posted July 24, 2004 #24 Share Posted July 24, 2004 Erikl, my comment was a nonserious jab at the BUSH=HITLER crowd:P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erikl Posted July 24, 2004 #25 Share Posted July 24, 2004 Rwanda, Zaire, nothing to do with muslims, just civil wars. Nigeria, Sudan, Horn of Africa, Somalia, the conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea, are all conflicts of muslims vs. chrisitans\pagans. Ofcourse not all conflicts in Africa are caused by this, and I never claimed so, I wrote: "The thing is that in most African countries it's usually the Muslim Arabs who kill Christian or Pagan black people" Which means that not all conflicts in Africa are conflicts between muslims and others, but unfortunately most of them are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now