Pages: 1

 

2006-09-15 09:33:50
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6482|Northern California
This video appeal from George Clooney is where my thoughts are.  I care more about this than the US War of Terror, more about WWIII between Muslims and Christians, and more about...well more about most things as this is the greatest evil going on in the world (that I know of).  Call George Clooney what you want, but I dig the guy and admire every effort he and Don Cheadle make in respect to Darfur.

First, a quick study of what's going on.  The UN's classification is not one of Genocide like Colin Powell and other Americans call it..it is just tribal warfare.  Genocide is to destroy a race.  Since both warring groups in the west of Sudan are Sudanese, black (mostly), AND muslim, it's not accurate to call it genocide.  It might have a hint of religious reasoning but it's looking like it's more locals not liking the roving heardsmen (the Arab nationals in Sudan's Darfur region).

Here's what Clooney has said recently to a UN panel, and he's right: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/14/clo … -will-die/

Here's a good, but lengthy description of the conflict: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict

My thoughts are that the US won't do jack, not that it could, because they're muslims and it seems our current foreign policy is to slaughter muslims too.  That and there's no financial gain by deploying peace-disturbers there.  And I'm sure Bolten at the UN is downplaying the conflict on behalf of the US (aka, BUSH).

Further, I believe that like other disasterous conflicts that Africa seems to have 24/7/365, ALL need some sort of attention because there is more killing in African nations than anywhere..and the bulk of it is unreported/unheard.  That means people, who are actually like YOU and ME, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, babies, grandparents...are being killed in the most barbaric manner there is.  Despair is probably greater in African countries than in Baghdad.

WHAT DO YOU THINK SHOULD BE DONE IN DARFUR?
2006-09-15 09:37:05
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6546
Why should we care?

1) Atrocities? Check.
2) White People? No check.
3) Oil? No check.
4) Strategic benefit in intervening? No check.
5) Economic benefit in intervening? No check.

Sorry but you must have checks on either 3, 4 or 5 to even begin talking about intervention.

/sarcasm

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-09-15 09:38:25)

2006-09-15 09:40:46
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6552
Darfur to become new Rwanda?  It already is.
2006-09-15 09:52:11
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6482|Northern California

Bubbalo wrote:

Darfur to become new Rwanda?  It already is.
True. But the killing has "only" reached about the half way point of the killing done in Rwanda.  If Rwanda saw about 1 million dead people, and Darfur 400k so far, and in 2 weeks the Janjaweed will be unleashed...there's several hundred thousand people in the path that will easily die and surpass Rwanda's toll.

I think a solution is to NUKE Khartoum.  The government is supplying the Janjaweed with their air and land arsenal, food and fuel.  They've turned down every effort they could at mediation because they are clearly trying quickly to cover up their attrocities.  True it is, that the rebels started the conflict, but the government/janjaweed is doing far, far more gruesome slaughter than they should.  There's virtually no rebel force left and the Janjaweed are trying desperately to kill as many as possible to conceal their attrocities.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … UG2004.jpg
This map shows the towns destroyed.  Imagine an Israeli tank fleet mowing down Palestinian settlements or Israeli air missile, helicopter and bomber attacks in Lebanon..now magnify that amount of destruction and death by at least 1000..and you have what's been done in Darfur.  We've all seen the little children laying in the streets dead and their mothers raped and mutilated and burned, etc.  Imagine every village on this map with at least 100 of those occurrences.  It's what hell is.
2006-09-15 09:52:54
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6763|PNW

As we all know, George Clooney is the pinnacle of political knowledge. We should all strive to be more Clooney-like.
2006-09-15 09:56:59
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6482|Northern California

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

As we all know, George Clooney is the pinnacle of political knowledge. We should all strive to be more Clooney-like.
George Clooney, Bono, Don Cheadle, Sean Penn, and a host of other actors who actually care about human events have a much broader and true grasp of political savvy...far more than the majority of politicians running our government.  Maybe the actors should form their own coalition of do-gooders.  They are truly the salt of the earth (as are non-actors who are equally involved and using their means for such good).
2006-09-15 10:55:33
Fancy_Pollux
Connoisseur of Fine Wine
+1,306|6637
Aren't you guys the same people who complain about the U.S. policing the world in other threads? Although I agree that the U.S. should intervene, I find your hypocrisy ironic.

Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-09-15 11:54:28)

2006-09-15 11:12:38
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6482|Northern California

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Aren't you guys the same people who complain about the U.S. policing the world in other threads? Although I agree that the U.S. should intervene, I find your hypocracy ironic.
Me?  I've not complained about policing the world.  I have only criticized my government, said Iran should have the right to do what they want, I've criticized our foreign policy.  But I've never said anything about not helping other nations stop mass killing.  Further, this thread asks for it's posters to DISCUSS WHAT TO DO ABOUT DARFUR.

SO how about contributing to a mature discussion/debate or just STFU!
2006-09-15 11:36:31
Spumantiii
pistolero
+147|6673|Canada
I've had my eye on this for 3 years now, I honestly don't think anything will be done there.  What Sudan needs is attention from prominent nations, and prominent nations need to prove their good intention (there is nothing to gain from this situation)  Good people would be willing to help, big business will not.  Thus I think it will largely be ignored by America, not because of lack of good people but because of finances, and the excuse of national debt, other wars- men stretched too thin, gas price etc.   Nothing will be done, We'll get to hear about the atrocities in the bottom corner of page 2 after hearing about how some dumb lady dyed her stupid little yap dog a sickly pink color on page 1.  Or something about what Oprah said.  Or something about George Clooney.  The sad thing is people have been red flagging this for years but only as celebs pop up for the public do people notice, or care.
2006-09-15 11:41:02
HOLLYWOOD=_=FTW=_=
Member
+31|6543
Sucks to be in darfur but like the dude said no oil no economic reason to go in and so on and so on our president only attacks countries that he has a personal vendetta against god forbid he goes to countries that actually need it
2006-09-15 11:44:47
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6482|Northern California
Damn...i don't want to read a headline a month from now saying "1 million dead in darfur."  I too think it will go without help.  Another excuse I can think of for why nobody will do anything is that 'then we'd have to intervene in other african atrocities going on.'  And mogadishu is a perfect example.  That shit hole should just be nuked.  Woohoo! I felt like a real Republican chickenhawk saying that!  lol
2006-09-15 11:49:04
Rosse_modest
Member
+76|6767|Antwerp, Flanders

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Aren't you guys the same people who complain about the U.S. policing the world in other threads? Although I agree that the U.S. should intervene, I find your hypocracy ironic.
Hypocrisy.

We should intervene but:

1. We'd be sent in under UN flag which means your hands are tied and usually that means troops can't defend themselves when attacked.
2. There's no way in hell Belgium will send troops to any African country again in memory of an incident in Rwanda where 10 Belgian paracommandoes operating under UN flag were murdered. April 6th 1994 Rwandese president Habyarimana is killed as his French plane is shot down. Rwandese soldiers believe the assassination came from the Hutu extremist's top people, ie prime minister Agathe. On april 7th Agathe's residence is surrouned by Rwandese soldiers out for revenge, but the 10 Belgian paracommandoes charged with protecting her succeed in getting her out of the residence so she can escape (only postponing her death as she was killed later anyway). The command structure (UN troops in Rwanda were under the command of some Canadian general) then ordered the Belgians to turn in their weapons and surrender, hoping their release could be negotiated for. They were then taken to some Rwandese military camp.  where the local commander lied to his soldiers by telling them their president was shot down by Belgians soldiers and that they could propose a way to appropriately punish them.  They chose to beat them to death. Other Belgian paracommando units were dispatched as intervention teams but met with heavy resistance. Troops from another country (can't remember which one) were normally tasked with fast intervention but they locked themselves in their quarters. And the Canadian general in charge chose not to intervene.

Intervention by the United States in Sudan is not recommendable since that would further instill feelings of hatred towards the USA from the Islamic world.
2006-09-15 11:49:46
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6635|Seattle, WA

CameronPoe wrote:

Why should we care?

1) Atrocities? Check.
2) White People? No check.
3) Oil? No check.
4) Strategic benefit in intervening? No check.
5) Economic benefit in intervening? No check.

Sorry but you must have checks on either 3, 4 or 5 to even begin talking about intervention.

/sarcasm
Another nice overgeneralization, even if it is sarcasm....so answer me this Cam, why haven't OTHER countries intervened? Where's Ireland?? Where's the U.N.???  It's not about fucking resources, at least it shouldn't be, it should be about people, and I sure as hell hope that list you made applies to ummmm ALL COUNTRIES and not just the U.S. because I don't see anyone else stepping in.

Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-09-15 11:51:10)

2006-09-15 11:53:36
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6635|Seattle, WA

HOLLYWOOD=_=FTW=_= wrote:

Sucks to be in darfur but like the dude said no oil no economic reason to go in and so on and so on our president only attacks countries that he has a personal vendetta against god forbid he goes to countries that actually need it
Nice one, and where are the other countries at, refer to my above post, yeah no oil, like we are getting any in Iraq, I like how you fucking libs always bring up the oil issue yet never ever want to debate where this fucking oil is.  Absolutely amazing.  (That last couple sentences wasn't neccessarily directed at you Hollywood).
2006-09-15 11:55:47
Sondernkommando
Member
+22|6707
I would urge you to read "Shake Hands with the Devil" by that Canadian general, Romeo Dallaire.  He tried to drown himself later because he felt so helpless watching things unfold as he was hamstrung by his UN directives and his troop strength.

I've never been a "root causes" kind of guy when it comes to fixing things, but in this case, you can't simply stall every conflict inevitably while the reasons for it remain.  Like Somalia (which just went Islamic), Sudan is witnessing Janjaweed muslim militia however, not against warlords but farmers.  Until that militia and their leaders are utterly destroyed, you are simply postponing the inevitable.
2006-09-15 11:56:10
znozer
Viking fool - Crazy SWE
+162|6536|Sverige (SWE)

Bubbalo wrote:

Darfur to become new Rwanda?  It already is.
2006-09-15 11:57:29
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6635|Seattle, WA

znozer wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Darfur to become new Rwanda?  It already is.
Sure I'll +1 that too, but it still doesn't change the fact that NOT just the U.S. ISN'T doing anything about it.  This is an INTERNATIONAL debacle that needs to be met with INTERNATIONAL help.
2006-09-15 12:12:07
arabeater
Do you have any idea how fooking busy I am?
+49|6672|Colorado Springs, CO
Why dont any European Countries do something about it for a change? I always see you guys bitching about the US not doing something, well now its our turn to point the finger at Europe. Get off your lazy bums and actually do some good for the world instead of starting World Wars and pissing and moaning. Plus i'm sure everybody remembers the last time the US went into Africa it didnt turn out so pretty for us (Somalia). I do feel that something from the US either in food or some military support should be done though.
2006-09-15 12:13:06
smtt686
this is the best we can do?
+95|6622|USA

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Why should we care?

1) Atrocities? Check.
2) White People? No check.
3) Oil? No check.
4) Strategic benefit in intervening? No check.
5) Economic benefit in intervening? No check.

Sorry but you must have checks on either 3, 4 or 5 to even begin talking about intervention.

/sarcasm
Another nice overgeneralization, even if it is sarcasm....so answer me this Cam, why haven't OTHER countries intervened? Where's Ireland?? Where's the U.N.???  It's not about fucking resources, at least it shouldn't be, it should be about people, and I sure as hell hope that list you made applies to ummmm ALL COUNTRIES and not just the U.S. because I don't see anyone else stepping in.
i agree.  why must we lead and then get bashed by the rest of the world for not doing it to their standards...  other countries need to get off their scared sorry asses and fix what they see as wrong themselves.  im done saving your asses and then having to listen to what you think i did wrong.  Ive got a chain of command that can do that already.  no thanks.
2006-09-15 12:29:57
Rosse_modest
Member
+76|6767|Antwerp, Flanders

Sondernkommando wrote:

I would urge you to read "Shake Hands with the Devil" by that Canadian general, Romeo Dallaire.  He tried to drown himself later because he felt so helpless watching things unfold as he was hamstrung by his UN directives and his troop strength.

I've never been a "root causes" kind of guy when it comes to fixing things, but in this case, you can't simply stall every conflict inevitably while the reasons for it remain.  Like Somalia (which just went Islamic), Sudan is witnessing Janjaweed muslim militia however, not against warlords but farmers.  Until that militia and their leaders are utterly destroyed, you are simply postponing the inevitable.
I'm not blaming the general I'm just showing any UN mission is doomed to failure because they're always empty shells. They're just soldiers from different countries with weapons they can't use. There's no point in sending in the UN unless of course you feel an insatiable need to put men at risk.

I don't think taking on the militia is enough. It was the Sudanese government that sent the country down the crapper years ago in their effort to convert every1 in the south to Islam. I'm not up to spec on the whole situation now but they claim they have nothing to do with this militia, I find that difficult to believe.

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard