• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Genocide in Sudan

torch

Banned
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
49
Reaction score
0
Location
Pennslyvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/sudan_genocide_genocide_in_sudan.php

Home > Sudan Genocide
GENOCIDE IN SUDAN



"Darfur is a region about the size of France located in Western Sudan. A little over half of the six million people who live there are black Africans while the rest are Arab. It is a region that has faced severe underdevelopment and neglect from the central government.

In early 2003, two loosely allied rebel groups began a rebellion in Darfur, Sudan calling for the redress of social and economic grievances and demanding greater political power. Sudanese authorities saw the rebellion as a threat to the viability of the entire country, fearing other neglected regions would similarly rise up and demand larger degrees of autonomy. Thus, the government decided to respond by carrying out a deliberate policy of extermination against the African tribal peoples of Darfur, Sudan from which the rebels are drawn."



"A large Arab militia known as the Janjaweed has been the main group employed by the government to implement this policy of genocide in Sudan."



This has been going on for a very long time and not ONE person in the media has covered this besides C-Span and Bill Maher...Fox News and the Bush Administration said "They want to rid the world of terrorism" Ok, if so, why isnt there troops in sudan fighting the terrorists? Now alot of my republican chat buddies tell me that its because the troops are limited but they wouldnt be if we would of stayed out of iraq, and left iraq...Now I can tell you why I believe we wont go to sudan and stop it...One reason is the diamond mining in that area of africa..which is mined by little children..and that they are african people, we seem to do nothing when them people suffer when we claim we want to rid the world of terrorism....I am not just blaming the Bush administration, the UN hasnt done anything and they should be held accountable for the genocide there, which has been going on for about 10 years....Even clinton didnt go there and in fact he bombed an somolian asprin factory...Can anyone explain to me why these people have to suffer under the same terrorism that the USA, UK, and the middle east have to go threw without a mention of it in the mainstreamed media??
 

Room101

New member
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
torch said:
http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/sudan_genocide_genocide_in_sudan.php

Home > Sudan Genocide
GENOCIDE IN SUDAN



"Darfur is a region about the size of France located in Western Sudan. A little over half of the six million people who live there are black Africans while the rest are Arab. It is a region that has faced severe underdevelopment and neglect from the central government.

In early 2003, two loosely allied rebel groups began a rebellion in Darfur, Sudan calling for the redress of social and economic grievances and demanding greater political power. Sudanese authorities saw the rebellion as a threat to the viability of the entire country, fearing other neglected regions would similarly rise up and demand larger degrees of autonomy. Thus, the government decided to respond by carrying out a deliberate policy of extermination against the African tribal peoples of Darfur, Sudan from which the rebels are drawn."



"A large Arab militia known as the Janjaweed has been the main group employed by the government to implement this policy of genocide in Sudan."



This has been going on for a very long time and not ONE person in the media has covered this besides C-Span and Bill Maher...Fox News and the Bush Administration said "They want to rid the world of terrorism" Ok, if so, why isnt there troops in sudan fighting the terrorists? Now alot of my republican chat buddies tell me that its because the troops are limited but they wouldnt be if we would of stayed out of iraq, and left iraq...Now I can tell you why I believe we wont go to sudan and stop it...One reason is the diamond mining in that area of africa..which is mined by little children..and that they are african people, we seem to do nothing when them people suffer when we claim we want to rid the world of terrorism....I am not just blaming the Bush administration, the UN hasnt done anything and they should be held accountable for the genocide there, which has been going on for about 10 years....Even clinton didnt go there and in fact he bombed an somolian asprin factory...Can anyone explain to me why these people have to suffer under the same terrorism that the USA, UK, and the middle east have to go threw without a mention of it in the mainstreamed media??

Spending time on the Sudan crisis . . . well, nobody who has the ability to bring it to the attention of the public has anything to gain in doing so. Who would do it?

The left won't. They have been arguing against the war in Iraq steadily for quite a while now. What could they say? "Everybody please direct your attention to the slaughter in Darfur and watch us not do anything!"

The right won't. If they suggested sending troops to yet another foreign conflict involving Muslims, the sh;t would hit the fan. They are too busy avoiding the fan.

The UN won't because whenever the UN attempts to enforce the peace, they end up having to borrow cargo planes from the US to fly home leaky bags of UN peacekeepers.

Hollywood won't say much because there are no good photo ops.

The Europeans, well, they can always be counted on to call for dialog.

The gist is this: Even though there is a horrible genocidal slaughter underway in Sudan . . . Even though we all said "never again" after the genocide of WWII . . . Even though (and this is the kicker) Sudan has the richest petroleum reserves on the continent! . . . Even though all of this, the black Sudanese Christians are screwed because no one really gives two sh;ts what happens in Africa.

Sleep well . . . :sigh:
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
An op-ed piece in the today's WSJ addressed this very problem. A couple of excerpts:

To his credit, Kofi Annan started shouting about the problem two years ago, and former Secretary of State Colin Powell labeled it "genocide" not long after that. The U.N.'s mighty peace-making machinery then started to roll and . . . nothing. The Chinese (who have close commercial ties to Khartoum) and Russians have blocked any serious intervention. Arab members of the Security Council have also opposed any attempt to single out Khartoum.

The Arab League -- so quick to denounce Danish cartoons -- has also stymied any global intervention to stop the murder of their fellow Muslims. Here's League Secretary General Amr Musa earlier this month: "In Sudan, there is a problem related to Darfur. We will listen to the Sudanese state minister to explain to us the developments in the issue of Darfur . . ." The League plans to hold its meeting next week -- in Khartoum.

The African Union has at least sent 7,000 troops to the region, but they are under-funded and under-equipped to enforce a truce that Sudan blatantly flouts. But the African failure is also political. In January the Union held its own summit in Khartoum, and next year it plans to award Sudan its presidency. The rule seems to be never to say a discouraging word about other African leaders, no matter how murderous.

As for Europe, France would be ideal to lead an intervention force. The French have military bases in neighboring Chad and could establish a no-fly zone to stop Janjaweed bombing. However, Paris is already occupied with another intervention in the Ivory Coast, and with its own business interests in Sudan isn't volunteering in any case.

Amid this global abdication, Mr. Annan finally decided last month to call in the American cavalry. He visited the White House and, with media fanfare, all but begged President Bush to do something. Despite U.S. obligations in Afghanistan, Iraq and many other places, Mr. Bush responded by proposing an expanded U.N. peacekeeping force under "NATO stewardship."

But Sudan President Omar al-Beshir quickly played to type and withdrew support for a U.N. force. He also threatened that "Darfur will become the graveyard for the United Nations and foreign intervention." And rather than stand up to such threats, U.N. envoy to Sudan Jan Pronk has wilted. He's now talking up intelligence about al Qaeda terrorists in Khartoum who could retaliate against U.N. peacekeepers. And he's warning against any NATO intervention without Security Council approval -- as if that would be forthcoming. All of this is a repeat of the same feckless U.N. pattern we've seen in Bosnia, Kosovo and Iraq.

So that leaves . . . guess who? The cowboy President, the American unilateralists, the Yankee imperialists -- or, to put it another way, the only nation with the will and wallet to provide order in an otherwise Hobbesian world. However, that will and wallet are being stretched today in Iraq and elsewhere, and Mr. Bush is rightly wary of committing more American blood and treasure to a conflict in Sudan that the rest of the world doesn't seem serious about ending in any event. One lesson of Darfur is that there really are limits to American power, and in its absence the world's savages have freer reign.
Source.

So who is to blame? What is to be done? Once again, the UN proves incapable of effective action.
 

Davo

Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2006
Messages
143
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The Vietnam war stopped because the media constantly showed videos of young american G.I.'s being killed and battlefield scenes and showed the hell these guys went throught. This is how every major conflict is stopped. You put them in the spotlight so much and draw so much attention to them and the men behind them(politicians) that the whole world just cant turn away. The Vietnam war wasnt stopped cause a couple of hippies decided to shout "Flower Power" it was stopped cause the media was showing how many Vietnamese civilians the U.S. was killing and how many young men were dying over something the whole world knew was wrong. Point is :

Unless you find a way to get the media on this issue on a constant basis and make the people notice this issue and draw attention(and anger) towards the politicians behind them...it wont stop.
 
Top Bottom