my care2
make a difference

community & fun

groups

get together & make a difference

 
 
This thread is displayed with the most recent posts first.
Monday, 14 March, 2005 August 20, 2006 5:14 AM

At least 180,000 people may have died in Sudan's Darfur region over the past 18 months, according to the United Nations' top emergency relief official.

Jan Egeland said the figure refers to victims of illness and malnutrition and excludes those who have been killed in the ethnic violence.

The UN previously gave an estimate of 70,000 non-conflict deaths.

Pro-government militia are accused of killing and raping villagers and driving two million from their homes.

The UN has not put a figure on violent deaths in the region.

Attacks 'continuing'

An average of 10,000 people have died each month over the past year-and-a-half from disease and other preventable causes, the emergency relief chief said.

"It could be just as well more than 200,000 [over 18 months] but I think 10,000 a month... is a reasonable figure," Mr Egeland told AFP news agency.

Last year, the World Health Organisation said it believed 10,0000 people had died each month from March to October, mostly from disease and some from random violence in camps.

Amnesty International's best estimate for how many may have died from violence since the conflict began - taking into account attacks on hundreds of villages - was 50,000 as of last month.

Most of the estimated two million people who fled their villages since the violence began in early 2003 have sought refuge in the camps in Darfur's main towns.

As many as 200,000 have also sought safety in neighbouring Chad.

A UN report earlier this year concluded that while the killings in Darfur did not amount to genocide, killings, torture, enforced disappearances and sexual violence were carried out on a widespread and systematic basis and could amount to crimes against humanity.

The BBC's Susannah Price at the UN says the latest reports from Darfur say lawlessness and attacks by the Janjaweed militia continue to blight the lives of civilians.

The Janjaweed attacked villages, targeted an internally displaced peoples camp and burnt abandoned homes to discourage those who wanted to return, she says.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4349063.stm

Figuring the 10,000  month estimate continues in the absence of any UN interference with the Muslim attacks, that would put the death toll at around 170,000, for a total of around 350,000.

Meanwhile the UN is SOOOOOO concerned about the terrorist-induced deaths in Lebanon. The death toll there?

Israel: 163

UN: 4

Canada: 8

Lebanon: 1000

They are 'shocked' at the death toll from Israeli shelling of rocket launch platforms hiddedn in civilian neighbourhoods. (This was in Qana, where the Hezzies staged and managed the deaths of children.)

UNITED NATIONS Jul 30, 2006 (AP)— The U.N. Security Council approved a statement Sunday expressing "extreme shock and distress" over Israel's bombing of civilians in Qana, Lebanon but stopped short of condemning the attack.

An Israeli airstrike early Sunday on a three-story building in the south Lebanese village of Qana killed 56 people, almost all of them women and children, according to Red Cross officials and Lebanese police.

The presidential statement, adopted unanimously by the 15-member council in an emergency session, softened language in an earlier draft which said the council "strongly deplores this loss of innocent life and the killing of civilians in the present conflict."

The final statement called for the council to work without delay to adopt a resolution for a lasting settlement of the crisis.

"The Security Council expresses its extreme shock and distress at the shelling by the Israeli Defense Forces of a residential building in Qana, in southern Lebanon, which has caused the killing of dozens of civilians, mostly children, and injured many others," it said.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2254718

 [ send green star]
 
 August 20, 2006 4:56 AM

Looks like those demonstrations worked.

If it were Christians or Jews slaughtering Muslims, the UN would be on it like a duck on a June bug.

 [ send green star]
 
 August 15, 2006 7:23 PM

In response to your questions Robert, the answer is two-fold.

First, most people are primarily concerned about what their own governments do, or do not do. They recognize that they have very little influence over their own government's policies, so they are less likely to have influence over the policies of other governments.

Second, there have been large demonstrations in support of the pople of Darfur. The simple fact that you have not participated does not mean that thousands of others have not either.

 [ send green star]
 
 May 28, 2006 6:01 AM

The questions still stand: if the outrage about Iraq is not based on politics, why is there no similar outrage about Darfur?

Why massive demonstrations against Bush and no massive demonstrations against the genoicide being practiced on a daily basis in Darfur?

 [ send green star]
 
 May 26, 2006 1:03 PM

Selene, I find your comments both naive and offensive.

Naive, because you seem to tie Iraq and Darfur together. The two areas are very different, and they have different histories. The issues involved are substantially different, too.

Furthermore, you seem to put people into two classes--those who oppose the war in Iraq and have done nothing to end the genocide in Darfur, and those who support the war in Iraq. Exactly what you think they have done in Darfur is unclear.

People are much more complex. One can oppose the war in Iraq for any number of reasons. I'll note just a few: 1) Pacifists oppose all wars. 2) The war was started under false pretenses, and it cannot achieve its stated purpose, 3) The war has already achieved its stated purpose, so there is no reason to continue with the occupation, 4) The war was justified, but it is too costly to sustain. 5) The war never had the support of the international community, so it cannot be justified.

Few people, perhaps no one, would support unilateral intervention by the U.S. in Darfur. Some would oppose it because of bad experiences in Lebanon, Vietnam, Iraq, Bosnia, Haiti, and Somalia (to name but a few). Some oppose unilteral intervention anywhere. Some Iraq Hawks support intervention in Darfur. Some who oppose the war in Iraq believe that intervention is called for in Darfur, but only in conjunction with negotiations.

Many individuals and groups that have opposed the war in Iraq for humanitarian reasons have also called upon the United Nations, with the support of the African Union, NATO, and the United States, to act to end the Darfur genocide. To suggest otherwise is not only misleading but also insulting.

 [ send green star]
 
 February 24, 2006 4:15 AM

And where are those anti-war folks who are against and war the killing of innocents?  They did such a wonderful job protesting the US-led war in Iraq because it would kill innocent people.  So, where are the millions of protestors with their placcards and signs protesting the killing of innocents in Darfur?  Do you think they will come out with their placcards and signs if the US decides to take the lead in stopping the genocide?   [ send green star]
 
limited possibilities December 14, 2005 4:41 PM

Those who know me also know that I seldom support President Bush. However, in the case of Darfur, the United States is really doing all it can (which isn't much) to remedy the situation.

Basically, China is preventing the United Nations from doing anything to improve the human rights situation in Darfur. China imports a lot of oil from Sudan.

There is a Care2 support group for Darfur you might want to check out.

 [ send green star]
 
 December 04, 2005 8:17 PM

Buck, you've hit the quandary right on the head:

If we go in we are just exercising our muscle as the world's policeman (who else do they call on in times of trouble...France?) and therefor are to be spat upon by the rest of the world who is too chicken or too politically weak to make such a decision without the approval of the UN and its lackeys.

The problem with UN approval is that if they were to intervene in Sudan, what other tinhorn dictators might they oppose? The same ones who make up the governments of the majority of Third World countries. That wouldn't be a good thing, according to the left.

The UN has been studying the issue for more than a year with no action.

Never again can anyone fault the US for going it alone after the wretched display of lack of humanity on the part os the UN.

 [ send green star]
 
UN contemplates military operation for Darfur December 04, 2005 12:31 PM

By Evelyn Leopold 2 hours, 59 minutes ago

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - A joint military team will visit Darfur next week to study whether the http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051204/wl_nm/sudan_darfur_military_dc

 [ send green star]
 
 November 26, 2005 7:32 PM

Rwanda II: UN Frets Over Darfur Death and Chaos
November 23, 2005 10:34 PM EST

Some are calling it Rwanda II as the Sudan's Darfur province continues to spiral downward into complete lawlessness. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan offered a tepid call on the Sudanese government and rebels to resolve their conflict by the end of the year through peace talks rather than armed conflict. 

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=10206

 [ send green star]
 
And the UN still has its finger up its ass November 22, 2005 9:10 AM

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=darfur&btnG=Search+News  [ send green star]
 
Sudanese Government, Opposition Sign Pact June 18, 2005 10:30 PM

By SARAH EL DEEB, Associated Press Writer 

CAIRO, Egypt - Sudan signed a reconciliation deal with one of the country's largest opposition groupings Saturday, seeking to end a 16-year conflict with an agreement officials hope will also help resolve the bloody fighting in Darfur.

The accord with the National Democratic Alliance is part of the government's drive to clean up Sudan's multiple political and military conflicts after reaching a peace deal in January with southern rebels that ended a 21-civil war that killed 2 million people.

"We've put our hands together and unified our goals to compensate the people of Sudan for all what they've missed on during the era of conflicts," said Sudanese President Omar el-Bashir at a signing ceremony attended by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

The alliance includes 13 mainly northern political parties, which have been trying to loosen el-Bashir's lock on power since he came to power in a 1989 military coup.

The armed wings of the various NDA factions clashed with government troops in eastern Sudan and waged a campaign of sabotage in the 1990s, but there has been no violence in recent years.

Under the reconciliation agreement, the NDA will be incorporated into a power-sharing government being set up under the government's peace deal with the main southern rebel army, the Sudan People's Liberation Army.

There is still no agreement, however, over how many seats the alliance will hold and to what extent its fighters will be incorporated into the national army.

All sides hope the reconciliation will help end the bloodshed in the western region of Darfur, where at least 180,000 people have died and 2 million been displaced during two years of violence. The NDA has said it and southern rebels have influence with rebels in Darfur and can help in peace talks with the government.

The Darfur rebels and the Umma Party — led by Sadiq el-Mahdi, the elected prime minister ousted by el-Bashir in 1989 — are the only parties that have not yet resolved their differences with the government.

In Sudan's long civil war, southern rebels — mostly Christians and animists — were resisting domination by the mostly Muslim north. Under the peace agreement with the Sudan People's Liberation Army, the south will be autonomous with its own army while the rebels join the power-sharing government for a six-year interim period. Afterward, the 10 southern states will hold a referendum on independence.

 [ send green star]
 
Why the US? June 09, 2005 9:32 AM

Sure people need help.  Hell, I even need some help.  But am I getting it.  NO!

Why is it always up to the US to go out and save this country, or that people.  In the end the US always ends up with egg on its face in these situations.  We are also spread way too thin.  What's wrong with some extremely rich and selfish country like Saudi Arabia helping them?

All this crap has been going on too long, and no one appreciates what Americans give up to give all this unappreciated help.  Not even the Americans.

Think about it.  Realistically, anything we do can create a power vacuum which could eventually lead to even greater atrocities, or serious world issues.  Things were much simpler when countries only focused on their own issues, or issues which directly affected them.  Back then, any sort of intervention in a situation like this was a declaration of war.  IS THAT WHAT PEOPLE ARE ASKING FOR HERE....FOR AMERICA TO GET INVOLVED IN YET ANOTHER WAR WHEN WE ARE STILL IN IRAQ?

 [ send green star]
 
Don't forget about the United States June 09, 2005 9:11 AM

Please don't forget priority #1 The United States and our own citizens.  [ send green star]
 
Please don't forget about Darfur... June 09, 2005 8:35 AM

Please don't forget about Darfur...peace-out---ginger  [ send green star]
 
Sudan Says It Will Not Confront UN Over Darfur War Crimes Probe June 07, 2005 10:13 PM

Sudan's foreign minister says his government will not confront the United Nations over its decision to refer suspected war criminals in Darfur to the International Criminal Court.

However, Mustafa Osman Ismail said Tuesday that Sudan will hold its own investigation into the alleged crimes.

On Monday, the International Criminal Court in the Hague opened an investigation into alleged war crimes committed in Sudan's western Darfur region.

Sudanese officials have said they will not hand over citizens for trial in a foreign country.

U.N. officials have given the Hague court a sealed list of suspected war criminals, which is reported to include the names of Sudanese army commanders, pro-government Arab militiamen and rebels.

The conflict in Darfur has killed an estimated 180,000 people and displaced more than two million others.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-05-07voa109.cfm

 [ send green star]
 
Bush paves way for African debt deal...bad Bush..bad June 07, 2005 10:06 PM

June 07, 2005 11:42 PM ET
Related informationPresident George W.Bush on Tuesday paved the way for an agreement on multilateral debt relief for Africa when in a change of tack he promised "additional resources" would be made available to the World Bank.

Speaking at the White House, flanked by Tony Blair, the UK prime minister, Mr Bush presented a show of unity on reform and development in Africa, which will be the centrepiece of next month's Group of Eight summit at Gleneagles in Scotland.

"We agree that highly indebted developing countries that are on the path to reform should not be burdened by mountains of debt," he said.

"Our countries are developing a proposal for the G8 that will eliminate 100 per cent of that debt and that, by providing additional resources, will preserve the financial integrity of the World Bank and the African Development Bank." Both leaders, however, cautioned that more work was needed to garner wider international support for the debt proposals. Mr Blair said: "Its important to realise we need, obviously, America and the UK to be in agreement, but then we need the agreement of the others."

Mr Bush's comments about new resources mark a concession by the US which had previously wanted to cancel the debt without replenishing World Bank funds. The UK favours paying the debt-servicing bills of African countries.

Mr Blair expressed the hope of concluding a debt deal at the meeting of G7 finance ministers in London this weekend.

The tabular content relating to this article is not available to view. Apologies in advance for the inconvenience caused.The deal would lead to cancelling the debts of sub-Saharan African countries and paying additional funds into the World Bank to cover the payments due from these countries.

Such a deal would cheer campaigners for debt relief but fall far short of doubling aid flows, as recommended by Mr Blair's Commission for Africa earlier this year. Mr Bush last week called that effort "outside our budgetary process" and again rebuffed the idea yesterday.

"In terms of whether or not the formulae the right way to analyse the US commitment, I don't think it is."

He defended the US position, noting that he had called on Congress to triple aid to Africa. He also pledged an additional $674m in aid for humanitarian relief that would help save 14m Africans from famine.

The deal on debt relief could increase net aid to Africa by up to $1bn a year, compared with the $25bn increase the commission said was necessary to reduce poverty substantially.

The remaining disagreements between countries are over which countries would be eligible for debt relief, and under what conditions World Bank debts would be cancelled.

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.asp?feed=FT&Date=20050

 [ send green star]
 
All bets are off! June 07, 2005 7:02 PM

All bets are off RP., bush could care less. Stella from my group posted this link to the BBC regarding Blair's attempts to get the US to help out economically. bush has us in too deep with the deficit and Iraq. Sorry but I am not real impressed with bush at this moment, but when have I been at any given point in time lately? ---ginger

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4071020.stm

 [ send green star]
 
Let's see if the UN sends the rape charges June 05, 2005 8:42 PM

detailed in Friday 2:24 pm post above to the international Court.

I'm taking bets here...

 [ send green star]
 
Int'l Court to Look Into Sudan War Crimes June 05, 2005 2:05 PM

By ANTHONY DEUTSCH, Associated Press Writer 

THE HAGUE, Netherlands - The International Criminal Court will launch a formal investigation into allegations of war crimes in Sudan's troubled Darfur region, officials familiar with the case said Sunday.

The court has been analyzing the situation in Darfur since the United Nations referred to it allegations of rape, murder and plunder in April, following a Security Council vote. Dozens of court officials have begun preparing for the investigation, the largest and most important to be handled by the fledgling body since it was established in July 2002.

Prosecutors were to announce the decision to move forward in Darfur on Monday and Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo will brief the U.N. about his plans later this month in New York, the officials said, adding that they could not comment officially until the investigation had been formally announced by the court.

Investigators have said they hope to move quickly and complete their work over a period of months, rather than years. Once they've gathered evidence and interviewed witnesses, court officials will then consider issuing indictments against individual suspects and seek their extradition to The Hague.

The vast western Sudanese region of Darfur is the scene of one of the world's worst humanitarian crises. An estimated 180,000 people have died — many from hunger and disease — and about 2 million others have been displaced since the conflict began in February 2003.

The referral of the Darfur case was made possible when the United States — which opposes the Hague-based court — backed away from exercising its veto powers as a permanent member of the Security Council.

The U.S. government says it fears the court will initiate bogus charges against American nationals, and has actively undermined it by signing nearly 100 bilateral treaties with countries which have agreed not to surrender U.S. citizens to the court.

Meanwhile, 99 countries have ratified the court's founding treaty, including all of American's major allies in the European Union.

The Geneva-based International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur, which spent several months gathering evidence of war crimes, handed the court its findings, including a list of 51 potential suspects.

Darfur's crisis erupted when rebels took up arms against what they saw as years of state neglect and discrimination against Sudanese of African origin. The government is accused of responding with a counterinsurgency campaign in which the ethnic Arab militia known as Janjaweed committed wide-scale abuses against ethnic Africans.

Trials are planned later this year at the International Criminal Court against alleged perpetrators of war crimes in two other violence-wracked African nations, Uganda and Congo.

The court is intended to step in only when countries themselves are unable or unwilling to take action against war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide committed on their soil.

 [ send green star]
 
Kofi Annan tour of Darfur(cont., final) June 05, 2005 8:20 AM

Mr. Annan added that he had emphasized the importance of providing security for the IDPs, "security for us to gain access to the needy, and security for the people to be able to return to their villages and begin to pick

On the issue of justice, he said: "We also needed their understanding that those who commit crimes, those who are attacking the same people should be dealt with."

He added that his appeal was met with understanding, by the Wali, who said "they are setting up courts and they have arrested people that they are going to put on trial." UN human rights training was also discussed.
"I also encouraged him to press ahead with his reconciliation efforts," the Secretary-General said, emphasizing that local efforts to achieve peace will reinforce peace talks in Abuja.

Mr. Annan repeatedly stressed that peace will provide other benefits to Sudan. "I noticed some economic activity in Khartoum, but if we were to get true peace, investors would come," he said. "We will have a real opportunity and real potential here. And I suspect that the leaders here are beginning to agree with that."

Asked whether the Government had done enough to improve security, the Secretary-General said it "realizes that we need to do more because the situation is not acceptable."

On the AU force, Mr. Annan said that it was doing a competent job. "They think they are making a difference and, indeed, they are. They understand what is required."

Asked to describe the situation, he said it was "heart-wrenching."

"What we need to do is to create an environment, a security environment, that will encourage the people to go back home. To go back and plant, to go back and pick up their lives and begin to recover. We don't want to see a situation where they are in camps for years and years and years as we have seen in other situations. And so it is very urgent that we take the right steps and ensure that we get them back to their villages."

Mr. Annan also met with Sudanese Vice-President Taha and Foreign Minister Mustafa Ismael, and later said they had agreed on "the urgency to re-energize the peace negotiations in Darfur, accepting the fact that that is the real means of bringing long-term stability."

Looking forward to talks scheduled for 10 June in
Secretary-General said delegations must attend "not only prepared with their own positions, but prepared to remain there and resolve the conflict before they get away."

Sunday, the Secretary-General is traveling to southern Sudan.

This article and link was from a posting within our group via Care2.com from Ala Butterfly. I am well aware that many do not care for the UN, but they do keep their noses poked into this pressing concern. The UN is not perfect but neither are we.---ginger

 [ send green star]
 
From the UN regarding Darfur and Kofi Annan's tour of Darfur June 05, 2005 8:17 AM

In Darfur, Annan Witnesses 'Heart-Wrenching' Situation of Displaced Sudanese
New York, May 28 2005 8:00PM
United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan today toured a camp for displaced persons in the war-ravaged Darfur region of Sudan, where he was greeted enthusiastically by thousands of people who gathered peacefully to convey their desire for a more secure existence.

In the southern town of Nyala, tens of thousands of people lined both sides of the road leading to Kalma camp to greet the Secretary-General. Women ululated, children smiled and waved, and men held up banners, including one that read, "Yes, yes for talk, war criminal people to ICC," a reference to the
International Criminal Court, the world's only permanent forum for holding individuals responsible for mass crimes.

Another sign said simply: "Welcome, no life without protection."

More than 100,000 people are living at the Kalma camp, having been forced to flee by attacks on their villages and towns.

Recent disturbances have limited the access of relief workers to the camp, where the Secretary-General heard first-hand accounts of continued insecurity and rapes of women and girls.

Mr. Annan would later describe what he had seen during his trip to Darfur as "heart-wrenching" during an airport press encounter upon returning to Khartoum from Darfur in the late afternoon.

While in Kalma, he heard from a camp leader who spoke of recent deadly attacks and then appealed for protection from being detained for having voiced his concerns. The Secretary-General immediately asked for -- and received -- assurances a Sudanese minister traveling with him that the man would not suffer retribution, according to a UN spokeswoman.

If the Kalma camp offered a glimpse of the problems still plaguing Darfur, the Secretary-General's next stop, in Labado, provided some cause for hope. There, roughly 60,000 of the town's inhabitants had fled violence and attacks last December, but half have recently begun to return under the protection of the African Union (AU) for
there.

Some 30,000 people have returned to the leveled town -- which Mr. Annan reached by helicopter -- to restart their lives.

In Labado, the Secretary-General heard a briefing from the area's AU commander, who has provided forces to ensure security for the returnees. Their discussions were dominated by concern over the great need to improve security in the area -- the same subject covered by Mr. Annan in Kalma Camp.

The Secretary-General walked around the devastated town strewn with the remains of burnt and gutted mud huts. One woman standing in front of a roofless mud hut where she plans to restart her life talked about the attack that had forced her family to flee and said she still lived in fear.

Prior to leaving Darfur, the Secretary-General said his trip had provided a "useful" opportunity to witness the situation first-hand. "I've seen things on the ground for myself and I've had the opportunity to thank the Wali" -- or governor, Haj Aba El-Manna Idriss -- "for the reconciliation efforts that he is doing here, bringing the tribes together, working with them so they can live in harmony and working with the African Union troops and the police to ensure security for the IDPs (internally displaced persons)."

Mr. Annan emphasized the need to ensure security not only for humanitarian relief efforts "but also for eventual reconstruction and recovery." He added that the international community is hoping for peace in Sudan "and we should really press hard at the political level in Abuja to get the long-term agreement that is required."

Back in Khartoum, the Secretary-General said his talks with Mr. Idriss had covered a range of issues. "In my discussions with him, I summed up that we have four problems: security, political, humanitarian and development," he told reporters at the airport. (cont.)

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0505/S00458.htm

 [ send green star]
 
Me too We don't need to get stuck there.... June 04, 2005 2:43 PM

Me too we don't need to get stuck there....Very true George, very true. Time will tell if bush decides to make the effort unless this war in Iraq turns out to be a big old favor for the Saudi's because I have yet to see him do anything about Darfur. He has only expressed his concern, I think they need some serious intervention. ---ginger  [ send green star]
 
A little Gun Boat Diplpomacy June 04, 2005 9:34 AM

Might help in Dafur. Someone above mentioned and LPH with Harrier jets. That plus a Regimental Landing Team of Marines who could also provide come civic actions, to stop the killing and aleviate the misery. 

I would be all for that.

Just so we don't get stuck there.

 [ send green star]
 
I kinda wonder if our presence there wouldn't at least June 04, 2005 6:58 AM

    I kinda wonder if our presence there wouldn't at least scare them back into some form of civil type of government. It worked with Bosnia/Kosovo. Well they certainly have got my attention and I am alarmed and it just isn't right what they are living under.  But this is a serious concern and I know that this is asking alot of our military forces. Is there any other way? Have we overlooked any other possibilities? Doesn't sound as if they are getting cooperation from the government regarding the issues going on over there. Here is an intersting link that Ala Butterfly posted over in my group.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/02/AR2005060201666.html

    Thanks for being absolute gentlemen in here. This was a good idea for a group discussion format/topic/group.  Good job RP. ---ginger

 [ send green star]
 
Somebody has to do something June 03, 2005 6:16 PM

In a combined co-ordiated effort. The UN is all over the place with no control. People complain that the aid is sold-off before it ever reaches the distribution points.

One reason we the United States has stayed out of Africa is that it has long been the ballywick of the former European colonial powers, who have routinely intervened in cris on the African continent.  The Sudan was long under British control, but the Brits are stretched even further than we are right now.

I take exception to the comment that we are 'busy patting ourselves on the back' over Iraq. We are still kinda busy there, we still have an Afghanistan thing going on, nuclear threats in Iran and North Korea, and an escalating crisis between Taiwan and China. 

But we can't sit still and watch people die. I say the hell with the condenation we'll face if we intervene.

We should get involved.

 [ send green star]

 
I totally agree with you Ginger June 03, 2005 6:12 PM

We have not enough troops to secure the Syrian entrances to Iraq. Close and empty our German bases, our bases in Japan, and use the forces better.

A small American contingent in Sudan would have a wonderful effect. 3,000 would be a good start.

After all, it's not Kitchener and the Mahdi at Khartoum all over again.

 [ send green star]
 
Heya RP, I am on the left on alot of things but Darfur is heartwrenching... June 03, 2005 5:48 PM

    Heya RP, I am on the left on alot of things but Darfur is heartwrenching and I will be the first to admit that I do not know what the right thing to do is for these people but I have always felt that the military's purpose was to help stop genocide and protect human freedoms and civil rights. Isn't that what we fought for in two major world wars? Still from the left but I do have a mind and beating heart behind my words, deeds and actions. ---ginger

P.S.- Darfur, needs someone to stick their noses in and help them out. The loss of life is tremendous and sickening. But I am well aware that our military is pressed out to the max.

 [ send green star]
 
I say we send help June 03, 2005 2:57 PM

...anything we send is better than nothing. And screw what the UN and the loopy left think. (Ginger, your not being loopy is a good thing...)          [ send green star]
 
 June 03, 2005 2:24 PM

Buck: It makes perfect sense.While we could station a carrier in the Red Sea, response time would be greater, cost would be greater, and expensive assets would be tied up with a wrong commitment.
An amphibious assault ship like the 'Saipan', 'Tarawa' or a sister ship could stand offshore and support a number of chopper/Harrier bases of operations. The response time from these land bases would be in minutes, not an hour. Range the bases around the refugees or between the Arab attackers and the refugees and dare them to attack with their 2 Soviet-era Hind helicopters.
Patrols of designated areas by UAVs and a couple of J-Stars orbiting and picking up movements to be investigated by Cobra gunships would put quite a damper on the enthusiasm exhibited by the Arabs against their unarmed prey. The UAVs with infra red cameras can patrol 24/7, and armed with missiles could detect and destroy any threatening group of terrorists. Harriers could deal with larger groups, as could the gunships.
 
Ginger: Granted that the option of returning fire is not granted the peacekeepers, and it should be. This is a perfect example of how the US would fare were we to unilaterally lay down our arms and melt our weapons and make wind chimes out of them. Good for 'Kumbaya'...bad for the nation and the world. Note that I used the word 'piecekeepers'. Some of the UN troops in East Timor ( more terrorist rat-infestation there...) think that rape is part of the job description, and have been bucking for bonuses in performing that part of the business of the UN.   

3/20/2005: Jordanian UN Peacekeepers Draw Guns on Aussies

Another disgusting tale of corruption in the United Nations, as their Jordanian “peacekeeping” force in East Timor threatens to kill an Australian soldier who blew the whistle on the Jordanians’ sexual abuse of young boys: Diggers in Timor ‘sex’ clash.

AUSTRALIAN soldiers drew arms to protect themselves from Jordanian peacekeepers after a Digger blew the whistle on other Jordanian soldiers’ sexual abuse of East Timorese boys.

Corporal Andrew Wratten had to be evacuated and Australian commandos sent to protect Diggers in Oecussi, an East Timorese province in Indonesian West Timor, after he told the UN of the pedophilia that occurred in May 2001.

The Australians drew their Steyr assault rifles after being confronted by Jordanians armed with M-16s, in an escalation of verbal threats triggered by the later betrayal of Corporal Wratten by a Jordanian officer in the Dili headquarters of the UN Transitional Administration in East Timor.

Corporal Wratten, who was working at a fuel dump in the enclave, was told by a group of children that Jordanian soldiers had offered food and money in exchange for oral sex and intercourse.

The allegations involved East Timorese minors, all boys, the youngest of them just 12 years old.

“Wratten informed PKF (peacekeeping force) that he had been receiving complaints from local children about Jorbatt (Jordan Battalion) abuse,” said a senior UN official who was based in Oecussi at the time.

“A Jordanian officer in HQ informed Jorbatt that he had ratted on them. Wratten and his guys manning the helo (helicopter) refuelling pad in Oecussi town started getting threatened. There was one occasion where Aussie Steyrs were pointed at Jorbatt and Jor-batt M-16s pointed at Aussies.”

 
 [ send green star]
 
Robert, no we aren't the policeman of the world June 03, 2005 2:04 PM

     Robert, no we aren't the policeman of the world, but genocide is horrific, tragic and violates every civil, human right on this planet. Rwaanda was another tragedy that many have come to admit that should not have been neglected and we did turn our heads the other way during the clinton administration and Clinton has expressed regrets over this. I don't want to see this happen again. UN peacekeepers have it rough, they cannot shoot to kill or injure. All they can do is be a force there to reckon with and what kind of protection is that? ---ginger  [ send green star]
 
 June 03, 2005 2:00 PM

I agree,

And, I like that you threw in the Harrier! That's my baby!

 [ send green star]

 
Buck June 03, 2005 1:57 PM

Or as the question is often asked, "Who appointed the US the policeman of the world?"

Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

The civilized nations of the world should be getting together to do something. The stumbling block? The United Nations, which keeps asking for more fact-finding.

The UN's approach? Sanctions.

How long would they need to take effect? Don't hold your breath, cause it ain't goin' to happen.

...meanwhile, the 'African Union' dawdles on.

http://hrw.org/doc?t=africa&c=darfur

The only thing that the UN can agree on is protecting its 'piecekeepers' from rape charges.

What would happen if the US sent in some Cobra gunships, some UAVs with Hellfire missiles, a J-Star tracking plane and some USMC Harrier jump jets?

Answer: All hell would break loose. Not as much hell as they are enduring in Darfur, but lots of it.

 [ send green star]
 
COVER STORY: Darfur report May 13, 2005 PBS June 03, 2005 1:48 PM

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week837/cover.html        [ send green star]
 
Legitimate question June 03, 2005 1:45 PM

Definitely fits the definition of terrorism

April 3, 2004
BBC News

UN Urges Global Action in Darfur

A senior UN official has urged the world to pressure the Sudan government and rebels into ending human rights abuses in the western Darfur region.

UN emergency relief co-ordinator Jan Egeland said the organisation was getting daily reports of atrocities but was unable to help those affected.

He accused the government in Khartoum of tolerating "ethnic cleansing" by Arab militias.

"We must put pressure on the parties," he told the Security Council on Friday.

Hundreds of thousands of civilians have been displaced in the fighting, with more than 100,000 fleeing across the border into neighbouring Chad.

Fighting in Darfur broke out more than a year ago, when rebels attacked government targets, saying black Africans were being oppressed in favour of Arabs. . . .

FULL TEXT

http://www.twf.org/News/Y2004/0404-Darfur.html

 [ send green star]
 
What the world is saying and it does matter... June 03, 2005 1:43 PM

One final link that will take you to what the world is saying about Darfur. Isn't this what we as a country should be fighting against? Genocide? Time to quit patting ourselves on the backs for Iraq. Somebody needs to step up to the plate for these people. But are we ready for this one or have we done our military in from overkill and stress from Iraq? ---ginger

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=313380

 [ send green star]
 
 June 03, 2005 1:43 PM

I believe we should all get involved here. All nations should have an interest in stopping this genocide.

Now, do they pose a specific threat to the safety of the US? no. I do not think they harbor to many terrorists who would plot against the US.

I do not think we should look the other way. I think we are stretched this at the moment and do not have too many options really.

What is stopping the other free nations in this world who choose not to step in? Why do we, the USA, have to be the country that leads this effort?

I am sure when we are at a point to properly focus on that region we might be ale to do something about it. I think we need to finish what we are doing now before WE do anything more than what we need to do to cripple terrorism.

It is a truly sad state these people have to live in though.

 [ send green star]

 
Link to the BBC for either a read or listen to the audio June 03, 2005 1:38 PM

Link to the BBC for either a read or listen to the audio about Darfur.

http://www.theworld.org/worldfeature/sudan/rwanda.shtml

 [ send green star]
 
What about Darfur? Should we intervene or look the other way?? June 03, 2005 1:33 PM

This is what's happening in Darfur

These photos show civilians killed by janjaweed militias in Darfur. They were taken by members of the African Union mission in Darfur, and kept in a secret archive. A person of conscience working with the AU passed them to Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, who passed them to us.

We apologize if you find the pictures upsetting. They are the only record we have of the 300,000 people killed in Darfur so far.

Click here to read the article by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times









 [ send green star]
 
  New Topic              Back To Topics Read Code of Conduct

 

This group:
The Islamofascist War
95 Members

View All Topics
New Topic

Track Topic
Mail Preferences


Copyright © 2009 Care2.com, inc. and its licensors. All rights reserved