Genocide, Ethnic Cleansing, Rape, Looting in Sudan

Sudan is suffering from a horrific nightmare. People are dying in their hundreds of thousands. Once again, the weak (those considered to want to live peacefully) are being pulled to pieces by the strong, like hyenas attacking a wildebeest. Here are some of the statistics of the conflict in the area.

– Between 200,000 and 400,000 civilians are dead. Times that figure by ten, at least, for those who are potentially hurt, maimed, wounded or psychologically scarred.
– Five separate waves of violence by tens of militias are being perpetrated all across the Darfur region.
– 2,000,000 people have been displaced from their homes.
– 200,000 people have fled the country to neighboring countries Chad; large numbers of Sudanese refugees have also fled to Uganda, Ethiopia, Kenya, the Central African Republic, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
– Sudan is the largest country in the African continent, with Darfur itself being the size of France
– 7,000 African Union troops have been struggling to keep the peace in the region, suffering casualties themselves, being under-equipped and under-funded. These will be removed from the region, unless things change, by the end of the month.
– 17,000 U.N. Peacekeepers are proposed to keep the peace there, under U.N. Resolution 1706

The conflict stems from land rights and property issues between the Arab farmers and Africans, the Arabs in the north and to the east are systematically killing and looting their way across hundreds of villages, in a system that can only be described as a ‘cleansing’ of the area.

From Jan Pronks weblog (Special United Nations Representative for Sudan):

“Militia groups continue to operate with impunity throughout Darfur, attacking villages, killing villagers, raping women, stealing livestock and harassing IDPs (Internally Displaced People)in and around the camps. Some militias have settled in cleared villages in West Darfur and are cultivating the land. In some places they are keeping the people in virtual slavery, preventing them from leaving and regularly assaulting women. Elsewhere they beat up displaced persons who try to return to their own village in order to cultivate their land and tell them to stay away and never to come back, if they don’t want to be killed.”

Originally, conflict broke out in 2003 as rebels in the south attacked the Arab-led government, over what they called ‘unfair distribution of the oil wealth.’ Since then a peace treaty was signed, but only by one of the many militia groups, the Sudanese Liberation Army (SLA) which has now been reported to be fighting on the side of the government.

The Sudanese Government, led by President Omar al-Bashir has rejected U.N. Resolution 1706, which would ask for about 17,000 peacekeepers to be deployed in the region, calling it; “part of a comprehensive conspiracy for confiscating the country’s sovereignty” in comments reported by the Sudanese news agency Suna on Sunday. By rejecting the U.N. push for peacekeepers, many of the Sudanese people won’t have a hope left after the last barrier against unrestrained genocide, the AU troops, leave on September 30th. Although Resolution 1706 does not require the permission of the Sudanese government to conduct a humanitarian mission, this is obviously not an option that the U.N. wishes to pursue . With al-Bashir quoting the beginning of a ‘Holy War’ if U.N. troops do move in, you can start to see that this crisis is not one that can be solved quickly.

Al-Bashir’s government has said that they will place 10,000 troops in the region to halt violence, but the U.N. have balked at the idea. Why? My theory is that the Sudanese government has a lot to do with the killings.

According to a Reuters report, journalists have witnessed the loading up of planes with bombs to attack villages, injuring and killing hundreds of children in the process, in an area where 25% of children don’t survive anyway due to awful conditions. The pretext for these attacks on innocents is due to often very flimsy intelligence of rebel presence in those areas. To me, that kind of treatment, along with the Sudanese governments rejection of any kind of peace-keeping force, leads to only one conclusion, that the pro-Arab government is supporting this ‘ethnic cleansing’ in order to clear the whole area of Africans, making way for Arab settlement. In effect, Libestraum, ‘living ground’. This technique was one that the Nazi’s had planned for the expansion of the germanic people.

Of course, Khartoum is denying these allegations, saying that they are merely conducting “administrative operations”.

From the BBC:

“Fresh Sudanese soldiers have been arriving in the region, and rights groups, AU officials and Darfur’s rebel groups report that on 28 August a new offensive began, with reports of attacks on rebel-held villages in Darfur.

Darfur refugees, rebels and the United States have long accused the Sudanese army of backing up the Arab Janjaweed militias in a “genocide” against the region’s black African population.”


In the middle of this complicated and multi-faceted conflict, are the people, the innocents. Around 14,000 aid workers are helping feed and supply approximately 3 million people in an area the size of France, and there have been about a dozen aid-worker deaths already.

Conditions are steadily getting worse.

“Indeed, in many ways we are in a freefall in Darfur at the moment,”
-U.N. humanitarian chief Jan Egeland

From the BBC:

Rebecca Dale from the International Rescue Committee said that some of those who have returned to their homes in south Sudan have since returned to the capital, Khartoum, because they found so little infrastructure.

She said that 25% of children in the south die before they reach the age of five, there are very few schools and there is only one doctor for every 100,000 people.

In my opinion this is just the beginning. With the outbreak of war between the Sudanese government and various militias, it will prove more and more difficult for the aid to reach the people who need it most. What is needed is international pressure on the region, on the U.S., on the U.N., and on the Sudanese Government to stop this genocide before it goes any further. If the U.S. means what it says about wanting to spread freedom and democracy around the world, then maybe it should back up it’s words with actions, and not just move to those countries with economic incentives for the United States.

They say what we don’t know doesn’t hurt us. Very true, as we sit tucked away in our safe little houses in our safe towns and cities, tucked up in our Slumberland comforters and chewing on a PowerBar. Many people will flick past the news, maybe dwell on a subject for a moment, then utter the familiar ‘oh, that’s terrible’, before clicking onwards, onwards, to numbness.

Well, shit happens in this world, and we can choose to ignore it, or we can choose to do something about it. What can I do, you say. Learn, learn everything you can, be aware, don’t pull the wool over your eyes, and be ready, for whatever is required of you. It’s your world, awful things happen in it.

Do something about it.

More to come.


28 thoughts on “Genocide, Ethnic Cleansing, Rape, Looting in Sudan

  1. History has shown over and over again, that complacency is the best path to destruction. How many times does death, destruction, and hatred need to happen, for people to see the point in preventative measures. We must be proactive; don’t we change the oil in our car before it breaks down because of it? Shouldn’t we do the same for humans? We need to see a problem before, or as it happens and move to prevent it.

    How can we be debating in this country on the ethical implications of torturing a “terrorist” prisoner in order to “prevent future attacks”? When all we do is take action after problems have reared a head so ugly, that it is shameful to be living in what could be called a “free and democratic” government? A government that (as you said shem) professes to want to spread democracy, freedom, and “sovereigninity” to the poor and the needy?

    I wasn’t aware of Rwanda until I saw the movie. I had never even heard of it. How disgusting of our news media and our schools, to keep these things from us, and how much more disgusting it is that Rwanda could have been stopped, just as WW2 could have been stopped sooner than it was, and now we have it again.

    There is no point in having kids learn history, we don’t learn from it, it repeats and repeats, and these ignorant fools in the government let it happen, we don’t seem to get the people in power we need to prevent these sorts of things. No, instead we get people who we need to debate with for weeks, months, and years about things that are so obviously wrong, that grade school children could identify with, and see a need for positive change.

    Very well written Shem. I think you missed your calling as a journalist, although, you would have been good when that word meant something, and journalism was an honorable profession.

    Logan

    Like

  2. Ok, No-one can say that it isn’t terrible that there is genocide in Sudan, or that there was in Rwanda.
    You cannot however say any of this is the US’s fault, you say that they should just barge into another country and interfere in their polotics? Calling for some kind of global policeman state to solve all of the worlds problems (which is totally against the democracy you hold so high)while at the same time lamenting the fact that they ever do attack (because of provokation, but this isn’t a debate about Iraq).

    You see, i do History, but seeing as I am South African, I learnt about Rwanda long before the movie (and if you want to find out about these things before the Blockbuster, all you have to do is do more than watch CNN). It isn’t the government or media’s job to spoonfeed you information that the majority of people couldn’t care less about (not that it is right that they don’t care, but the media is for the populace and does not cater for your specific wants or needs).

    These are countries with a history of hatred (not only between races, but between tribes and religion too) and they were killing and slaving long before the US was ever made responsible for everything (yet unable to do anything for fear of causing international outrage). This was made worse by colonial powers (long debate, nothing to do with the US).

    The US going into Sudan would just cause a PR disaster (for collateral damage) and ultimatly achieve nothing, unless you want to propose some kind of fascist, militaristic contorl by outside forces over a sovereign state.

    Basically international polotics sucks, but put the blame where it lies, with the Sudanese who are systematically killing the Sudanese, not the UN, US or bad media.

    Like

  3. Ok, No-one can say that it isn’t terrible that there is genocide in Sudan, or that there was in Rwanda.
    You cannot however say any of this is the US’s fault, you say that they should just barge into another country and interfere in their polotics? Calling for some kind of global policeman state to solve all of the worlds problems (which is totally against the democracy you hold so high)while at the same time lamenting the fact that they ever do attack (because of provokation, but this isn’t a debate about Iraq).

    You see, i do History, but seeing as I am South African, I learnt about Rwanda long before the movie (and if you want to find out about these things before the Blockbuster, all you have to do is do more than watch CNN). It isn’t the government or media’s job to spoonfeed you information that the majority of people couldn’t care less about (not that it is right that they don’t care, but the media is for the populace and does not cater for your specific wants or needs).

    These are countries with a history of hatred (not only between races, but between tribes and religion too) and they were killing and slaving long before the US was ever made responsible for everything (yet unable to do anything for fear of causing international outrage). This was made worse by colonial powers (long debate, nothing to do with the US).

    The US going into Sudan would just cause a PR disaster (for collateral damage) and ultimatly achieve nothing, unless you want to propose some kind of fascist, militaristic contorl by outside forces over a sovereign state.

    Basically international polotics sucks, but put the blame where it lies, with the Sudanese who are systematically killing the Sudanese, not the UN, US or bad media.

    Like

  4. Firstly, I’m not saying that it’s the fault of the U.S. in the case that it started in the first place. Rwanda’s problems do stem from imperialistic powers getting involved in the running of the country, in the case of the segregation of the Tutsis and the Hutus by the Belgium, and Britain slicing and dicing Gaza from Israel led to similar conflict. But no, I don’t think the U.S. is directly responsible for this. This is unusual, because they usually are. They do allow weapons brokers free running in the area, and they do support general arms deals all over Africa, Britain too is responsible for that. More guns mean more instability, but that’s not related to this point.

    You’re right, it does seem duplicitous that I decry the invasion of Iraq and yet think the U.S. should get involved in Sudan to stop the killing. And it is right to think that U.S. intervention, no matter how innocent it seems, has never done anything of serious benefit. But we stood by and watched East Timor happen, watched Rwanda happen, watched the carnage in the Congo (and I didn’t just see Hotel Rwanda, neither are my news reports just from CNN, or Fox, or any single source). And I’m not saying that the U.S. should just pile in with tanks and planes and start to assert peace. But I think there is a real difference, if you look at the details, to invading a country to topple a dictator, then exploiting the local work force to build up the country’s oil infrastructure, and moving into a country to prevent the continuation of genocide. I’m not saying Saddam Hussein was anything but brutal, but he did not attempt to wipe a single nationality off the planet. It seems that the Sudanese government and supporting militias are trying to do that. I do think the U.N. is suited for this job, with hopefully more troops than 20,000 to at least simply protect the aid workers doing their job (Darfur is the size of France, so their scope is limited). I do think that the U.S. could pledge troops to the U.N. force too. I think refugee camps could be created to protect the fleeing people from the guns of the militias too, but I’m not an expert, there might be better ways of doing this.

    The U.N. was created after WW2 to bring the world together, and prevent the atrocities that happened in the Holocaust from happening again, by providing repercussions against those who perpetrate those kinds of actions. It could look like an international policeman, and there is the chance it could be abused, but that’s why everyone votes, everyone must agree, and why it seems to take so long to do anything. That’s bureaucracy for you, but if you look at the alternative, you realize it’s the only way to go, no matter how flawed.

    Bad media however, this is a problem. The media should be talking about this repeatedly, all hours, until people get sick of hearing about it. Why? Well Hussein killed a number of Kurds, and we go crazy. 3,000 people die in the WTC’s and the country turns on its head. Possible up to 400,000 people are dead in Sudan, many times over either of those two crises, and no-one pays attention. Why? Are the lives in Sudan any less important than the lives here? I cannot say that it is everyone’s duty to protect everyone else on the planet, it’s just not feasible, but the there is an opportunity to do something good here. Maybe flawed, maybe it won’t work, but we can try.

    That’s my opinion towards what should happen. What are your opinions on what you think we should do?

    Like

  5. Firstly, I’m not saying that it’s the fault of the U.S. in the case that it started in the first place. Rwanda’s problems do stem from imperialistic powers getting involved in the running of the country, in the case of the segregation of the Tutsis and the Hutus by the Belgium, and Britain slicing and dicing Gaza from Israel led to similar conflict. But no, I don’t think the U.S. is directly responsible for this. This is unusual, because they usually are. They do allow weapons brokers free running in the area, and they do support general arms deals all over Africa, Britain too is responsible for that. More guns mean more instability, but that’s not related to this point.

    You’re right, it does seem duplicitous that I decry the invasion of Iraq and yet think the U.S. should get involved in Sudan to stop the killing. And it is right to think that U.S. intervention, no matter how innocent it seems, has never done anything of serious benefit. But we stood by and watched East Timor happen, watched Rwanda happen, watched the carnage in the Congo (and I didn’t just see Hotel Rwanda, neither are my news reports just from CNN, or Fox, or any single source). And I’m not saying that the U.S. should just pile in with tanks and planes and start to assert peace. But I think there is a real difference, if you look at the details, to invading a country to topple a dictator, then exploiting the local work force to build up the country’s oil infrastructure, and moving into a country to prevent the continuation of genocide. I’m not saying Saddam Hussein was anything but brutal, but he did not attempt to wipe a single nationality off the planet. It seems that the Sudanese government and supporting militias are trying to do that. I do think the U.N. is suited for this job, with hopefully more troops than 20,000 to at least simply protect the aid workers doing their job (Darfur is the size of France, so their scope is limited). I do think that the U.S. could pledge troops to the U.N. force too. I think refugee camps could be created to protect the fleeing people from the guns of the militias too, but I’m not an expert, there might be better ways of doing this.

    The U.N. was created after WW2 to bring the world together, and prevent the atrocities that happened in the Holocaust from happening again, by providing repercussions against those who perpetrate those kinds of actions. It could look like an international policeman, and there is the chance it could be abused, but that’s why everyone votes, everyone must agree, and why it seems to take so long to do anything. That’s bureaucracy for you, but if you look at the alternative, you realize it’s the only way to go, no matter how flawed.

    Bad media however, this is a problem. The media should be talking about this repeatedly, all hours, until people get sick of hearing about it. Why? Well Hussein killed a number of Kurds, and we go crazy. 3,000 people die in the WTC’s and the country turns on its head. Possible up to 400,000 people are dead in Sudan, many times over either of those two crises, and no-one pays attention. Why? Are the lives in Sudan any less important than the lives here? I cannot say that it is everyone’s duty to protect everyone else on the planet, it’s just not feasible, but the there is an opportunity to do something good here. Maybe flawed, maybe it won’t work, but we can try.

    That’s my opinion towards what should happen. What are your opinions on what you think we should do?

    Like

  6. During the Anfal operation, some 1,200 villages were destroyed. More than 180,000 persons are missing and presumed dead. While the Iraqi government was motivated partly by the fact that some Kurdish groups cooperated with Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, documentation recovered in the Kurdish safe haven in 1991 reveals that this operation was part of a larger campaign undertaken by Saddam throughout his time in power. Many now regard this operation as proof of genocide against Iraqi Kurds. In all phases of the ethnic cleansing program, which began when the Baath Party first seized power in 1963 and culminated in the Anfal operation, it is estimated that more than 4,000 villages in rural Kurdistan were destroyed and perhaps 300,000 people perished.

    http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2002/issue4/jv6n4a5.html

    The Anfal attacks led to destruction of 2,000 villages and death of 300,000 Kurds [39].

    wikipedia

    This report is a narrative account of a campaign of extermination against the Kurds of northern Iraq. It is the product of over a year and a half of research, during which a team of Middle East Watch researchers has analyzed several tons of captured Iraqi government documents and carried out field interviews with more than 350 witnesses, most of them survivors of the 1988 campaign known as Anfal. It concludes that in that year the Iraqi regime committed the crime of genocide.

    The campaigns of 1987-1989 were characterized by the following gross violations of human rights:

    · mass summary executions and mass disappearance of many tens of thousands of non-combatants, including large numbers of women and children, and sometimes the entire population of villages;

    · the widespread use of chemical weapons, including mustard gas and the nerve agent GB, or Sarin, against the town of Halabja as well as dozens of Kurdish villages, killing many thousands of people, mainly women and children;

    · the wholesale destruction of some 2,000 villages, which are described in government documents as having been “burned,” “destroyed,” “demolished” and “purified,” as well as at least a dozen larger towns and administrative centers (nahyas and qadhas);

    · the wholesale destruction of civilian objects by Army engineers, including all schools, mosques, wells and other non-residential structures in the targeted villages, and a number of electricity substations;

    · looting of civilian property and farm animals on a vast scale by army troops and pro-government militia;

    · arbitrary arrest of all villagers captured in designated “prohibited areas” (manateq al-mahdoureh), despite the fact that these were their own homes and lands;

    · arbitrary jailing and warehousing for months, in conditions of extreme deprivation, of tens of thousands of women, children and elderly people, without judicial order or any cause other than their presumed sympathies for the Kurdish opposition. Many hundreds of them were allowed to die of malnutrition and disease;

    · forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of villagers upon the demolition of their homes, their release from jail or return from exile; these civilians were trucked into areas of Kurdistan far from their homes and dumped there by the army with only minimal governmental compensation or none at all for their destroyed property, or any provision for relief, housing, clothing or food, and forbidden to return to their villages of origin on pain of death. In these conditions, many died within a year of their forced displacement;

    · destruction of the rural Kurdish economy and infrastructure.

    http://hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/ANFALINT.htm

    Slightly more than just ‘a number’ (not that i am going to say this is why the US invaded, but that is exactly the kind of dictater you just said the US should take down).

    The United States directly contributed an estimated $3.45 billion to support U.N. peacekeeping, from fiscal years 1996 through 2001.2 Direct contributions are U.S. programs and actions that directly support specific U.N. peacekeeping operations, including (1) about $3.2 billion the Department of State expended for U.N. current and past due peacekeeping assessments and (2) nearly $250 million that State and DOD voluntarily spent to support U.S. civilian police, military units, and military observers to serve as an official part of a U.N. peacekeeping operation. As of September 30, 2001, the United States was providing 733 civilian police, soldiers, and military observers to U.N. peacekeeping operations.

    http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02294.pdf#search=%22UN%20forces%20US%20contribution%22

    Now i am also no expert, but those billions must help the UN quite a bit.

    I agree that it would be nice if people cared about Sudan and that it is unfair of the media to not portray all news in the same light. This is however because Most US citizens don’t care, a problem with society, which you cannot really blame on anyone.

    The problem with Africa as a whole is that the world tries to fix superficial problems, which mainly do more harm than good. Food Aid (which absolutly destroys the farmers in a country, who are unable to compete with a market flooded with free food, creating a total dependancy on other countries for food.) Peacekeeping forces (which can never eliminate the problem because almost all wars in Africa have something to do with genocide and the only way to stop it would be to destroy all but 1 nationality in the country). The best way to help Africa is to get the 1st world to drop tarrif barriers (so that we can trade and create some kind of functioning economy). Other than that it really is up to Africa to stop destroyig itself with genocide and dictaters.

    Then again, i am not an expert either and international politics still sucks.

    My last comments about CNN were directed at Logan, who didn’t know about Rwanda until he saw the movie.

    Like

  7. During the Anfal operation, some 1,200 villages were destroyed. More than 180,000 persons are missing and presumed dead. While the Iraqi government was motivated partly by the fact that some Kurdish groups cooperated with Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, documentation recovered in the Kurdish safe haven in 1991 reveals that this operation was part of a larger campaign undertaken by Saddam throughout his time in power. Many now regard this operation as proof of genocide against Iraqi Kurds. In all phases of the ethnic cleansing program, which began when the Baath Party first seized power in 1963 and culminated in the Anfal operation, it is estimated that more than 4,000 villages in rural Kurdistan were destroyed and perhaps 300,000 people perished.

    http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2002/issue4/jv6n4a5.html

    The Anfal attacks led to destruction of 2,000 villages and death of 300,000 Kurds [39].

    wikipedia

    This report is a narrative account of a campaign of extermination against the Kurds of northern Iraq. It is the product of over a year and a half of research, during which a team of Middle East Watch researchers has analyzed several tons of captured Iraqi government documents and carried out field interviews with more than 350 witnesses, most of them survivors of the 1988 campaign known as Anfal. It concludes that in that year the Iraqi regime committed the crime of genocide.

    The campaigns of 1987-1989 were characterized by the following gross violations of human rights:

    · mass summary executions and mass disappearance of many tens of thousands of non-combatants, including large numbers of women and children, and sometimes the entire population of villages;

    · the widespread use of chemical weapons, including mustard gas and the nerve agent GB, or Sarin, against the town of Halabja as well as dozens of Kurdish villages, killing many thousands of people, mainly women and children;

    · the wholesale destruction of some 2,000 villages, which are described in government documents as having been “burned,” “destroyed,” “demolished” and “purified,” as well as at least a dozen larger towns and administrative centers (nahyas and qadhas);

    · the wholesale destruction of civilian objects by Army engineers, including all schools, mosques, wells and other non-residential structures in the targeted villages, and a number of electricity substations;

    · looting of civilian property and farm animals on a vast scale by army troops and pro-government militia;

    · arbitrary arrest of all villagers captured in designated “prohibited areas” (manateq al-mahdoureh), despite the fact that these were their own homes and lands;

    · arbitrary jailing and warehousing for months, in conditions of extreme deprivation, of tens of thousands of women, children and elderly people, without judicial order or any cause other than their presumed sympathies for the Kurdish opposition. Many hundreds of them were allowed to die of malnutrition and disease;

    · forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of villagers upon the demolition of their homes, their release from jail or return from exile; these civilians were trucked into areas of Kurdistan far from their homes and dumped there by the army with only minimal governmental compensation or none at all for their destroyed property, or any provision for relief, housing, clothing or food, and forbidden to return to their villages of origin on pain of death. In these conditions, many died within a year of their forced displacement;

    · destruction of the rural Kurdish economy and infrastructure.

    http://hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/ANFALINT.htm

    Slightly more than just ‘a number’ (not that i am going to say this is why the US invaded, but that is exactly the kind of dictater you just said the US should take down).

    The United States directly contributed an estimated $3.45 billion to support U.N. peacekeeping, from fiscal years 1996 through 2001.2 Direct contributions are U.S. programs and actions that directly support specific U.N. peacekeeping operations, including (1) about $3.2 billion the Department of State expended for U.N. current and past due peacekeeping assessments and (2) nearly $250 million that State and DOD voluntarily spent to support U.S. civilian police, military units, and military observers to serve as an official part of a U.N. peacekeeping operation. As of September 30, 2001, the United States was providing 733 civilian police, soldiers, and military observers to U.N. peacekeeping operations.

    http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02294.pdf#search=%22UN%20forces%20US%20contribution%22

    Now i am also no expert, but those billions must help the UN quite a bit.

    I agree that it would be nice if people cared about Sudan and that it is unfair of the media to not portray all news in the same light. This is however because Most US citizens don’t care, a problem with society, which you cannot really blame on anyone.

    The problem with Africa as a whole is that the world tries to fix superficial problems, which mainly do more harm than good. Food Aid (which absolutly destroys the farmers in a country, who are unable to compete with a market flooded with free food, creating a total dependancy on other countries for food.) Peacekeeping forces (which can never eliminate the problem because almost all wars in Africa have something to do with genocide and the only way to stop it would be to destroy all but 1 nationality in the country). The best way to help Africa is to get the 1st world to drop tarrif barriers (so that we can trade and create some kind of functioning economy). Other than that it really is up to Africa to stop destroyig itself with genocide and dictaters.

    Then again, i am not an expert either and international politics still sucks.

    My last comments about CNN were directed at Logan, who didn’t know about Rwanda until he saw the movie.

    Like

  8. The U.S. does give funding to the U.N., but on the other hand it vetos important decisions, dismisses thier decisions as Bush did before Gulf War 2, and did his own thing, it does not support humanitarian missions if it does not hand over a certain percentage of contracts in rebuilding etc.

    Hmm… so you’re saying that we should let Africa figure out it’s own problems, basically let them do thier own thing. I should say the same on Iraq, and the wholw middle-eastern region, and that includes not supplying arms to Isreal with cluster bombs.

    I don’t agree with that.

    Like

  9. The U.S. does give funding to the U.N., but on the other hand it vetos important decisions, dismisses thier decisions as Bush did before Gulf War 2, and did his own thing, it does not support humanitarian missions if it does not hand over a certain percentage of contracts in rebuilding etc.

    Hmm… so you’re saying that we should let Africa figure out it’s own problems, basically let them do thier own thing. I should say the same on Iraq, and the wholw middle-eastern region, and that includes not supplying arms to Isreal with cluster bombs.

    I don’t agree with that.

    Like

  10. Another thing, I am really tired of hearing the statements of how bad Hussein was (and he was) when we gave him a lot of weapons that he used, supported him (and Iran, at times) during the Iran-Iraq war, and the U.K. and the U.S. both vetoed any kind of sanctions against him that U.N. were trying to impose in response to his attacks on the Kurds. Also how the U.S. have repeatedly rejected any idea of an independent Kurdish state, which is the main reason for Kurdish rebellion.

    I can not believe that United States possiblly went into to Iraq to topple Hussein because of his HR abuses, otherwise they would have finished the job the first time around.

    Like

  11. I was 12 when Rwanda happened. Yet I find it interesting that everyday after coming home from school around this time in my life, I watched on TV the Iraqi war. I watched a war on TV…yet saw nothing on the news (since when I was 12 CNN was a little more reputable, at least to the eyes of a child) about Rwanda, nor did I hear anything in school about it, yet I heard a lot about the war in Iraq.

    What we’re doing in Iraq right now is wrong, and the reason why its wrong is because more than 50 percent of Americans still think he had something to do with 911. Its wrong because we went over there, in disregard of both the UN and Tony Blair’s recommendation, we were on an agenda, and it had nothing to do with 911, or humanitarian efforts for the people.

    This doesn’t mean that Saddam was a good person, but if were going to overthrow bad dictators in the world, well, then why aren’t we doing anything in Korea for instance?

    I’m not saying that we should help in Sudan more so than in any other country that needs it, what I’m saying is that we shouldn’t lie about doing it, and because of which, we worsen the foreign policy, strip more rights away from both America and Iraq, start a civil war, and still manage to supply other countries (Israel) with weapons just like we did for Iraq, and Bin Laden (ok, he isn’t a country but still) all both for profit and to fit our agenda. How many times does supplying small countries and resistance groups does it have to bite us in the ass before we stop looking at the profits and start looking at the future implications.

    The contradiction is the issue here, it’s a contrast; the fact that we do one thing for one “cause,” and completely ignore other causes. We fight “terror,” and yet we do business with China, we want to help people, but only when they have oil, we want to fight the bad guys of the world but disregard the UN when they say no. What is the point of giving money and support to an organization that we completely ignore when it is most crucial for us to not?

    Also, how is it we can over throw a country and find its leader in a hole in the ground in a desert, and yet not seem to be able to locate the person who is responsible for the terrorist attacks we started a war for? We let Bin Laden go, we caught the wrong guy under false pretenses. And we lied about all of it.

    You cant for one minute tell me that its wrong for me to want America to stop genocide as its happening, after all that’s happened in the last few years with Iraq. I’m not saying that we go in with guns blaring, and actually with the latest developments with the UN and with what Bush has said, I’m proud of the help were giving.

    But for you to say it is a contradiction, is glossing over the facts of what its taken for the US to do what its done in Iraq, and the simple fact that we have lied about it. We’ve lied about it to the world, and to our own people. We don’t do things based on lies, and if were going to support the UN, we should listen to them at least when it comes to invading a country under false pretenses.
    The culture cares about (a lot of which) what it is told to care about. If people see it on the news they think it must be important, and since it must be important, they should care. Its not the other way around, the people don’t reflect the news, they don’t vote for who’s giving them the news, they don’t vote for the multi-billion dollar agencies that have control over what’s put in the news. People watch TV because its what they have to watch, there aren’t many alternatives to TV watching then what they give us. A lot of people don’t have time to go searching on the internet and selectively choose from article to article, from foreign news stations, what their going to listen to. A lot of people don’t find that practical. Can we blame them; it’s a lot of work.

    To say that we don’t care, as a culture is a blanket statement, people care about what they think they’re told is important. No one is telling them that Darfur is important, just as no one told them that Rwanda was. The fact that I found out because of the movie does not reflect a lackadaisical nature in me when I was 12, it shows that the people who made the movie, wanted more people to know about it, and they reached out in a different medium. It’s not bad that people know because of the movie, its bad that they have to know because of it. The movie about Rwanda shows how horrible CNN and Fox news are for not telling people. We can blame them, its not hurting ratings to run a 3 minute story a few times a week about Darfur, America did a week long coverage on the re-election of the Pope…week long coverage, your telling me that the news media cant spare a few minutes of air time to show what’s going on in Darfur because of ratings? People will turn the channel otherwise? I don’t think so, I’ve met way to many people who care about it, once their told, and want to know why they aren’t being informed. This is a problem not so much with Americans, as it is with the people in power who we have no control over.

    If we ignore genocide in any country, were doing the world an injustice, if we decide to fight genocide, we should do it under the pretense of fighting genocide. Letting a problem such as that go, is like saying it was ok that we waited so long to get involved with WW2, its like saying that its ok to not believe its happening, because if we “let Africa take care” of its own, as you said, we would be supporting it by not stopping it. Because the only way for many of us to not want to do anything about a problem is to be unaware of it, which is what Fox news is doing a good job of. In a word, you’re supporting those news stations for not telling the American people, because you want Africa to solve its own problems, when its evident that they are too ignorant to do it themselves. Then you turn around and blame Americans for not caring because the news reflects what the American people want to see.

    So what is it? Should we care or not, should we do something or not?

    When I say that they’re too ignorant, I’m not being racist. Its ignorant to believe that one race is better than another, and to kill for it, its ignorant to rage holy war on other people because of different beliefs, its ignorant no matter where or who you are in the world, no matter the culture or time. It’s ignorant for it to go on for so long, and not change it.

    Logan

    Like

  12. So you basically agree that Africa is Africa’s problem and the US should not intervene in Sudan because it has nothing to do with the US (not that it is not an awefull thing that is happening)

    It is America’s right to veto decisions as a part of the permanent security council. Using a right you have been given isn’t necesarilly a bad thing.

    The US is not the only government to dismiss the UN for 1, France invaded the Ivory Coase without UN permission and i don’t see any1 who cares about that. Whether it is right or wrong for these countries to do it, the only country that gets in trouble for it is the US, surely you should care about any infringement not just those by 1 country.

    I think that the US should leave Iraq to the Iraqi’s, after a war which I do agree they lied about (not that I think they went for oil, but it definatly wasn’t for humanitarian reasons). Why should US soldiers die to protect the people of a country on another continent from killing each other. Racial hatred is not their responsibilty.

    If Israel did not have the weapons to protect themselves they would be destroyed, this isn’t about the internal politics of israel, but the fact that almost every other country in the Middle-East wants them destroyed.Israel is also a strategic partner of the US. The US is not the only country which sells israle weapons (although most of them are american)

    I agree the US did not invade Iraq because Saddam was a bad man. I was just reacting to you saying that he killed a number kurds, which is a really big understatement and i wanted to inform you that it was hundreds of thousands which is rather a big number.

    I do think that the invasion of Iraq had a lot to do with 911 and nothing to do with oil. I think the Humanitarian reason was a lie though and beleive that the Bush adminixstration really XXXXed up the whole thing.

    I think that international politics sucks and has nothing to do with morals, i do not however think that the US should fight in fights that do not affect them. So they trade with china, who doesn’t. How many countries can you see that are prepared to fight other countries fights?

    I cannot comment on why it is so hard to find Bin Laden, but i don’t think he is all that important anyway, there are plent of crazy islamic funadamentalists to take his place (not that all muslims are crazy fundamentalists)

    I don’t think it is wrong for the US to stop genocide, but there isn’t much the US can do to stop it. The racial hatred is coming from the people within the country, having an external power there for a few months will just stop it for a few months, then they will get right back into genocide. It is an unsolvable problem, why should americans die to stop sudanese from killing each other when it won’t stop anything?

    The culture is full of sheep if they are prepared to only believe what they are told. IF you only thik something is important just because it is on the news, then i am sorry to say, but you have a brain that has almost no reasoning capacity and swallow everything you atre given and will probably never rise very far in life.

    There are alternatives to TV, such as newspapers, books and the internet. It is actually easier to find news on the internet than on TV, because you can fit it into your busy schedule at any time, it is on 24 hours a day. For people who have a ‘hectic’ schedule, it is the perfect place to get news because they can find news they want immediatly and come back to it later, however TV news is on at a specific time and if you miss it, you can’t go back. So to say it is so hard to get information from the internet is basically lazyness.

    So the media sucks, if americans really thought CNN and FOX was such a waste of time then their ratings would drop, basically if they did care, they would take the time they used to watching bad news to surf the internet and get the news they do care about.

    You cannot stop a holy war untill one side gets destroyed. They are not nice, but genocide is not rational and it cannot be stopped by external hatred. Once an entire people hates another so deeply, how can a few months of an international power stop them? Africa needs to solve it’s problems, no-one else can.

    Like

  13. So you basically agree that Africa is Africa’s problem and the US should not intervene in Sudan because it has nothing to do with the US (not that it is not an awefull thing that is happening)

    It is America’s right to veto decisions as a part of the permanent security council. Using a right you have been given isn’t necesarilly a bad thing.

    The US is not the only government to dismiss the UN for 1, France invaded the Ivory Coase without UN permission and i don’t see any1 who cares about that. Whether it is right or wrong for these countries to do it, the only country that gets in trouble for it is the US, surely you should care about any infringement not just those by 1 country.

    I think that the US should leave Iraq to the Iraqi’s, after a war which I do agree they lied about (not that I think they went for oil, but it definatly wasn’t for humanitarian reasons). Why should US soldiers die to protect the people of a country on another continent from killing each other. Racial hatred is not their responsibilty.

    If Israel did not have the weapons to protect themselves they would be destroyed, this isn’t about the internal politics of israel, but the fact that almost every other country in the Middle-East wants them destroyed.Israel is also a strategic partner of the US. The US is not the only country which sells israle weapons (although most of them are american)

    I agree the US did not invade Iraq because Saddam was a bad man. I was just reacting to you saying that he killed a number kurds, which is a really big understatement and i wanted to inform you that it was hundreds of thousands which is rather a big number.

    I do think that the invasion of Iraq had a lot to do with 911 and nothing to do with oil. I think the Humanitarian reason was a lie though and beleive that the Bush adminixstration really XXXXed up the whole thing.

    I think that international politics sucks and has nothing to do with morals, i do not however think that the US should fight in fights that do not affect them. So they trade with china, who doesn’t. How many countries can you see that are prepared to fight other countries fights?

    I cannot comment on why it is so hard to find Bin Laden, but i don’t think he is all that important anyway, there are plent of crazy islamic funadamentalists to take his place (not that all muslims are crazy fundamentalists)

    I don’t think it is wrong for the US to stop genocide, but there isn’t much the US can do to stop it. The racial hatred is coming from the people within the country, having an external power there for a few months will just stop it for a few months, then they will get right back into genocide. It is an unsolvable problem, why should americans die to stop sudanese from killing each other when it won’t stop anything?

    The culture is full of sheep if they are prepared to only believe what they are told. IF you only thik something is important just because it is on the news, then i am sorry to say, but you have a brain that has almost no reasoning capacity and swallow everything you atre given and will probably never rise very far in life.

    There are alternatives to TV, such as newspapers, books and the internet. It is actually easier to find news on the internet than on TV, because you can fit it into your busy schedule at any time, it is on 24 hours a day. For people who have a ‘hectic’ schedule, it is the perfect place to get news because they can find news they want immediatly and come back to it later, however TV news is on at a specific time and if you miss it, you can’t go back. So to say it is so hard to get information from the internet is basically lazyness.

    So the media sucks, if americans really thought CNN and FOX was such a waste of time then their ratings would drop, basically if they did care, they would take the time they used to watching bad news to surf the internet and get the news they do care about.

    You cannot stop a holy war untill one side gets destroyed. They are not nice, but genocide is not rational and it cannot be stopped by external hatred. Once an entire people hates another so deeply, how can a few months of an international power stop them? Africa needs to solve it’s problems, no-one else can.

    Like

  14. No, I don’t basically agree that Africa is Africa’s problem, if you had read what I posted, and understood it, you would see where I stand. I’m not writing it again.

    We live in America, not France; I don’t know how much the people of France criticized their country on the invasion of the Ivory Coast. This isn’t the issue here.

    We care that America doesn’t always follow through with the convictions it says it believes in. When they veto something that could help through the UN, which goes against American policy of moral standard here in the US, then yes, we have a right to criticize contradictory actions.

    If you don’t think the invasion of Iraq had anything to do with oil, then I think you should dig a little deeper.

    How can you say that international politics has nothing to do with morals? If a foreign policy violates the rights of the people it’s affecting, than the foreign policy is unethical. How can it not be otherwise?

    So you don’t think its important that we find the person truly responsible for the attacks of 911? And that because there are other crazy fundamentalist groups out there, that makes not catching Bin Laden ok? Use that same logic on yourself, what if your home was invaded and burned to the ground, and then the cops told you not to worry, because they’re going to catch a criminal, maybe not the criminal that did it, but some criminal. Wouldn’t you want the one that did crime to be caught? Because by your logic, it doesn’t matter which group we go after, they’re all crazy.

    Look at the major news companies, and then look at the fact that a lot people who go online get their news from MSN.com, Yahoo.com or AOL. Don’t insult my intelligence and make generalizations about me, your not reading what I’m writing, either that or your not understanding what I’m writing. People search loosely through headlines, they get it off of New York Times, or the Chicago Tribune, people don’t jump online and search, reading and cross checking reports, to see if they’re trust worthy. And, if it’s the news, then its important to somebody, if your reading it, and it’s a report on something that’s happening outside in the world….it’s the news….you see, I can play your semantic game, your not looking at the words, your misunderstanding the meaning and are making wide generalizations.

    Its not hard to get information on the web, its hard to trust and decipher what’s out there.

    A holy war is a war fought over lies, over superstitions and faith. Faith, which is based on emotions and a lack of thought; a holy war is the most irrational and dangerous there can be. It should be stopped and it doesn’t matter by whom. The human race should not stand for certain things: racism, hate crimes, genocide, and holy wars. These things are intolerable, the people who commit these crimes, by committing them, are in themselves/in their actions, saying that they are incapable of rational thought and intervention would not be an invasion, but an intervention for the best interest of those who can not defend against such crimes.

    Should Africa “take care of its own” as you say? No way in hell. Not for as long as the various countries of Africa continues to be led by people who don’t see the problem and necessity of the sanctity of life. Africa isn’t solving their problems, and to let it go on is saying that genocide is ok. And like I said in my last post but you didn’t seem to understand, that letting genocide go on, will incite it further, and before anyone realizes it its grown and is putting everyone at risk. That’s just one of the many reasons why Genocide needs to be stopped. Africa can’t take care of itself at this point, just look at the aids problem. We cant let ignorance continue.

    I really didn’t even want to post this, and im not posting another response if you show the same lack of attention to what I actually said. I don’t need the last word.

    Logan

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s