Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I just found this article from Yahoo! about the president of Sudan claiming that no one can touch him despite an order to have hm arrested for all the horror he has caused. Darfur is proof of the horror he is causing. It is about time(actually it is beyond the time) some got this man and have him tried for heinous crimes against humanity. Here is the article:Sudan leader: No international court can touch me (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090318/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_sudan_darfur - broken link)
And who, in your view, is going to go in and arrest him? Shall we mount a UN commando raid to capture him? That would be an interesting discussion to watch the UN have, at least for those of us who have less faith in humanity's good nature. They can't even work up the energy to go pummel those Ganjaweed militia who are (if my understanding is correct) actually doing the actual killing of actual innocent people, and who surely deserve a vicious penis punching.
I'm perfectly okay with him being blown away, but in practical terms he's right. Short of one or more world nations deciding to take it upon themselves to invade the Sudan and bag him up, he can pretty much tell the world to pound sand. And given the geography of the Sudan, he might even mail them a box of authentic Sudanese sand.
And who, in your view, is going to go in and arrest him? Shall we mount a UN commando raid to capture him? That would be an interesting discussion to watch the UN have, at least for those of us who have less faith in humanity's good nature. They can't even work up the energy to go pummel those Ganjaweed militia who are (if my understanding is correct) actually doing the actual killing of actual innocent people, and who surely deserve a vicious penis punching.
I'm perfectly okay with him being blown away, but in practical terms he's right. Short of one or more world nations deciding to take it upon themselves to invade the Sudan and bag him up, he can pretty much tell the world to pound sand. And given the geography of the Sudan, he might even mail them a box of authentic Sudanese sand.
I don't know who exactly would arrested him. I know there is a warrant for his arrest. Someone needs to fight Janjaweed and get al Bashir. I wonder why no one wants to get involved with Darfur.
Good for him for deciding that no one has jurisdiction over Sudan except for Sudan - I agree with him there. I do hope justice is served on him though.
Why isn't anyone getting involved with Darfur? I don't know, probably too much of a mess. I thought you weren't really into the idea of Europeans/Americans meddling in African affairs though. I suppose the African Union could do something like NATO did in the Balkans and handle Darfur/Sudan that way
Good for him for deciding that no one has jurisdiction over Sudan except for Sudan - I agree with him there. I do hope justice is served on him though.
Why isn't anyone getting involved with Darfur? I don't know, probably too much of a mess. I thought you weren't really into the idea of Europeans/Americans meddling in African affairs though. I suppose the African Union could do something like NATO did in the Balkans and handle Darfur/Sudan that way
I'm against colonialism. I am not against getting a genocidal despot out of power.
I don't know who exactly would arrested him. I know there is a warrant for his arrest. Someone needs to fight Janjaweed and get al Bashir. I wonder why no one wants to get involved with Darfur.
Well, it would help a lot if they had oil. Or uranium.
The problem with saying 'someone needs to...' is that without a concrete proposal for just who needs to and how, it's simply a statement of outrage without teeth. While it's a major improvement over endorsing the genocide, the statement does not one thing to arrest it, nor to advance the cause of doing so. So let's explore some logical possibilities.
The obvious agency to take responsibility is a multinational African force. Africa and Africans--from Algerians to Egyptians to Nigerians to Angolans and all in between--wanted the rest of the world to sod off (except for writing them fat checks in the form of loan guarantees). Okay, the rest of the world for the most part sodded off back to their home countries, and wrote the requested checks, the proceeds of which have by and large been wasted from a human condition improvement standpoint.
Oh, wait. That's right. The nations of Africa can't agree to do this, or more likely, would really just rather not go to the trouble. They don't care about Darfur. They most certainly don't want to spend the money, because that would cut into corrupt leaders' bribe-fueled lifestyles.
The next most obvious agency would be the Arab nations. As I understand it, Islam (the religion of most Arabs in Africa and beyond) is an issue in the Sudan. I doubt that this genocide is permitted by the Koran. If it is, then that won't work. But if not, then the Religion of Peace and Tolerance might well step in and enforce some Peace and Tolerance. Plus, that would be an Arab Solution, and we all know how eager the Arab world is to provide Arab Solutions without having to cast its cares on the West. What is more, Arab nations have long and unpleasant histories with Western military occupation and exploitation, so it should follow that they would be most eager to have anyone in the world except Euro-Americans cleaning up the mess. How embarrassing was it to have to have Westerners kick Hussein out of Kuwait?
Oh, wait. The Arab nations haven't really gotten together on anything major since the oil embargo, and even then many of them have a lot of grievances against each other. I'm not sure they can even consistently agree on the location of Mecca. If it doesn't involve a unifying loathing of Israel, and making sure the Palestinians continue to live in misery (thus weaponizing them), they won't get together on it.
Well, then how about a fresh approach. China absolutely poos its pants in outrage any time someone somewhere in the world is thought or suspected to suggest that it's repressive (which it is) or culturcidal (ask the Tibetans). China demands respect and deference as a Great Power! China Rises! "Great, China, welcome to the first rank. Now show you belong by stopping this heinous crime, and you will earn the world's authentic admiration and respect. We'll probably even ease up on Tibet, which is just as well because you throw a hissy fit whenever we call you on that."
Oh, wait. China does what's best for China, not for the rest of the world, and Africa isn't China's problem. At least, not the parts where China has not invested. Not happening.
Perhaps it's Russia's time to shine. Yes! Russia's military is modernizing and improving. Russian pride is at stake. What better way for Russia to show what a great transition it has made to a market economy and fully left behind the bad old days?
Oh, wait. That market economy transition has in fact produced an organized crime kleptocracy of epic proportions. And Russia could care less about the Sudan. Plus, as Russia would reasonably point out, it wasn't Russian colonialism that messed up Africa to begin with. Russia would say what all of the above would say: Not Our Problem, Buzz Off.
So, since all of the above are non-starters, the world by default tends to look West--to Western Europe and North America--because only the West is actually moved at all by the genocide to begin with. Suppose we take up that cudgel and do just that. Then we'd be the New Colonialists, meddling in African affairs all over again. Shooting at Arabic-speaking Muslims! Automatic jihad declarations all around. And in would slip Al-Qaida, seeking a fresh elephant trap for the United States and its decadent Western cohorts.
What's happening in Darfur is horrible, but it will keep happening until the 'someones' with the power to stop it decide to do so. And until the West learns to expect the rest of the world to participate in fighting genuine evil, the rest of the world will just look expectantly at the West, then condemn the West for the methods it used. It's time for the West to let the world's non-Western big talkers show their chops, lead and solve problems. Because if Darfur can't move them, nothing can.
Well, it would help a lot if they had oil. Or uranium.
The problem with saying 'someone needs to...' is that without a concrete proposal for just who needs to and how, it's simply a statement of outrage without teeth. While it's a major improvement over endorsing the genocide, the statement does not one thing to arrest it, nor to advance the cause of doing so. So let's explore some logical possibilities.
The obvious agency to take responsibility is a multinational African force. Africa and Africans--from Algerians to Egyptians to Nigerians to Angolans and all in between--wanted the rest of the world to sod off (except for writing them fat checks in the form of loan guarantees). Okay, the rest of the world for the most part sodded off back to their home countries, and wrote the requested checks, the proceeds of which have by and large been wasted from a human condition improvement standpoint.
Oh, wait. That's right. The nations of Africa can't agree to do this, or more likely, would really just rather not go to the trouble. They don't care about Darfur. They most certainly don't want to spend the money, because that would cut into corrupt leaders' bribe-fueled lifestyles.
The next most obvious agency would be the Arab nations. As I understand it, Islam (the religion of most Arabs in Africa and beyond) is an issue in the Sudan. I doubt that this genocide is permitted by the Koran. If it is, then that won't work. But if not, then the Religion of Peace and Tolerance might well step in and enforce some Peace and Tolerance. Plus, that would be an Arab Solution, and we all know how eager the Arab world is to provide Arab Solutions without having to cast its cares on the West. What is more, Arab nations have long and unpleasant histories with Western military occupation and exploitation, so it should follow that they would be most eager to have anyone in the world except Euro-Americans cleaning up the mess. How embarrassing was it to have to have Westerners kick Hussein out of Kuwait?
Oh, wait. The Arab nations haven't really gotten together on anything major since the oil embargo, and even then many of them have a lot of grievances against each other. I'm not sure they can even consistently agree on the location of Mecca. If it doesn't involve a unifying loathing of Israel, and making sure the Palestinians continue to live in misery (thus weaponizing them), they won't get together on it.
Well, then how about a fresh approach. China absolutely poos its pants in outrage any time someone somewhere in the world is thought or suspected to suggest that it's repressive (which it is) or culturcidal (ask the Tibetans). China demands respect and deference as a Great Power! China Rises! "Great, China, welcome to the first rank. Now show you belong by stopping this heinous crime, and you will earn the world's authentic admiration and respect. We'll probably even ease up on Tibet, which is just as well because you throw a hissy fit whenever we call you on that."
Oh, wait. China does what's best for China, not for the rest of the world, and Africa isn't China's problem. At least, not the parts where China has not invested. Not happening.
Perhaps it's Russia's time to shine. Yes! Russia's military is modernizing and improving. Russian pride is at stake. What better way for Russia to show what a great transition it has made to a market economy and fully left behind the bad old days?
Oh, wait. That market economy transition has in fact produced an organized crime kleptocracy of epic proportions. And Russia could care less about the Sudan. Plus, as Russia would reasonably point out, it wasn't Russian colonialism that messed up Africa to begin with. Russia would say what all of the above would say: Not Our Problem, Buzz Off.
So, since all of the above are non-starters, the world by default tends to look West--to Western Europe and North America--because only the West is actually moved at all by the genocide to begin with. Suppose we take up that cudgel and do just that. Then we'd be the New Colonialists, meddling in African affairs all over again. Shooting at Arabic-speaking Muslims! Automatic jihad declarations all around. And in would slip Al-Qaida, seeking a fresh elephant trap for the United States and its decadent Western cohorts.
What's happening in Darfur is horrible, but it will keep happening until the 'someones' with the power to stop it decide to do so. And until the West learns to expect the rest of the world to participate in fighting genuine evil, the rest of the world will just look expectantly at the West, then condemn the West for the methods it used. It's time for the West to let the world's non-Western big talkers show their chops, lead and solve problems. Because if Darfur can't move them, nothing can.
In short, no one is helping Darfur's cause because Darfur has nothing anyone wants.
In short, no one is helping Darfur's cause because Darfur has nothing anyone wants.
Indeed, and because humanity is deeply selfish and greedy. As it has always been, with a few shining moments to the contrary now and again. I wasn't raised with zero faith in my species; life showed me that this was the rational perspective.
Until and unless humanity becomes less greedy, there will be Darfurs. There have been Darfurs for millennia; only in the twentieth century did anyone even begin to see a problem with Darfurs. And even then, most of the movements to stop Darfurs had less to do with morality and more to do with economics.
Indeed, and because humanity is deeply selfish and greedy. As it has always been, with a few shining moments to the contrary now and again. I wasn't raised with zero faith in my species; life showed me that this was the rational perspective.
Until and unless humanity becomes less greedy, there will be Darfurs. There have been Darfurs for millennia; only in the twentieth century did anyone even begin to see a problem with Darfurs. And even then, most of the movements to stop Darfurs had less to do with morality and more to do with economics.
That sounds very true. Few people ever took an interest in Africa(or other places for that matter) unless there was any economical gain involved. Why else was there colonialism? Political and economical gain. Expansion of political empires and control of resources such as gold and diamonds. Darfur has little to offer to some people. This shows few people really do anything out of the kindness of heart. Someone should help the people get rid of al-Bashir, not colonize Sudan, but help Sudan get rid of the despot.
Shouldn't the darfur rebels also be arrested since they started all this because that's the same arguement France uses against Rwanda.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.