UN clears Sudan of genocide

[Jobber of the Week]

3) This also gives an opportunity to embarass the US since we oppose the ICC for more than one reason.

It's not exactly like we're doing a hell of a lot over there, either.

[Guest Cerebus]

The interesting thing is, we're not doing nearly enough but what we're doing far outstretches the UN and Europe. Which is pretty pathetic. As far as I know, the US is pushing for the AU to form a War Crimes Tribunal similar to the one in Yugoslavia.

[Highland]

Silly people. You should have known something as minor as genocide couldn't be allowed to get in the way of political expediency.

[Jobber of the Week]

Well, nobody wants to get involved, really. We don't have the manpower or the credibility to start anything revolutionary over there, and the UN isn't really equipped for anything other than peacekeeping missions.

 

While I think it's pretty cheesy for the UN to get into the symantics of what is genocide, at the same time I think this whole "see we told you so the UN doesn't act on anything" attitude is undeserved. The UN isn't a world military, it's a stage for diplomacy.

[Highland]

True, it is stage for diplomacy, or at least it's supposed to be. However, diplomacy is largely ineffective when it is the only means available for dealing with certain situations.

[Jobber of the Week]

Eh? What I'm saying is that the UN is limited to peacekeeping, but if peace can't be obtained through anything other than fighting violence through violence, then it is only asstrong as the nations inside it since it just takes a backseat to the nations. If none of the nations in it actually want to do anything, then it'll just sit there.

 

What we need to do is actually push for a resolution and say that this can't continue. Until more Americans find a greater interest in the tragedy than to say "Sudan? Where is that, anyway?" it sadly won't happen.

[Kahran Ramsus]

If none of the nations in it actually want to do anything, then it'll just sit there.

 

Some do. Just not enough.

 

On Monday, Canada, New Zealand and Australia sent a letter to the Security Council urging it to take action sooner rather than later.

 

"It's clear, frankly, that the situation in Darfur is worsening. It's not getting better," said Australia's UN Ambassador John Dauth.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...port050201.html

[Guest MikeSC]

Eh? What I'm saying is that the UN is limited to peacekeeping, but if peace can't be obtained through anything other than fighting violence through violence, then it is only asstrong as the nations inside it since it just takes a backseat to the nations. If none of the nations in it actually want to do anything, then it'll just sit there.

 

What we need to do is actually push for a resolution and say that this can't continue. Until more Americans find a greater interest in the tragedy than to say "Sudan? Where is that, anyway?" it sadly won't happen.

What we need to is shitcan the entire shitty organization. There is NOTHING they do that can't be done better and more efficiently by others.

 

Yes, I even mean fucking UNICEF.

 

The UN is a joke. Been saying it for years.

 

And they prove me right.

 

Time after time.

-=Mike

[Guest adam_bomb]

Better the UN than the United States running the show.

[Guest Cerebus]

Hm...13 posts and 10 of them in CE? All of them useless one line leftist remarks?

 

Gimmick poster anybody?

[Guest adam_bomb]

Beats using useless right wing one line comments like most of the idiots in CE.

[Jingus]

Better the UN than the United States running the show.

Why?

[Jobber of the Week]

What we need to is shitcan the entire shitty organization. There is NOTHING they do that can't be done better and more efficiently by others.

So, exactly what would be a better way to bring the world together for diplomatic meetings and discussion?

 

Because, again, that's the UN's goal. Not to maintain a worldwide military.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Better the UN than the United States running the show.

Why?

Because he like Europeans would rather ignore the murder of people and human rights abuses as long as his tiny bubble of existence doesn't have to be disturbed by war.

[Jingus]

Your stereotyping of all Europeans as worthless talk-happy pansies is almost as bad as his stereotyping of all Americans as ignorant war-hungry rednecks, though.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Your stereotyping of all Europeans as worthless talk-happy pansies is almost as bad as his stereotyping of all Americans as ignorant war-hungry rednecks, though.

Fair enough. Slash European and put U.N. in it's place.

[Justice]

What we need to is shitcan the entire shitty organization. There is NOTHING they do that can't be done better and more efficiently by others.

So, exactly what would be a better way to bring the world together for diplomatic meetings and discussion?

 

Because, again, that's the UN's goal. Not to maintain a worldwide military.

The problem is that main of it's actions REQUIRE some sort of military action to enforce said diplomacy. It's this view that it should be purely diplomatic is what makes it such an utterly useless and ineffective.

[Jobber of the Week]

The problem is that main of it's actions REQUIRE some sort of military action to enforce said diplomacy. It's this view that it should be purely diplomatic is what makes it such an utterly useless and ineffective.

The question is whether or not it's the UN's responsibility to commit troops. It's hands are tied to what host nations can do, and right now one of the biggest host nations with one of the biggest militaries currently on an interventionist policy kick is.... Doing about as little as the UN is.

 

You want to know what's preventing action? Go out on the street and ask how many people are concerned about the crisis in Sudan. Really, try it sometime. Ask about the most alarming and dangerous places they've known about over the past few months, and you'll hear about Iraqi roadside bombs and Asian tsunamis. And that's it.

 

I don't think the UN is perfect (go home, Kofi), but maintaining a military force isn't in their MO, and they probably wouldn't last long if they tried.

[KingPK]

Isn't NATO kind of the military arm of the UN? Since the USSR fell, they really haven't had much to do, so why not have the two organizations "team up", if you will.

[Guest MikeSC]

What we need to is shitcan the entire shitty organization. There is NOTHING they do that can't be done better and more efficiently by others.

So, exactly what would be a better way to bring the world together for diplomatic meetings and discussion?

 

Because, again, that's the UN's goal. Not to maintain a worldwide military.

How 'bout this --- when one of the country's with REAL human rights atrocities comes within a mile of the sheer volume of resolutions passed against Israel --- we'll talk.

-=Mike

...Care to compare the number of resolutions passed against Israel compares against, oh, resolutions passed against China?

[Styles]

What we need to is shitcan the entire shitty organization. There is NOTHING they do that can't be done better and more efficiently by others.

So, exactly what would be a better way to bring the world together for diplomatic meetings and discussion?

 

Because, again, that's the UN's goal. Not to maintain a worldwide military.

How 'bout this --- when one of the country's with REAL human rights atrocities comes within a mile of the sheer volume of resolutions passed against Israel --- we'll talk.

-=Mike

...Care to compare the number of resolutions passed against Israel compares against, oh, resolutions passed against China?

Well, come on, there are no Jews in China...

[Justice]

You want to know what's preventing action? Go out on the street and ask how many people are concerned about the crisis in Sudan. Really, try it sometime. Ask about the most alarming and dangerous places they've known about over the past few months, and you'll hear about Iraqi roadside bombs and Asian tsunamis. And that's it.

What the fuck are you talking about?

[Jobber of the Week]

You want to know what's preventing action? Go out on the street and ask how many people are concerned about the crisis in Sudan. Really, try it sometime. Ask about the most alarming and dangerous places they've known about over the past few months, and you'll hear about Iraqi roadside bombs and Asian tsunamis. And that's it.

What the fuck are you talking about?

That doesn't include the "What? What's a Darfur?" people who can't find Sudan on a map. These are the American majority.

[Guest MikeSC]

You want to know what's preventing action? Go out on the street and ask how many people are concerned about the crisis in Sudan. Really, try it sometime. Ask about the most alarming and dangerous places they've known about over the past few months, and you'll hear about Iraqi roadside bombs and Asian tsunamis. And that's it.

What the fuck are you talking about?

That doesn't include the "What? What's a Darfur?" people who can't find Sudan on a map. These are the American majority.

Based on what?

 

Do you really have such a burning need to feel superior to most Americans?

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week]

Based on what?

Based on the kind of press and interest this situation is getting (i.e. none.) For month after month, it's been avalanched under elections, insurgents, Laci Peterson, a tsunami, etc.

 

Do you really have such a burning need to feel superior to most Americans?

It's not a need, it's just a fact. The same is true for you, since regardless of what I think of your opinions, you do keep yourself informed.

[Guest MikeSC]

Based on what?

Based on the kind of press and interest this situation is getting (i.e. none.) For month after month, it's been avalanched under elections, insurgents, Laci Peterson, a tsunami, etc.

There has been a lot of reporting on Sudan. Has it been the top story? No --- but to assume it has not been fairly widely reported is to be dishonest.

 

The problem is that there isn't much we can do.

-=Mike

[Justice]

I'm gonna call you on rhetorical bullshit on this one, Jobber. The poll did not say "Of those few who knew about Darfur", it said "Of all Americans". You are trying to play down something that is pretty damn obvious that we want to do something, but are letting the UN do (or, better put, fail) at their job.

[Jobber of the Week]

Very well.

 

We're doing an awful job of telling our government to do something about this, for as much of us that want to.

[Guest MikeSC]

Very well.

 

We're doing an awful job of telling our government to do something about this, for as much of us that want to.

Our gov't wants to do something --- but they don't want to do it alone.

 

And they'd have to.

 

This would be much worse than Iraq.

-=Mike