Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
By LYDIA POLGREEN
Published: March 24, 2008
ABU SUROUJ, Sudan As Darfur smolders in the aftermath of a new government offensive, a long-sought peacekeeping force, expected to be the worlds largest, is in danger of failing even as it begins its mission because of bureaucratic delays, stonewalling by Sudans government and reluctance from troop-contributing countries to send peacekeeping forces into an active conflict.
Poorly equipped Nigerian peacekeepers riding last month in a pickup through a camp in Genina in western Darfur for Sudanese civilians displaced by violence. More Photos >
The force, a joint mission of the African Union and the United Nations, officially took over from an overstretched and exhausted African Union force in Darfur on Jan. 1. It now has just over 9,000 of an expected 26,000 soldiers and police officers and will not fully deploy until the end of the year, United Nations officials said.
Even the troops that are in place, the old African Union force and two new battalions, lack essential equipment, like sufficient armored personnel carriers and helicopters, to carry out even the most rudimentary of peacekeeping tasks. Some even had to buy their own paint to turn their green helmets United Nations blue, peacekeepers here said.
The peacekeepers work is more essential than ever. At least 30,000 people were displaced last month as the government and its allied militias fought to retake territory held by rebel groups fighting in the region, according to United Nations human rights officials.
more ... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/w...34&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin
The UN is beyond incompetent. Not to worry though ... sooner or later they're going to run out of people to kill so people can get down to the real business of chastising themselves for doing little or nothing and letting it happen.
Sure they do ... after the fact. Remember Rwanda? AFTER the killing was done they said we should be ashamed for letting it happen ...
Alright, then lets give the UN an army and an ability to invade countries for HR violations.
No? Then shut the fuck up when its ineffective. Its hilarious that people bitch about how its ineffective, but don't support making it effective.
And yes, you should be ashamed for letting Rwanda happen. But more so, the liberals should be ashamed. Its expected that conservatives won't give a fuck if brown people are being genocided. You all just fulfilled expectations. Liberals, and Clinton, are the ones who really failed.
Remind us who sold out South Viet Nam? Who wants to sell out Iraq?
Alright, then lets give the UN an army and an ability to invade countries for HR violations.
No? Then shut the fuck up when its ineffective. Its hilarious that people bitch about how its ineffective, but don't support making it effective.
And yes, you should be ashamed for letting Rwanda happen. But more so, the liberals should be ashamed. Its expected that conservatives won't give a fuck if brown people are being genocided. You all just fulfilled expectations. Liberals, and Clinton, are the ones who really failed.
Not sure where you get your conclusion that conservatives don't give a fuck about brown people. It doesn't matter what color they are, for one thing.
And I have been pushing this issue since I became aware of it YEARS ago and I was quite vocal about Rwanda. Last I checked, no one's been calling me a liberal lately.
What happened in Rwanda was wrong and what is currently happening in Sudan is wrong. And while I'm not into your "One World Order" organization, I support any effort that puts a stop to the genocide of a people.
As far as who supports what, I have posted articles on Darfur for years on this board and others and they go largely ignored, and definitely by the left. One or two responses from a few conservatives maybe, and that's it.
The real problem is NOBODY gives a shit.
Well cheers, y'all don't care about anyone then!
Its meant as a generalization, as all statements of that type are. Conservatives are more prone to say people need to "pull themselves up by their boostraps", take "personal responsibility" and simultaneously push isolationism and free trade. Some liberals have, mistakenly due to the Iraq fiasco, started to push for isolationism unfortunately.
I've seen you push this issue, but rarely in a form other than "omg the UN is fucked and this is why".
So you don't want one world order, but you want everyone in the world to be held to some certain standards. But any organization that would enforce those standards is terrible because its pushing one world order. But the US isn't the world police either. Wait...
Your views about the UN are incoherent. You, and others, simultaneously bash it for being too weak and too powerful at the same time. One second its "OMG one world order" and the next second its "sovreignity? Whats that? We need to invade countries!".
Speak for yourself Kemo Sabe. There are lots of organizations that DO give a shit and try to get the word out about these issues. Liberal feel-good bullshit organizations like HRW, Amnesty International, the UN. But no, neither side of the American political spectrum as a whole are talking about these issues. On the national scale you are correct, nobody cares.
My views about the UN are quite coherent. I NEVER
have bashed it for being too "powerful."
That's an oxymoron. I criticize the UN for being just another level of ineffective bureaucracy.
Even if the UN was half-ass worth something, I would oppose the US subjugating itself to UN authority, or any authority based on the "One World Order" concept. The US needs to do what is in the US's best interest. The rest of the world does what's in their best interest at the National level, and turn around and point fingers at us for not thinking about them first. And we have people who fall for the crap.
Yes, this is incoherent. You say that no state should subjugate its will to the UN, but yet think the UN should do something about Darfur and criticize it when it can't because idiots think that no state should subjugate its will to the UN.
The UN can have no authority over Darfur unless states are willing to delegate some powers to the UN.
By the way...I care about Darfur, I just don't care to constantly have long conversations with people about it who want to blame everything under the sun on the UN.
Oh...A UN sympathizer.......
Yes, this is incoherent. You say that no state should subjugate its will to the UN, but yet think the UN should do something about Darfur and criticize it when it can't because idiots think that no state should subjugate its will to the UN.
The UN can have no authority over Darfur unless states are willing to delegate some powers to the UN.
By the way...I care about Darfur, I just don't care to constantly have long conversations with people about it who want to blame everything under the sun on the UN.
Alright, then lets give the UN an army and an ability to invade countries for HR violations.
No? Then shut the fuck up when its ineffective. Its hilarious that people bitch about how its ineffective, but don't support making it effective.
And yes, you should be ashamed for letting Rwanda happen. But more so, the liberals should be ashamed. Its expected that conservatives won't give a fuck if brown people are being genocided. You all just fulfilled expectations. Liberals, and Clinton, are the ones who really failed.
Again, hardly incoherent. Facetious. Condescending.
It doesn't require delegation of powers. It only requires that the UN actually take a stance and call for support.
If the UN would quit "discussing the issue," take a stance and present a solution, I doubt there would be a shortage of volunteers.
Was there in Kosovo?
The UN has been in a position to lead for decades. It lacks only leadership to assume that postion. You aren't going to impress others with your leadership if all you're known for is vacillating.
Taking a shot at the UN for its usual ineffectiveness -- and you can't say the UN has done much of anything but talk on this issue -- is different than blaming the UN for the situation Darfur. That would be the fault of the Government of Sudan.
I would oppose the US subjugating itself to UN authority
I have no more problem supporting an actual effort made by the UN in Sudan than I had with them stepping in in Yugoslavia.
I also have no problem with limited interdiction by US military.
Not like we have the manpower at the present to just step in what with someone's genius decision to open a second front before completely securing the first one.
The only thing we should give the UN is a swift kick in the ass.
And I didn't see Clinton sending any troops to Darfur when he was in office......
