Discussion in 'Current Events' started by CSM, Sep 9, 2004.
Genocide it is (so sayeth Powell)
Someone call the U.N.
Gee, why weren't they there before the U.S.? They're such an EFFECTIVE organization!
If the victims are black it's genocide.
If their white it's reparations.
Your a dumbass. Where has there been a country killing half its population that has been white?
Sudan has a muslim leadership that is killing its christian population. Hence genocide.
sadly, that's what the russians and chinese will say in the security council. people will start dying by the hundreds of thousands soon as the famine begins.
actually insein, that was in southern sudan... this is arab muslims slaughtering african muslims in darfur. (yet the arab nations and their proxies claim this is untrue and western lies)
what pres. bush should do now is throw down the gauntlet. america will arm, supply and support a mass african union force (mostly consisting of the two nations most willing to take action, nigeria and south africa) that will deploy within ten days (quite possible) into darfur to protect the genocide survivors. nigeria and south africa would go along with this, and actually, we wouldn't have to arm them, just provide logistics and satellite inteligence support.
Many conservatives criticized efforts by the Clinton administration to cease genocide in Bosnia. The European states remained indifferent to the plight, so we stepped in. However, as criticism of the U.N. mounts in conservative circles, it seems fashionable to use this most recent U.N. ineptitude as 'further proof'. Be that as it may, and I agree the U.N. is dragging its feet in an disgusting manner, it is a departure from previous conservative opinion on ethnic cleansing and the United States' role therein. Historically, we have remained largely passive: genocide in World War II was denied and then ignored; Armenian genocide before and during WWI was similarly 'not our problem'; the mass killings of Pol Pot were also ignored. I agree that we should have stepped in during these crimes against humanity, and we should step in against Sudan-- but what makes Sudan different from Bosnia?
Actually, many conservatives (from Bob Dole to Sam Brownback to John Warner and several others, not including conservatives in Britain like Margaret Thatcher) were not happy with how Pres. Bush and Pres. Clinton handled the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. In fact, Bob Dole was in Kosovo at the time Milosevic truly ascended to power (by labeling Kosovars as forever enemies of the Serbs and perverters of Serb culture) and saw firsthand the truly frightening fascism of Milosevic and his ilk.
Dole and these other conservatives joined many liberals and centrists alike in demanding action (a) lift n strike (where the US and its NATO allies would bomb the Serbs while the US and its allies also ceased the arms embargo that was helping the Serbs (who had their own defense industry) slaughter the Bosnians and Croats (b) massive deployment of US forces to stop the Serbs (c) demanding the UN and EU stop their incompetent coddling of the Serbs (who as Warner and Thatcher noted, were responsible for 90% of the atrocities)
There were conservatives (Helms comes to mind) who opposed US action and Clinton finally sending troops, but they were joined by liberals and centrists alike who opposed intervention and even supported the Serbs
However, let it be known that the same brave group of individuals from all political circles, military and diplomatic experiences, races and religions who stood up for Bosnia are now standing up for Darfur
They recognized then, as they do now, that the UN is an abomination of what it could have been and should be
First rate response, NATO. Kudos.
Are you of the opinion that the U.S. should withdraw from the U.N. or that the U.N. should be drastically altered in form and capability? (Neither of these opinions are derived from your response, I was just curious, for my own personal edification).
The UN should be drastically reformed in three major ways:
(a) the Security Council system as it is is abolished. A new, permenent security council is enacted with no veto powers for any parties. The 15 nations comprising it should be as follows (America, Britain, Germany, France, Russia, Brazil, India, China, South Africa, Nigeria, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Turkey/Pakistan/Egypt and Mexico).
(b) the UN should cease peacekeeping activities as an organization and contract them out to regional organizations (African Union, Arab League, EU, NATO, OAS, ASEAN) which willl have the option of flying under the UN flag or not. This way, there is no shortchanging of the peacekeeping operations by donor countries or volunteer countries who contribute troops only to get money and acclaim)
(c) Automatic triggers will be built into key emergencies like genocide, nuclear proliferation and oppressive invasion. This way, no nation like China or France will be able to discredit the system by making deals and stalling for time for oppressive regimes like Sudan, Iran, North Korea, Burma, etc etc.
I don't know, there are lots of other ideas, but these are the ones that appear most possible (still improbable though sadly)
Separate names with a comma.