America The Hypocrite?

[NATO AIR]

Compare the incredible response to the terrible Asian tsunami disaster to the disgraceful response to the genocide in Darfur, Sudan. Listen to Pres. Bush's brave and eloquent words about the spread of freedom and liberty around the world, then hear the bloodcurdling screams of victims who are shot to death in a village in Darfur by gov't backed militias. Watch the horrific waves wash over the coast and take people with them, then view the wave of hatred as a Sudanese soldier beats an old man to death.

Why the uneven response? Why can we deploy an aircraft carrier to fly relief missions over SE Asia, but we can't send one boat to Port Sudan?

When these people are being slaughtered, they are not screaming for the French or the Russians to come save them. They're begging for America, for Pres. Bush to come help. They're defenseless, and they're paying the ultimate price for it, while we screw them so we can have a peace deal in another part of the country. Clinton did that too, he was real good at screwing people over, even America and her interests, in order to get his legacy... which is now in tatters everywhere from N. Korea to N. Ireland to the Middle East. I hope Pres. Bush doesn't make the same mistake.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...?coll=la-sunday-commentary&ctrack=1&cset=true

A Wave of Apathy Over Africa's Suffering

By Terry George
Three weeks have passed since a powerful tsunami destroyed much of the coastline of southern Asia and washed over more than 150,000 souls. For several days after the disaster, I watched in horror as amateur video brought us right inside those swirling waves and listened as terrified vacationers told us stories of escape. It made for riveting and heartbreaking television. The news channels ratings shot up.

Then came a second tsunami — waves of aid, governmental and private, that began to swell up from all corners of the world. Within days we witnessed a veritable aid auction. Japan donated $100 million. The Brits countered with $150 million. The United States ultimately trumped that with $300 million, then the Japanese upped the ante again.

Next came a flood of private donations; people of great heart and substantial wallet chipped in with seven-figure donations. Meanwhile, ships of many nations steamed toward devastated coastlines bringing emergency supplies and fleets of rescue helicopters. Former presidents Bush and Clinton appeared on television to plead for donations in a demonstration of bipartisan solidarity with the stricken people of Asia.

My mood changed. In the course of three short weeks I have gone from empathy to anger. Anger not at the devastated people of Asia, but at the hypocrisy of our leadership; Bush, Blair, Chirac, et al, who seem to find natural disasters so much easier to deal with than human disasters.

For several years I struggled to make a film called "Hotel Rwanda." It tells the story of one man's heroism during the 1994 Rwandan genocide in which, in a mere 100 days, almost 1 million people were slaughtered. It was immediately followed by a savage war in Congo, where the death toll stands at more than 3 million people. Ten years on, that war still smolders. What has been the West's response to this enormous humanitarian disaster? It can best be described as criminal. I do not use that word lightly. There is a legal obligation under a United Nations convention that if a signatory nation recognizes genocide taking place it must act. No country or army intervened in Rwanda until it was too late. And no Western power has intervened in the genocidal slaughter underway in Darfur, Sudan.

Today, I am not only angry but fearful that the tsunami of aid that surges toward Asia will suck up the pitifully inadequate aid we give to sub-Saharan and Central Africa. In reality, there is no substantial relief in Sudan or Central Africa. In Sudan, the West has tried to mask its indifference to the ongoing genocide by offering support for a peacekeeping force marshaled by a coalition of African countries called the African Union. Last fall, the African Union offered 3,000 troops to act as peacekeepers in Sudan. Three months later, only 1,000 of those soldiers have been deployed and they have not been mandated to protect civilians. Compare that with the mobilization of aircraft carriers, air transportation and manpower in southern Asia. Are African soldiers so much more difficult to move than crates of milk and rice?

Let me be clear, the Asian tsumani relief effort needs the worldwide mobilization we have witnessed. But Sudan, Congo, Burundi and Rwanda need the same mobilization. One aircraft carrier (it doesn't have to be American) deployed off the coast of Sudan would go a long way in convincing the Sudanese government that the world is serious about the demand to disband the genocidal janjaweed militia.

Ten years after its genocide, Rwanda is still in desperate need of aid. The country is dirt poor. It is ravaged by AIDS. There are massive numbers of orphans and widows living in abject poverty. And across the border in Congo, the very militia that slaughtered hundreds of thousands in 1994 has regrouped and is ready to kill again.

These African crises are the result of tidal waves of hate. Are they any less lethal because of that? Why did they fail to generate the same aid mobilization and the same dollars? Are the people of Rwanda, Sudan and Congo less deserving of our dollars? Or is it that we consider human life in Africa of less value than elsewhere?

Of course our politicians will come up with any number of excuses as to why Sudan and Central Africa are different — political complexity, geographical remoteness, cultural complexities. Enough! The tsunami aid effort has clearly proved that when the great powers have the will they can respond rapidly and decisively. Have you ever heard those two words — "rapidly" and "decisively" — used to describe intervention in, or aid for, Africa? Why not?

You can find my answer to all these questions in "Hotel Rwanda," when Nick Nolte's character, Col. Oliver, explains why Rwanda is being abandoned by the West. "You're dirt," he says. "We think you're dirt, less than dirt, you're worthless. You're not even a ****** — you're an African."

Terry George is the director, producer and co-writer of the movie "Hotel Rwanda." He and his partners have worked with the U.N. to establish the International Fund for Rwanda. For more information visit hotelrwanda.com.

 

[dilloduck]

Do you think it's racial Nato ? - The world seemed to unite (eventually) against apartheid but black on black violence is ignored. Maybe the fact that Asia was the victim of a natural disaster instead of a man made one says a lot too !!

 

[NATO AIR]

Do you think it's racial Nato ? - The world seemed to unite (eventually) against apartheid but black on black violence is ignored. Maybe the fact that Asia was the victim of a natural disaster instead of a man made one says a lot too !!

I think its Africa fatigue. I would disagree with the actor that its because they're "*******". Its because they're Africans.

I had hoped Pres. Bush would be different. He seemed to ignore the "haiti fatigue" that had ruined US efforts there for the past 15 years, and some progress is being made there.

However, with Darfur, the bold leadership is missing. He's fishing for a peace deal in the south, which in essence, is the selling out of a million people in darfur to die while there's peace somewhere else.

I guess we can wage peace in the face of mother's nature's slaughter, but we won't wage war in the face of a group of murderous cowards.

 

[dilloduck]

I think its Africa fatigue. I would disagree with the actor that its because they're "*******". Its because they're Africans.

I had hoped Pres. Bush would be different. He seemed to ignore the "haiti fatigue" that had ruined US efforts there for the past 15 years, and some progress is being made there.

However, with Darfur, the bold leadership is missing. He's fishing for a peace deal in the south, which in essence, is the selling out of a million people in darfur to die while there's peace somewhere else.

I guess we can wage peace in the face of mother's nature's slaughter, but we won't wage war in the face of a group of murderous cowards.

And the European attitude toward their former colonies ?? We gave you your freedom now don't expect us to help you ?

 

[NATO AIR]

And the European attitude toward their former colonies ?? We gave you your freedom now don't expect us to help you ?

They're by and large useless as far as military shit goes.

A few exceptions with the Brits and Poles... but c'mon now.

fricking euros are the ones who started this damn mess in the first place.

 

[dilloduck]

They're by and large useless as far as military shit goes.

A few exceptions with the Brits and Poles... but c'mon now.

fricking euros are the ones who started this damn mess in the first place.

True------guess the US would have to foot the entire bill on this one.

 

[NATO AIR]

True------guess the US would have to foot the entire bill on this one.

well, they could foot a lot of the bill

we'd just have to do the ass kicking... actually the canadians would be happily onboard for this one as well, both military and financial support

 

[CSM]

A little insight:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm.../20050121/ap_on_re_mi_ea/sudan_building_peace

Seems like the crux of the matter is once again the peaceful religion of Islam battling the evil forces of Christianity. Interesting that Norway has pledged aid but refuses to give the money until peace breaks out. It seems many othe governments take the same stance, yet none offer to help militarily. Could it be because the nations of the world do not wish to open another front on the war on Islam (which is what it will be declared as soon as the first foriegn soldiers puts a boot on the ground.)?

 

[dilloduck]

well, they could foot a lot of the bill

we'd just have to do the ass kicking... actually the canadians would be happily onboard for this one as well, both military and financial support

I guess people are questioning the logistics and cost of waging war in several places at once.

 

[NATO AIR]

I guess people are questioning the logistics and cost of waging war in several places at once.

yep, but spare no expense in response to the tsunami...

sickening to me.

we don't have to invade the fucking place... just hit the bastards hard, make them pay a price for their genocide.

 

[dilloduck]

yep, but spare no expense in response to the tsunami...

sickening to me.

we don't have to invade the fucking place... just hit the bastards hard, make them pay a price for their genocide.

A few MOABS from our Air Force buddies ?? Anyone there need decapitation that would make a difference?

 

[NATO AIR]

A few MOABS from our Air Force buddies ?? Anyone there need decapitation that would make a difference?

sudan's president certainly deserves a tomahawk or a MOAB to visit him with extreme prejudice...

the leaders of the military, intelligence and police.

the janjaweed camps.

it could all be done in 24 hours or so.

 

[Hobbit]

I think it has a lot to do with the fact that our troops are spread a bit thin. If Iraq stabilizes to the point that the Iraqis can effectively defend themselves, the troops over there may be deployed in Darfur to end this.

 

[NATO AIR]

I think it has a lot to do with the fact that our troops are spread a bit thin. If Iraq stabilizes to the point that the Iraqis can effectively defend themselves, the troops over there may be deployed in Darfur to end this.

We can only hope so.