Darfur.. What the F**K

nakedemperor

Senior Member
Aug 5, 2004
1,437
152
48
NYC
Today Andrew Loewenstein of the State Department's team that went to Darfur on an information gathering expedition came to Brown and spoke to my Modern Genocide class. What he said was very disturbing..

He said that, contrary to Western Media coverage,the Janjaweed militia is not an independant faction randomly harassing the black Muslim population of Darfur. The Janjaweed attack villages alongside the Sudanese militia, and wear the same uniform as Khartoum's soldiers, and in fact have done significantly less damage than the Sudanese regulars. Khartoum has done a good PR job of keeping the Janajaweed, in popular opinion, "outside of their control"; to the rest of the world, it seems, Khartom must "reign in" the Janjaweed; in fact, they give them their orders.

70,000 are dead. 200,000 are displaced in Chad. 1.2 million are displaced in Sudan. IT IS A GENOCIDAL EFFORT. There are confirmed reports of Khartoum delivering explicit and direct orders to kill all males, of all ages. LITERALLY. We saw pictures of 5 year old boys with their throats slashed, hands and feet removed, etc. 50% of women in attacked villages are estimated raped. Fetuses are removed from the uterus of pregnant women and destroyed.

AS WE SPEAK, the women in the refugee camp "safezones" have to venture out of the camps (the desolate, barren, fruitless camps) to collect firewood. The Sudanese army and Janjaweed militia surrounding these camps routinely rape and kidnap these women.

Our own government has labeled this a genocide. Our own government cited humanitarian reasons for going to war in Iraq, why is this even more dire situation being ignored. Sanctions, political pressure, yadda.. GET PEOPLE ON THE GROUND AND STOP THE MURDERS.

The EU will not do it. the AU will not do it. The UN CERTAINLY will not do it-- we have an obligation to our fellow humanbeings that Clinton ignored and now Bush is doing something arguably even worse-- acknowledging it and STILL not doing anything to halt it.

Who is going to save Darfur?
 
Where's the profit in such an undertaking? Without profit, Bush will do little or nothing in Darfur. I hope I'm wrong, but I fear I'm right.
 
wade said:
Where's the profit in such an undertaking? Without profit, Bush will do little or nothing in Darfur. I hope I'm wrong, but I fear I'm right.

So Bush is profiting from Iraq? Can you provide proof, or is this just another one of your idiotic conspiracy theories?
 
I hate to tell you wade, but Sudan is loaded with oil.

So much for your "war for profit" mantra.

As of January 2004, Sudan's estimated proven reserves of crude oil stood at 563 million barrels, more than twice the 262 million barrels estimated in 2001. As of June 2004, crude oil production was averaging about 345,000 barrels per day (bbl/d), up from 270,000 bbl/d during 2003. Crude oil production has been rising steadily since the completion of a major export pipeline in July 1999 and is expected by Energy Minister Awad al-Jaz to surpass 500,000 bbl/d by the end of 2005. It is possible that Sudanese production could reach 750,000 bbl/d by the end of 2006 if planned production increases at new and existing fields progress as planned. In August 2001, in recognition of Sudan's growing significance as an oil exporter, OPEC granted the country observer status at OPEC meetings.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/sudan.html
 
The question right now is not, should the US go to Darfur, but do we have the troops do go to Darfur?

Frankly, I'm not convinced that we do. The mission would have to be long term, and would probably wind up being a hostile invasion of Sudan.

Not saying I wouldn't support such an action... just trying to be realistic.
 
I'm not sure if there are enough resources for that either. Also, if the US were to go into Sudan, people would immediately scream "quagmire" and say that it's just about oil.
 
wade said:
Where's the profit in such an undertaking? Without profit, Bush will do little or nothing in Darfur. I hope I'm wrong, but I fear I'm right.

You hope you are wrong, but we KNOW you are stupid.
 
nakedemperor said:
Pre-Bush sanctions prevent U.S. from dealing with Sudanese oil-holdings.

So, no oil.
Probably more important and closer to the truth is that China and France are blocking any action through th UNSC.
 
wade said:
Where's the profit in such an undertaking? Without profit, Bush will do little or nothing in Darfur. I hope I'm wrong, but I fear I'm right.

more likely because whackjobs such as yourself will decry the "rush to war", and take to the streets with your Bushitler slogans.
After all even though Sudan has stonewalled the last year, that doesn't mean they won't come to an agreement in, like what, 3 more years? Give Diplomacy a chance!
 
theim said:
more likely because whackjobs such as yourself will decry the "rush to war", and take to the streets with your Bushitler slogans.
After all even though Sudan has stonewalled the last year, that doesn't mean they won't come to an agreement in, like what, 3 more years? Give Diplomacy a chance!

Bush doesn't care what the 'whackjobs' think; it didn't stop him in Iraq, why would he even blink in terms of Sudan? No, there's something else at work here fueling the apathy.
 
nakedemperor said:
Bush doesn't care what the 'whackjobs' think; it didn't stop him in Iraq, why would he even blink in terms of Sudan? No, there's something else at work here fueling the apathy.

This is the consequence of conducting policy with blinders on. It restricts your view and your options. I dont know which came first, the single minded track we are on, or the choice to ignore other issues.
 
jimnyc said:
So Bush is profiting from Iraq? Can you provide proof, or is this just another one of your idiotic conspiracy theories?

Oh come on. Be serious. It's so obvious even an infant can see it. I'm sure you could too if you'd just take off those chirsto-fascist blinders.
 
Democrat4Bush said:
I hate to tell you wade, but Sudan is loaded with oil.

So much for your "war for profit" mantra.



http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/sudan.html

And we are already getting that oil, so why should we "rock the boat" ???

If anything, this is an argument explaining why the USA is hesitant to take action in Darfur - we (the Western economies) are getting the oil from the existing government which we would have to oppose if we were to get involved in stoping this genocide. As long as the oil is flowing into the international oil market, the USA and the West are very hesitant to get involved in such a crisis.

Thanks for supporting my argument.
 
wade said:
Oh come on. Be serious. It's so obvious even an infant can see it. I'm sure you could too if you'd just take off those chirsto-fascist blinders.

How about just posting the proof? Or can't you?

Not theories.

Not opinions.

Verifiable, reputable proof.
 

Forum List

Back
Top