Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sudan Militia Still Attack, UN Sanctions Unlikely
Wed Jul 21, 2:52 PM ET
By Evelyn Leopold
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) said on Wednesday Sudan had made little progress in curbing marauding militias in the Darfur region but diplomats said sanctions against Khartoum were unlikely.
Annan spoke as his special representative in Khartoum, Dutchman Jan Pronk, briefed the 15-member Security Council on reports that Arab militia, called Janjaweed, were continuing to terrorize African villagers in Sudan's west.
The 15-month conflict has killed at least 30,000 people, forced villagers into concentration-camp type compounds and left 2 million people without enough food and medicine.
"There have been encouraging steps on the humanitarian front," Annan said at a news conference. "But there has been little progress on human rights and I regret to say there are continuing reports of attacks by the Janjaweed militia."
JIHADTHIS said:Further proof of why the US needs to get out of the UN and the UN needs to be kicked out off the US!
F**K Kofi!
We know that unless Britain goes in to stop what human rights organizations say could result in the deaths of a million people, certainly nothing can be expected of Europe. Europe may have provided some of the world's greatest humanitarian ideas but lately it has not acted as if it knows that. Europe initiated nothing in Bosnia, Kosovo or Rwanda. Near or far, genocide meant nothing when it came to paying the ultimate price for belief, which is blood. Too expensive. Let somebody else do it. Who? You know who - those cowboy Americans. We'll talk. They'll act.
But this crisis arrives at a very bad time. America probably would not support another war now. It might have to be convinced. That is how a democracy works.
The convincing could easily come through our media. There is plenty of proof that the crimes are backed by the Sudanese government, which claims to have hands as clean as Pontius Pilate's. No sanctions are coming from the UN, which means that if anything is to be done, the U.S. and Britain probably will have to do it.
To the good, Congressman Charles Rangel is one of the leading voices in opposition to continued Sudanese abuse. There are also elected white Southerners who are repulsed. We might just get the job done as the result of one of those all-American crossings of the ethnic lines in the interest of humanity. That is far from impossible. This is still America.
TheOne said:It seems to me that Annan has been very outspoken about the situation in Sudan. The UN is only powerful when there's enough nations supporting whatever cause the UN is pursuing. Kofi Annan is not the king of the world.
How come Bush hasn't moved US troops in unilaterally? This is a humanitarian crisis and thousands are dying. It seems to me a military move in Sudan would be helpful for Bush because he used unilateral military action in Iraq to respond to a less dire humanitarian crisis. Are you upset that Bush has only pursued diplomacy in the face of such human tragedy?
My dear, do you have trouble reading? I believe there are three links above to help you out.
Kathianne said:TG! Sometimes I feel like the only one who's is noticing the assinine behavior of the 'international body' that freakin' Kerry wants to bow down to!
On another thread one of his 'supporters', I think deci? acknowledged all the military funding he's voted against, but in support of increasing US funding of the UN by 800%!
TheOne said:It seems to me that Annan has been very outspoken about the situation in Sudan. The UN is only powerful when there's enough nations supporting whatever cause the UN is pursuing. Kofi Annan is not the king of the world.
How come Bush hasn't moved US troops in unilaterally? This is a humanitarian crisis and thousands are dying. It seems to me a military move in Sudan would be helpful for Bush because he used unilateral military action in Iraq to respond to a less dire humanitarian crisis. Are you upset that Bush has only pursued diplomacy in the face of such human tragedy?
TheOne said:It seems to me that Annan has been very outspoken about the situation in Sudan. The UN is only powerful when there's enough nations supporting whatever cause the UN is pursuing. Kofi Annan is not the king of the world.
How come Bush hasn't moved US troops in unilaterally? This is a humanitarian crisis and thousands are dying. It seems to me a military move in Sudan would be helpful for Bush because he used unilateral military action in Iraq to respond to a less dire humanitarian crisis. Are you upset that Bush has only pursued diplomacy in the face of such human tragedy?
dilloduck said:Ask the French why they are blocking efforts to help. Let me know what answer you get.
r2200t said:What we know: the population displacements have been going on since 15 months. i guess nobody cared for them until now... why now? or do we really care about the people? or is it the oil? is this why Annan is chickening out?
Cheers
