Indeed.
I wish the ones fighting against the Iraqi reforms would go there and do something constructive.
The people being raped, starved, robbed and murdered by the thousands in the Sudan are primarily Animist and Christian.
What’s happening in Sudan is a horrendous tragedy and I find it cheap and degrading to use the rapes, massacres, starvation and deaths of hundreds of thousands into a petty EU v. US bickering match. All decent people, whether they are EU or US, Repub or Democrat, are shocked when they learn what is happening there and would love to find a solution. I find it shameful to use such disaster and suffering as an opportunity for partisan bickering on this forum.
MT, you forget one thing, both Fred and Tigerman use anything to make it into an EU v US type of thing, but i do agree it is SICK. :raspberry:
I disagree. And if the UN and EU believe that this is a horrible situation, then why are they sitting on their collective worthless assess and doing nothing? They all agreed that it was shameful the way the UN and EU sat by and watched as Rwanda screamed and they stated that they would never allow this to happen again. Well, just ten years later and its… happeneing again.
No. What’s sick… really sick, is the way the UN and EU sit there and do nothing as thousands of human beings are killed and starved and run from thier homes. That’s sick.
My pointing this out is not sick.
The US is the one that is doing the most in Sudan right now. So until someone else steps up to the plate to do more, anyone who criticizes our efforts as insufficient is merely being hypocritical. Whoever wants to help can go go go. Head over and help. Donate money, pressure your legislators. The reason that this issue is not getting the sympathy that it deserves is because too many journalists are covering sex and abuse in Abu Ghraib, which involved what maybe 20 prisoners? Why don’t the journalists use their privileged positions to set the tone for national and international discussions to raise the issue? Hmmm? Wonder why?
The French should take the initiative in Darfur. After all, they’ve got bloody foreign legionnaires stationed just over the border in Chad who currently do little else but stand around waiting for the odd tourist to turn up…
No point the Americans going in, they’d blow up the good guys and spend their time undressing the bad ones.
:raspberry:
It is really too bad that Margaret Thatcher is not still in power. Things would be much better. Oh yes, they would.
For once Fred i have to agree with you 
The people being raped, starved, robbed and murdered by the thousands in the Sudan are primarily Animist and Christian.[/quote]
I believe you are confusing two conflicts here. The 20 year civil war in Sudan between the Muslim North and the Christian south, is not the same as the conflict in Darfur. The conflict in Darfur is between government backed arab muslim militias and black african Muslims.
Spook’s comment is technically correct. Though not relevant to the recent discussion as to what to do about Dafur, it is in fact true. Most of the victims have in fact been Black Christians and animists in the south.
There’s another ‘r’ in it. CNN gets it wrong too but they are just a right wing mouthpiece and so unsurpri…Oh, I see. Sorry I see why you got it wrong now. Silly me.
Only if he is talking about the past 20 years and not the present day. By the way, anybody know how the final negotiations to end that 20 year conflict are going?
Well to my knowledge the US had negotiated a cease fire earlier and this obviously has fallen through. Strange that the UN, France, Germany, Belgium and Russia are not there considering their interests in international law. Oh whoops. Right. No oil money to buy weapons or bribe top level officials.
Here’s a question for Fred and Tigerman:
If it’s true that George Bush is doing more to help in Sudan than Kofi Annan, is that because Dubya is a more compassionate person?
Probably saying Bush is a more compassionate person would be an understatement. After all, MT, as you very well know, Kofi Annan was content to allow hundreds of thousands HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of innocent wailing women and shrieking children to die under the Oil for Food program while his officials and son benefited to the tune of billions. I would say George W. has convictions and helping stop the massacre in Sudan is part of those convictions. He’s not like Clinton who would have (and did) bite his lip and talk about how he was feeling the pain of people in Somalia and Rwanda while feeling a little something else on the side.
For all those who continue to confuse the two conflicts going on in Sudan, please read the following:
[quote]NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) – Sudanese government and rebel officials have begun negotiating cease-fire details as part of a comprehensive agreement to end a 21-year war in Africa’s largest nation, the chief mediator said Monday.
The talks seek to set a cease-fire date, hammer out details on peacekeeping and monitoring as well as demobilization of troops and their reintegration into civilian life, chief mediator Lazaro Sumbeiywo said. The talks began Sunday…
The latest efforts to end the civil war in south Sudan began in Kenya in 2002. The Sudanese government and the main southern rebel group, the Sudan People’s Liberation Army, have already agreed on how to share the wealth and power in the country…
The negotiations in Kenya are [color=red]unrelated to fighting in the Darfur [/color]region of western Sudan, where fighting between the government and rebels has forced more than 1 million people from their homes and raised fears of ethnic cleansing.
Chad, Sudan’s western neighbor, mediates separate peace talks for Darfur province, a region the size of Iraq.[/quote]
Thank you BB: That does clarify matters somewhat. So the ceasefire that the UNITED STATES not the United Nations (wonder why not?) negotiated is still holding in the South and has ended a 21 year civil war there while the UN accomplished what exactly? Um? Anyone?
[quote=“Mother Theresa”]Here’s a question for Fred and Tigerman:
If it’s true that George Bush is doing more to help in Sudan than Kofi Annan, is that because Dubya is a more compassionate person?[/quote]
Does it matter to the people suffering in the Sudan?
[quote=“tigerman”][quote=“Mother Theresa”]Here’s a question for Fred and Tigerman:
If it’s true that George Bush is doing more to help in Sudan than Kofi Annan, is that because Dubya is a more compassionate person?[/quote]
Does it matter to the people suffering in the Sudan?[/quote]
No, but it matters to me, because you guys seem to be alleging (and Fred has said outright) that Dubya and Colon Powell are great humanitarians who have elected to take action out of the goodness of their hearts, whereas the EU/UN are not doing as much to help due to petty politics, and I believe that’s complete BS.
Among other flaws in the above is the notion that the US is acting solely out of humanitarian concern. For Bush it IS a political issue. His popularity is at an all-time low, because the US public finally realize he lied in order to get us into Iraq and his actions have increased, not decreased, the likelihood of terrorist attacks.
See: falkland-malvinas.com/Detalle.asp?NUM=3864
Do you really believe he would give a damn about a bunch of ignorant starving africans slaughtering each other if it would’t help boost his popularity prior to the election? That’s all he really cares about, so it’s hardly worth bragging about.