» GC Stats |
Members: 329,732
Threads: 115,666
Posts: 2,205,034
|
Welcome to our newest member, zalexsdarkz7494 |
|
 |
|

06-03-2004, 06:29 PM
|
Super Moderator
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Southeast Asia
Posts: 9,026
|
|
Dafur, Sudan could be the next Rwanda
Quote:
Sudan 'like Rwanda in 1994'
Cairo - Sudan is waging a bloody campaign of "ethnic cleansing", killing thousands of people and driving a million more from their homes by bombing villages, shooting men and raping women, a prominent human rights group said on Friday.
The New York-based Human Rights Watch described a pattern of violence by government forces and militiamen, known as janjaweed, made up of nomads who often sweep into villages riding camels and horses.
Human rights groups said the two forces - the Arab-dominated government and the Arab militia - set out last year on a deliberate campaign to drive black African tribes from the Darfur region.
The rights group called on the UN Security Council, scheduled to meet Friday on the Darfur situation, to step in to help stop the bloodshed and look for evidence of crimes against humanity.
It likened the situation in Darfur to the beginning of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, when 500 000 people were slaughtered by a government-backed, extremist militia. The international community has been widely criticised for not intervening to stop the bloodshed.
"Ten years after the Rwandan genocide and despite years of soul-searching, the response of the international community to the events in Sudan has been nothing short of shameful," Human Rights Watch said in its 77-page report.
|
Read the Rest Here
__________________
Spambot Killer  
Last edited by moe.ron; 06-03-2004 at 06:37 PM.
|

06-03-2004, 06:34 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Taking lessons at Cobra Kai Karate!
Posts: 14,928
|
|
Re: Dafur, Sudan could be the next Rwanda
I posted about the Sudan and it seemed nobody cared.
Sad that the Muslim Arabs are massacring, raping and ethnic cleansing the other residents. It's great that they are on the UN Human Rights Commission. I hear that and their warm embrace of slavery made them top candidates.
-Rudey
--And that is why Europe and the world can hang their heads in shame and shut up.
Edit for the real link. sorry rudey.
Last edited by moe.ron; 06-03-2004 at 06:41 PM.
|

06-03-2004, 06:40 PM
|
Super Moderator
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Southeast Asia
Posts: 9,026
|
|
The UN has been saying it forever. They've gone quite because the Sudan government has threaten to pull out of the peace negotiations in the Southern region. HRW and Amnesty is also making a lot of noise about it.
Your right, if the world doesn't do anything, then nobody has the right to say they are for human rights and democracy. And I mean everybody.
__________________
Spambot Killer  
|

06-03-2004, 06:41 PM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Listening to a Mariachi band on the N train
Posts: 5,707
|
|
The U.S. is making a half-assed effort at bringing this to world wide attention, and even at that, the U.S. is doing far more than most.
Looks like another full blown genocide with no one, who can bring change, doing anything about it.
|

06-03-2004, 06:43 PM
|
Super Moderator
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Southeast Asia
Posts: 9,026
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by PhiPsiRuss
The U.S. is making a half-assed effort at bringing this to world wide attention, and even at that, the U.S. is doing far more than most.
Looks like another full blown genocide with no one, who can bring change, doing anything about it.
|
This would have been the perfect time for the African Union to prove themselves. It is in their charter to go in and stop the massacre. Of course, they will not and as I've said all along the AU is nothing but a new name for the OAU.
__________________
Spambot Killer  
|

06-03-2004, 08:33 PM
|
Super Moderator
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Posts: 18,668
|
|
This is why the entire UN should be disregarded as a "peace keeping entity". That's only going to work if your country is European or you are in a country that has valuable resources.
__________________
SN -SINCE 1869-
"EXCELLING WITH HONOR"
S N E T T
Mu Tau 5, Central Oklahoma
|

06-03-2004, 09:03 PM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: NY
Posts: 8,594
|
|
Well the UN doesn't have troops. Give them a standing army if you want them to intervene a lot . . . .
Quote:
Originally posted by ktsnake
This is why the entire UN should be disregarded as a "peace keeping entity". That's only going to work if your country is European or you are in a country that has valuable resources.
|
|

06-03-2004, 09:11 PM
|
Super Moderator
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Posts: 18,668
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by James
Well the UN doesn't have troops. Give them a standing army if you want them to intervene a lot . . . .
|
Really not much of a point. When the UN did have a military force in Rwanda, Bosnia, etc. they were under such horrible rules of engagement that their effectiveness was either completely eliminated or severely crippled.
__________________
SN -SINCE 1869-
"EXCELLING WITH HONOR"
S N E T T
Mu Tau 5, Central Oklahoma
|

06-03-2004, 09:17 PM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: NY
Posts: 8,594
|
|
Yeah, godforbid your military forces killed someone . ..
Quote:
Originally posted by ktsnake
Really not much of a point. When the UN did have a military force in Rwanda, Bosnia, etc. they were under such horrible rules of engagement that their effectiveness was either completely eliminated or severely crippled.
|
|

06-04-2004, 02:53 AM
|
Super Moderator
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Southeast Asia
Posts: 9,026
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ktsnake
Really not much of a point. When the UN did have a military force in Rwanda, Bosnia, etc. they were under such horrible rules of engagement that their effectiveness was either completely eliminated or severely crippled.
|
Which tell you that they are as effective as their member would like them to be. It is the nation's in the UN, not the UN itself that set out the rules of engagement through the Security Council. In Rwanda, they did not have the authority to fight back because of the Security Counci resolution.
__________________
Spambot Killer  
|

06-04-2004, 09:39 AM
|
Super Moderator
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Posts: 18,668
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by moe.ron
Which tell you that they are as effective as their member would like them to be. It is the nation's in the UN, not the UN itself that set out the rules of engagement through the Security Council. In Rwanda, they did not have the authority to fight back because of the Security Counci resolution.
|
Ineffective is ineffective. It doesn't matter how they get to that point. The point is that they are there. It's just disappointing to a lot of us that things like this can go on in the world while there are those that could fairly easily work to stop it.
What is the French army up to these days?
__________________
SN -SINCE 1869-
"EXCELLING WITH HONOR"
S N E T T
Mu Tau 5, Central Oklahoma
|

06-04-2004, 10:22 AM
|
Super Moderator
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Southeast Asia
Posts: 9,026
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ktsnake
What is the French army up to these days?
|
Congo, Haiti, Liberia, Afghanistan, Bosnia . . .
__________________
Spambot Killer  
|

06-04-2004, 01:22 PM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Listening to a Mariachi band on the N train
Posts: 5,707
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ktsnake
What is the French army up to these days?
|
|

10-17-2006, 01:14 PM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 266
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by James
Well the UN doesn't have troops. Give them a standing army if you want them to intervene a lot . . . .
|
The UN tends not to involve itself in civil wars unless and until it becomes a state versus state conflict. Darfur is a war between neighboring people of the same race, religion, and cultural background. The UN figures, correctly perhaps, that is for local people to resolve. If the AU was stronger and less corrupt, then it could answer the call effectively. The best case scenario would be for that organization to take control of the situation - not the UN. Instead, the AU is a laughing stock.
|

04-09-2007, 01:23 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 94
|
|
Who's running this holocaust in Darfur, FEMA?
Who's running this holocaust in Darfur, FEMA?
--- the answer, highlighted in this week's column: http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi
Saddam's barbaric rape rooms, chemical attacks and torture — those, liberals could live with. But now they want us to send troops to Darfur, a country from which no one anticipates terrorism anytime in the next millennium. If you're looking for a good definition of "no imminent threat," Darfur is it. The climate change "emergency," set to start taking effect sometime during the next century, is a more imminent threat to the United States than Darfur.
These people can't even wrap up genocide. We've been hearing about this slaughter in Darfur forever — and they still haven't finished. The aggressors are moving like termites across that country. It's like genocide by committee. Who's running this holocaust in Darfur, FEMA?
This is truly a war in which we have absolutely no interest. But liberals want our boys to go fight scimitar-wielding dervishes. While the Democrats hold pointless hearings into what George Bush had for breakfast, Republicans should pass a law prohibiting liberals from mentioning Darfur until Horace Mann and Dalton are prepared to put up a battalion.
|
 |
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|