No.. don't think anyone is suggesting that. A military presence needs to be balanced and each nation needs to subscribe to this - it's not the responsibility of one nation to get embedded in UN peacekeeping action.

There are now "issues" with the Sudan govt where they refuse UN access - tho that's being worked upon.

I don't think it's a zero sum issue but if it does take moving troops out of Iraq until peace is restored in Darfur than I'm for it.

I'm sure that if the public demanded that Darfur was restored before anymore involvment in Iraq could continue the bush administration would take action ASAP.

PS There is little "jungle" there either Sly - mainly desert area and also a famine area.

Of course, I know that. But many in this very thread are suggesting that the United States do something. Do what? Stand at the UN pulpit and demand that something be done? Thats already been tried. Now what?

Overthrow the government, setup a temp government only so that it can be overthrown in 2 years by an Islamic militia?

Yes I know. Sudan has various geographic regions, Darfur just plain blows goats.

i'm sorry.. .was costa rica leading the way to stopping the genocide in darfur? not sure what point you are trying to make.

i was making the simple point that countries act out of selfish interests... even when its when its a question of millions of people being murdered. not sure why you can't wrap your head around that. 2 million Rwandans who were butchered to death while their countries leaders gave speechs about peace and happiness at the UN could have used your unwaivering support and tireless action and inspiring self sacrifice.

why do we not see amrican soldiers there?

US should go through the UN. If the UN doesn't go then they should try NATO. If NATO doesn't act then they should go at it alone we are talking about genocide here. This has got to be the easiest issue to take a stand on if the UN can't act on this issue then the US should drop out of the UN and kick them out of New York.

ahh the good old "lets show some footage of dead people and hope for sympathy"

this has all been before the UN a few times.

That all sounds great, except both the UN and NATO have a hard enough time getting troop commitments for Lebanon and Afghanistan... two situations that actually have an impact on the world. Sudan, where militias are running around chopping off heads and raping little girls... nobody is going to throw there troops in that. We're crazy enough to do it, cuz we're war mongers!

Oh and NATO really has no business doing that anyway. It has nothing that I can see would match up with their core mission.

Sure.. agree KRL.. Tho corruption is not only in Africa :winkwink: There is corruption at much higher monetory levels in the civilized world.

Of course there is a problem when there is little or no education - that's the same everywhere.

When folks have no food, little shelter and living under a thug as a leader - you are asking them to look after themselves??? Another few hundred will not even be alive in the morning thru starvation - forget killings by the govt.

Ignoring the swamp life leadership for a moment and the Dafur problem only. One of the main problems is starvation. It is *very* cheap to keep people alive and it is possible to give them self-sustainabilty and allow them to take care of themselves. (Can give ya plenty examples - and aid is available for this)

You are correct in that a number of African govts care little for the people and they can often be the main obstacle to letting people be given food.

Example... got a friend who worked there for.. forget, a few years. He developed a method of growning veg in the desert. This involved around 3000 people who were the "test subjects" for his work. They all played a role and created food from the desert.

The cost of this was very little in that it kept people alive - and they are very willing to work to stay alive :) Eventually his plan was adopted by the UN to be implemented in regions such as Dafur (and he was awarded *something* and full credit and recognition by the UN for his work).

The problem is basically the UN needs access to these areas to even being to start work of making the regions self-sustainable. OK.. There are two "front lines" - one is immediate assistance where people will be dead by dawn. The second "front line" is establishing sustainability to enable them to cater for their own needs, - then allow them to establish some form of domestic "industry".

It's not the responsibilty of the US to do this - tho no doubts any help is appreciated under these circumstances. Other nations need to step up and take some positive action - this has not been happening - for years. Coupled with that, you are 100% correct on the crass level of govt in several of those countries - it's not an easy problem to deal with, but involves hundreds of 1000's of lives. It's an easy stat to read - but on a personal face-to-face level - an utter tragedy that any human being can be allowed to live under these conditions for years.

Prob the best equipped orgs with experience in handling these issues (also via the various "subsidiaries") is the UN. They have more qualified personnel than any nation. But - they need the tools and support to even being to start this job and have been asking for years for this - meantime working with the "tools" they have.

For critics of the UN - nothing is perfect, (the "club" is as perfect as it's members), but chances are your country is a UN member and would question what your country is prepared to do in it's role as a member of the international community. OK.. Enough :)

I made no point. You spewed your usual total ignorance.

Agree Sly - it's not really the function of NATO and military assistance in peacekeeping operations is only a very small segment of the solution. It needs a lot of logistical support via many agencies to keep an operation like that moving and troops are certainly not geared to this area of work.

The UN guy who has been trying to align nations together (not just troop suport) has admitted it is a bloody nightmare trying to get nations to agree to this and that. But appears he's got a shell together, but now, the Sudanese govt are raising objections... never ends.

the funny thing is that i kinda like you. i suspect that we are far more similar than different. we are both here for the same reason anyway... boredom and diversion from work.

We all talk bollocks - and sure as hell we are no different :winkwink: :thumbsup






You are correct PP - I'm just taking a week off to waste time on the net - and think up more commercial angles to attack next - and hide from everyone else who actually work. It's good thinking time *s*

If you ever needed proof as how useless the UN has become, just look to Darfuf. The UN is great a passing resolutions, and that's about the extent of its modern day power.

Did you read the thread you escapee Costa Rica resident? :winkwink:

That's exactly what I was saying - simply blaming the UN for Dafur is like blaming yourself for not bothering to pay your dues to the UN club. The UN, specifically Mr Annan, has been pressuring UN members for years and asking them to get off their fat asses and make an effort to feed the thinner asses in places like Dafur. He regards that as *the* biggest failure and regret in his life that he never succeeded in getting nations together to hopefully resolve this problem. So, if that means "blame the UN" - so be it.

Fair, informative, and concise. :thumbsup

We actually had a national fundraiser yesterday for Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières...

People of Norway gave roughly $30 million to their work in Darfur.. the highest amount ever in the yearly fundraiser

i'm doing what I can to help these people

wow, glad to see that there's at least one country that did something about it

I believe part of the problem with the UN in this situation is with its charter. Basically the UN is for dealing with problems between nations, not within a nation such as Sudan, or as was the case in Rwanda.

It's a shame they don't have any oil over there! we would be there to stop it:mad:

Well soon will humanitarian action rock for darfur so i hope that will help

Na they do.. Lot's of oil deposits have been found in Africa. Ask the French or the English why they sit around and bitch at the US for what we have done in the middle east. Yet they sit around and watch what they have caused via colonialism in Africa. Hell in reality they caused much of the issues in the middle east as well.

Besides that Sudan is buddy buddy with China now, so no way is the US or any other western country going to help them out. Which begs the question, if China is going to be such a great economical power.. why can't they be bothered to help?

Then again look at their human rights record and yea get the picture. You guys think the US is bad when it comes to what we have done around the world. Well look at your history books and look at what the French and the British have done before us. Then just wait and see what China does they will be the worst yet.

its not the only genocide going on in the world. and its been going on for years, why are people crying all of a sudden?

The UN has troops ready to go, and has had them ready for a long time now.

The problem is that Sudan won't let them. Noone is very interested in starting a war against Sudan with the goal of helping the sudanese people, that'd be a bit counterproductive.

Coz it's still and will always be a horrible thing to hear.

it's kinda screwed up, because the us and its allies get so much shit for attacking countries they avoid going in when there are no long term benefits...sucks to be sudanese now and its not like the UN will to anything but write angry letters..