Support NeoGAF

[Ripclawe]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3840427.stm

Background here



Story here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3875277.stm

so Human rights people says its genocide
UN says its a crisis
BBC and every other news organization that has gone there says its beyond words. But its much to do about nothing.. okay then.

 

[Cooter]

Very sad.

 

[dskillzhtown]

Very sad.

Very sad that no one wants to "free the Sudan people" since there is no oil involved.

 

[MetatronM]

"I firmly believe it is a civil war and as they are little villages of 30, 40, 50, there is nothing easier than for a few armed horsemen to burn things down, to kill the men and drive out the women," he said.

Leave it to the French to come up with this kind of reasoning.

"Oh, they're not killing A LOT of people. They're just killing SOME people. Therefore, let's just ignore it and let it go away."

 

[Ripclawe]

Very sad that no one wants to "free the Sudan people" since there is no oil involved.

France led opposition to US moves at the UN over Iraq. As was the case in Iraq, it also has significant oil interests in Sudan.

 

[Smiles and Cries]

so much pain sometimes...

 

[Lil' Dice]

Where are the super Republicans now? The saviors of the free world.....
Bunch of bullshit, i bet Bush couldn't even name the continent Sudan is in....

 

[Ripclawe]

Where are the super Republicans now? The saviors of the free world.....
Bunch of bullshit, i bet Bush couldn't even name the continent Sudan is in....

Hello?

France says it does not support US plans for international sanctions on Sudan if violence continues in Darfur.
The UN Security Council is debating a US draft resolution imposing sanctions on militias accused of "ethnic cleansing" against non-Arabs.

The US also hinted that the sanctions could be extended to the government.

US also has put 40% of the money that the UN says it needed and just waiting for everyone else to put up.

 

[SFA_AOK]

Looks like France opposes sanctions but not all types of action.

 

[Phoenix]

Its a shame that many people don't read these days, attach themseleves to false yet popular misconceptions (i.e. the US gets most of its oil from the middle east), and then try to use this nonsense out in the real world.

 

[Lil' Dice]

Hello?



US also has put 40% of the money that the UN says it needed and just waiting for everyone else to put up.

LOL!....sanctions huh?
Do you know who the sanction really hurt?....Hello?

I can't believe the lack of common sense in these highly paid "politicians"...

 

[Chesapeake Silt]

Sanctions are always the best way to solve a crisis where people are getting raped, murdered, and starved to death.

 

[pollo]

shits fucked up

 

[Ripclawe]

Sanctions are always the best way to solve a crisis where people are getting raped, murdered, and starved to death.

considering the EU has ruled out sending any troops or any military action whatsoever, can you name another method since the US is already sending aid?

LOL!....sanctions huh?
Do you know who the sanction really hurt?....Hello?

of course.. instead of getting raped, killed or burned out of their villages in one day, it would happen in half a day or something. Since its a segment of the population doing the genocide, my sympathy for them is about nil.

 

[Che]

Deja vu. This reminds me when US and a couple of other countries were trying (and succeeded if I remember well) not to be called genocide the massacre of 500,000 (mayby more) people in Rwanda so that they don't have to interfere. You see the damn Rwanda doesn't have oil. Well... too bad for them.

 

[Ripclawe]

Deja vu. This reminds me when US and a couple of other countries were trying (and succeeded if I remember well) not to be called genocide the massacre of 500,000 (mayby more) people in Rwanda so that they don't have to interfere. You see the damn Rwanda doesn't have oil. Well... too bad for them.

funny thing about that is Rwanda leaders hold France directly responsible for that genocide.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/03/17/wrwan17.xml

and then there is the whole Ivory Coast business.

 

[Lil' Dice]

considering the EU has ruled out sending any troops or any military action whatsoever, can you name another method since the US is already sending aid?



of course.. instead of getting raped, killed or burned out of their villages in one day, it would happen in half a day or something. Since its a segment of the population doing the genocide, my sympathy for them is about nil.

Sanctions means that those with power(the ones commiting the atrocities) will control what little resources are atrickling in, meaning that people will still be killed; except that they'll be killed much more effortlessly since they'll be emaciated from starvation.

 

[Funky Papa]

African politics and conflicts can't be approached with such simplicity. Most of times when a nation is willing to send aid to an african country in war it is to gain their sympathy or in exchange for something with the local -crooked government, since most of that food is going to end in the military stomach. Nobody is going to enforce the fair distribution, the blue helmets are just scarecrows with little to none intention to fuck around with the rebels or the local forces. At their best they will just give the food or medical goods to the people, and then those will be savaged and robbed when they get out of the UN perimeter, all with the local government/ruling rebel group consentement.

Seriously, most Africa is a hellhole, nobody wants to put soldiers on their soil for a good reason (except the old metropolis, which will send happily their green berets and mercenaries to protect the national monopolies). France is probably defending their interests, while the amicable countries, so well intentioned now, didn't gave a fuck when the situation was already terrific but stable, and now they are trying to get a piece of the cake taking advantage of the situation (and proclaming themselves the good while taking a piss on the french).

Sometimes I think that the only way to heal Africa is to nuke the hell out of the continent. I know a photographer from an old work that was unemployed due a depression for almost a year after being in Zimbabwe some time ago.

 

[Phoenix]

Sometimes I think that the only way to heal Africa is to nuke the hell out of the continent.

Solve the continents problems by killing everyone there - genius! Do you have a pamphlet or newsletter I could subscribe to?

 

[Funky Papa]

Solve the continents problems by killing everyone there - genius! Do you have a pamphlet or newsletter I could subscribe to?

I was being ironic. I don't think there is nobody here so stupid to say that seriously.

 

[Che]

funny thing about that is Rwanda leaders hold France directly responsible for that genocide.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/03/17/wrwan17.xml

and then there is the whole Ivory Coast business.

*shakes head*

"Once the genocide was launched after April 6, 1994, the American government,
steadfastly backed by the British government, were primarily responsible for
the failure of the UN Security Council to reinforce its puny mission to
Rwanda. Under no circumstances were these governments prepared to budge. The
Commander of the UN force - UNAMIR - repeatedly pleaded for reinforcements,
and was repeatedly turned down."

http://www.peace.ca/afwhy_we_must_never_forget_the_rwa.htm

Also check this out - it's a wonderful link:

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/global/121799rwanda-un.html

The only thing you got is an interview of a US's sidekick who's also a murderer and a criminal:

http://www.inshuti.org/kagame6.htm

You sir were pwned... *edit*: again.

 

[Che]

Seriously, most Africa is a hellhole, nobody want's to put soldiers on their soil for a good reason (except the old metropolis, which will send happily their green berets and mercenaries to protect the national monopolies).

Iraq is a hellhole too but US was more than willing to "put" their soldiers there, weren't they?

 

[The Fronde]

I'm always amazed at the prevalence of "well your country sucks too!" replies in threads like these. Whoever's done what in the past, the civilians in Sudan are in a really bad situation. I think Funky Papa makes a good point about the scarce supplies trickling in going into military hands, but at the same time France seems unwilling to do ANYTHING concrete and shamelessly excuse away what's happening.

If the U.S. has done similar things in the past, it was wrong. But in the here and now France is wrong. You might make the case that they feel that sanctions will be taken out on the people, except that they're opposing initial arms sanctions even and here you have this junior foreign minister feeding bullshit to the press. Sudan's said that they'll disarm the militia and the world is watching them. If the situation escalates and they don't keep their word, we'll see who is for and against sending in those 15,000 troops. Reserve judgment until then.*

* Final judgment over who stood by and let this happen unchallenged that is. Obviously I feel France is wrong NOW to make excuses for oil, but I'll reserve my final judgment until they either approve or reject plans to go in, if they're needed.

 

[Funky Papa]

but at the same time France seems unwilling to do ANYTHING concrete and shamelessly excuse away what's happening.

Mostly because they are profiting with the current situation. France, Belgium and the UK are well knowed for their dirty african interests.

The sad thing is that very few people know about the diamond wars for example, and how their governments are involved (including mercenary firms from South Africa, France, UK and the US among others)

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

Sometimes I think that the only way to heal Africa is to nuke the hell out of the continent. I know a photographer from an old work that was unemployed due a depression for almost a year after being in Zimbabwe some time ago.

he recently committed suicide as a result.

 

[Che]

I'm always amazed at the prevalence of "well your country sucks too!" replies in threads like these. Whoever's done what in the past, the civilians in Sudan are in a really bad situation. I think Funky Papa makes a good point about the scarce supplies trickling in going into military hands, but at the same time France seems unwilling to do ANYTHING concrete and shamelessly excuse away what's happening.

If the U.S. has done similar things in the past, it was wrong. But in the here and now France is wrong. You might make the case that they feel that sanctions will be taken out on the people, except that they're opposing initial arms sanctions even and here you have this junior foreign minister feeding bullshit to the press. Sudan's said that they'll disarm the militia and the world is watching them. If the situation escalates and they don't keep their word, we'll see who is for and against sending in those 15,000 troops. Reserve judgment until then.

Well to tell you the truth this wasn't my intent. I just wanted to make Ripclawe look like a fool he is once again since the guy not only doesn't admit US's flaws he also attacks other countries who considers enemies(eg. france and germany which are his main targets for not agreeing with US to start an aggressive war against Iraq).

 

[FightyF]

The solution is not sanctions. Perhaps Bush wants to set up another Food for Oil plan?

Send in a multinational force to clear up the situation. Do the exact same thing we did in Kosovo/Bosnia, but don't f*ck it up this time.

 

[Ripclawe]

Send in a multinational force to clear up the situation. Do the exact same thing we did in Kosovo/Bosnia, but don't f*ck it up this time

That would require kicking the UN out, who have pissed off the people in Kosovo so much they are demanding their independence now.

You sir were pwned... *edit*: again.

Really? considering I posted on the old board about Clinton deliberately not doing a damn thing about Rwanda even when it became clear something had to be done....err. not "pwned" The accusations were not made by just one man

Diplomats and witnesses to the genocide have often accused France of tacit involvement, but Mr Kagame's comments are the most explicit statement of the allegations.

Of course you remember the black box incident at the UN in regards to Rwanda.

The only thing you got is an interview of a US's sidekick who's also a murderer and a criminal:

considering he is being accused by people who themselves are war criminals, eh.

oh..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/rwanda/story/0,14451,1188187,00.html

France had ties to the regime of extremists from Rwanda's Hutu majority that carried out the genocide, and its soldiers helped to train the Rwandan army. But French officials have repeatedly denied that France aided or directed Hutu forces that slaughtered Tutsis.

Not just one paper or "interview" its made the rounds thanks.

 

[Ripclawe]

Iraq is a hellhole too but US was more than willing to "put" their soldiers there, weren't they?

hellhole doesn't begin to describe most of sub-sahara Africa BTW, its in its own category of hellishness.

 

[FightyF]

That would require kicking the UN out, who have pissed off the people in Kosovo so much they are demanding their independence now.

Whoa hold your horses, you are trying to hit too many points at once, when I first read this I didn't understand what the Hell you were talking about.

The multinational force could include the UN. It simply depends on if the UN SC agrees to undertake such a mission. If they don't, then they can leave.

The thing is...France (with it's power in the UN) was circumvented by the US by building a coalition outside the juristiction of the UN. Why aren't they doing the same now?

People are just pointing out the hypocracy...that's all.

 

[Lil' Dice]

Well, then RELEASE THE HOUNDS!!

 

[Che]

That would require kicking the UN out, who have pissed off the people in Kosovo so much they are demanding their independence now.




Really? considering I posted on the old board about Clinton deliberately not doing a damn thing about Rwanda even when it became clear something had to be done....err. not "pwned" The accusations were not made by just one man



Of course you remember the black box incident at the UN in regards to Rwanda.



considering he is being accused by people who themselves are war criminals, eh.

oh..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/rwanda/story/0,14451,1188187,00.html



Not just one paper or "interview" its made the rounds thanks.

You just don't quit do you? What didn't you understand that Kagame is USA's sidekick or do you want more links of organizations and people blaming US for this genocide? If you want I'll happilly give them to you.

 

[Che]

hellhole doesn't begin to describe most of sub-sahara Africa BTW, its in its own category of hellishness.

Wow finally we found out why US attacked Iraq but never interfered in Africa. Cos Africa is hellish!

 

[StoOgE]

Good for them.

Sanctions almost never hurt the people that they are supposed to, they wind up hurting the people that you are trying to help. In fact, Sanctions are generally considered to be used to make the peoples lives so terrible that they will turn on their own government.

If you want to do something in Sudan we should drop tends of thousands of troups in there now and start beating the shit out of them... like we should have done in Rwanda, but at the end of the day our troups are spread to thin because of a bullshit war, so we cant go in to conflicts that really matter.. but I suppose it doesnt matter because we would likely never go to war over this either way.

In any case, the European powers should be put in charge of cleaning this mess up, they are the ones that bent the entire continent of Africa over and gave it a smooth butfucking at the turn of the century.

 

[Slurpy]

And sanctions will accomplish fucking what? Peacekeepers, humanitarian support is one thing. Sanctions are another, and I don't see how they will help these people.

 

[FightyF]

It almost seems that in some cases...sanctions are supposed to hurt ordinary people, and to put pressure on the government to align themselves with the sanctioner.

It's a lot like terrorism, in that kind of situation.

Of course, there are other situations that make perfect sense, for example, if a country is spending a lot on military spending that could lead to WMDs. Obviously this money is being taken from the people, and the flow of it must be stopped ASAP. In other cases (Pakistan, possibly Libya) it has nothing to do with any emminent threat, it has more to do with wanting them to be your b*tch, and so you slap some sanctions on if they don't comply.

 

[Ripclawe]

Wow finally we found out why US attacked Iraq but never interfered in Africa. Cos Africa is hellish!

more than hellish, but some updates.

Systematic Slaughter Unfolds in Sudan

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4297364,00.html

Seems just too many dark people on the land so lets kill'em.


2)
Interesting map showing a very good reason why France doesn't want any disruption that could harm Sudan, the southern area is is just now calming down from a war that involved northern and south sudan which the United States had a hand in anything major to happen in the darfur regions will then affect the southern part as well.


http://hrw.org/reports/2003/sudan1103/2.htm

 

[Wolfy]

I'm surprised people are still using the oil argument to blast iraq invasion. There are so many reasons to bash it, and you use "omg we wanted oil so we sent one hundred thirty thousand soldier to get it ogmomgomg blood for oil"? Come on.

 

[Ripclawe]

Whoa hold your horses, you are trying to hit too many points at once, when I first read this I didn't understand what the Hell you were talking about.

The multinational force could include the UN. It simply depends on if the UN SC agrees to undertake such a mission. If they don't, then they can leave.

The thing is...France (with it's power in the UN) was circumvented by the US by building a coalition outside the juristiction of the UN. Why aren't they doing the same now?

People are just pointing out the hypocracy...that's all.

who France or the US? most countries won't bother going to Africa just because its Africa and as the map above pointed out oil interests which is why France is throwing all sort of roadblocks where the only viable worthwhile thing is Sanctions. EU aren't going to send a fighting troops to Sudan to kill because that would require killing off all the militia something the UN won't allow in the first place. UN peacekeeping troops are pathetic and its rules won't let them stop any killings in the first place.

 

[Slurpy]

I'm surprised people are still using the oil argument to blast iraq invasion. There are so many reasons to bash it, and you use "omg we wanted oil so we sent one hundred thirty thousand soldier to get it ogmomgomg blood for oil"? Come on.

Yeah. But amazingly, its still so much more believable than 'we sent one hundred thirty thousand soldiers to make iraqis happy!!!111' bullshit that is being spewed now.

 

[Shompola]

"In any case, the European powers should be put in charge of cleaning this mess up, they are the ones that bent the entire continent of Africa over and gave it a smooth butfucking at the turn of the century."

I agree with that.

 

[FightyF]

UN peacekeeping troops are pathetic and its rules won't let them stop any killings in the first place.

Which is why I'm saying that the UN should be circumvented...like the Iraq situation.

But this goes back to the main point, the US wouldn't really want to involve itself in Sudan because there is little to gain from doing so.

In any case, the European powers should be put in charge of cleaning this mess up, they are the ones that bent the entire continent of Africa over and gave it a smooth butfucking at the turn of the century.

And that is the case the applies to Kashmir, Kuwait, Israel/Palestine, and the entire continent of Africa. It leaves the impression that the Colonizing powers didn't mind leaving those places and causing problems at the same time.