[url]http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/02/01/sudan.darfur.un.reut/index.html[/url]

Surprised about me, the 'European liberal' saying this? Not after you read this. They still refuse to call the atrocities in Sudan a genocide, and want a court to decide over this: International Court in The Hague. Riiiiigghhtttt....no way they will cal it a genocide...

The proposal for a UN-AU court in Tanzania is way better IMHO: has more legitimacy among African leaders, and creates a more objective appearance. By keeping the court here, it's almost like colonial times are coming back: we punish the bad Africans, they are not capable of managing themselves, right?

Russia and China still oppose sanctions against Sudan...wouldn't have anything to do with oil, perhaps? No? I don't believe it. On the other hand, Russia has already pledged to send in equipment and peacekeeping troops, thoug it is not specified yet what kind of units those will be.

[quote]In deciding against using the term genocide for Darfur -- as the United States did last year -- the commission said "the crucial element of genocidal intent appears to be missing."

Under the 1948 Genocide Convention, drawn up after the Holocaust, governments are obliged to "prevent and punish genocide, defined as the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group."[/quote]

Against? Maybe, but at least Powell and Bush had the guts to use the word, even though in the end there was decided against it. Europe never dares to use it, even when it?s almost complete, just like in Rwanda. So why the accusations to the US? It is happening on a smaller scale now, but don?t tell me burning down and looting villages is part of counterinsurgency tactics. Fuck this weak attitude.

I did a study and paper on the Rwanda genocides, which we'll be treating next week in the UN Security Council class...I'm gonna make some statements and flame the guy. :twisted:

Re: This time I agree with the US

dont be a super "100% of the time" liberal, use your common sense. ie get tough on the things that need to be and give every freedom possible.

though you are 100 percent correct here. but the sad thing is that when someone finally goes in there to end this whole crisis and attempt to institute a reasonable gov't, even you have to admit the ultra liberal left wing will be crying about they posed no immediate harm to anyone but themselves and furthermore, once the civilian death passes 20 every moron will be crying about how that nation/s is killing innocents much like they are now with the US/UK led coalition.

what are you looking into for a career btw?

Re: This time I agree with the US

Hey, over here people don't even consider me liberal, was just referring to the fact that most US posters here look at Europeans as quite liberal. I've accused of that a few times :wink: I hate those labels as a matter of fact, but people will always use them.

I guess you're right about those reactions, but this time everyone agrees it's bad things happening there, but now they're fighting over what to do...? This UNSC is showing no cohesion whatsoever in this case, nobody's doing a thing richt now (except for the few African peacekeepers in there)...right now I'd rather see the UNSC shut up and have a few countries in there that don't give a damn about political correctness but want to end this shit. But France has no ties with Sudan, it's Russia and China. And they're working throug the council, but also protecting Al-Bashir against sanctions.

To your last question: Dunno what kind of carreer I will pursue...will deffo be something political, maybe in diplomacy, or in journalism. I do African Studies at Leiden University, with a focus on politics and development. Enough directions to choose from there...just as long as I can leave this

THE ONLY THING Is that the UN military op's have NEVER been successful. well, at least not in the past 15 years or so. and those rebels have obviously no fear of the peacekeeping forces, frankly because they know the peacekeeping forces will only do something offensive if they are shot at. someone(will end up being US, UK, or russia) has to go in and subdue the rebels and hand the country back to the people. it will take violence to end violence when the rebels wont stop.

if given the "go-card", and barring massive scrutiny, there will be a lot of fighting. trust me, the modern day millitary forces are something very scary. mind you, only one major unit of the US forces is operating in iraq with assistance from the Air force in a lesser degree. that is only because of the unilateral motivation behind it. if asked, the US and russia can deploy a might unlike nothing ever seen before. unfortunetly, if used to stop the genocides committed by the rebels throughout the african continent, the majority of the world will frown upon those nations that participate. :cry: :? :|

china and russia are making money in selling them weapons why would they want to stop it.

[quote=thesightless]THE ONLY THING Is that the UN military op's have NEVER been successful. well, at least not in the past 15 years or so. and those rebels have obviously no fear of the peacekeeping forces, frankly because they know the peacekeeping forces will only do something offensive if they are shot at. someone(will end up being US, UK, or russia) has to go in and subdue the rebels and hand the country back to the people. it will take violence to end violence when the rebels wont stop.[/quote]

Not defending the UN here, but: the UN's military ops have been few, and when condicted, they have only been sent in a passive role, never in the same role the US forces have now. It is a mixture between those two that I advocate, and I do agree with you: sometimes only violence can stop violence. We have the power to do some serious damage, but if all we do is stand by and watch, who'll take us seriously?

Thing is, because of the totally different nature of UN ops, they aren't really comparable to US ops. When present, US troops have always been proactive, which most of the time was NOT in line with the mandate. In certain cases that was applaudable IMO though :wink:

[quote=thesightless]if given the "go-card", and barring massive scrutiny, there will be a lot of fighting. trust me, the modern day millitary forces are something very scary. mind you, only one major unit of the US forces is operating in iraq with assistance from the Air force in a lesser degree. that is only because of the unilateral motivation behind it. if asked, the US and russia can deploy a might unlike nothing ever seen before. unfortunetly, if used to stop the genocides committed by the rebels throughout the african continent, the majority of the world will frown upon those nations that participate. :cry: :? :|[/quote]

Are you sure? I hear sounds about a possible reinstallment of the draft...that makes me doubt the accuracy of what your telling me about your numbers. Doesn't mean my info is correct, but I'm a bit confused. If Russia was/is to deploy it's forces in Sudan, it will only be to protect it's interests. Other than that, it really has nothing to do there as far as I know. What makes it more surprising that they're so eager to do this one, is their current lack of financial resources to back up an operation on such large scale, and the fact that they're still at war in Chechnya...I'd think Putin has enough trouble on his mind without going into Africa!

Yao - seems to me like another rwanda,kosovo,irag,srebrenica etc - i.e. govts pissing about deciding on what to do and searching for 'definition' when people are getting slaughtered daily.Sad way of the world I guess

Yupz....

the ""draft" bill was proposed by a hardcore and VERY small group of senators,. it only got mentioned b/c it was seconded by someone else and put on the dockett for review, nothing ever happened to it after.

and there really isnt any ""in-between" regarding the proactive and reactive measures. you are either being shot at or shooting at those who will shoot you. trust me i have been there.

its so sad that everybody wants peace, but no one is willing to go after it.... all the people who are anti war are the same people who are scream about the bad things that happen before war settles things. and yes, it will inevitably come down to another war, albeit a chance of not being a US lead one, to solve the african crisis. you will have to kill the rebels b/c they will continue to do what they have until they either win or die. at least we can be happy that Bush will go in, and give it 100% to get it done. we cant have another vietnam where the 2 major political parties and foreign pressure will delay massive operations and lead to turmoil within the war zone, frankly b/c he doesnt give a fuck about what others say, he does what he believes is right and neccessary. (which is also bad , i.e. gay marriage, and some other items.)

thankfully the rebels in haiti stood by thier word and disarmed the moment thier voices were heard. they werent seeking power, just an end to what the leadership was pulling.

Re: This time I agree with the US

[quote=Yao]Against? Maybe, but at least Powell and Bush had the guts to use the word, even though in the end there was decided against it. Europe never dares to use it, even when it?s almost complete, just like in Rwanda. So why the accusations to the US? It is happening on a smaller scale now, but don?t tell me burning down and looting villages is part of counterinsurgency tactics. Fuck this weak attitude.

I did a study and paper on the Rwanda genocides, which we'll be treating next week in the UN Security Council class...I'm gonna make some statements and flame the guy. :twisted:[/quote]

Yeah global politics is ridiculous these days. Bush and his administration try way to hard to make everything black and white (which I prefer slightly) and most other international leaders are so fickle its hard to figure out what their beliefs are. Now that the election is over I'm washing my hands of politics, besides, international politics has become nothing more than a battle of ego. This is just the feeling out phase. The international community is trying to figure out how far they can push us to make us obey the wishes of the U.N., EU, etc; and the U.S. is seeing how much we can do before the onslaught of never-ending nagging and isolation starts making traitors out of our own people (read Ted Kennedy and his lot). Its a sad time but it will pass. As the people of this political era fade away, new politicians will replace them and their antiquated games..........hopefully.