by the way, whether i know what genocide is or not, i tend to lean a bit with krem here. I dont think this is a white man thing. Take a guy in Pakistan who isn't effected by this and he wouldn't care much either. Its global politics ... its the capitalistic rich man who isn't effected by certain events and hence, he doesn't care.

Wow. A lot of "wow's" in this thread from me.

Although France apparently had some ulterior motives to opposing the war in iraq, I still agreed with their stance.

This, however, is not good.

I'm having a hard time understanding why we (the US) will ignore the UN and France for Iraq, but not for something like this.

Dolce,

I don't like bloated organizations who are slow to act.

Rwanda - No action

The Sudan - Ethnic cleansing has been going on since the mid to late 80's in full international view. No Action.

Why should anybody give credence to the UN?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=genocide

"The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group."

:wink: \:D/

Thanks, bABA.

I agree with Galia here. I think the classification of different kinds of violence is important.

thanx

Well, I personally would like to see that.

But I'm a realist. The U.S. will not go in to stop a genocide without the UN backing. It will be opposed from both sides of the aisle (the right will say that it deters from Iraq, and the left opposes anything Bush does) and by the international community, especially - you got it - France. So basically, there is no positive from this for the administration, and a LOT of negatives.

Well, here's one lefty that would be okay with it.

I think that, when dealing with situations like this, it's important to forget your political ties and labels sometimes. These people need help.

You think it would get support from international communities that belong to third world countries who've maybe not dealt with something like this but other similar problems?

These people as you say, have needed help in the last two decades and how is it going to magically appear? It is not going to happen.

Like bABA said most people in the world are not even aware and if they are they could not care any less.

Doubt it. The U.S. is the big bad bully, and anything that supports that image gets exploited.

true .. i'd heard mentions of sudan stuff only recently and i still dont know what was going on. today i heard the actual story? Do i care for them? yes. but if guys like us who WOULD give a damn have heard so little of it, what of the other people?

Hmm .. sadly, i think you're right about this one too ...

Here it is, I knew I read something about it.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... A9639C8B63

World Briefing | Africa: Sudan: Powell Will Attend Peace Signing

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell will fly to Kenya to watch the signing on Sunday of a final peace accord intended to end 21 years of fighting by the Sudanese government and its southern rebel opposition. The State Department spokesman, Richard A. Boucher, said in Jakarta, Indonesia, where Mr. Powell attended a summit meeting on tsunami relief, that the secretary of state would serve as a witness to the agreement to be signed by Lt. Gen. Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir, Sudan's president, and John Garang, the head of the Sudan People's Liberation Army. Mr. Powell is to speak with Sudanese government officials about the continuing conflict in the western region of Darfur. Scott Shane (NYT)


That's Jan. 7th I believe. looks to me like the U.N. doesn't want to intervene in this new process. As jb007 pointed out, they should have intervened long before now. I don't like not acknowledging things, it serves the collective memory no good.

On the other hand, early Jan brought some good news. Lets hope. I remember more about the country split, but can't seem to get a good article since I don't have access to the Boston Globe archives (where I think is where I read it). Anyone have informative articles about it?

bABA,

Prior to the advent of the internet and CNN to a lesser degree, international news coverage here was pitiful. The news media in India was great in covering the international news. I'm sure Pakistan was that way also. What do you think?

depends where you're looking for it.

Television news?? Crap.

All news is catered to the audience they're targeting and sadly, Pakistani news did not focus much on Africa much but when it did, the news was indeed great. I've actually learnt to rely on Pakistani newspapers more than a lot of big names out there for accurate news. There is indeed a lot of spin but its at a much lower level in the bigger newspapers there, as compared to how the news is presented anywhere in the media here in North America.

News coverage on events in the Muslim world .. great. news coverage on the western world on the global political ffront. Great (IndoPak people love politics don't they). So yea ... if anything at all effects the international community, the news services via newspaper were great!!

my main sources for news in Pakistan were 2 newspapers. Dawn (one of the best publications out there http://www.dawn.com though i find their website no where close to their paper itself). and The News (you can search for this. my dad reads it religiously every morning).

You're originally of Indian heritage?

i commented on how bad TV news was. Keep in mind when i left the country, there weer only 2 local channels, both run by the govt. i've heard there are upto 15 or so now ... i can't comment on the news quality in the television media anymore.

Are you kidding? Sometimes family members won't even talk to each other if they support different political parties. It is a great pastime.

Yep. Born and raised in Mysore, one of the most beautiful places on earth. Mysore is very different than the rest of India with the exception of Jaipur. There are six palaces in Mysore. It is just 10 miles from Srirangapatna. I bet you know about that place

How about you?

never been to Mysore though my dad might go into his thesis on the place if i ever asked him. Only been to Lucknow, Agra, Nanetal and Barreily for extended periods time.

Grew up in Karachi. Wont lie to myself. Not the prettiest but still the most funfilled memories i've ever had will come from there and no place in the world will change that anytime in my life i think. Historical in terms of recent history (last 100 or so years) though the cities been around for ages. But it's close to bhambor and Moenjodaro, ancient cities that belonged to the Indus Valley Civilization, considered one of the most advanced civilizations to have existed back in the day.

I'm going with red plaid, with a green trim, and some crisp white boxers.

we will also have to be treated with the state of his hair at this point.

Apparently if you want a Genocide, you need to do better then 70,000, that's just getting warmed up.

*shakes head*

This is simply disgusting. Seriously, the UN is a good idea, concepted with a good will. It is good in theory...But ONLY in theory. In reality, UNO is a bunch of demagogues unable to solve any conflict.

ARGH

Those are awesome places I would like to visit

That's the probloem isn't it. I wonder about it and realize how ineffective they are, but what is the alternative. I think if its "each country for itself" than 1. Too much of the national budget would have to be pumped into standing armies, and 2. Even then some countries are just not going to be able to exert pressure on other ones. What? Iceland really has people roling in their sheets at night from raw fear. On the other hand umbrella network always means conflict from within on how to exert pressure outside of it. So perhaps the whole point should be to bring people in? I'm feeling this out, but for all of the U.S. and France's disagreements, they don't actually kill eachother. Crack some smelly pompous french and idiot vulgar americans type jokes back at eachother, but that's liveable. Maybe the U.N is more like the current Euro Union apparatus for forcing to people to comply with certain standards etc? If countries want to join they have to clean up their act. I've just not noticed that countries within the actual u.n. bomb eachother. I could be wrong though, I do not know that much about it.

Part of it is also that they have such a lack of power, they pre-empt their own inability to do anything by saying that nothing existed in the first place. That way they don't lose face I guess.

And in regards to the black.white issue, I'm going to disagree. Because these discussion fail to take into acocunt history. Look, we may not consciously have anything against African countries now just for being african, but it has to do with a shift in values. We've dedided to quantify the value or a space and peoples rather than resort to skin color, but what happens during that transition? If we chose to intervene in places now where we consider the people to have and technological, cultural, or financial contributions to our lives where does that leave the countries that were already robbed of that the most in the past centuries. We (and not the u.s., i'm going back much earlier than that) forced a massive diasporic element that has broken communication and identity, stripped the area of natural resources, failed to have respect for their presence in the international community because of that, and finally in the last 30 years started to pull out without even acknowledging our own hand in the matter. Then places collapse into civil war and we have no reason to step in because after centuries of use, there isn't necessarily much left to step in for. Unless you're a humanist, then there is plenty, but that's not always viable. U.N. can't do anything because the U.S and England provide alot of the military support and they've got thier boys otherwise engaged.

One war affects the next, look at what happened in Rwanda in light of the one year earlier Somalia? When leaders make mistakes in one place, they tend to be overly cautious and outride avoid the following situation. I think this needs to be acknowledged so that the U.N and international community can start viewing this as a strategic form rather than pushing it into one of moral comfort by saying nothing really happened. We should be facing down our own guilt a little bit. Even if we realize from a technical standpoint that the time long since past when we could have assisted, or that we just don't really chose to.


Here is more on the treaty and the potential split as early as 2011:

http://money.telegraph.co.uk/news/main. ... udan10.xml

Sudan peace treaty ends long conflict – but not the fears

One of Africa's longest and deadliest civil wars was declared at an end yesterday when Sudan's government signed a peace treaty with southern rebels after decades of conflict.

But jubilation at a cacophonous ceremony in Kenya was tempered by the fact that the deal does not take into account a separate clash in the western provinces of Darfur, described by the United Nations as the world's worst humanitarian crisis.
Britain and Norway were leading brokers for the talks that led to the ceremony in Nairobi

Nor, on a continent littered with failed accords, was there overwhelming confidence of a lasting peace in the south, where two million have died and another four million have been forced to flee since fighting in 1983 opened the latest chapter in a historic conflict.

Britain and Norway were leading brokers for the talks that led to yesterday's ceremony and Tony Blair has taken a keen interest. But the role, and pressure, of the United States has been most crucial. Colin Powell, the US secretary of state, and John Danforth, the US ambassador to the United Nations, were among a host of foreign dignitaries and African leaders at the signing.

Hilary Benn, the International Development Secretary, who was present, hailed the event as "a tremendous achievement". But he also urged all parties in the continuing, separate conflict in Darfur to "take urgent steps" to resolve the crisis.

The conflict in southern Sudan has smouldered since 1956, when the country, which had been jointly administered by Britain and Egypt, became independent.

The northern elite, dominated by Arab descendents, has never looked kindly on the mainly black, non-Muslim south, the least-developed region in Sudan since pre-colonial days. Differences deepened as a succession of coups in Khartoum installed governments of an increasingly Islamist bent who gave support to Arab militia groups that raided the south for slaves.

Deep distrust between north and south remains. Yet many observers believe yesterday's treaty represents the best, and possibly last, chance for peace in the region...

Frightened of US wrath, Khartoum began serious talks with the Sudan People's Liberation Army, the main rebel group in the south, signing a series of protocols in the past three years that culminated in yesterday's treaty.

On paper, the deal looks good. Southerners will have the right to vote for secession in a referendum in 2011. In the meantime the SPLA leader, John Garang, will become vice-president of an interim government in Khartoum and head a semi-autonomous administration in the south. Revenue from oil wells in the south, which fuelled the war in its latter stages, will be divided evenly.

The issue of trust will be more difficult to overcome. The two regions are completely different, ethnically, religiously and culturally. "How can those with turbans on their heads have peace with those who wear ostrich feathers?" quipped President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda.

While there is a strong possibility that Khartoum could renege on the deal, the more immediate concern is to prevent a new war breaking out among southerners.

A number of government-armed militia groups outside the SPLA have not been party to the deal and could continue to fight a proxy war...

Dolce, it's not that the countries within the UN don't bomb each other - (the UN has virtually all the countries in the world as members. It's that democracies do not attack other democracies. That is a historical fact.

That's why it is important that Bush not just give lip service to his plan of spreading freedom around the world, but actually follows through on it. Say what you will about the Iraqi invasion, but the possibility of another Kuwait or Iran war is miniscule. The imperative now is that Saudi Arabia and Iran mend their ways too.

The UN is not just the wrong implementation of a good concept (you notice anything similar about that rhetoric? That's what some leftists like to say about the Soviet Union too). It is the wrong concept. It has failed twice already (let us not forget the League of Nations). The solution is not to assemble in yet another debating society; the solution is doing stuff within the framework of coalitions, or alone, if need be. We live in a time when most of the world problems can be solved through action; when there are many truly prosperous nations that can solve real problems. Instead, we resort to silliness such as calling Bush a chimpanzee and calling the French "cheese-eating surrender monkeys".

If you truly care about the people who live in the Middle East; if you truly care about the black people living in Africa; if you truly care about the North Koreans, then you cannot sit here and debate whether the war in Iraq is about oil and the war in Afghanistan is about the damn pipeline. You have to hope that the world takes care of these problems before those regions get consumed by another Osama bin Laden.

Those two points contradict your greater homage to democracies. Don't get me wrong, you're right about the former, but the latter just means we pick our fights with other people, not that democracies' hands are clean. You're just pretty much saying birds of a feather, that's not a surprise, and under that arguement, communists don't fight eachother either, but hey, both you and I aren't necessarily advocating them as ultimate vehicles of peace. You know there's more too it, and after the last Kuwait there hasn't been a threat of a new one since, so there goes that arguement. There was no pressing space, we could have waited until he died, or poisoned him (j/k). you know half my problems with the war are how it was handled, misinformation, manipulation, etc, not just the outright entrance.



Well is this not an attempt at a coalition that is supposed to be more easily mobilized? I don't think everyone needs to go it alone, or everyone will spend 90% of their countries budget's on arm productions. They'll sit around with them, they will be an excess of technology and a lack of other jobs and infrastructure, and that's that asking for a WWI type scenario. I think its ok for countries to agree ahead of time that they'll merge armies if need be, that frees up the respective governments to try other things as well. As far as networking, for some one who even believes in pre-emption, you realize how long it would take if some little country was invaded (or there was ethnic cleansing or whatever) and only then did countries start talking about co-ordinating and merging armies? Everyone would be dead by the time things got started. There's always been a loose network of "understanding" when it comes to warfare, ask the Spanish principalties in 1300. The kings and queens had to sort of bargain with each individual lord, but at least they already had an understanding of whom to speak with (and vice-versa the lord knew whom he had affinities towards) that expedited the process a little.



Oh spare me the melodrama, you sure as hell can argue it. And though I think it has alot to do with the resources I've argued often enough about the process, which means I do care. I think he did more to break down concepts of collaboration, I think he bullied minority groups into feeling that if they took and actions they would be terrorists so they should just lie down and role over, I think he inititiated an intense concept of the police state and I don't even know how that serves his interest. He has polarized a national community that was all for creating a strong coalition. You know how many countries offered to help and supported us right after 9/11? And look where we are now. He could have created a strong network and when Iraq wanted to join it, it would have reformed from within (just as Turkey is trying to do to get into the EU). He could have spent the time to build a long term sustained recruitment method instead of popping in with images of WMD that look an awful lot like the grainy pics that came out of Blow-Up. Even after he mishandled that situation he could have admitted his need to re-evaluate and recruit (as Powell did, and look, the rest of the world still likes Powell) and instead he made his State of the Union address about goddam highschool steroids and how the U.S. doesn't *need a permission slip.* Sure it doesn't need one, but if it was smart it would have one. Instead we have more enemies, the terrorist groups have found more sympathy and support, and able bodies, and half of the U.S. is paranoid and willing to give up their own privacy rights for some ambiguous control mechanism.

Yeah I really do care about everyone you mentioned, I just don't think it as easy as saying reform through the tip of a gun or else.