Darfur

Eulux · 17th March 2007, 07:01 AM

For those that do not know the situation, here's a brief rundown:

darfur is a region of sudan.
in 05 there was a UN summit to discuss atrocities committed across the seas and such. New council formed called the Human Rights Council (henceforth referred to as HRC).
may 2006 sudanese gov worked a ceasefire with darfuri rebels...UN agreed to send in peacekeepers to make sure everything was gravy.

Now:

the sudanese government refuses to allow the deployment of the UN peacekeeping force. among the locals, their freetime is spent raping or being raped, murdering or being murdered, starving, or a slight few peacefully protesting. all the while, what is the HRC doing? from the article I read, they have received a briefing pertaining to the going-ons in darfur...so..the un is gonna do something right?

hmmmm...most think the HRC will reject the report...and the security council will do nothing.

now. the question I put forth to y'all is this:

why are we in iraq and not in darfur kicking some ass in the name of humanitarianism? instead of oil?

discuss.

odin_dax · 19th March 2007, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eulux

For those that do not know the situation, here's a brief rundown:

darfur is a region of sudan.
in 05 there was a UN summit to discuss atrocities committed across the seas and such. New council formed called the Human Rights Council (henceforth referred to as HRC).
may 2006 sudanese gov worked a ceasefire with darfuri rebels...UN agreed to send in peacekeepers to make sure everything was gravy.

Now:

the sudanese government refuses to allow the deployment of the UN peacekeeping force. among the locals, their freetime is spent raping or being raped, murdering or being murdered, starving, or a slight few peacefully protesting. all the while, what is the HRC doing? from the article I read, they have received a briefing pertaining to the going-ons in darfur...so..the un is gonna do something right?

hmmmm...most think the HRC will reject the report...and the security council will do nothing.

now. the question I put forth to y'all is this:

why are we in iraq and not in darfur kicking some ass in the name of humanitarianism? instead of oil?

discuss.

I remember reading about this before it was brought into the public spotlight. I'm glad something's finally being done, but I doubt anything will seriously be changed in ten years.

Stone · 19th March 2007, 10:02 PM

And what about Rwanda? Or Bosnia? Or Somalia? Or Palestine? The list could go on for ages.

Is there even a point in hoping that something will be done in Sudan? My fucking hole there isn't. The UN are a bunch of spineless wasters. The USA is a greedy fat man obsessed with consuming everybody else's dinner and dessert, then gassing them with farts. The EU is a bunch of bureaucratic toffs. Nowhere else either has the power or else just doesn't give a fuck.

Eulux · 20th March 2007, 06:44 AM

we already went to bosnia and somolia...we straightened out those places, we sure did...

anyways...very good point...y'know, everyone always bitches about why the US does this and why the US doesn't do that, (myself included) but probably a better question would be, why doesn't anyone else do anything? those are third world countries, and I can easily count 10 countries that could perhaps intervene...but...should we?

Heavy_'TalMeMan · 20th March 2007, 07:44 AM

Well, does the U.S. actually do anything that does not further their interests one way or the other? We all know the government is run by greedy hogs who use Orwellian ideology to further their own personal agenda. What would make people in government give a damn fuck about some small-ass country on the other side of the earth? The U.S. may be considered the world's watchdog but not surprisingly there is vested interest, one way or the other.

Stone · 20th March 2007, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eulux

we already went to bosnia and somolia...we straightened out those places, we sure did...

Um... No... Straightened them out? I don't think so...

Eulux · 20th March 2007, 11:16 AM

the italics were supposed to denote sarcasm...

odin_dax · 20th March 2007, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stone

And what about Rwanda? Or Bosnia? Or Somalia? Or Palestine? The list could go on for ages.

Is there even a point in hoping that something will be done in Sudan? My fucking hole there isn't. The UN are a bunch of spineless wasters. The USA is a greedy fat man obsessed with consuming everybody else's dinner and dessert, then gassing them with farts. The EU is a bunch of bureaucratic toffs. Nowhere else either has the power or else just doesn't give a fuck.

Very true. UN and EU are worthless. The US fights and pays for most of the UN anyway.

Axxess of Evil · 18th February 2008, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eulux

now. the question I put forth to y'all is this:

why are we in iraq and not in darfur kicking some ass in the name of humanitarianism? instead of oil?

discuss.

Because it isn't America's job to run around and police the world.

Nemesix · 18th February 2008, 06:29 AM

oil means fuel, it means jobs, it means a stronger economy, it means that our country will be stronger. in other words who care that people are dieing when we can have more money? gota love humanity.

odin_dax · 18th February 2008, 11:23 AM

Let us not forget Saddam was a mass murderer and torturer who experimented with bio weapons. Shit, why is it so easy for everybody to forget that?

Let us not forget that the new Iraqi government honors all the old oil contracts, so the US isn't getting tons and tons of new oil.

Let us not forget that Bush is one of the very few leaders in the world to call what's happening in Darfur "genocide."

The UN was created just for this purpose. Whether you may or may not know it, Sudan has lots of oil too! Yes, that's right! Oh, but the US is not rushing over there.

I wish people would get their facts straight and keep their stupid assumptions to themselves. The US is not Iraq for oil!

Eulux · 21st February 2008, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Because it isn't America's job to run around and police the world.

oh, ye of little...reading. the article is about the UN, not the US. this board is a culturally diverse place, it would be foolhardy for me to say "we" and mean the US.

Quote:

Originally Posted by odin_dax

The UN was created just for this purpose. Whether you may or may not know it, Sudan has lots of oil too! Yes, that's right! Oh, but the US is not rushing over there.

I wish people would get their facts straight and keep their stupid assumptions to themselves. The US is not Iraq for oil!

he understands...for the most part. oil...are we there for that? doubtful, I just find it hilarious to bring it up.

but he understands that when I say "we" I mean the UN. just to update on the situation...nothing major happening about it currently. honestly is a shame...

Axxess of Evil · 22nd February 2008, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eulux

oh, ye of little...reading. the article is about the UN, not the US. this board is a culturally diverse place, it would be foolhardy for me to say "we" and mean the US.

Who always gets sent to do the UN's dirty work?

17th March 2007, 07:01 AM	#1
Eulux Rorta Regular Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Houston Posts: 280	Darfur For those that do not know the situation, here's a brief rundown: darfur is a region of sudan. in 05 there was a UN summit to discuss atrocities committed across the seas and such. New council formed called the Human Rights Council (henceforth referred to as HRC). may 2006 sudanese gov worked a ceasefire with darfuri rebels...UN agreed to send in peacekeepers to make sure everything was gravy. Now: the sudanese government refuses to allow the deployment of the UN peacekeeping force. among the locals, their freetime is spent raping or being raped, murdering or being murdered, starving, or a slight few peacefully protesting. all the while, what is the HRC doing? from the article I read, they have received a briefing pertaining to the going-ons in darfur...so..the un is gonna do something right? hmmmm...most think the HRC will reject the report...and the security council will do nothing. now. the question I put forth to y'all is this: why are we in iraq and not in darfur kicking some ass in the name of humanitarianism? instead of oil? discuss. __________________ "What strikes me is the fact that in our society, art has become something which is only related to objects, and not to individuals, or to life." -Foucault

20th March 2007, 06:44 AM	#4
Eulux Rorta Regular Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Houston Posts: 280	we already went to bosnia and somolia...we straightened out those places, we sure did... anyways...very good point...y'know, everyone always bitches about why the US does this and why the US doesn't do that, (myself included) but probably a better question would be, why doesn't anyone else do anything? those are third world countries, and I can easily count 10 countries that could perhaps intervene...but...should we? __________________ "What strikes me is the fact that in our society, art has become something which is only related to objects, and not to individuals, or to life." -Foucault

20th March 2007, 07:44 AM	#5
Heavy_'TalMeMan Keeper of Ultimate Sin Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: in Dungeons of Deepest Darkness Posts: 198	Well, does the U.S. actually do anything that does not further their interests one way or the other? We all know the government is run by greedy hogs who use Orwellian ideology to further their own personal agenda. What would make people in government give a damn fuck about some small-ass country on the other side of the earth? The U.S. may be considered the world's watchdog but not surprisingly there is vested interest, one way or the other. __________________ Go forth.....and Die!!!!

20th March 2007, 11:16 AM	#7
Eulux Rorta Regular Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Houston Posts: 280	the italics were supposed to denote sarcasm... __________________ "What strikes me is the fact that in our society, art has become something which is only related to objects, and not to individuals, or to life." -Foucault

18th February 2008, 06:29 AM	#10
Nemesix Rorta Regular Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 372	oil means fuel, it means jobs, it means a stronger economy, it means that our country will be stronger. in other words who care that people are dieing when we can have more money? gota love humanity. __________________ *Drink or Die* *Those who fall shall rise again stronger*

19th March 2007, 10:02 PM	#3
Stone $war = (!empty($iraqi_oil)) ? 'yes' : 'no' Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 1,189	And what about Rwanda? Or Bosnia? Or Somalia? Or Palestine? The list could go on for ages. Is there even a point in hoping that something will be done in Sudan? My fucking hole there isn't. The UN are a bunch of spineless wasters. The USA is a greedy fat man obsessed with consuming everybody else's dinner and dessert, then gassing them with farts. The EU is a bunch of bureaucratic toffs. Nowhere else either has the power or else just doesn't give a fuck.

18th February 2008, 11:23 AM	#11
odin_dax Entrepreneur Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Earth, same as you... hopefully. Posts: 2,849	Let us not forget Saddam was a mass murderer and torturer who experimented with bio weapons. Shit, why is it so easy for everybody to forget that? Let us not forget that the new Iraqi government honors all the old oil contracts, so the US isn't getting tons and tons of new oil. Let us not forget that Bush is one of the very few leaders in the world to call what's happening in Darfur "genocide." The UN was created just for this purpose. Whether you may or may not know it, Sudan has lots of oil too! Yes, that's right! Oh, but the US is not rushing over there. I wish people would get their facts straight and keep their stupid assumptions to themselves. The US is not Iraq for oil!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode