Sudan Redux

[DanishDynamite]

WildCat:

The US military is vigorously prosecuting those involved. The Sudan says, "Move along, nothing to see here. Those 1 million people just disappeared or went to Chad on a holiday. we don't need no stinkin' investigation".

And? How does this make the US military any less of a human rights abuser?

You (and all of Europe, it seems) are quite willing to turn a blind eye, as Europe has done in the past.

Could you elaborate?

Did you read the HRW report I posted earlier in this thread?

No. Could you highlight the interesting bits?

I can't understand the attitude in the EU. Every time the US unintentionally kills a civilian, they take to the streets demanding the US submit itself to the World Court. Serbs partake in government planned and executed slaughter of tens of thousands, or the Sudan does the same in the millions, and they couldn't care less. Our NATO allies had to be dragged kicking and screaming into Kosovo. If anyone can make any sense of this, please enlighten me.

I guess it would be better if you could drop the generalized put-downs and actually provide a few links to the things you are unhappy about.

 

[c0rbin]

You apparently believe that there should be some minimum requirements above those stated by UN rules, for a member to be elected. You have yet to state these new rules. I was simply showing that the determination of such new rules would be difficult, if the US should still be allowed.

I am not so sure that the US is really that interested in being a part of an organization that turns a blind eye to ETHNIC CLEANSING that is occuring RIGHT NOW and could be stopped if something were DONE ABOUT IT.

(forgive the caps, I am a little dismayed)

In a conflict, I expect humans to behave poorly, however, you might have noticed that it has shaken up a very "stay-the-course" administration over here and people are outraged. It will not stand.

Now please point me to images of anyone demonstrating their outrage at people being displaced in Africa...holding breath.

 

[DanishDynamite]

c0rbin:

I am not so sure that the US is really that interested in being a part of an organization that turns a blind eye to ETHNIC CLEANSING that is occuring RIGHT NOW and could be stopped if something were DONE ABOUT IT.

(forgive the caps, I am a little dismayed)

What you and every other anti-UN American seem to be forgetting is that the UN has no power and no military force except as far as the members vote to sanction the use of such power or such force by member states for a specific purpose.

That's it.

If you are unhappy with such decisions, or the lack of such decisions, blaming the UN is as irrational as blaming the Congress for not putting down the LA riots.

In a conflict, I expect humans to behave poorly, however, you might have noticed that it has shaken up a very "stay-the-course" administration over here and people are outraged. It will not stand.

Sorry, not understood.

Now please point me to images of anyone demonstrating their outrage at people being displaced in Africa...holding breath.

If you happen to be reading US newspapers I hope you can hold your breath for quite a while.

 

[WildCat]

No. Could you highlight the interesting bits?

It's a very long report. I highlighted quite a few bits in my post on page one of this thread. If you won't read it, it only further proves my point about the callousness of Europeans in general about human rights abuses that can't be somehow blamed on the US.

If you won't open your eyes, I can't make you see. Please read the report.

 

[zenith-nadir]

I can see now that DanishDynamite is not really interested in Sudan or ethnic cleansing. Any argument to deflect that reality is more palatable to DanishDynamite than actually questioning Sudan's fitness to be an member of a UN Human Rights Council.

Hey that's cool, at least we all know now where Danish stands on human rights...

 

[c0rbin]

What you and every other anti-UN American seem to be forgetting is that the UN has no power and no military force except as far as the members vote to sanction the use of such power or such force by member states for a specific purpose.

I am not so much anti-UN, just wondering what good the organization is anymore. Where is the uproar against regimes who maintain maintain control though violence without recourse? Issue a decree, or somthing--anything.

If you happen to be reading US newspapers I hope you can hold your breath for quite a while.

So no images of people in Europe demonstrating the horrors that occur in Africa or North Korea? Where are the masses flocking to the streets in support of displaced and ethnically cleansed black and yellow people? Quite a while indeed.

But damn the US for taking a stand, however poorly executed, damn them to hell!

You are happy being not anti-oppression, but anti-American.

 

[Skeptic]

c0rbin:What you and every other anti-UN American seem to be forgetting is that the UN has no power and no military force except as far as the members vote to sanction the use of such power or such force by member states for a specific purpose.

That's it.

But you'd think that, even so, they would at least condemn Sudan's ethnic cleansing of blacks instead of welcoming it to the human rights commission.

If you are unhappy with such decisions, or the lack of such decisions, blaming the UN is as irrational as blaming the Congress for not putting down the LA riots.

The US Congress did not welcome the leaders of the riots to head its domestic security commission, did it, or to chair meetings about how awful the police are.

The UN, on the other hand...

 

[Skeptic]

How does this make the US military any less of a human rights abuser?

It doesn't, nor does anybody claim it does, but your apoplectic reaction to the US abuse, together with your silence and disinterest in that of Sudan (or Congo, or NK, or...) shows that YOUR real interest is not in human right abuses per se, but only in human right abuses that can be blamed on the US.

Could you elaborate?

Well, I've seen tons of protests in Europe against US "imperialism" and "human rights abuse", and against israeli "racist policies". There hasn't been one mass protest about Sudan's or NK's genocidally racist human rights abuse.

More seriously, remember the mess in the former Yugoslavia? Europe stood idly by and did absolutely nothing; until the US intervenes and stopped the massacres.

No. Could you highlight the interesting bits?

DD, this is a report detailing the massacre, expulsion, and starvation of hundreds of thousands of people.

Not only didn't you care to find out anything about this atrocity yourself, but when someone gives you the evidence, you are not interested enough in even reading it, and want other people to point out the "intersting bits" to you.

The only conclusion one can reach from such indifference is that you could not care less about the hundreds of thousands of victims in the Sudan.

Not surprising, really: if you can't blame the US for their death, who cares?

 

[DanishDynamite]

It's a very long report. I highlighted quite a few bits in my post on page one of this thread. If you won't read it, it only further proves my point about the callousness of Europeans in general about human rights abuses that can't be somehow blamed on the US.

If you won't open your eyes, I can't make you see. Please read the report.

I didn't say I wouldn't read it. I just said I hadn't. Your put-down regarding how this "further proves my point about the callousness of Europeans in general about human rights abuses" is unworthy of you.

Anyway, I'll read it.

 

[DanishDynamite]

I can see now that DanishDynamite is not really interested in Sudan or ethnic cleansing. Any argument to deflect that reality is more palatable to DanishDynamite than actually questioning Sudan's fitness to be an member of a UN Human Rights Council.

Hey that's cool, at least we all know now where Danish stands on human rights...

You can't address my questions, eh?

 

[WildCat]

I didn't say I wouldn't read it. I just said I hadn't. Your put-down regarding how this "further proves my point about the callousness of Europeans in general about human rights abuses" is unworthy of you.

Anyway, I'll read it.

I didn't mean it as a put down, though it could have been worded better and I apologize for any offense you took over it. I really don't want to come across that way.

Please comment on the report after you've read it.

 

[DanishDynamite]

I am not so much anti-UN, just wondering what good the organization is anymore. Where is the uproar against regimes who maintain maintain control though violence without recourse? Issue a decree, or somthing--anything.

"Issue a decree"? Is that the sort of dictatorial powers you would like to see?

So no images of people in Europe demonstrating the horrors that occur in Africa or North Korea? Where are the masses flocking to the streets in support of displaced and ethnically cleansed black and yellow people? Quite a while indeed.

There have been demonstrations of this kind. They haven't been very large, though.

But damn the US for taking a stand, however poorly executed, damn them to hell!

Oh get over your persecution complex. I think that on the whole, the world is better off with the US as the sole superpower than many other states I could think off. However, I still calls them as I sees them.

You are happy being not anti-oppression, but anti-American.

Sigh.

 

[DanishDynamite]

But you'd think that, even so, they would at least condemn Sudan's ethnic cleansing of blacks instead of welcoming it to the human rights commission.

Who is "they"? The UN votes democratically, except for the Security Council where certain countries have vetos.

The US Congress did not welcome the leaders of the riots to head its domestic security commission, did it, or to chair meetings about how awful the police are.

The UN, on the other hand...

The US Congress welcomes whoever can get enough votes for a position.

 

[DanishDynamite]

It doesn't, nor does anybody claim it does, but your apoplectic reaction to the US abuse, together with your silence and disinterest in that of Sudan (or Congo, or NK, or...) shows that YOUR real interest is not in human right abuses per se, but only in human right abuses that can be blamed on the US.

No it doesn't. It shows that I sometimes tire of the constant heralding of the US as the greatest thing since sliced bread. I try to inject a bit of perspective.

Well, I've seen tons of protests in Europe against US "imperialism" and "human rights abuse", and against israeli "racist policies". There hasn't been one mass protest about Sudan's or NK's genocidally racist human rights abuse.

More seriously, remember the mess in the former Yugoslavia? Europe stood idly by and did absolutely nothing; until the US intervenes and stopped the massacres.

I agree that Yugoslavia was an embarrassment for Western Europe.

Hence my support for a much larger military and for a greater integration of the EU.

DD, this is a report detailing the massacre, expulsion, and starvation of hundreds of thousands of people.

Not only didn't you care to find out anything about this atrocity yourself, but when someone gives you the evidence, you are not interested enough in even reading it, and want other people to point out the "intersting bits" to you.

The only conclusion one can reach from such indifference is that you could not care less about the hundreds of thousands of victims in the Sudan.

Not surprising, really: if you can't blame the US for their death, who cares?

Good grief. Sometimes I have other things to do than read links here.

I'll read the bloody report.

 

[DanishDynamite]

I didn't mean it as a put down, though it could have been worded better and I apologize for any offense you took over it. I really don't want to come across that way.

Please comment on the report after you've read it.

Thanks, WildCat.

I'll have a look at it, but it won't be tonight (its 2:00 AM here).

 

[aerocontrols]

Who is "they"? The UN votes democratically, except for the Security Council where certain countries have vetos.
The US Congress welcomes whoever can get enough votes for a position.

How many votes did Sudan get?

specifically.

 

[zenith-nadir]

How many votes did Sudan get? specifically.

source: Sudan was one of 14 countries elected to the commission by the 54-member Economic and Social Council.

source: Finland’s U.N. Ambassador Marjatta Rasi, the president of the 53-nation Economic and Social Council, then noted that the slate of candidates from Africa was uncontested, and it was approved by consensus as she banged her gavel.

source: The United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) elected 14 countries today to serve on the Commission on Human Rights, the UN's highest forum for examining civil rights around the world. Winning by acclamation were Guinea, Kenya, Sudan and Togo from the African Group;

UN Economic and Social Council Members- UN website

 

[aerocontrols]

UN Economic and Social Council Members- UN website

I think you're missing my point. It seems to me that Sudan got 0 votes.

The point was that the selection of these members seems to be by a somewhat nondemocratic process.

Doesn't it seem so to you?

 

[c0rbin]

Oh get over your persecution complex.

I just calls 'em like I sees 'em. Like the paranoid man says: "I wouldn't be so paranoid if people weren't out to get me."

You just let us know when you feel train bombings in Europe get out of hand.

PS: "decree" it turns out was the wrong word. Apologies. The last thing I would want to see is a dictator, however benign. I would like to see politics step aside in favor of doing something about genocide.

 

[DanishDynamite]

OK, WildCat, I've read the Summary part of the link you provided. If the reported facts are true, which I have no reason to doubt, it certainly qualifies the Sudanese government as a human rights abuser. Very sad reading.

One can only wonder why the African regional group decided to support the candidacy of Sudan.