Hey isn't it great? We care about Darfur now

[Horse with no Name]

It wouldn't have anything to do with the oil there would it? They better watch out or we will bring them some "democracy".:scared:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6586351.stm

>>snip
The US has in effect now issued an ultimatum to Sudan to take steps to end the violence or face further unilateral and international sanctions.

However, speaking to reporters in Washington following his visit to Sudan, Mr Negroponte appeared sceptical as to whether President Bashir would comply.

"My sense is always that these agreements tend to be grudging and they tend to leave a lot of questions open as to whether they will follow through with implementation," he said.

The Bush administration has agreed to give the UN Secretary General a short period of time to persuade Sudan to co-operate before pressing ahead with further sanctions.

There is no specific deadline but US officials say they will only hold off for a matter of weeks.

[babylonsister]

1. Yea, we care to make threats. I'm so damned sick of this being the

way MY country conducts business.:grr:

[stillcool]

2. We're probably already 'helping them along'.. n/t

[Horse with no Name]

3. No doubt about that

after we get some of those pesky folks out of the way, stealing their oil will be a breeze...

[Telly Savalas]

4. That oil has been there a lot longer than the genocide.

If Bush is drooling over the oil, what's he been waiting on?

Moreover, what is the White House supposed to do here? If they do pretty much nothing like they have been for the last several years, they rightfully get accused of ignoring a humanitarian crisis. If they apply pressure on the Sudanese government they get accused of only caring about the oil.

If you ask me, this is one of the two times a day when the broken clock is right. These measures should have happened three years ago though.

[Horse with no Name]

5. Well actually I am sure it was always on the list

The PNAC'ers just didn't think Iraq would take so long.

[Telly Savalas]

6. So what should be done?

We just sit back and let Darfur be a sequel to the Rwandan genocide?

Obviously military intervention isn't an option, especially with Bush as Commander in Chief, but diplomatic pressure needs to be applied here.

And why is Iraq holding things up? We aren't any closer to withdrawing from there than we were two years ago.

[Horse with no Name]

7. You know

You might want to be an apologist here but I do not buy it.
Bush is NEVER altruistic. NEVER.
IF he is interested in Darfur and threatening them with sanctions...then we should all be very afraid of his motives because he doesn't care about those dark-skinned people any more than he cared about the survivors of Katrina...or any more than he cares about the citizens of Iraq...or the citizens of Iran, or the citizens of ANY country.
My biggest complaint with Clinton was how he handled Rwanda. He should live in shame every single day for the rest of his life.
He has said it was his biggest regret.
Bush is a sociopath. He doesn't give a shit about anyone except himself and his croneys.
If he is interested in Darfur it is because he can get something that benefits him or his rich friends. The people that are affected by the genocide will NOT be any better off because of Bush because he simply does NOT give a shit about them.

[Telly Savalas]

9. So what? Nobody is accusing the guy of having noble ambitions.

What's the proper course of action?

If Bush is acting improperly, then it stands to reason there's a better alternative policy. What is it?


(Edit because every sentence in this post ended with the word "here" and it grated my nerves to read it.)

[Horse with no Name]

10. The proper course is to stop the genocide.

www.savedarfur.org

* Strengthen the understaffed and overwhelmed African Union peackeeping force already in Darfur.

* Push for the deployment of a strong UN peacekeeping force.

* Increase humanitarian aid and ensure access for aid delivery.

* Establish a no-fly zone.

However, I believe "that" this will just be another (intentional) failed Bush mission. I don't believe that the genocide is the reason we are toughening our language to them because this administration doesn't care about poor people. Especially poor black people in Africa.
It's all smoke and mirrors. There is something in it for him to gain.

I wish I could believe differently. I just don't.

[Telly Savalas]

12. I appreciate the positive response

I agree with the items on the list, but I would add applying diplomatic pressure to the Sudanese government to it. This is why I believe that Bush's latest gesture is better than the absence of action we've been seeing. Bush lacks the credibility to do anything more than doing what he's doing and contributing money. "Ensuring access for aid delivery" means putting boots on the ground, which is something a warmonger like Bush can't do and be taken seriously as a "peacekeeper".

Bush has a few reasons to be doing this:

1. If I have my facts straight, it's China's hand in the cookie jar of Sudanese oil. So working against the Sudanese government is pushing a pawn in the geopolitical chess game. (On the flip side, my understanding is that China is holding things up in the UN for the same reason.)

2. Every second spent on the news talking about Bush's response to Darfur is a second that isn't spent talking about Iraq.

3. Appeasing part of the Christian Right base. The Sam Brownback crowd takes the Darfur issue seriously, and while relatively small in number, these folks are activists who are critical to making the GOP machine operate.

[warren pease]

8. This from the BBC

"The US has said it expects Sudan to prove its commitment to allowing a strengthened UN peacekeeping force into Darfur within a matter of weeks.

US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte said time was running out for Sudan to allow the international peace keeping force in."



These bastards are giving hypocrisy a bad name.


wp

[Igel]

11. They cared about Darfur back in 2004, as well.

Congress passed a resolution declaring it genocide, while the UN wouldn't--the US introduced a resolution and it died. Kerry spoke up about it. So did *. Powell spoke to the UN concerning Darfur. 2004 wasn't all that long after *, Blair, and a few otheres helped push for a resolution of the problem in the south, upon which the mess in Darfur kicked into high gear.

Oil's a fairly recent discovery there. It's been there straight along, but then again the oil in Sa'udi Arabia was there when H. sapiens first passed through on their way to S. Asia.

The US and Europe pushed hard enough to get the ineffectual and pointless AU forces in Darfur. The OIC and Arab League have, until recently, been the biggest defenders of genocide in Darfur. The French, Russians, and Chinese have prevented sanctions, because, well, *they* get oil out of Sudan.

Oddly, the set of characters that don't mind killing blacks in W. Sudan also countenanced genocide of blacks in S. Sudan for the same reason ... from Bush I's term to Bush II's. If killing non-traditional Muslims in Darfur didn't rile the Muslims, certainly killing Xians and animists wouldn't. American's real "wake up" concerning S. Sudan came, surprisingly, because of evangelical and fundie Xians. "Progressives" didn't make as much noise as a single episode of "7th Heaven" did.

If things have budged, thank Chinese vainglory and their archaic conception of honor.