NEWS: Remember Darfur?

if you don't get my other message and becuas I"m a attention whore good job man. +1

Well for one, China has many economic ties upon which it is much more dependent on than Sudan, thereby having a much greater incentive to remain in good standing with them rather than Khartoum :::clears throat::: Most Favored Nation status... Life could be made much more uncomfortable for them.

Now, I'm not suggesting anything like a trade embargo or such nonesense, but as a country we are one of the greatest consumers and therefore investers, if not the greatest, which means we do have some influence over them. Maybe divestment is the key, but I'm no expert, the specifics would have to be left to economist with the same tendencies.

The bottom line is they depend on US and a lot of our allies a shitload more than they do Sudan (and critical mass is not all that great, all we got to convince them is the international community must step in when military action is taken against unarmed, non-military, civilian, innocents). In the end, if the pressure is built in the correct way, they will align themselves with us. I mean whatever incentive they have to invest in Sudan can come from somewhere else. Perhaps us, but maybe our allies.

All this just highlights a more basic problem in our foreign policy. Everywhere we go we are destroying diplomatic links instead of building them through cooperation and compromise. In case like this, strong diplomatic ties increase our ability to negotiatie because the international pressure is not longer unilateral.

And I'm not sure what your last statement was in reference to. That's not democratic? I don't remember where I mentioned that.

To be honest I'm a little confused by this. 1) If oil wasn't a reason for going into Iraq, what would say we went in there for? To stabilize the region? (That was my initial reaction). 2) You're reference to petrodollars suggests that we did go in there for oil. I was just curious as to what you believe the hierarchy of incentive was for the invasion?

ALSO: Would anyone like to address my 'side note' at the end of the article, Uptight?

I'll take a stab at it. The conflict is between Muslims but what most people call the islamofascists could give a rats ass about the African Muslims dieing. For example Osama bin Laden called for supporters to fight peacekeepers in Sudan. Osama claims this isn't to support the Khartoum government but rather to support Islam but if you fight the peace keepers you pretty much implicitly supporting the government.

Now it is true that poverty and lack of authority play into the problem the heart of the issue is an ethnic war between Africans and Arabs. And so far the Islamic extremists seem to want to stop any outside help. What would really be interesting is what would happen with an entirely Muslim peace keeping force.

I agree with you, actually. I'm not sure whether the US is in the powerful economic position you say it is, but apart from that, yes. I'd very much like to see an end to this sort of superpower bullshit, whichever power it originates from. In some ways, this is the most regrettable thing about W's Iraq debacle - it gives licence to other countries to poke their noses in to places they should stay out of. (Britain should know this - we seem to have forgotten a lot since 1956 )

Re my last statement there, I should have made it clear that that "you" wasn't addressed to you personally. I should have put a in there, as well. My bad.

To be honest I'm a little confused by this. 1) If oil wasn't a reason for going into Iraq, what would say we went in there for? To stabilize the region? (That was my initial reaction). 2) You're reference to petrodollars suggests that we did go in there for oil. I was just curious as to what you believe the hierarchy of incentive was for the invasion?

It may be a bit hard for me to explain without sounding like a mumbling idiot. Basically, oil per se wasn't the actual reason to go to Iraq (since OBVIOUSLY we get most of our oil from our Latin American neighbors), but the CONTROL we would have over what CURRENCY oil is bought in. At least that's one of the theories which makes SOME sense. Saying we went flat in for oil is ignorant and short-sighted. We have no real benefit from that, whereas, if Saddam would've changed the currency oil is bought in (IF he was even TRYING to do that .. I personally doubt it, but that's what people are saying) then we would've had to pay a LOT more for oil barrels seeing as how the euro and the pound are a lot higher than our dollar.
We didn't go to stabilize the region - if anything, we've always been the ones to make sure the region is de-stabilized. I mean, we overthrew the constitutional government in Iran to replace it with the American-friendly Shah. So .. I don't think 'stabilizing' was the point of the invasion .. if we really wanted to 'stabilize' we would've stopped bombing Iraq and we would've lifted the economic sanctions. THAT would've stabilized the country more than militarily removing the dictator with no plan for the future.

where's Jesse Jackson when you need him, Oh that's right there's no money to expoit there just poor africans I guess they don't matter.

NEWS UPDATE:

Hundreds killed in Darfur as Sudan initiaties attacks...

NEWS UPDATE...

I will no longer be with SG very soon, but I hope someone else will take it upon themselves to update this thread with news from Darfur whenever it's appropriate as to keep the SG community updated. Thank you. Here's the latest.

I remember Rawanda, no one said anything or did anything until several hundred thousand people were systematically murdered in the genocide. I've been paying close attention to Sudan as well and have watched the same things happening. Thankyou for sharing your interest in the crisis in Sudan. I find it unbelievable that governments have been willing to do business with Sudan whilst at the same time condemning the Sudanese govt. for aiding in the killing. Only now are some disolving their business ties and calling for others to do the same (recently here in California for instance, the Governator has voiced his opinion, the first I've heard from him on the subject, ever). So the question is this: If sanctions are to be levied against Sudan, who will actually comply with them? China? Hardly, they have a tidy business relationship involving their oil for weapons program (kind of like the U.S. in the Mid-East...) My guess is that the current U.S. government will engage in a sideline stance, shaking it's finger at Khartoum, but not being willing to cross over the line to "play" politics with their (and our) biggest client, China. Let's not forget who owns most of our debt... I suspect it will be business as usual and people will suffer and die for at least a few more years until the political will (and leadership) changes. Well, then again, there may be a glimmer of hope if the rest of the international community can gain some leverage in dealing with the crisis. Who knows, only time will tell. Thanks again for sharing.

I'm two seconds from grabbing a camera, a notepad, .40 caliber, and a ticket to Africa... I'm not kidding I feel like I'm rotting inside watching this shit go on... I'd almost rather die than sit here and be complacent. My father thinks I'm crazy, but he worked for DWB.

Doctors Without Borders?

I'll keep an eye on Darfur news.

Can this be repost again or updated?

Nothing has changed. People are still dying and our media covers it up.

They are still fucking dying and our troops could be there in less than a day if given the order.

It's about time for an update....

But if you're looking for Congressmen/Senators who you'd like to get in contact with let me know...

'Janjaweed leader' is Sudan aide

I plead guilty to forgetting this entirely (the thread, not the problem).

That's not good news.