What about Darfur?

[Nacho]

Apparently, 70,000 people died killed by the Islamist militia in Darfur, and 1,500,000 people had to get away of their homes. The americans went to the UN calling the situation a hollocaust, and claiming for help to act, (cool, that damn americans come back to the UN)

Let's see if the UN works now.

[Barcik]

The UN has never been able to control such a situation. Understandable in the world of politics, but makes their magalomania utterly unjustified.

(So what if I only post when it comes to matters of war?  )

[Blade]

What next? Someone drops an atomic bomb?

[Mr Flibble]

Not unless Bush orders a pre-emptive war first.

[Blade]

Bush has already declared war - war in Afghanistan, war i Iraq, war with terrorism.

[Haddas]

Heh. 3 wars in 4 years. that's quite an accomplishment. We should all be very proud

[bspeerr1--]

Yes, Darfur is a horrible situation, but identifying the government as Islamist is a bit misleading.  The struggle is not primarily religious.  Aid workers have also expressed some surprise at the sudden war-drums movements by Powell and others.  Darfur is certainly in a violent conflagration, and UN action is needed, but the biggest problems were probably some months ago.  There are also many other countries with the same or worse conditions that are as or more likely to become crisies in the next while.

Still, it would be nice if the US's partisan interest lead to a real international co-operative non-military solution to the trials of Darfur, perhaps by supporting the populace with aid, sending in observers, starting negotiations between the factions, etc.

For more information, this is just one news report that might be of interest:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=2&ItemID=6358/

Let's not just hope that the accusations do not lead to war--stay alert of the spin and try to be active.

[Mr Flibble]

Was overthrowing Saddam a good thing? I mean, okay, his mass killings and such were stopped, but the Americain troops  seem to be doing okay at those.

His "War on Terror" is stupid.
Where's next?
Northern Ireland? (IRA) Italy? (Mafia) Spain? (That Spanish one...)
Oh, wait, thats ludicrous.

Those countires don't have any oil.


Politicians can go to war with anyone for any reason. Because they have spin doctors. Remember "intent" to start a WMD program? Hmm.

Sorry I've gone completely off topic.

[Rave]

The UN has never been able to control such a situation. Understandable in the world of politics, but makes their magalomania utterly unjustified.

Alright, you know in Star Wars: Attack of the Clones where the princess whats-her-face goes to the world council and give a vote of no confidance? I have the same feeling twards the U.N. I think its sad and incompetent. Somthing needs to change. The US should NOT be the World Police, stepping in to overstep the UN and act as it sees fit. The UN needs to have the reasources and military to deal with these problems, as well as a leader to keep countries accountable for their actions. When America went to war with direct disapproval of the UN (regardless if the choice was right or wrong) there were virtually no repercussions, even when it was proven the war was waged over lies and false pretenses (WoMD?). The UN basically just walked away with its tail between its legs and let the US do whatever it wanted. I see somthing wrong in that... 

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Saddam or anything and I don't think that Iraq should have been left alone. He commited pleanty of war crimes and massacares against his own people and is a dictator asshole without even considering the possibility of his administration owning WoMD. He deserves to be imprisioned for life or much much worse. But you know what? HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CAPTURED A LONG TIME AGO! Why did we hunt him down now? Because Mr.Bush wants us to think he sent planes to crash into the WTC and Pentagon. The fact is that there are pleanty of "evil-doers" just as bad or worse than Saddam who are flying under the radar.

Thats how the world is.

[Mr Flibble]

Good point.
The UN needs to get their proverbial finger out.

[shbaz]

Was overthrowing Saddam a good thing? I mean, okay, his mass killings and such were stopped, but the Americain troops  seem to be doing okay at those.

The key thing is that the death involved with American troops will end (hopefully), while the mass killings would have been continued for decades under Saddam's kids even after his death if it weren't for American intervention. Don't take this as support of the war, but I believe in fair judgement if you're going to make a comment like that.