It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Whys No One Is Stopping The Genocide In The Sudan?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Its Yugoslavia and Riwonda all over again. Isnt this supposed to be the U.N.s job to stop things like this from happening? It makes me sick when i think of all the people that are being killed and how easy it is for the U.N. to stop it. I hate the U.N., they let my cousin Nevin get "ethnically cleansed".
Can you believe that ethnic cleansing is what they call it now? It sounds like a good thing, like people are getting baths. I think maybe the NWO has gotten a foothold on the U.N., but i digress, Why is no one stopping it?

[edit on 29-11-2004 by Croat69]

Mod Edit: Title clarity

[edit on 11/30/04 by FredT]




posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 05:44 PM
link   
UN can only go in on "invite" from the government...

considering it's the government that is causing the trouble... where does that leave the UN?

the US, UK and other permanent members should be held accountable for not pushing harder...



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucretius
UN can only go in on "invite" from the government...



OMG politics are keeping them from stopping it? Jesus what is this world coming to.

[edit on 29-11-2004 by Croat69]



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 05:49 PM
link   
I think the African Union will be deploying troops there. I remember having seen on TV that German Planes are supposed to transport them.

The Parliament has not decided yet, though

www.berlinonline.de...
Not english but translator bots are your friend



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by tsuribito
I think the African Union will be deploying troops there. I remember having seen on TV that German Planes are supposed to transport them.

The Parliament has not decided yet, though

www.berlinonline.de...
Not english but translator bots are your friend



Not to make fun of the situation but the last tiime the germans sent planes to Africa it didnt turn out so well.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 06:07 PM
link   
an important point if you consider the attitudes of african nations towards europe



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 06:27 PM
link   
I can only speculate why the US doesn't step in, and my guess is that:

1) Sudan has no oil;
2) Sudan poses no risk to US security;
3) Africa and the many nations therein just don't hit the same political hot buttons that, say, the Middle East does;
4) the media doesn't cover it; therefore, the population as a whole has no idea what's actually going on.

To condense those four points into one easy-to-swallow dose: there's nothing in it for us.

Just my opinion, FWIW.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 11:54 PM
link   
well put. there is no money in humanity so why would the US "waste" there time helping someone out?



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 03:34 AM
link   
Sudan has oil, thats one of the causes of the civil war, government control of oil fields.

www.indexonline.org...

www.guardian.co.uk...

Sudan also was bin ladens hang out prior to afgahnistan. Remember Clinton and the Al-Shifa Asprin factory.

Just a bit info.

If we are really fighting a war against militant islam then Sudan should have come after afgahnistan which should have come after Saudi Arabia but now that we are in Iraq and the propaganda machine is starting against Iran I think Sudan is far down the list. But it seems the Sudanese government are just another bunch of headcases the west will do business with.



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 03:49 AM
link   
U.N isn´t stopping genocide in iraq so why it would do that in sudan?
-ap



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by bobjohnson
Sudan has oil, thats one of the causes of the civil war, government control of oil fields.


My bad; thanks for the correction, bobjohnson.


... it seems the Sudanese government are just another bunch of headcases the west will do business with.


Just like we did with the Taliban--even while denouncing their policies against women as "despicable"--until they pi$$ed us off....



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 06:46 AM
link   
Here’s the answer to your question right in this thread. When the U.S. went into Iraq or Yugoslavia or where ever they take a heap of crap from all the “AmericaSucksTheyOnlyWantToControlTheWorld” folks everywhere. We can do no right in their eyes. Thus, our political leaders always take a black eye when they use force to attempt to correct a problem, even when they deem that force is justified.

Now here comes the Sudan problem. It’s one I am sure Bush wishes he could go in and correct. It would be a relatively easy task for our troops, the Sudanese government would probably quit the crap as soon as they saw the first C-130 of “advisors” land in a neighboring country.

However, because of the vocal non-support the administration faces when trying to take any action (look at how the left reacts to almost anything he does…the venom is amazing) Bush’s hands are tied. He cannot take military action unless it appears to be something very vital to U.S. interests. Heck they fight him tooth and nail on the current world war we are fighting.

Clinton’s tragic mishandling of our forces in Somalia probably made it even harder for Bush to get the military and senate to agree to any adventures in the African continent for the foreseeable future.

The U.N.? ha! The “N” in U.N. is a joke. The only “Nations” in the U.N. are democratic or republic based. Everyone else represents a select gang of thugs that happen to control a piece of territory called a “country” and do not represent the people trapped inside their borders. Since the thugs run the U.N., what makes you think they will take any action against one of their peers?



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 06:50 AM
link   
Sandge, your hatred seems to be blinding you. It is not just about the U.S. or maybe you think the U.N. is all about us. You might notice that the U.N. sees us as a monetary sponge and nothing else.

No, it is all of the Western World, not just the U.S., who see little value in stopping atrocities in Africa. I, too, find it very shameful.



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Sandge, your hatred seems to be blinding you.


Excuse me? Where did *this* remark come from? Hatred of whom/what, exactly?


It is not just about the U.S. or maybe you think the U.N. is all about us. You might notice that the U.N. sees us as a monetary sponge and nothing else.


I never said it was "just about the U.S.;" my statement was that I can only speculate about the U.S.'s actions because I am an American. My musings on the actions of a foreign government would carry very little weight.


No, it is all of the Western World, not just the U.S., who see little value in stopping atrocities in Africa. I, too, find it very shameful.


Agreed. Now call off Dog.



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrNice
It’s one I am sure Bush wishes he could go in and correct.

However, because of the vocal non-support the administration faces when trying to take any action (look at how the left reacts to almost anything he does…the venom is amazing) Bush’s hands are tied.


i thought the bush fans liked him because he did what was "right" no matter what others said? if this was true and he had to follow what the bush bashers said, he would have never went into Iraq, that just gave the 'bush haters' a whole lot of ammunition, as well as loosing the support of many used to be bush fans.



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 02:23 PM
link   


Not to make fun of the situation but the last tiime the germans sent planes to Africa it didnt turn out so well.

This time the brits wont get us :p



an important point if you consider the attitudes of african nations towards europe

That's why we are not sending another Rommel but just planes

We are actually quite popular in our old colonies. The only ones who dislike us are the herero but it is not our fault that they were only good at fighting children and unarmed civillians.
Also in every African Country people know what Pflaster means




No, it is all of the Western World, not just the U.S., who see little value in stopping atrocities in Africa.

Unfortunatly, yes.
It is a shame. If we treated Africa and the Middle East better in the past, we would not be sending soldiers today.



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Sandge, Dog isn't on anybody right now. He's trying to do his part to mend the fence between us and France by chasing after the poodle down the street. Stupid dog.
Notice how we spend so much money in the U.N. and yet it is so inefficient and on top of that, we get no say-so on what it does?
Here we are, an international board with people representing every timez one, we all agree that something should be done, but they do nothing but navel-gaze, and when they do manage to go, it'll be too little and way too late.



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Did some one happen to mentoin this ??

www.bigpig.org...

www.csw.org.uk...

And I thought only evil Europeans did these kinds of things .

I dispise slavery

[edit on C:Tueocu11e11 by Opus]



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 08:29 PM
link   
The answer to the title of this thread is simple. How much oil does the U.S. get from the Sudan?



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 08:31 PM
link   
The US doesnt want another ugly mess , mhmm can you say Rwanda .

As for oil, theres more at play here , part of equasion yes .



[edit on C:Tueocu11e11 by Opus]




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join