US blocks U.N. briefing on atrocities in Sudan

Originally posted by Nygdan
meanwhile, as people use politics for propaganda purposes on either side, thousands more die.

Again, what country, anywhere in the god damned world, is going to do anything about this? Its a disgrace that the US won't, who cares if reactionaries will cry that its imperialism.

i didnt really want to get into this one, because i dont know much more about it than what i've read on bolton's comments, and what i've heard from cloak and dagger friends about who's making money off the war there.

but nygdan, i think bolton is trying to get the UN to get off their collective rears and do something without US help for a change. we are stretched a little thin elsewhere. besides, as you pointed out so well, we wouldnt be praised for our attempts to end the bloodshed, we would be attacked for invading another islamic country.

just MHO.

I agree that the US'd be attacked, it'd be well worth it tho. I think that what bolton is doing makes sense. I mean, people are being slaughtered, and someone wants to have a power point projection? wtf, the Security Council doesn't need a presentation, it needs to vote on whether or not to order the militias to disarm and the government to in sudan to stop the attacks -or- face direct military intervention from the UN. Or even just simply vote to invade and establish order.

Originally posted by Souljah
- but when SOMEBODY wants to present his Report to the UN, he is shut up by the US Ambassador and "his allies" in that action. Now, what Good did that do?

What the heck is another report to the UN going to do, provide more information? Open the room for more endless discussions? Prolong further inaction?

The time for continued ‘discussions’ has long past, the time for speaking directly about what needs to be done for the people of Sudan is far, far too overdue.

Look at the material generated by this situation in the UN:
UN News Centre

Another report would make them more aware and get things done?

Originally posted by Nygdan
Again, what country, anywhere in the god damned world, is going to do anything about this? Its a disgrace that the US won't, who cares if reactionaries will cry that its imperialism.

No matter what is ‘done’ or not ‘done’ by the US will no doubt be construed internationally as the wrong action. However, if the US acts and physically initiates a ‘collective’ intervention or supports any nation which may take the lead outside the UN, I doubt the Sudanese will complain much.



.

Originally posted by Heartagram

Originally posted by snafu7700
maybe if you tried english instead of slang, you'd get your point (whatever the hell it is, because i cant tell) across better.

For your sake.

Originally posted by Heartagram
Whoever said that going "BANG BANG!" is ever bad? Notice that there is always a step before "BANG BANG!"? If you have to go for an examination and your lecturer reiterates before it what he/she has taught would you listen or would tell him/her to shut it?

The steps before the "BANG BANG!" are the most the important one. The "BANG BANG!" is interdependant of the pre-"BANG BANG!" stage.

Whoever said that going out and taking action is ever bad? Notice that there is always a step before taking that action? If you have to go for an examination and your lecturer reiterates before it what he/she has taught would you listen or would tell him/her to shut it?

The steps before the that particular action is the most the important one. The action taken is interdependant of the pre-action taken or the planning stage.



Read to your heart's content.

That was pretty funny! I think those of us who use slang (if "bang bang" is slang anyway) should all do our part to keep our comrades illiterate to the language up to speed.