 |
|
Topic started on 29-5-2007 @ 10:34 AM by ImpliedChaos
|
Bush imposes new sanctions on Sudan
www.msnbc.msn.com
 President Bush ordered new U.S. economic sanctions Tuesday to pressure Sudan’s government to halt the bloodshed in Darfur that the
administration has condemned as genocide.
“I promise this to the people of Darfur: The United States will not avert our eyes from a crisis that challenges the conscience of the world,” the
president said.
The sanctions target government-run companies involved in Sudan’s oil industry, and three individuals, including a rebel leader suspected of being
involved... (visit the link for the full news article)
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 29-5-2007 @ 10:34 AM by ImpliedChaos
|
‘The United States will not avert our eyes,’ president says
Oh really..well what have we been doing for the last 4 years. Women are being raped daily, children are dieing and forced to fight and it takes 4
years for us to anything. I think we could do alot more and we should have started a while ago. In my opinion it is a disgrace that the international
community has stood by idly and let these atrocities occur. But thats just my opinion
BY The Way I did a search and couldnt find this story sorry if it has been posted.
www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 29-5-2007 @ 10:55 AM by crisko
|
The conflict is a very complex one. When Darfur flared up, Sudan was still in the middle of a civil war. The crisis actually involves three
countries; Sudan, Chad and C.A.R. It is widely believed that China and Russia are supplying arms to the Sudanese government which is in turn using
them against the rebels, violating the U.N. Embargo.
China also increased military cooperation earlier this year and has substantial investments in the country. Sudan supplies China with large amounts
of oil.
So - what, if anything do you think the U.S. can do? If you want to blame anyone here - blame China and Russia.
[edit on 29-5-2007 by crisko]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 29-5-2007 @ 11:08 AM by ImpliedChaos
|
Dont ignore the problem (which is what we have done), Say what China and Russia are doing is wrong, send aid to the victims....Obviously we could have
done something if we were able to have sanctions now why not last year or two years ago. We are so quick to aid the Iraqi swith there government but
we wont help Sudan for 1 reason: they dont have anything we want. We only help countries when we can gain something. That is not right..hundreds of
thousands have died, thousands more children women have been raped, millions have been displaced...It is inhumane to "avert our eyes" though that is
what we have done.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 29-5-2007 @ 11:31 AM by RetinoidReceptor
|
The US could have sent aid to the displaced people, weapons to the people fighting against the ones committing genocide, lobbying the UN much more
(though that wouldn't do much).
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 29-5-2007 @ 11:56 AM by pepsi78
|
He wants to turn this in to a second iraq, in stead of presuring sudan by imposing economic sanctions they should pressure the rebels to sign an
agreement.
Sudan is already starving of hunger, further economic sanctions will kill alot of people, just like when iraq was under sanctions, alot of children
died because of those sanctions.
Bush dreams of troops on the ground in sudan so he can make a mess up sudan too......
The only reson bush bashing the sudan goverment is because there is oil, I can't beilive this, somalia is starving, people are dieing, war lords rule
over there, I havent seen bush say anything about that, and the somalia issue is older than suddan.
It's the oil man, this disgustes me, this man has done nothing but spread hate and division.
What a clown, imposing economic sanctions on sudan when children are starving of hunger over there.
[edit on 29-5-2007 by pepsi78]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 29-5-2007 @ 12:17 PM by crisko
|
 Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
The US could have sent aid to the displaced people, weapons to the people fighting against the ones committing genocide, lobbying the UN much more
(though that wouldn't do much). 
The U.S. is sending aid.
$767,978,042 from 2003 - 2005 and $509,532,362 from 2005 to current. Bush said it in his speech this morning - we are the largest donor of aid.
Providing arms to the rebels - that could be bad; they are rebelling against a standing government.
It is note worthy that the U.S. has been pushing for the U.N. to become involved and a force of 15,000 was approved. However the Sudanese government
said any such force would be viewed and treated as invaders.
We can't put troops on the ground as the situation would be as bad if not worse than Iraq; this is a mini civil war after all.
I find it Ironic that people want us out of Iraq - but want action in Darfur. Now it doesn't matter if you agree with the war or not, but it has to
be understood that if we leave Iraq now, it will look a lot Darfur in terms of the humanitarian conditions.
Why is one acceptable and the other not?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 29-5-2007 @ 12:25 PM by ImpliedChaos
|
Well In my opinion there is a difference because we went to Iraq under false pretenses. If Bush said we went there to help liberate the Iraqi people
and then there wouldnt be a problem BUT we went there for WMD and oil. and due to the fact that we couldnt find the WMD it all of sudden became a
mission to free the Iraqi people. It seems that for some reason we only help people that help us. We dont need anything from Sudan so why help them.
We cant just leave Iraq now because we have messed it up so much that we are in a lose-lose situation. but we need to leave soon. We could have
stopped what happened in Darfur a while ago. But we didnt we were too busy helping people who dont want our help in Iraq.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 29-5-2007 @ 12:33 PM by deltaboy
|
Originally posted by ImpliedChaos
Well In my opinion there is a difference because we went to Iraq under false pretenses. If Bush said we went there to help liberate the Iraqi people
and then there wouldnt be a problem BUT we went there for WMD and oil. and due to the fact that we couldnt find the WMD it all of sudden became a
mission to free the Iraqi people. It seems that for some reason we only help people that help us. We dont need anything from Sudan so why help them.
We cant just leave Iraq now because we have messed it up so much that we are in a lose-lose situation. but we need to leave soon. We could have
stopped what happened in Darfur a while ago. But we didnt we were too busy helping people who dont want our help in Iraq.
Sounds just like Somalia. They want our help, but then they don't? Who is they? The Somilian people or the militias fighting for power? Who wants
our help in Iraq? The Iraqi people or the insurgents both foreign and domestic? 
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 29-5-2007 @ 12:47 PM by RetinoidReceptor
|
Originally posted by crisko
I find it Ironic that people want us out of Iraq - but want action in Darfur. Now it doesn't matter if you agree with the war or not, but it has to
be understood that if we leave Iraq now, it will look a lot Darfur in terms of the humanitarian conditions.
What you say makes sense. It is just I feel bad for the people there. There are so many backwards people there, and I know I'll get flamed, but
they are all connected to Islam in some sort of way. Arabs are continuously inflaming Africa, and they have been for centuries.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 29-5-2007 @ 05:20 PM by Stormrider
|
Originally posted by ImpliedChaos
BY The Way I did a search and couldnt find this story sorry if it has been posted.
No, you were the first. I did a search also about a half hour ago and found no posts about it, just the ones about Bush's comments last month; so, I
posted it and promptly had my thread closed. No worries, I just wish ATS would update their thread index more quickly. BTW, I scrolled through the Alt
News threads and didn't see yours either. What's up with that? 
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 29-5-2007 @ 09:54 PM by crisko
|
Originally posted by ImpliedChaos
Well In my opinion there is a difference because we went to Iraq under false pretenses. If Bush said we went there to help liberate the Iraqi people
and then there wouldnt be a problem BUT we went there for WMD and oil. and due to the fact that we couldnt find the WMD it all of sudden became a
mission to free the Iraqi people. It seems that for some reason we only help people that help us. We dont need anything from Sudan so why help them.
We cant just leave Iraq now because we have messed it up so much that we are in a lose-lose situation. but we need to leave soon. We could have
stopped what happened in Darfur a while ago. But we didnt we were too busy helping people who dont want our help in Iraq.
Saddam did, at one point have WMD's. Chemical weapons are considered both indiscriminate weapons as well as Weapon's of Mass Destruction. Saddam
did use such weapons against both the Kurds and the Iranians in the Iran / Iraq war. People seem to over look this.
Now - while we didn't find any physical weapons, we did find plans for such devices.
But this is off topic.
However, people in Iraq did want some sort of intervention, namely the Kurds. Towards the end of the first Gulf War there were plans in place for a
joint attack involving coalition forces and the Kurds. Sadly, the attack never came to be and the result was Saddam attacked the Kurds once again.
This is one of the many reasons the "No-Fly" zones were put in place.
Sudan is an oil rich nation as well and Darfur is another case of Muslims fighting Muslims. The big difference here is that Sudanese government is
not a threat to it's neighbors. In fact, one of it's nieghbors, Entriea (sp) is partly to blame for the current situation.
[edit on 29-5-2007 by crisko]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 30-5-2007 @ 01:54 AM by Muaddib
|
sigh....
We have had many threads in the past about this, and yes there have been countries who have tried their hardest to keep the situation in Sudan the way
it is, but the U.S. has not been one of those countries.
This is not the first, and probably won't be the last time the U.S., and some other countries have to do this.
Let me remind some of the members as to some of the things that have happened in past years in Sudan.
 Thursday, 8 July, 2004, 16:34 GMT 17:34 UK
France opposes UN Sudan sanctions
The humanitarian situation is worsening
France says it does not support US plans for international sanctions on Sudan if violence continues in Darfur.
The UN Security Council is debating a US draft resolution imposing sanctions on militias accused of "ethnic cleansing" against non-Arabs.
The US also hinted that the sanctions could be extended to the government.
The united States has wanted these sanctions to spread to the government of Sudan for advocating genocide/Jihad.
7/30/04 - UN Security Council: Sudan must on Darfur in 30 days or face measures
Sudan
UN News Centre 30 July 2004 Sudan must act on Darfur in 30 days or face measures, Security Council warns 30 July 2004
The Security Council today adopted a resolution paving the way for action against Sudan in 30 days if it does not make progress on pledges to disarm
the militias accused of indiscriminate murders, rapes and other attacks against civilians in the Darfur region, a move that was welcomed immediately
by Secretary-General Kofi Annan. With China and Pakistan abstaining, and the other 13 members approving the text, the Council agreed to impose an arms
embargo against the Janjaweed militias and all other non-governmental forces in Darfur, which has been described as the site of the world's worst
humanitarian crisis. The resolution says the Council might take measures against Sudan if it does not show progress on achieving the commitments �
most notably the pledges to disarm the Janjaweed and restore security to Darfur � it outlined in a joint communique with the UN on 3
July.
www.dpado.org...
As Genocide Unfolds
Sunday, June 20, 2004; Page B06
THE BUSH administration is waking up to Darfur, the western Sudanese province where Arab death squads have herded African villagers into refugee camps
and are waiting for them to die. Two weeks ago Andrew Natsios, the administration's top aid official, estimated that at least a third of a million
refugees are likely to perish for lack of food or basic medicines, and earlier this month Secretary of State Colin L. Powell acknowledged to the New
York Times that the death squads have been supported by Sudan's government. Mr. Powell added that State Department lawyers are determining whether
the killing, which the administration has already characterized as ethnic cleansing, may qualify for the term "genocide" -- a determination that
would impose moral, political and arguably also legal obligations to intervene in Darfur.
www.washingtonpost.com...
Sudan warns UK, US not to interfere in Darfur
(Agencies)
Updated: 2004-07-23 09:25
Sudan warned Britain and the United States not to interfere in its internal affairs on Thursday after British Prime Minister Tony Blair said he had
not ruled out military aid to help combat the crisis in Darfur.
The United States circulated a U.N. resolution threatening sanctions against Sudan's government if Khartoum did not prosecute Arab militia leaders in
the western region.
www.chinadaily.com.cn...
France and Germany Abet Genocide
By John Eibner and Charles Jacobs
Boston Globe | March 18, 2003
THE LANGUAGE of human rights flows smoothly from the lips of the leaders of France and Germany. But continuing Franco-German hegemony in Europe is bad
news for human rights, especially for victims whose oppressors are European Union partners. Take, for example, the victims of the Sudanese
government's genocidal jihad. In the words of U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, there is ''no greater tragedy on the face of the earth than the
tragedy that is unfolding in the Sudan.''
............................
For years, these atrocities were largely ignored by the international community. Only in the mid-1990s did the Clinton administration finally wake up
to mounting evidence of Khartoum's sponsorship of international and domestic terrorism. The response was robust. The U.S. government declared Sudan
to be a terrorist state. It sponsored strong resolutions at the UN Commission for Human Rights condemning Khartoum for slavery and a host of other
crimes. Strict U.S. economic sanctions were imposed.
What did the Franco-German duo do? It led the EU in the opposite direction. France provided Khartoum with military intelligence for the prosecution of
the jihad, while French and German helicopters have been used for ethnic cleansing in southern Sudan's oil fields. Driving black, non-Muslims out of
their homes creates greater security for the investments of oil firms like Total Fina (France/Belgium) and the German engineering giant
Mannesmann.
frontpagemag.com...
There have been countries and human right groups from several countries who have tried to help in Dafur, but even the help that is being sent there,
has been stopped by the government of Sudan and the Arab militias.
Africa: War on the Rescuers
Darfur: The newest targets in the territory's widening violence are the aid workers keeping its people alive.
Jan. 29, 2007 issue - Last Sept. 11 was a momentous day in Darfur, too. After unidentified militiamen attacked aid workers from the Nobel
Prize-winning Médecins sans Frontières at a roadblock on that date, most of the international aid groups ministering to Darfur's 6 million people
stopped using the roads. On Dec. 18, in the southern town of Gereida, unrelated gunmen attacked the compounds of Oxfam and Action Contre la Faim. More
than 70 aid workers subsequently pulled out of the refugee camp there—Darfur's largest, with 130,000 people—leaving only 10 Red Cross employees
behind. Yet at the time no one revealed what had really sparked the dramatic pullbacks. In both cases, international staff, including three French aid
workers, were either raped or sexually assaulted in territory controlled by the Sudanese government and its allies.
www.msnbc.msn.com...
Humanitarian aid in Darfur and Eastern Chad is rapidly collapsing
Wednesday 6 December 2006 12:45.
Khartoum, having secured the security status quo in “negotiations” with the UN and African Union, has returned to its genocidal onslaught
Eric Reeves,
Dec 5, 2006 — Evacuations of humanitarian personnel have in recent days accelerated dramatically in both North Darfur and eastern Chad. Today over
100 international aid workers, primarily non-essential staff, were evacuated from el-Fasher, capital of North Darfur. This comes in the wake of armed
incursions into the town by Khartoum-supported Janjaweed militia forces, which have for three days engaged in looting and assaults on the town’s
markets and civilians. According to first-hand reports from the ground, as many as 1,000 Janjaweed remain in el-Fasher at this hour. Heavy gunfire was
reported this evening (local time) from the ground in el-Fasher. The rebel forces of the National Redemption Front (NRF), including the SLA/Group 19,
are concentrated some 25 kilometers outside el-Fasher, poised to attack if Khartoum does not halt the murderous Janjaweed rampage. The unconstrained
predations by the Janjaweed have brought even the forces of SLA/Minni Minawi to the brink of withdrawing from the Darfur Peace Agreement and
re-joining the rebel groups that did not sign the agreement.
www.sudantribune.com...
This has been going on for years, and yes there have been countries who have tried to help while others have been guilty of what has been happening in
Dafur. If you want to place the blame on somebody, place the blame where it is due.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 30-5-2007 @ 01:59 AM by Muaddib
|
BTW, I don't know how this slipped through, as I never saw it posted on the forums, although I could be wrong. But here it is none-the-less.
Stop flow of weapons to Darfur, Amnesty tells China, Russia
Last Updated: Tuesday, May 8, 2007 | 11:23 AM ET
CBC News
Human rights group Amnesty International said Tuesday it believes that Russia and China are supplying weapons to Sudan in violation of a United
Nations arms embargo.
Amnesty International, in a new report on Sudan, said it is "deeply dismayed" that the weapons are being diverted for use in Sudan's troubled
Darfur region and neighbouring Chad.
The Arab militia known as the Janjaweed is using the imported weapons, it added.
"States supplying weapons, munitions and other military equipment to Sudan and to other parties to the conflict know, or at least should know, that
these arms are often used to commit serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in Darfur and now in eastern Chad," the
report reads.
www.cbc.ca...
[edit on 30-5-2007 by Muaddib]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 30-5-2007 @ 02:08 AM by Muaddib
|
The Arab militias and the government of Sudan, which has sanctioned jihad in the region, are one of the mayor reasons why the aid being sent is not
reaching the people who need it.
Many aid workers, which have included Sudanese people trying to help their own, as well as other international aid workers, have been kidnapped, raped
and murdered by the Arab militias with the blessings of the Sudanese government.
August 31, 2006
Sudanese Aid Worker Killed in Darfur / U.N. says safety of aid workers in Darfur needs to be ensured / Joint UNMIC-OCHA press release on death of ICRC
humanitarian worker
Three newer items that somewhat update yesterday's batch:
By VOA's Cathy Majtenyi...
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) says one of its aid workers abducted earlier this month in Sudan's Darfur region has been
killed.
The 31-year-old Sudanese staff member had been abducted August 16 in the Jebel Marra mountains of North Darfur.
He and his colleagues were returning from a food distribution mission when a group of armed men stopped the convoy and forced the Sudanese staff
member to drive one of two vehicles stolen in the incident.
platform.blogs.com...
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 30-5-2007 @ 10:08 AM by pepsi78
|
Muaddib let me get this straight, there are people there starving kids included.
You agree to place economic sanctions that would put an end to any posibility to help at all , medical aid included for those in suffering.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 30-5-2007 @ 12:13 PM by crisko
|
Originally posted by pepsi78
Muaddib let me get this straight, there are people there starving kids included.
You agree to place economic sanctions that would put an end to any posibility to help at all , medical aid included for those in suffering.
I can't speak for him - but that is what I would do. I would also send a detail of 300 or so special forces armed to the teeth and backed up by the
biggest, baddest air support we can muster to protect the refugees.
In fact, that is the plan once the U.S. Army gets the African Command online.
Yet, you think we are doing nothing?
EDIT: Fixed URL, I think. 
[edit on 30-5-2007 by crisko]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 30-5-2007 @ 01:37 PM by marg6043
|
Sudan bush has done another one while listening to the wrong people that supposedly is for the gooooooddd of the region.
Sanctions against the Sudan government but what is not included is the US interest in the region those are not sanctioned at all.
US is supplying the rebels with weapons and like that perpetuation the disintegration of the nation.
From about 3 or 4 rebel groups now thanks to the US intervention no with help but arms is more than 16 groups of rebels so the fight will go on for
ever.
The profiteers of wars love nothing more than a good long war in that volatile region of the world.
But is OK the Sudanese Innocent civilians now can not get work as their only sources of income is sanctions, like sugar and heating oil.
But American Coca Cola can stay in business even when the people can not afford to buy the product..
Another shame to be add to the despicable policies of our governments to other nations.
People goes hungry but they go coca cola.
Look and learn people because this is a great example how profiteers of war and corporate America is ruling the world.
This is also how the enemy is made, born and nurture for future generations of US haters.
Then the next American generation with short memories can look and ask What has we done for them to hate our nation so much.
History will repeat itself. . .
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 30-5-2007 @ 01:43 PM by infinite
|
any action should involve the European Union.
Especially the British. Sudan is a former colony and think we should do what we did in Sierra Leone back in 2000. The British should send in troops to
stop the genocide.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 30-5-2007 @ 03:38 PM by Stormrider
|
Economic sanctions are good but only targeting Sudan with such sanctions in not enough. Here's why"
KHARTOUM, May 30 (Reuters) - Sudan believes fresh U.S. economic sanctions on Sudan will have minimal impact in Khartoum because it has no direct
trade ties with the United States, a senior Sudanese Finance Ministry official said on Wednesday.
U.S. President George W. Bush imposed new unilateral sanctions on Sudan on Tuesday and sought support for an international arms embargo out of
frustration at Sudan's refusal to end what he called a genocide in war-ravaged Darfur.
"It doesn't have that much effect on the economy. We don't have direct economic or trade relations with the United States," the Finance Ministry
official told Reuters, asking not to be named because he was not authorised to speak to the press.
"Our economy is shifting from the USA and Europe to the East. We have almost 70 percent of our foreign trade with the East," he said, adding that
the government conducts most of its financial transactions in euros.
Despite sanctions that have blocked much Western investment, Sudan's economy has benefited from Chinese and Asian funds with an expected growth rate
of up to 13 percent this year. China buys much of Sudan's 330,000 barrels per day of crude, sells Khartoum weapons and invests heavily in
construction projects. Reuters
Unless and until the US and it's European allies along with the African Union use miltary force to dispose of the Janjaweed and other government
forces involved in this genocide, it will go on until there are no more people to kill.
It is always dangerous to talk about invading a sovereign country but when it comes down to a choice between honoring the sovereignty of a country or
honoring the sanctity of human life and preserving justice, the choice is crystal clear.
Also, as long as Russia, China and other Eastern and Asian countries continue to supply arms and support to Khartoum and the Janjaweed, whatever
sanctions the US invokes will have small consequence. I also found it interesting that the Finance Minister, quoted in the above story, noted that
most of their financial transactions were conducted in Euros, which would mean that the reports that France and Germany are also supporting the
genocide are true. Let's apply finacial sanctions against France, Germany, China & Russia, until they agree to stop supporting terrorism and genocide
in Darfur. That should get the message across, loud and clear!
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
