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.

 

NEWS: U.S. to Put Sanctions on Arab Militia Accused of Atrocities in Sudan in 30 Days.

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2004 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
Why does the US/UN want to get involved in Sudan anyway.




The Uited Nations took root in the ashes of the Jewish people, and according to its charter was to flower on the strength of a commitment to tolerance and equality for all men and women and of nations large and small.




Preamble

We the Peoples of the United Nations Determined
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

And for these Ends

to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors, and

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

to ensure by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples....
(The Charter of the United Nations)



But...Sudan just get voted into a seat within the United Nation's Human Rights Commission.....the General Assembly, for example, ignored the Rwandan genocide, no emergency session was ever held on the ethnic cleansing of tens of thousands in the former Yugoslavia.

Maybe now - with U.S. leading the way - the world decided to act before it is too late.


Rebekka


[edit on 1-8-2004 by Riwka]




posted on Aug, 1 2004 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
BTW What type of strategic interest does Sudan hold anyway??


All western countries need a stable Sudan as they produce 70% of the worlds gum arabicum.

But I can't agree with you, Sudan isn't much as also the other African countries about bad western foreign politics. You can't blame everything on what happened in the past.
Why? Europe lives in peace even though we had a very troubled 20th century. It depends on the people and sorry but Africans are more into murder than into peace. Look up more than 4000 years of constant war history in Africa and tell me they ever had been stable and we made it bad


[edit on 1-8-2004 by shoo]



posted on Aug, 1 2004 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Sudan has first has given a mixed response to U.N. resolution threatening it with sanctions if it failed to restore security in the crisis-hit Darfur region.

On Sunday the Sudanese cabinet met to take a formal position:




The Minister of Foreign Affairs said the Council of Ministers saw that the 30 days period set by the Security Council is illogical and difficult to be implemented, specially that the agreement concluded with the UN Secretary General stipulated that it should be implemented in 90 days.



Sudan Tribune: Sudan cabinet expresses regret over Security Council resolution

I hope Sudan will use the 30 days time provided in the resolution to bring the Janjaweed under control


Rebekka



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 03:10 AM
link   
Looks like they will stretch the whole process for some weeks or even months till enough people are dead anyway.
The right reaction is a death threat against the Sudanese government, they are just chickening with the USA, EU and the UN in general



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 05:02 AM
link   
News from Sudan give cause for concern:

Sudan prepares for war




"The Security Council resolution about the Darfur issue is a declaration of war on the Sudan and its people," armed forces spokesperson General Mohamed Beshir Suleiman told the official Al Anbaa daily.

"The Sudanese army is now prepared to confront the enemies of the Sudan on land, sea and air," he said.

Reuters reports Clashes rage in south Sudan despite truce


The United Nations took action that was long overdue lagainst Sudan. The world can no longer hope for Sudan to come around.
Its people may not survive the wait.


Rebekka

[edit on 2-8-2004 by Riwka]



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 05:51 AM
link   
Go look here why the US and other care so much all of a sudden, the atrocities have been going on foe quite some time now, but all of a sudden we care!

Read this:

www.guardian.co.uk...



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 05:56 AM
link   
I think the U.S. and Britain should get together and make a rule that if people are being massacred in ANY country that has oil, they just step back and let 'em get after it.

Think about it - allowing them to completely obliterate themselves and then walk in and take the oil reserves left behind is FAR MORE COST EFFECTIVE in the great "oil-driven" cabalist intent than spending skads of money to stop them from killing each other and then employing devious, yet undetected, but highly complicated and downright hard-to-believe schemes to some how "steal" the reserves from underneath their still living butts.

I mean right now we're over 50,000 victims closer to just walking in and sticking a straw in it with no one there to resist!

I think I'll write this up and send it to Bush and Blair...they just don't know how to do this right.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Riwka


Maybe now - with U.S. leading the way - the world decided to act before it is too late.



Yeah right! The US (and other states) ONLY acts in SELF-INTREST.

If you believe the state (US, UK any govt.) gives a moments thought for the poor you are greatly misguided.

Maybe there are a few individuals involved in policy making that spare a thought for the unfortunate, but i stress a FEW INDIVIDUALS. Its is just not a concern, what it IS is a way to pretend to your voters that you do care while you go around cleaning up the profits in natural resources and trade agreements.
Sorry to pop a bubble here but its MONEY MONEY MONEY, not philanthropy.

I wish it were not so...



[edit on 2/8/2004 by Corinthas]



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 06:01 AM
link   
Corinthas,

I'd like to point out two things.

1. You haven't thought about this very much have you?

2. Though you seem convicted to repeat this claim over and over, I'll just point out that saying something repeatedly doesn't make it so.

This is a ludicrous, unsubstantiated, politically-driven accusation by some one who hides behind a desk and has it out for Blair----whatever!

[edit on 8-2-2004 by Valhall]



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Corinthas,

I'd like to point out two things.

1. You haven't thought about this very much have you?

2. Though you seem convicted to repeat this claim over and over, I'll just point out that saying something repeatedly doesn't make it so.

This is a ludicrous, unsubstantiated, politically-driven accusation by some one who hides behind a desk and has it out for Blair----whatever!

[edit on 8-2-2004 by Valhall]



OK then you make a case for me where you can show the motive for a (any) foreign intervention to be purely motivated by a desire to do good/ the right thing.

Can you do that? If not that I think my assumption that a country always acts in self-intrest is pretty good.

BTW i never mentioned Blair and dont have it "out for" anyone, exept liars, cheats and evildoers ;p



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 07:10 AM
link   
No, your source mentions Blair (from the other thread that you also stated this in).

Ruwanda
Haiti
Somalia
Yugoslavia

And you are correct, I would assume that any action expects a level of return on it. Even if that return is just trying to avoid bad karma that could get on you from watching atrocities and genocide and doing nothing about it.



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
No, your source mentions Blair (from the other thread that you also stated this in).

Ruwanda
Haiti
Somalia
Yugoslavia

And you are correct, I would assume that any action expects a level of return on it. Even if that return is just trying to avoid bad karma that could get on you from watching atrocities and genocide and doing nothing about it.


Yes karma is its own reward, however if you do good for the emotional "reward" it still not classes as a selfless generous deed.

OK then lets have a look a t Rwanda, even the UN couldn't be @#$%$ to do anything!! Just ask the Canadian General who was in charge!

Haiti... now im not too hot on the facts here, but Aristede said it was all a CIA plot to get him out. Not sure but it seems ther are plenty of alterior motives..

Somalia again not too hot on this one, will have to read some more on this. To show it was not for the people.

Yugoslavia was not "one" incident. There were a few "wars" Croatia, Bosnia, Serb and Kosovo.


But seriously though you ACTUALLY believe that even some of these actions are to benfit the needy?!? Come on please.. I would LOVE to think that too.. but its just plain old bad buissness.



new topics




 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join