“Atrocities are occurring daily in Sudan’s Darfur region
By on Nov 29th, 2006 at 2:04 pm
“Atrocities are occurring daily in Sudan’s Darfur region
and rape and pillage directed against civilians are at ‘a horrific level,’ United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour said on Wednesday.” “In a separate news conference, outgoing U.N. emergency relief coordinator Jan Egeland said tens of thousands of people driven from their homes have been dying from hunger and disease in a crisis that was growing worse by the day.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Oh no you don’t.
You just got me to agree to bring them home from Iraq, you aren’t sending them anywhere :)
November 29th, 2006 at 2:18 pmAnd why won’t anything be done about this? Oil. China has huge amounts of money tied up in the oil infrastructure which they built from the ground up in Sudan. Members of the Sudanese government are of course pocketing all the money China is paying for the right to drill.
November 29th, 2006 at 2:19 pmIf I am not mistaken, the United States has also entered the oil market in Sudan. While not as entrenched as China, US corporations still have a stake there they want to protect. The cost of protecting it of course will be the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Sudanese. The UN cannot do anything because the US and China both have permanent seats on the security council. All it takes is one veto to block anything.
The lack of interest in helping the poor people of Darfur shows just what a bunch of sick, flaming hypocrites Republicans are when they claim to give a damn about the Iraqis.
November 29th, 2006 at 2:30 pmDamn those homos/liberals/atheists! If it wasn’t for them, we right wing nutcases could focus our efforts on something actually productive.
Seriously, though, while I think the UN security council needs reform, the last thing it needs is the domination of a few permanent members endowed with veto power. At the moment it looks relict.
In other words: to curb unilateralism we need a strong ndependent body. The UN cannot currently provide that, for a number of reasons, not least the vetos/permanent seats and the endless horse trading.
November 29th, 2006 at 2:35 pmDamn, the problem is always easier than the solution…
#4
November 29th, 2006 at 2:39 pmWhat is funny about having a permanent seat is that we bash the UN all the time but would never dream of quitting it or allowing it to be disolved in favor of a more equal organization. The neocons go on and on about how they hate the UN, but our seat on the security council gives us so much power we would never give it up willingly.
#5
Agreed. Plus there is the Sudanese oil and when it comes to oil who cares about genocide of innocent people
November 29th, 2006 at 2:48 pmNo oil = No “liberation” from The Decider!
November 29th, 2006 at 2:50 pmNot enought oil in Sudan, and Isreal isn’t concerned with Sudan either. Which means we don’t give a damn.
November 29th, 2006 at 2:55 pm5,
The UN is the only way the neocons can get internation legitimacy. No UN, no legitimacy. So they won’t pull out of the UN, just tell us how corrupt and inefficient it is. Of course, a corrupt and inefficient UN is exactly in US interests, so they’ll never actually try and do something about it.
Imagine a UN with no permanent security council seats and no ‘aid for favours’ horse trading. Utopian I know, but it might actually achieve real goals in the world that favoured the poor majority rather than the -disproportionately- rich minority.
November 29th, 2006 at 2:58 pm#9, Prince Myshkin,
I think it would be better to do away with the Security council entirely. Have the general assembly be the only body, would make everything nice and equal always.
November 29th, 2006 at 3:05 pm10,
Hmm. Without wanting to speculate too much I’d probably envisage (i) devolution of power away from the single security council/general assembly format (ii) more bodies, hence more checks and balances (iii) protection for smaller nations from economic retribution
November 29th, 2006 at 3:14 pmIn my opinion, humanitarian purposes are the ONLY reason we (or any other nation) should “invade” a country if all diplomatic efforts have failed. And in the case of Darfur, I would say that’s the case. Considering that President Bashur (sp?) in the Sudan simply denies that people are being slaughtered (and starving) in Dafur indicates that diplomocacy is a lost cause there. Otherwise, the only defensible position for going to war is self defense in response to an actual or impending attack.
November 29th, 2006 at 3:52 pmThe lack of interest in helping the poor people of Darfur shows just what a bunch of sick, flaming hypocrites Republicans are when they claim to give a damn about the Iraqis.
Comment by RealScientist
The lack of interest in helping the poor people of Rwanda shows just what a bunch of sick, flaming hypocrites Demoncrats are when they claim to give a damn about the Iraqis.
Comment by assholeScientist
November 29th, 2006 at 4:19 pmFlaca, we can’t do anything about Rwanda, it’s in the past. Darfur is happening now. TODAY people are being raped and killed. You are an assclown in the first degree. No one is applauding Clinton’s failure to act in Rwanda, except maybe you, dipshit.
November 29th, 2006 at 4:42 pmThat’s Muslim on Muslim violence. There’s no desire for the average American to get involved.
November 29th, 2006 at 7:26 pmFlaca smart, he need to be president. Wait, I am guessing he IS about as intelligent as our current leader.
November 29th, 2006 at 9:33 pm#1 Tundra, you told me you were always against invading…?
November 29th, 2006 at 9:33 pmYeah but in response to the “horrific levels” of violence against civilians what can we do today ? What security forces are there to withdraw ?
December 1st, 2006 at 6:56 am