Darfur - a genocide happening right in front of our eyes....

[methodistgirl]

Sybrite I wouldn't be suprised if it didn't happen. Our government is getting
as crooked as Rome! I know how America has societies that will do any
thing to shut you up. People like CIA, FBI, and other organizations like that
will shut you up somehow if you find out the truth about something. That's
the reason why the assassination of President Kennedy, and the UFO scam
is such a mystery even to this day. Even President Bush probably doesn't
know half of what's going on. Even the UN was a pain in the kuester for
our president and Prime minister Blair. That is the reason why our solders
are in Iraq right now. Just think about it. I know that Jolly ole England must
be the same way as America on that.
judy tooley

 

[Sybarite]

Judy – long before George W Bush was elected, the neocons in the US had been developing plans for what they wanted to see happen if/when the claimed power. Some of that was quite clear in the statements of the Project for the New American Century. That think tank, along with others, posited the view (amongst many others) that, in its own interests, the US had to become the world's policeman and, if some countries didn't like that – tough. It has nothing to do with democracy (as has been seen in Iraq) and everything to do with imperialism. The neocons had also decided that they wanted revenge on Iraq and Saddam – even though there is evidence that the US (amongst others, including the UK) helped to arm Saddam and keep him in power. Here's a little picture of Donald Rumsfeld meeting Saddam a few years ago:

The US (and others) had spent years interfering in Iran, helping to maintain the Shah in power (the US is never concerned about democracy and human rights unless it suits it – see Central and South America for numerous examples). Strangely enough, the Iranian people didn't all think this was a stonkingly good thing. Eventually, after most opponents had been 'removed', the only opposition that was strong enough to take power was fundamentally Islamic and nationalistic (a lovely combination). Cue an upset US (which still seems incapable of putting two and two together to comprehend why this sort of thing keeps happening).

So the US starts to back Saddam in next-door Iraq. It backs him in the carnage of the Iran-Iraq war (gassing people wasn't a problem then, it's worth noting). The US doesn't do anything when Saddam gasses the Kurds at Halabja in 1988 (incidentally, Tony Blair cared so much for the Iraqi people that he couldn't even take the time to sign an Early Day Motion in Parliament on that issue). There is even some evidence to suggest that the White House had privately said that Saddam could go ahead and invade Kuwait after he'd been complaining about slant drilling by the Kuwaitis.

And the a year or so ago, just as Iran is making progress – from within, from its own people – and the EU is beginning to have some diplomatic success in talks on nuclear power, Bush starts sabre-rattling and threatening the country, thus ensuring that the fundamentalist religious nationalists get power again. Bush is a clown and a puppet for the neocons.

I am not generally a believer in conspiracy theories – applying Occam's Razor at all times is a good idea (in essence, where there are a number of explanations, the simplest is probably the most likely). 9/11 was no conspiracy – people who think that the White House planned it all are buffoons. However, it played perfectly into the hands of the neocons and their agenda, and it was also not helped by sheer incompetence on the part of the then government (why did they stop security watches on bin Laden and his cronies at the beginning of 2001, for instance). And it is crystal clear that the US (and the UK) lied about Iraq – there were no links between Saddam and al-Queda – bin Laden must be laughing his socks off: Bush and Blair have done exactly what he wanted in getting rid of a secular leader in Iraq and opening it up to Islamic fundamentalism. There were no WMD. There was no "45 minutes". There was oil, of course. And there was the possibility, with that oil, of breaking OPEC's power.

And thus we have a situation where hundreds of thousands of innocent people have died because of Bush and Blair and their cronies – who, incidentally, claim to be Christians.

The UN is far from perfect, but let's be clear: the US has been undermining it for years. For instance, by using its veto to stop even mild criticism of the actions of the state of Israel. It was only a "pain" for the US government when its members – the rest of the world – dared to risk getting in the way of what the White House wanted.

You say about corruption – and only look at Dick Cheney and Haliburton or at the private security 'militias' that have been murdering Iraqis – what else do you imagine you will get if you have a society where only money matters? That's right – you guard the oil ministry, but you ignore the hospital being looted. After all – who cares about a bunch of A-Rabs. And look at the White House's record on helping the victims of Hurricane Katrina – since they were mostly poor and mostly black, central government didn't give a flying fig. Over two years down the line, there are still thousands of people in New Orleans who remain homeless.

So, that's why your soldiers (and British ones, and those of other nations) are in Iraq now. Because of the morally bankrupt, right-wing, nationalistic, imperialistic plans of a load of loons who should be on trial in the International Court in the Hague for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

 

[methodistgirl]

There are people here in madisonville. You don't know this but the CIA
is just another american mafia. Everybody in that orginazation has their
own code and password. When some citizen like myself accidently blows
their cover or congressperson or any yahoo will wind up in jail or getting
their head blown off by an assasson. Here in the american south having
to put up with social indifference and injustice all of the time. I haven't
seen a black person work here for a long time, and the library that was
built here back in the roaring twenties was a whites only library. I didn't
like that at all. I didn't come to that library because. I see indifference
all around me. Like one day didn't no one here at our walmart said any
thing about me going to the bathroom but a blonde headed girl stopped
a black from going to the men's room. I just walked out of our walmart
and have never went back. I go to Kmart for what I need at walmart
and the second hand store for my yarn. I won't go to walmart for that
reason but yet they will hire people from Romania! Not some John who
lives here needing a job.
judy tooley

 

[Sybarite]

Judy, that's the nature of capitalism. Big business wants more profits. And if they have to employ people who'll work longer for less money, then they'll do so.

Incidentally, you mention Romanian immigrants – don't forget that the whole of the US is built on immigration. The US a mongrel nation that robbed the indigenous population of their livelihoods, murdered millions of them and stuck the remaining ones into something akin to the bantustans in apartheid South Africa. Still, it meant that they could then get at their land and pretty well wipe out whole species of animal.

You see? Profit always comes before ethics.

 

[Corno Dolce]

*The US a mongrel nation* - well, as an immigrant from Europe I do certainly recall what a mutt for a politician Neville Chamberlain was when he emerged from a meeting with Adolf Hitler, waving a piece of paper with Der Führer's signature and proclaiming that there will be peace in our time. What happened next? London got blitzed!!! And the mongrel nation called the US came to Britain's aid....

:smirk:

 

[Corno Dolce]

Funny thing is IS that when the fecal matter starts hitting the rotating oscillator, who is the Country that everybody runs to for help? The UN is a lame duck and the EU is hobbled with overbloated bureaucracy. Darfur is an excellent case in point in regards to the enfeebled nature of the UN and the EU.

Remember, there are leaders from non-democratically elected Countries who sit at the Human Rights panel in the UN. Want the UN to be effective? Rename the UN as the League of Democracies and have each member state be a freely and fully elected representative Government accountable to the constituency of the member nation. The EU? Well, thats a work-in-progress so, any results-oriented policies will be a long time in coming.

 

[Sybarite]

*The US a mongrel nation* - well, as an immigrant from Europe I do certainly recall what a mutt for a politician Neville Chamberlain was when he emerged from a meeting with Adolf Hitler, waving a piece of paper with Der Führer's signature and proclaiming that there will be peace in our time. What happened next? London got blitzed!!! And the mongrel nation called the US came to Britain's aid....

:smirk:

So you disagree with the analysis? You disagree that the US is an immigrant nation (I am not aware of many Native Americans in positions of political authority, for instance, or represented in, say, Hollywood)? You seem rather sensitive about it.

The UK is also a mongrel (or Who?) nation. The nearest we have to 'original' English were probably the Beaker People. After the Celts, the Saxons, the Angles, the Jutes, the Normans, the Romans and two lots of Vikings had invaded and left their genes around (and I don't mean their 501s), the English could hardly be described as a 'pure' nation in ethinic terms. However, while the English have committed many atrocities during their history, I don't think you'd find that that they managed the kind of genocide that was practised against the indigenous population of the US by its newcomers.

In terms of WWII, I think that, if you set aside the simplistic (and frequently blatently inaccurate) fantasies of Hollywood, you'll find that the Nazis' invasion of the Soviet Union, and the bravery and sacrifice of the Soviet people marked the crucial turning point in the war.

The UN has been damaged massively by US policy. This is the US that is so ethical that it uses its veto at every possible turn to stop even slight criticism of the state of Israel, remember. You have to stop complaining that the UN has been emasculated when your government help the knife and applied the crucial cuts.

And I'm curious about your thinking that the world comes running to the US crying for help. When, pray tell, was that? Please feel free to provide examples. Personally, I seem to recall that, when your leadership was actually trying to prepare for its (illegal) invasion of Iraq, it was desperate to get other countries in the world to support it, to give it an ounce of credibility. That the UK, under Bush's poddle, Blair, was so willing to help out has been rendered even more risable by the apparent complete lack of interest that the US has in anything remotely reciprocal. You might even care to remember that the UK was not the only country that came running to help Dubya in his warmongering – that's why people have died in terrorist atrocities, not just in England, but in Spain too. Still, at least the recent terrorist bombings on English soil weren't funded by Americans, eh?

My understanding of post-WWII history shows that this sort of pattern is not new. The US says 'jump', and the UK government usually asks: 'how high'. I don't recall much of it happening in any other way. Perhaps you're suggesting that all those countries in Central and South America begged the US to bomb them and mine their harbours and kill their people and overthrow their democracies? Is that it? Or perhaps you're thinking about how the rest of the world pleaded with the White House to go to war in Vietnam (good old Harold Wilson, actually keeping us out of that debacle)?

The EU is a developing and ongoing experiment. Some of what it does is not particularly good, some of what it does is good (things like diplomacy – sorry, let me explain: that's something that we do over here in the 'Old World' instead of shooting first and asking question later. The US has bombed more countries, more times, than any other since WWII). Well, at least it's helped to keep us at peace in western Europe for the past a century and more. Not that that would help your military-industrial complex, eh? What was it that Eisenhower had to say about that?

 

[Marya]

Just a couple comments about some of the comments--In the U.S. "mongrel" is a somewhat derogatory term. Over here, we call ourselves a melting pot. We also have a lot of apologists for what has happened in the past with the native Americans, black people who came here as slaves, Japanese people who were interned during WWII, women, white men, Hispanics, Arabs and so on. Really what we can all do is the best we can in the present, however imperfect it is. I am clear on the idea that, whatever the reasons the Iraq War was started, that the mass weapons of destruction are the people: first the genocide of the Kurds, now the somewhat random acts against the regular citizenry and anyone who tries to bring peace. We have a lot of controversy in the U.S. news, but the people who are quiet publicly (like me!) support our efforts over there. That is not to say that I don't now hope that things shift so that the Iraqis can take over and self govern soon. But, it is at best a very convoluted situation, involving numerous cultures and philosophies.

 

[Corno Dolce]

Well, as an immigrant I'm not overly sensitive as you think I might be. You're projecting something I'm not. The UN is it's own greatest enemy with reps from non-democratically elected governments who torture and kill their constituency. The US contributes the lion's share(percentagewise more than any other nation) to fund the UN plus providing them with such a fancy address. Personally, I'd rather see the UN in Brussels or Geneva.

You mention Native American's in positions of political authority - do you mean in the Senate, Congress, or as Governors or Mayors? America likes to elect people to be their representatives, not by race or gender insert people into high visibility political office.

Cheers,

Corno Dolce

 

[Sybarite]

... The UN is it's own greatest enemy ...

You seem strangely keen to dodge the question of the manner in which the US has dleiberately and repeatedly tried to hamstring the UN – and the way in which the US has used its veto unethically.

You mention Native American's in positions of political authority - do you mean in the Senate, Congress, or as Governors or Mayors? America likes to elect people to be their representatives, not by race or gender insert people into high visibility political office.

Cheers,

Corno Dolce

That's a bit like saying that the justice system in the US isn't supposed to be racist.

By the way, have you got that list of all the countries that have coming running to the US for help yet? As someone who is always eager to learn about the wider world, I'd really like to know more on that score.

Thank you in advance.

 

[Corno Dolce]

Madame Sybarite,

Dodge questions I do not do. Questions prefaced by never-ending condemnations of my adopted Country I don't, as a rule, answer, since they are debated on the grounds of emotionalism, not informed historical thinking.

Your implying that the Judicial system in America is racist goes beyond the pale. Yes, there are warts in every system but so it is with every system with human interaction. Furthermore I am repulsed by racism on the part of anyone or by any government entity or branch. I shall flip the question on it's head: Where is the perfect country with the perfect judicial system? I submit that there are none.

Furthermore, by whose standard, whose moral codex, whose system of *ethics* do you pre-judge the US *unethical* veto vote in the UN?

Respectfully,

Corno Dolce

Btw - What brought about the Theatre in Iraq? I would be amiss if I did not include the link below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1441

 

[Sybarite]

I'm sorry, Corno Dolce, I still can't see all those examples of countries that you mentioned coming running the US for help.

Surely you wouldn't have posted that without realising that you couldn't back up such a claim, would you? Especially as you now say that you don't 'dodge' questions.

As for ethics – the US like to claim that it is a Christian country. your president publically announces this – and tells us all about his personal Christianity all the time. You have generals who stand up in churches, in all their military regalia, and preach about how 'my god's bigger and better than their god'. It's a funny old kind of Christianity, though, since it has no easily discernible connection with that Jesus bloke who gave his name to the religion in question and whose teachings are supposedly contained in the gospels. Perhaps, in ethical terms, we could start by examining US government policy in terms of, say, the Beatitudes?

The US has made itself the 'leader of the free world' etc. It has decided that it is global cop. If it wants to play these roles, then it has to realise that it's going to be open to a great deal more criticism of its behaviour than many other countries – especially when it murders people in an illegal war, when it refuses to abide by the Geneva Conventions and when it openly breaks treaties that it is a signatory to.

Let me give you an example that, I think, perfectly illustrates why people throughout the world are seriously angry with the US government and state apparatus.

Take Iran. Iran is being naughty because it's developing nuclear power (it's light years from nuclear weapons, but let's not let such facts bother us, shall we?). So Iran has to be told off and threatened. By a country with nuclear arms. And a country that has signed non-proliferation treaties – but is still developing its own new nuclear weapons. And now there's even talk of military strikes against Iran ('cos Iraq has been such a rip-roaring success).

It's called hypocrisy. It's also, as anyone with half a brain cell will realise, damned dangerous for the entire world – and that is also why the rest of the world has a right (and, indeed, a duty) to make themselves aware of what is going on and to be prepared to comment on it, as here.

As to the justice system in the US, countless pieces of research have shown that murderers are more likely to be executed (another nice, Christian practice) in states where capital punishment is still allowed if they are black than white. (Not that this should surprise anyone who is aware of what has happened in New Orleans since Hurricane Katrina) It's also quite clear that money helps enormously to get off in the US – OJ is a perfect example. Even US writers Kander and Ebb satirised this aspect of your judicial culture in Chicago.

It's quite simple – if the US sets itself up as some world leader, it has to expect criticism when it makes a mess all over the place. It has implied that it is better than everyone else (hence it being self0appointed world leader and global cop), so it had better show that it can live up to the higher standards that one would expect of an entity in such a position.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to that list of examples of countries coming running to the White House to beg for help.

 

[Corno Dolce]

Sorry Sybarite,

I've said my piece about the tenor of this discussion which is terribly lopsided and unfruitful in it's continuation. No answer has come forth about the ethical system or moral codex with which the US is pre-judged for having made an *unethical veto vote*. Where is the perfect Country with the perfect Judicial system? No answer? So, really, there are no grounds for continuation of this discussion. And one more thing, I jestingly used the phrase *countries who come running for help* - I knew instinctively that someone's feathers would be ruffled. But only in good sport and with no malice intended.

Discussion closed!. - Thread remains open...

 

[Sybarite]

I gave you an answer. The US administration itself claims to be Christian. Plenty of US citizens claim that theirs is a Christian country. Well, it seems perfectly reasonable to judge the US on the basis of what the US government and many US citizens claim. And in terms of Christianity, very little US policy, either domestic or foreign, bears any relation to what Jesus Christ is supposed to have taught.

And I repeat – if the US decides to set itself up as some world leader and global cop, then it had better behave rather better than those it has decided to lead and preside over. The trouble is – it doesn't. No, there is no perfect country – but most of the rest of the world isn't going around claiming to be world leader and global cop, and pontificating to everyone else about how they should behave (telling the Dutch what they should do about drugs in their own country, for instance).

In specific terms of the veto – using the veto at every turn on a particular issue says that the US is putting particular external policies over and above the actual issues being debated at the UN. It has spent decades treating the UN with contempt, in other words. The US doesn't want an effective UN – it's world leader, remember.

And I take it that you can't find all those examples of countries coming running to the US for help, as you claimed earlier.

Tut tut tut, Corno Dolce ... and you claimed that you didn't dodge questions. :devil:

 

[Marya]

It is easy to base recriminations on what SEEMS to be, rather than what IS. The U.S., Britain and other countries went to Iraq to stop what they perceived as a government ruled by a dictator who had his own citizens killed, including large scale genocide of the Kurds. I have observed that, as a global society, even when the intentions are honorable, they are later seen by some as being self serving. I sometimes wonder, if once Iraq and Iran go their own ways, what effect there will be in the future for countries with problems. Like Darfur. If any government goes in there, in a force similar to the attempted rescue of Iraq, so what else is there to do. You catch the offenders, try to rebuild and to give the people some structure for governance. It doesn't seem like that has ever been tried before Iraq. The rub is that the culture there doesn't really run to a single governing structure since they have historically been tribal and ruled by mullahs. So what structure do you try to suggest?

 

[Sybarite]

It is easy to base recriminations on what SEEMS to be, rather than what IS. The U.S., Britain and other countries went to Iraq to stop what they perceived as a government ruled by a dictator who had his own citizens killed, including large scale genocide of the Kurds...

I'm afraid this is not the case. If there was genuine concern about the situation of ordinary Iraqis, then why did George Bush call a halt to the march on Baghdad in 1991 – when there was universal global support, via the UN, for such action? Why did Tony Blair not even bother to sign an Early Day Motion in Parliament in 1988 after Saddam gassed the Kurds at Halabja? If the US cares about human rights in the Middle East, why is it so pally with the House of Saud – Saudi Arabia has an appalling human rights record (good business connections with the House of Bush might be a clue here).

The official reason given to the British public for the invasion was WMD and a claim that Saddam could hit the UK in 45 minutes. This was a lie. The British population were lied to.

And then one has to ask: 'why Iraq?' Why not Zimbabwe or North Korea – if the US and UK governments were really so concerned about people, why have they done nothing to aid these countries get rid of nasty dictators? If the US cares about democracy and human rights, why has it spent decades backing fascist dictators and far-right regimes in Central and South America, where they have 'disappeared' thousands of people? Why?

And no country has the right to simply go around removing regimes that they don't like from other countries and attempting to impose their idea of how the people in that country should live and govern themselves. Because if you allow that, then where does it stop? It certainly gives China the excuse to invade Taiwan or Burma, for instance.

... I have observed that, as a global society, even when the intentions are honorable, they are later seen by some as being self serving. I sometimes wonder, if once Iraq and Iran go their own ways, what effect there will be in the future for countries with problems...

~~polite cough~~ Iran IS going its 'own way'. Unfortunately, it's 'own way' and its "future", as with Iraq, has been determined for decades by interfering from the West. The West kept Saddam in power for years – he was our friend, because he was at war with Iran.

At which point it's worth briefly considering Iran's modern history too – the West helped maintain the shah in power for a long, long time, crushing democratic movements to achieve that. Eventually, the only group that was powerful enough to overthrow the shah was a militant religious and nationalistic one. After some years, change started to occur in the country – from within, from the Iranian people themselves. And so then what happened? Just as there was a possibility that more moderate leaders would be voted in at an election, that idiot in the White House starts sabre rattling, issuing threats and calling names – the "axis of evil" etc. So what does that achieve? Oh yes, it sends the Iranians back into the arms of more nationalistic leaders.

Like Darfur. If any government goes in there, in a force similar to the attempted rescue of Iraq, so what else is there to do. You catch the offenders, try to rebuild and to give the people some structure for governance. It doesn't seem like that has ever been tried before Iraq. The rub is that the culture there doesn't really run to a single governing structure since they have historically been tribal and ruled by mullahs. So what structure do you try to suggest?

How about letting people themselves decided what they want instead of trying to impose something on them? Unfashionable, I appreciate. How about not interfering with other countries and even letting them develop the way that they want (assuming that they do not interfere in those beyond their own borders)? How about not supporting dictators when it suits us? How about not supporting corrupt and vicious regimes (Saudi Arabia, for instance)? How about actually trying an ethical foreign policy?

Why do you seem to think that the US (and others) have any right whatsoever to attempt to impose something on other people? Can you not see how it causes resentment and a backlash? Can you not see the staggering arrogance of any one nation apparently thinking that it has all the answers to everything and can go and tell – nay, it can go an impose – these answers on other countries and cultures? How would you react if I waltzed into your home, univited, and started pontificating to you about how you should live your life, with a gun in my hand?

I the international community is asked for help by a country, that allows justification to consider going in. If one country invades another sovereign state, unprovoked, then that can allow legitimate reasons for military action (see Gulf War I). In a situation such as Darfur, only the UN could decide, democratically, to go in. If the UN has been emasculated over the years, then perhaps you need to ask why and by whom.

 

[methodistgirl]

Judy, that's the nature of capitalism. Big business wants more profits. And if they have to employ people who'll work longer for less money, then they'll do so.

Incidentally, you mention Romanian immigrants – don't forget that the whole of the US is built on immigration. The US a mongrel nation that robbed the indigenous population of their livelihoods, murdered millions of them and stuck the remaining ones into something akin to the bantustans in apartheid South Africa. Still, it meant that they could then get at their land and pretty well wipe out whole species of animal.

You see? Profit always comes before ethics.

I understand what you are saying. Believe me right now at times I
feel like the indians felt when our ancesters came over here on the
Mayflower. Every since some nation of people come over in boats
and we are left without jobs. Our immigration laws have gotten
tougher since 9/11 and the terrorist attack. The way that the war
in Iraq was done was all wrong. Instead officials should have sent
spies or some orginasation to go overthere and get this guy without
killing all of those people and arrest him instead. As for Rumsfield, he
and Powell was so red hot for war that Bush had to send the solders
as well as getting England, Mexico, Japan, and others involved in the
war. Tony Blair and President Bush are buddies. The united nations
did the same. I know this. The whole thing is a big mess that will
never get cleaned up. My little city should know better when the
county fair starts. I know that people from other nations need some
kind of means to stay on their feet. Here in america, people who
come get treated a whole lot better then our american blacks and the
poor. I'm one of the poor and I get ignored by the government.
If you came over here you would get a lot more help that I could.
Since I'm single and no child. Those at the foodstamp office gives
me that 'get a job' look. If I was about 7 months pregnant and single
they would do what that they could to help. Probably to get rid of
the kid! The mother that had me wound up losing me to a middle
aged couple. So tell me what you think.
judy tooley

 

[Marya]

I'm afraid this is not the case. If there was genuine concern about the situation of ordinary Iraqis, then why did George Bush call a halt to the march on Baghdad in 1991 – when there was universal global support, via the UN, for such action? Why did Tony Blair not even bother to sign an Early Day Motion in Parliament in 1988 after Saddam gassed the Kurds at Halabja?

I believe after Saddam lost Kuwait and was soundly defeated in his efforts, the thought was that the country would move forward on its own. Certainly its army was in tatters.

If the US cares about human rights in the Middle East, why is it so pally with the House of Saud – Saudi Arabia has an appalling human rights record (good business connections with the House of Bush might be a clue here).

The situation with the House of Saud goes way back to the early 1900s. Maybe you could go back and read the comments from back then

And no country has the right to simply go around removing regimes that they don't like from other countries and attempting to impose their idea of how the people in that country should live and govern themselves. Because if you allow that, then where does it stop? It certainly gives China the excuse to invade Taiwan or Burma, for instance.

No one gets permission for their actions. It is their decision to act or react. Diplomacy in the name of countries and religion has historically has involved itself in politics, the U.S. and Britain did not start it. It is unfortunate for the Iraqi people that so many of the moderate leaders who have tried to make a difference have been killed. This is because the killers/insurgents have chosen to do this,; it is certainly not a response from the citizens of the country and is not directed at the military forces who are there. If we go with your conclusions, then Darfur, the Iraqi genocides and others were because of involvement/interference of other countries in their government.

How about letting people themselves decided what they want instead of trying to impose something on them? Unfashionable, I appreciate. How about not interfering with other countries and even letting them develop the way that they want (assuming that they do not interfere in those beyond their own borders)? How about not supporting dictators when it suits us? How about not supporting corrupt and vicious regimes (Saudi Arabia, for instance)? How about actually trying an ethical foreign policy?

Just who would you ask if they need help? Would you ask the leaders or the victims? And, who would have the power to accept or decline? I always think of the alien who lands and asks to be taken to your leader.

Why do you seem to think that the US (and others) have any right whatsoever to attempt to impose something on other people? Can you not see how it causes resentment and a backlash?

No good deed goes unpunished. While we cannot stand by and allow mistreatment of people, the U.S. has generally tried to be there in times of disaster. It is a quandary and once the decision is made, then it has to be followed through to the end. To put in another cliche, sometimes things look like a disaster in the middle and I think that is where the situation with Iraq and Iran is.

I the international community is asked for help by a country, that allows justification to consider going in. If one country invades another sovereign state, unprovoked, then that can allow legitimate reasons for military action (see Gulf War I). In a situation such as Darfur, only the UN could decide, democratically, to go in.

In a perfect world everyone would have the benefit of the troubled country at heart, without further agendas. But everyone has vested interests and loyalties. The view of the U.S. is that terrorism in the name of spreading that particular thread of Muslim religion is not acceptable.

 

[Sybarite]

I believe after Saddam lost Kuwait and was soundly defeated in his efforts, the thought was that the country would move forward on its own. Certainly its army was in tatters...

Yes, and with that being the situation, Saddam could have easily been deposed then and there, with global (via the UN) backing. This was three years after he gassed the Kurds at Halabja, so you can't go around claiming that the US (and anyone else) invaded this time because Saddam was nasty to the Kurds, when they had had the opportunity to see the job to its conclusion in 1991 – but decided not to.

... The situation with the House of Saud goes way back to the early 1900s...

Yes. I am aware of this.

... Maybe you could go back and read the comments from back then

Generally speaking, I tend to treat propaganda as just that. However, this does not alter the fact that Saudia Arabia has an appalling human rights record – it's a wonder that the caring US government didn't invade Saudi and help them to become a democracy, isn't it? Just think – all those women liberated, for instance ...

No human rights in Saudi Arabia.

... No one gets permission for their actions...

Eh? Have you heard of international law? And what do you think the UN is supposed to do?

... It is their decision to act or react. Diplomacy in the name of countries and religion has historically has involved itself in politics, the U.S. and Britain did not start it...

Nobody has said that the US and UK started anything – although it's unclear what you are actually suggesting they didn't start

... It is unfortunate for the Iraqi people that so many of the moderate leaders who have tried to make a difference have been killed...

Shame that the US and the UK and others were supporting him at the time, eh? You cannot get around this – you can't just try to rpetend, conveniently, that it didn't happen. It did. It's no good trying to claim some moral high ground for the US over its invasion of Iraq when it helped to maintain Saddam in power for years, when it helped supply him with weapons, for instance, for years.

... This is because the killers/insurgents have chosen to do this,; it is certainly not a response from the citizens of the country and is not directed at the military forces who are there...

Soldiers ARE being killed by insurgents. Let's be quite clear about one or two things: the insurgency is a direct result of the illegal invasion and war. There was no link between Saddam and Al-Queda – that was another lie that your president and government told you. The US and UK have effectively done Bin Laden's work for him by getting rid of Saddam and opening up the country to the very forces of militant religious fundamentalism that the US government lied about being linked to Saddam. If it wasn't so damned tragic, it would be funny. Plenty of people saw the post-war chaos coming, so either the US and UK governments are really dumb or they don't give a damn about ordinary Iraqi people. Actually, at this point let us remind ourselves that, after the invasion, the US forces guarded the oil ministry but just let hospitals (and museums, for that matter) be looted. So much for caring about ordinary people, eh?

... If we go with your conclusions, then Darfur, the Iraqi genocides and others were because of involvement/interference of other countries in their government....

I do not know enough about the history of the situation in Darfur to comment on that. But yes, the situation in Iraq has, in part, been created by interfering from outside. Just as the situation in Iran has. Those are matters of historic fact.

... Just who would you ask if they need help?

It depends on the situation. If it's a natural disaster, such as the tsunami, one might ask the government if they need help. Sometimes, you wait for people to ask you. I currently work for an organisation that has fraternal links to similar organisations in Zimbabwe that happen to be part of the opposition to Mugabe. We don't try to tell them what they should do – we wait and, if and when they ask us for help, we try to provide what they ask for. It's really not rocket science.

... Would you ask the leaders or the victims?

See above.

... No good deed goes unpunished...

Eh? What does this mean?

... While we cannot stand by and allow mistreatment of people, the U.S. has generally tried to be there in times of disaster...

I'm sorry, but that's rubbish. The US has bombed more countries, more times than any other nation on the Earth since WWII. The US has stood in the way of democracy in many countries – particularly in Central and South America, prefering to bolster up right-wing and fascist dictatorships. The US has allowed and encouraged and helped with the "mistreatment of people" when it suits its own political agenda.

... It is a quandary and once the decision is made, then it has to be followed through to the end. To put in another cliche, sometimes things look like a disaster in the middle and I think that is where the situation with Iraq and Iran is...

Hopefully it'll turn out like Vietnam, eh? And why do you keep mentioning Iran? Are you being softened up in the States for military action there? One of these days, perhaps you'll start asking why the people who are sent to do the White House's dirty work are invariably from poor backgrounds – senators and governors and presidents don't send their children to be canon fodder, do they?

... In a perfect world everyone would have the benefit of the troubled country at heart, without further agendas....

So now you admit the possibility that the US government's motives aren't just about being nice to people?

... But everyone has vested interests and loyalties. The view of the U.S. is that terrorism in the name of spreading that particular thread of Muslim religion is not acceptable.

This is most comforting, since I live in a country where the windows of my own home have been rattled by the bombs of a terrorist campaign that was supported by many in your country, who gave money to pay for the bombs and guns.

Iraq is not about terrorism – there was no terrorist link. The war is what has opened up that particular problem.

You're not wrong about agendas, but you need to inform yourself a little about the motives of your government. Oil – not in the obvious way, but in terms of attempting to break the power of Opec (see the Economist for an article about this just before the invasion). See all the stuff put out by the Project for the New American Century, even before Dubya was elected, making it quite clear what the neo-cons had in mind. Consider the question of the military-industrial complex and what Eisenhower had to say about that (and don't forget that your tax dollars are being spent in ever-increasing amounts on developing new ways to kill people, including nuclear weapons, the development of which break treaties that the US is a signatory to). And money – just plain, good old-fashioned profit: think Haliburton and the corrupt way in which companies have been raking in the cash since the invasion – and with private armies murdering with impunity (Blackwater).

 

[Sybarite]

Comments on the situation in Darfur from the president of Sudan.