Will Kofi Anon and the UN Stop the GENOCIDE in Dar fur, Sudan!?

Question

Will the UN do anything to stop the genocide in Darfur, Sudan, and numerous rapes committed by their very own UN observers, or are they too busy this weekend?

Incidentally, I haven't seen any "Goodwill" trips," from Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or Louis Farakhan, either......They must be overworked and too busy helping re-build New Orleans right now, but as soon as their work is done there......I'm sure they will get right to the bottom of the problems back in the "motherland," and everything will solved in no time at all.....

Is there anyone that will do anything to help these people!!?? The Government there rides through daily and shoots, rapes, and tortures these people who are starving, homeless, and basically...refugees in their own country.....Does anyone care!??

Charolett M, you are illiterate....My profile says I am American. Answer the question or move along!

So, after all that ranter "Weishide," basically what you said is that the UN is worthless AND useless.......Thanks!

Sincerely yours, GFY....

Answer 1

No... the UN is worthless and always has been. They cause more problems than they solve... and that's being overly generous, because I can't think of even one problem that they solved.

Answer 2

The UN is useless, piece of garbage and always has been. Kofi Anon is an opportunist pig and doesn't care about anyone but power: power he can have. The UN will never stop the genocide because they do not care if it happens or not. The only way it will ever be stopped, is if the UN is stopped and dismantaled. They have too much power and they use it badly.

Answer 3

Dear all,

I am getting very tired of hearing the UN so ignorantly insulted. I hate using capital letters recklessly, but at this stage some shouting really is called for. First of all, lest you forget, the UN was an initiative of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, both US presidents. So was the UN's predecessor, the League of Nations, which was largely Woodrow Wilson's brainchild. Americans have played a crucial role in establishing these international institutions. So by insulting the UN, you are indirectly insulting your own past governments, and possibly your own country's greatest achievement.

The US took the lead in sponsoring these international institutions out of a very noble principle - to make international relations a matter of reasoned debate and democratic decision-making rather than unilateral power politics. The US thought it was unjust that countries could just invade one another, and that the outcome of such conflicts could only be resolved by force. The UN was first and foremost established to prevent the resurgence of bully governments, such as Hitler's Nazi regime. The US supported the foundation of the UN to further the cause of international justice. Do you really think this makes the UN useless?

The UN contributes billions per year to the struggle against global poverty; to provide better education around the world; to monitor the respect of human rights; to eliminate disease and increase health standards; to bring food and vital supplies to regions affected by famine, drought or other international disasters. The UN also took the lead in resolving countless conflicts. It was under UN authority, for instance, that the US fought in Korea between 1950 and 1953 and repelled the North Korean invasion of the South. Again, do you really think this makes the UN useless?

But here is the catch: are you ready? the UN is just an organisation, made up of member-states. For constructive solutions to be found for problems around the world and to acquire financial and military backing for such solutions, INDIVIDUAL COUNTRIES HAVE TO AGREE FIRST (especially those in the permanent Security Council).

If they do not, then the likelihood of the UN being able to do anything is indeed very low - but this should be blamed on the poor ability of individual countries to be able to work out their own differences, NOT on the UN itself. Things in the UN simply have to be worked out through dialogue and consensus - this is the way the US itself worked it, so that the UN could be a genuinely democratic institution and not just a mere rubber-stamp for the selfish interests of wealthy and powerful nations.

As for Darfur, the UN has been clamouring for action to be taken for years now. But the truth is that no individual country can be bothered, because Sudan is not a strategic area, it has no oil, and no one (including the US) wants to take the risk of going in there without the possibility of material rewards. I REPEAT: the United Nations CANNOT DO ANYTHING without the commitment of its member states: it is NOT a sovereign state and does NOT have the authority to infringe the sovereign rights of any country without prior democratic approval by its members.

The moral of the story is that if you want the UN to do something in Darfur, get your OWN government to get in gear first; raise the matter at the UN General Assembly; talk about it with other influential countries. Draft a resolution, and then go out there and enforce it. Until then, let's blame our own governments for lacking the guts for the job, and bloody well leave the UN alone.

Yours sincerely,

Answer 4

No, they will not. The genocide is being carried out by Islamists and the UN is pretty well in fear of that faction.

Of course, GW Bush cannot take action to help those people either now that Leftists in America have gotten their way. To save those poor people would require attacking a nation that 'never attacked us' and it would 'create more terrorists'. So, the Leftists have, as usual, arranged for hundreds of thousands of helpless innocents to be murdered.

When brutal tyrants prevail, the Leftists call it 'peace' and the UN is right there with them.

Answer 5

1. With what army? The army that stood by and watched the Hutus and Tustis kill each other? The army that watched as the Serbs and Croats kill each other?

2. If not with an army, then what would they offer to both sides to stop the bloodshed? The last I checked the UN didn't have much money left over after its legendary spendthrift ways.

Answer 6

The UN and Kofi Anan are a joke. It is a worthless body of people just sucking up money from wherever they can get it. While they are NOT doing anything for Darfur they are also doing NOTHING about Iranian and North Korean nukes. They are all corrupt.

Answer 7

sorry to say but UN to me is a puppet. the puppetier is United States (not only it is a military and economic power but also the highest contributor to UN), to this date american corporate media has not covered the issue which means that america is pretty much unaware about the fact. besides america is busy trying to implement its military imperialism putting the cover of war on terror. it is very hard to think. America itself is involved in war crimes including genocide and unprovoked war and UN seems helpless. what affective step will UN make and if does for how long? against whom?

Answer 8

you see this is what i am talking about and bush know he better not go no where near africa the way he did iraq you see these white boys got damned good sense they know what time it is!
and you see they are hurting all africans all over the world by the way they are ignoring them but will f*** with suddam hussain cause he ruled his folks and the price of oil was going up!
now aint that a b****!
hay where they should be there not and you know why thy let this happen cause they get nothing out of it! hell they dont took everyting from africa even the people now if the honkies go near there i bet you thats world war 3 straight up see they know africa owns them one believe that and we are ready for too

Answer 9

You write about the UN as if it's a viable organization to be taken seriously.

Answer 10

Anon is as useless as the UN itself. No, nothing will be done. The US is stretched to thin and they are the only ones that wuold have enough balls to help!