the violence and genocide in Darfur, Sudan? The UN did nothing to stop the Rwanda genocide; how can the same thing happen again so soon? Would the world continue to look on with indifference if they had oil wells?
http://www.azstarnet.com/news/203418.php
.
2007-09-28 10:50:17 · 14 answers · asked by Hatikvah 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
it's another example of radical muslims acting less than human. if you look at almost any conflict in the world these days, radical muslims are at the heart of it.
the US can't do anything, because of somalia, and because we're too thin anyway due to iraq.
the african union never does anything.
the UN is too busy condemning israel to do any real work.
liliput, you're funny.
to be more accurate, once again we remove a dictator that we used to sell arms to, and are shocked when violence fills the void we leave behind.
we armed saddam. don't forget that.
clinton's kosovo war was just and good, and no one complains about that. darfur should have been the same. a just war for a good reason. burma burns, and we do nothing. and don't get me started on china.
it has nothing to do with spreading democracy or removing dictators. it has to do with where haliburton can make money.
2007-09-28 11:34:00 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I believe your implication is correct - that if there were oil, or some other commodity seen as absolutely essential (not that I can think of anything that is seen in the same league as oil), then the governments of the world's nations might be willing to act. But the real problem is that the UN is only as strong as its weakest link, and has suffered from some strange attitudes, not least from the USA which seems to have resented the idea of any organisation (even one based in New York) having any power greater than its own. Hence, the failure of the USA to pay up, to appoint ambassadors who are committed to the UN project in recent years, and the continued attempts to present the UN as somehow inherently bad (a propaganda exercise which seems to have had some success, given some of the responses here).
The UN can only work in these situations if the most powerful countries are willing to think in terms of the good of the whole world. There have been odd moments in its history when this has had some sort of possibility, even if it's never been wildly successful. Now, however, with China flexing its muscles, Russia wanting to be seen as powerful, and the US refusing to act collectively, it's hopeless. There are some exceptional people working for the UN, people who really understand what could be done and would make a difference, but they have no sway if the big powers aren't going to play ball. So someone other than the UN will have to act - but as the US and UK are totally committed in Iraq and Afghanistan, it ain't going to be them, and no-one else wants to shoulder the massive expense and potential loss of life that an intervention in Darfur would bring. This is sad but true. Ditto Burma.... (different scenario, but look how carefully all the posturing and hand-wringing avoids any hint of actual action....).
2007-09-28 11:37:54 · answer #2 · answered by Ambi valent 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Sudan /does/ produce oil. Not like Saudi Arabia, but it does, and it's biggest customer is China, IIRC.
Systematic genocide is only evil in the eyes of the UN when it's carried out by europeans - Serbians conducting genocide must be stopped. Hutus and Tusis can genocide eachother all they want. Similarly, Arab Muslim Sudanese can kill African Christian Sudanese and catch minimal flack for it.
2007-09-28 10:58:54 · answer #3 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Once again...we remove a brutal dictator and we get lambasted from the left...
We keep our noses out of something and let a country take care of itself....and we get lambasted..........from the left.
If Darfur did have oil....would the international community tolerate us stepping in?
Obviously we CAN overstep our bounds if a country has no oil...but we have to leave people to be put in wood chippers feet first if they do.....geez people...you just cannot have it both ways.
BTW... I do realize you said UN and not US....my bad...I guess I was reacting to the assumption from the left, that everything, no matter who is involved, is the US fault....now where would I have gotten a crazy idea like that.
2007-09-28 11:00:16 · answer #4 · answered by Lilliput1212 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Sudan has been going on allot longer than Rwanda
2007-09-28 10:54:41 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
UN should do something about Darfur,but they cannot.
UN policy depends of what are interests of big nation's, presented in security council.
Every UN action must be in interest of USA,Russia...
2007-09-28 11:01:29 · answer #6 · answered by bezovnikyu 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You forget that the UN is useless. They will do nothing about the Sudan or any other similar situations.......
2007-09-28 10:57:09 · answer #7 · answered by Brian 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The UN is itself a genocidal organization.
2007-09-28 11:16:45 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
The international community does not care. We as citizens must take the cause to OUR representatives and see to it that they in turn press the U.N..
2007-09-28 11:02:51 · answer #9 · answered by Locutus1of1 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Or diamond mines or uranium orsomething other than sand. The International Community doesn't tolerate the Sudan's plight, we just don't care. Sudan is kind of like Antarctica, everybody knows it's down there but who cares.
2007-09-28 10:55:00 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋