putting US foreign policy into perspective?

[giuliano]

This is genocide. And it is happening NOW June 18, 2004 In Sudan, 320,000 people will be murdered this year. That's not just a boring statistic, writes Nicholas Kristof. The United States Government says it is exploring whether to describe the mass murder and rape in the Darfur region of Sudan as "genocide". I suggest that President George Bush invite to the White House a real expert, Magboula Muhammad Khattar, a 24-year-old widow huddled under a tree on the Chad-Sudan border, from where I am writing this column.

since the virtual evaporation of two of three justifications for invading iraq (WMD and links to terrorism), the white house has been left with good ol' humanitarian gain.

well, here's a real need for intervention on humanitarian grounds, that makes iraq look like a holiday in the sun.

what position should george bush take on this? what should he do?

* this post quotes a news article, but it's really intended as a discussion of US foreign policy, which is why it's in this particular forum.

[Comrade]

If he were to be honest, it would be along the lines of:

1) Iraq is definitely a concern of ours
2) We aren't responsible for everything, even though we'd like to be
3) Our army is so capable, petition your Congressperson to make it bigger
4) One area of the world at a time. We just finished fixing Europe, its the ME's turn, we'll get to Africa in a bit. (Not entirely serious on that one)

But saying that the American military isn't omnipotent is anathema. It's close, but not quite.

[bishop]

that's the typical excuse...

what's even more telling is that we aren't even pushing the sudan story to the intl community (in hopes that they could collaborate to resolve it). it certainly seems like a non-issue in bush's eyes.

[Comrade]

You met Bush and spoke to him, learned his views, of this when?

I'm also getting a bit tired of being described as "typical" when I don't assume a Bush bashing stance.

[giuliano]

why not raise it in the UN security council? i mean bush could at least act like he gives a shit about humanitarianism, and maybe even use it to convince some people he really cares about iraqis in the process.

the truth is, there's no oil in sudan.

[Comrade]

There is also no threat from Sudan. We didn't start replacing regimes in the middle east until islamic fundamentalism attacked us...

[giuliano]

well we've been through that. saddam wasn't part of the islamic fundamentalist movement, and clearly was not a threat to the US. unless you consider hypothetical situations to constitute a genuine threat.

also you may have missed the fact that the problem in sudan is associated with islamic fundamentalism... (they even harboured osama for a while)

[bishop]

There is also no threat from Sudan. We didn't start replacing regimes in the middle east until islamic fundamentalism attacked us...

funny.. bush the hypocrite has said something a bit different.

of course, he hasn't followed through with these statements, but he chose to follow through with iraq. connect the dots.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030626-2.html

America is committed to the success of Africa because we recognize a moral duty to bring hope where there is despair, and relief where there's suffering. America is committed to the success of Africa because we understand failed states spread instability and terror that threatens us all. America is committed to the success of Africa because the peoples of Africa have every right to live in freedom and dignity, and to share in the progress of our times.

where is that committment exactly? we aren't even pushing the u.n. to get involved.

[giuliano]

sudan specifically has significant ties to terrorism, and its citizens are facing oppression. sounds like a job for bush the crusader if you ask me, especially when you consider bush's rationale for invading saddam.

i say again: no oil in sudan.

[bishop]

hasn't sudan offered safe haven to bin laden in the past?

funny that something like that would be overlooked.

[giuliano]

bishop,
they did. they actually offered to hand him over at one stage, presumably out of fear of US retribution, but under clinton, the CIA didn't take the offer seriously and incredibly - ignored it. (clinton apparently decided they didn't have enough evidence to hold him at that stage, back in the days when you needed evidence...)

as far as i can tell, sudan remains on the US's list of state sponsors of terrorism.

it would be a piece of cake to justify war in sudan.

[LogicaLunatic]

Even I would support an invasion of Sudan. And that's saying something :)

[LogicaLunatic]

Even I would support an invasion of Sudan. And that's saying something :)

[grandpa]

Originally posted by bishop, funny.. bush the hypocrite has said something a bit different. of course, he hasn't followed through with these statements, but he chose to follow through with iraq. connect the dots. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030626-2.html where is that committment exactly? we aren't even pushing the u.n. to get involved.

It reminds me of Bush lying about "healthy forests."
A forest is only healthy if you can sell it for a profit.

Everyone in the Bush Administration is saying how they had no direct knowledge of anything. It's amazing all the things they don't know.
You connect-the-dots.

Grandpa h.

[Sonart]

Even I would support an invasion of Sudan. And that's saying something

I don't support such an invasion. If I thought invading Iraq was a foolish invitation to quagmire, and Somalia, for all our good intentions and which I supported, was also headed for quagmire, then why would anyone believe Sudan would be anything but another tarbaby (in the literary sense, please, not the vernacular) that we get mired to?

The only reason Sudan gets mentioned is to counter the Iraq-was-a-brutal-tyrany arguement. If Iraq, then why not Sudan?

But if I believe we were foolish to invade Iraq because of it's quagmire potential, then for me, if NOT Iraq, then WHY Sudan? We might be able to force a temporary break in the fighting, but they'll eventually just keep fighting around us, as well as against us... and likely with al-Qaeda help, just like in Somolia.

[PatrickHenry]

It is Genocide. The US has no business unilaterally settling this issue, but should support multilateral action by the UN to end genocide. The appeal is to the UN and rightly so:
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle...ection=theworld

The leaders of the world’s most powerful nations appealed to the United Nations to help prevent a humanitarian catastrophe in Sudan, where ethnic violence in the western Darfur region has displaced more than a million people. Sudan’s vice president, meanwhile, indirectly blamed Western countries for the escalating humanitarian crisis in western Sudan, saying that if they had given promised funds to Sudan, the Darfur region would have been more likely to develop. A joint statement issued by the Group of Eight at its annual summit voiced concern about reports that Arab militias are carrying out an ethnic cleansing campaign against black Africans in Darfur. “There are continuing reports of gross violations of human rights, many with an ethnic dimension,” the declaration said. “We look to the United Nations to lead the international effort to avert a major disaster and will work together to achieve this end.”

[Osborn F Enready]

Thread TITLE:

Putting U.S. foreign policy in perspective....

My perspective of U.S. foreign policy: Hypocritical.

[Gorgo]

Yes, there is no reason to think U.S. foreign policy has anything to do with humanitarian missions.

[giuliano]

Originally posted by Sonart, But if I believe we were foolish to invade Iraq because of it's quagmire potential, then for me, if NOT Iraq, then WHY Sudan? We might be able to force a temporary break in the fighting, but they'll eventually just keep fighting around us, as well as against us... and likely with al-Qaeda help, just like in Somolia.

lol, nice flip-flop.

either you're taking the position iraq was a bad decision and quagmire, and applying that thinking to sudan, or you're not. you can't take that position with sudan then switch over to agreeing with invading iraq.

why not build a democracy in sudan? there are a lot more lives at risk in sudan than iraq (UN-imposed sanctions-related deaths aside).

[sixmillman]

First of all The UN has been aware of Sudan for some time. 300,000 or more have died while they debated the term "genocide"
Sonart wants to rationize that

We might be able to force a temporary break in the fighting,

. The facts is their is no "fighting" going on. One side is completly unable to defend itself while the other murders everyone, women, children, and men who try to stand up to an AK-47 with a pointy stick.

I think we can all agree that Bush has verry little sway at the UN. Why isn't some critisism directed towards the beatiful people at the French Embassy, After all Sudan was their colony.

Perhaps Bush hasn't done anything because if he does it will just be construed as further evidence of his "megolomania" his expansion of a New World order, or whatever garbage Bush Bashers will come up with. Instead we do nothing, "innocents" continiue to die at the hands of animals.
And Bush gets blamed for doing nothing.