September 17, 2006
Global Day for Darfur?
Does it really matter when the genocide in Darfur will go on no matter what you and I do? Raising awareness? You think the big brothers are not aware of the situation? Hell they are. How many more letters should be signed? They are dying every day, every minute, while we are signing the letters and feel good about our philanthropy. Yes, today is the global day for Darfur, global day for us fooling ourselves and for them laughing at us and thinking how they can benefit more from the oil money. And yes, George Clooney, the sexiest man alive, is even sexier in his Armani suit when he talks about the first genocide of the 21st century. Thanks dear George, at least you went there to document what is going on there. But those who should be aware of the situation already know. The problem is oil and uranium are sexier for them.
P.S. It seems the accuracy of Global Research article is under question. But its point about uranium and oil is not far-fetched in my opinion. Check out the comments.
| brando @ 07:25 PM | September 17, 2006 |
|
Maybe an invasion of Darfur would be construed as Meddling. |
| Mystery Meat @ 11:17 PM | September 17, 2006 |
|
The "GlobalResearch.ca" article you cite has a lot of half-truths and outright horseshit in it. The American government has described the Khartoum regime's actions as a genocide and have worked hard to get other nations to take action under UN auspices. They have not been able to accomplish this. American companies have been forbidden by the U.S. government to conduct business in Sudan because of the genocidal policies of the Khartoum regime. American companies are not getting Sudanese oil or uranium. This has not prevented European companies and the Chinese, from investing heavily in Sudan. There are presently 3,000 Chinese soldiers in Sudan guarding oil pipelines. The Khartoum regime has refused to allow U.N. troops into the country to replace the AU troops which will be leaving shortly. A majority of the UN Security Council has refused to say that what is happening in Sudan is genocide. If they did, by the charter of the UN and international law, they would be required to intervene to stop it. The Khartoum regime earns hundred of millions in hard currency from its sale of oil to Europe and China. This is going into the pockets of the Sudanese elites. Doesn't anyone believe ordinary Sudanese people are benefiting from this money? Why don't Muslim countries intervene on behalf of their co-religionists? I'll tell you why not. They shake their heads and say complain about it, but in reality they consider what is happening in Sudan a purely intermal matter. After all, it could set a bad precedent if outsiders invaded a Muslim country to stop genocide. --- |
| David @ 02:18 AM | September 18, 2006 |
|
I read the article about oil and uranium. I had no idea that Sudan was so incredibly rich in natural resources! Also, I didn't realize that the land area of Sudan is the same size as the whole of Western Europe. Well, now I am not sure what to believe about that country. I do quite well understand the strains on food and water resources that an increasing population can create. Sudan has also suffered from terrible droughts and the expansion of the Sahara Desert. The people there are competing for scarce resources, and the strong are preying on the weak. This could happen to the whole world if the worst case scenarios for Global Warming come to pass! But, what to do to help the people of Sudan now? I agree with the article's author that sanctioning one of the world's poorest countries will certainly not improve the plight of its people. However, if the reports coming out of the Darfur region are accurate, there is a complete breakdown of civil order. A significant degree of stability must be re-established there for people to settle back down and once again grow the food they need to support themselves. I don't think that American troops would be a good idea in Sudan, as I recall, that was tried once before and failed quite badly! Perhaps some of the more stable African or Middle Eastern countries would be best to supply troops to bring the current violence under control. But, considering the potential of Sudan's natural resource development, it is certainly a ripe target for abuse by giant multi-national corporations and the governments that back them. This is a much more difficult problem. What happened to Iran in the 1950's can definitely attest to that! --- |