440 people a day

“Are dying in the Sudan right now.I bet these people aren't wondering why Africa or the UN are ignoring them. I would suppose that they wonder where the rest of the World is.

"Stop the Slaughter

By Bob MacPherson

A day in Darfur is as close as you'll ever get to walking back and forth through the looking glass. In Darfur you might, as I did, witness an eight-pound 3-year-old who will be dead in a few hours; then the next day you're back in the United States, where 60 percent of the population is overweight.

This is something few can grasp even if they see it. I spent a troubled period recovering from injuries received in the Vietnam War. After that I believed I was immune to personal tragedies. I'm not. Darfur is as close to hell on earth as we can imagine.

Aid workers have seen hungry people before, but even those directly involved in emergency humanitarian assistance seldom encounter starvation and virtually never witness the starvation of tens of thousands of people.

The cruel irony in all of this is that the world has been down this road before, in both Somalia and Rwanda.

In fact, I thought I'd seen it all before going to Darfur last month. I'd been to Baidoa, Somalia, in December 1992 and to Rwanda two years later. In both countries I saw mass starvation and murder. But what I saw in Darfur is worse. I walked into camps and saw women and children in every state of human misery. Too far gone to eat, many would be dead by morning. Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse, I heard about the systematic rape of women. It was not two or three women telling me this. Virtually every woman I met in a camp had a story of brutal violation. This is what the world faces in Darfur.

The United Nations has given the Sudanese government 30 days to disarm the mounted militias known as Janjaweed and bring the war-torn Darfur region under control. That's 30 days too late for more than 13,000 women and children. More than 440 people a day are dying from starvation in Darfur. And this does not include people who will be murdered outright.

In addition, the Sudanese government is in armed conflict with two forces, the Sudan Liberation Army and the Justice and Equality Movement, in Darfur. It is also trying to conclude a critical peace agreement between North and South Sudan. Is it realistic to expect that government to also disarm a vicious Janjaweed militia and facilitate international relief?

Although this is the worst humanitarian disaster in the world right now, the United Nations has received only $158 million of its $350 million donor appeal for Darfur. While catastrophic loss of life is occurring, the international community is buying time. For what, exactly? How many people have to be killed or starved to death before the world acts? The international community has the resources to mount a swift response, but thus far it has lacked the will to stop the slaughter. Rich governments must respond, both for the immediate crisis and for the long term.

The Security Council has invoked Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter and endorsed deployment of African Union cease-fire monitors and troops to protect the monitors. To date, a mandate has not been endorsed to provide protection for the Sudanese population and the security required for humanitarian assistance. This could be mobilized under the auspices of the African Union, with support from the international community.

Since my return, my heart has sunk as arguments intensified about whether the Darfur situation should be defined as genocide or ethnic cleansing, and whether sanctions should be applied. What's happening in Darfur is the wholesale slaughter and rape of unimaginable numbers of human beings. Sudan is a sovereign nation. But it has utterly failed in its responsibility to protect its citizens. Definitions should be left to the dictionary -- now is the time for action.

The situation in Darfur is not an American issue. It is not a European issue or an African issue. It is the most fundamental statement of what we stand for as members of the human race. The slaughter and rape of hundreds of thousands of people is not acceptable by any standard of humanity. If there is ever a time the international community has to come together, and do so in a decisive fashion, it is now.

The writer is CARE's security director and a retired Marine colonel."

Sundays W. Post”

“I agree wholeheartedly. This is but one more example of how ineffectual the UN.”

“.....or how little support the U.N. gets.”

“That's just because they have shown themselves to be a shill Mark. Which came first? The chicken or the egg? Doesn't matter when the chicken is dead.”

“Everyone seems to feel that way yet they all wait for the UN to do something. And then they blame the UN for failing.

Kind of cyclic, no?

It's like sitting in a car with no engine for 8 hours trying to get it started. The you excuse your absence from work by blaming the car.

The do it again the next day until when?”

“That is an absolutely heartbreaking situation. Unimaginable.”

“Articles like this really stirs the heart strings but what is the health condition of the sudanese government? Where are the boatloads of wheat and rice that the USA sends to governments like this? (rotting on the docks because of beaurocratic red tape). These people fully understand how to control the masses: starvation and fear (brutalization). And if we take the sudanese ruling leader/government out who will replace it? Just another very similar to the last. There method of control is all they know or respect (kind of like the Native Americans of the past). Are you going to change them? Not unless you change who they are and what they stand for. Yes, we can step in and stop it, but for how long? Are we only tolerant of countries that mimic the USA/"civilized", or what we consider civilized behavior? Do we charge in as in the Old Testament and anihilate them all because that is the way it was done back then?

I am all for helping, but who will it actually receive the billions of dollars of aid or the shiploads of provisions?”

“Small example - Doctors without Borders have been screaming for supplies waiting for them in warehouses and on trucks. The Sudanese govt sits on the supplies.

The government needs to be removed.

Are you suggesting we do nothing because they won't change there ways?”

“The U.N. is a good idea.

If we didn't have it we would probably be working on creating it.

The problem seems to be getting it to work for a problem like Sudan.”

“no, but effective methods of change are often just as uncivilized as the people we are trying to change. The leaders who initiate the methods are touted as warmongers or callous. How do you change a people like this and yet let them be who they are?”

“The U.N. is a good idea

Yeah, let's create a forum that legitimizes and broadcasts the agendas of dictators and despots!”

“Mutt, I'm sure even a dictator like you would be welcome there.”

“I got two dick 'taters!”

“Shall we call you Spud?”

“Good question, mtnmom. I don't think Nations should be debating it while slaughter is going on.

I suggest when a Nation acts like this someone steps in militarily and says No. And instead of arguing about who goes in, Nation/s should step up to the plate and just do it.

Make it unacceptable with actions, not words.

Rwanda has pledged troops, maybe they have changed? Of course, one hopes Rwanda could have changed without experiencing their own Genocide with the World as Spectators.”

“bottom line- the world couldn't care less about africa.

looks like sudan needs a regime change. the sudanese gov't has been disgustingly complacent and non-chalant about this tragedy.”

“I don't think it's because the people couldn't care less. I think the majority feel helpless and frustrated as I do because we hear of the food rotting on the docks of countries like this while the suffering countries' gov't sits fat and sassy lording it over their constiuents.”

“The are even forcing people to leave camps back to the towns- where- the government is offering police security- people are refusing to go back because they don't trust them. wonder why they are trying to lure them back into those Arab Muslim cities?”

“The situation in Sudan is allowed to continue for one simple reason.


They don't have oil.

BushCheney couldn't give a rat's left nut if the country doesn'thave an oil spigot attached.


What an A-hole.”

“But on the other hand guys your own consistency on geopolitical issues would prevent us from acting. For example, the left has cried foul because we found no WMDs in Iraq and they say we shouldn’t be there because Iraq wasn’t an immediate threat to us. Well, is Sudan an immediate threat to us? Iraqis were dieing under their government’s oppression but yet the left says we should not be there to liberate them. The screams because they say we are spreading ourselves too thin by going into Iraq. The left says we should be minding our own business and not be in Iraq.

So why Sudan and NOT Iraq?

Don’t get me wrong here, I think we should have been in there months ago.”

“My beliefs on Iraq have nothing to do with the Sudan. "Immediate threat" is A reason, not the only reason.”

“Just playin’ devil’s advocate dude as to how one is wrong and one is right.”

“ So why Sudan and NOT Iraq?

1] because we were lied to about the reasons for going into iraq.

2] because we're not in iraq to help the people - just ask the kurds.

NOTE: i'm not saying that the iraqi people and the world isn't a better place with saddam gone. but do you actually think it's just a mind blowing coincedence that bush/cheny and their buddies are making BILLIONS ??? THAT is the reason we're in iraq. period. anyone who thinks differently is very, very nieve.

3] because helping sudan would not cost over a 100 billion dollars and over a 100 thousand soldiers to be sent.”

““1] because we were lied to about the reasons for going into iraq.”

Same old line here. We had faulty intell and we believed what we had to be true. This includes a whole slew of democrats INCLUDING sKerry. Move on.

2] because we're not in iraq to help the people - just ask the kurds.

We aren’t? So 25 million Iraqis aren’t free from a dictator?

3] because helping sudan would not cost over a 100 billion dollars and over a 100 thousand soldiers to be sent."

So it’s about money? That’s not altogether compassionate. Until we can make Sudan fall into the guidelines the liberals demanded of the Iraq theater how can we justify putting our forces at risk? Ya’ll are wanting you cake and eat it too.”

“"We aren’t? So 25 million Iraqis aren’t free from a dictator"

How many countries would we have to invade to free people from dictators? And if we went to "free' people than why aren't we in Cuba yet?

Damn - I got sucked in.”

“All else is irrelavent.

The situation in Darfur is not an American issue. It is not a European issue or an African issue. It is the most fundamental statement of what we stand for as members of the human race. The slaughter and rape of hundreds of thousands of people is not acceptable by any standard of humanity. If there is ever a time the international community has to come together, and do so in a decisive fashion, it is now.”

“Sacco, how do you know that there was never any WMDs? That type of weaponry can be very mobile, who's to say that it wasn't moved to a neighboring country, like Syria?

You'd be the first one crying foul if we had done nothing and we had be targeted w/ such stuff. Look at 9/11 and the rucus over that. Man, there is no pleasing people like you is there.”

“"The slaughter and rape of hundreds of thousands of people is not acceptable by any standard of humanity."

I agree 100% on this. What befudles me is why people can't give the USA credit for stopping the exact samebehavior in Iraq.”

“i'm sure the women in darfur being raped don't care about our ridiculous, inane partisan bickering.

if our reason for invading iraq was to rid an evil dictator and free a people, then we should enter sudan and stop genocide.

america has no greater national interest than the preservation of our own humanity.”

“"if our reason for invading iraq was to rid an evil dictator and free a people, then we should enter sudan and stop genocide.

america has no greater national interest than the preservation of our own humanity."

Exactly! And the rest of the world? I think the thing that comes tom mind when most people hear this is “Somalia”. Let’s hope we learned from that experience. African warfare is a whole other animal that we are not too experienced with.”

“Was it the same in Iraq? When was that? Honestly asking here. I believe the numbers aren't comparable but I'm not positive. Last real atrocious behavior I can remember was a 1988 report.

I think the Sudan has +2 million in refugee camps. Is that not an indicator of the differences?”

“nigal,

there's no question europe and other nations should be stepping up to the plate, they can also take the lead.

i guess as the lone superpower, everyone depends on our lead.

whatever the case, this needs to be stopped.”

“Wait a second. What country did France just send troops into?


If there was oil, we'd be there; however, we'll sit on the side lines and let people die, just like in Liberia.

Geopolitical be damned. This would be a great way for us to show that we've consistant.

And the right is silent on the matter. They sit there in the White House, focused on the election. Why are the righties on this board demanding the President step up?

Oh yea, they're too busy hating on Kerry to get there heads outta their ass.

You all make me real proud to be an American.

You can have this phucking country and SHOVE IT.”

“What can you expect if you go in half hearted and do a half a$$ job.

BTW - didn't a lame duck start the ball rolling in Somalia?

Am I wrong or did our government not really try in Somalia?”

“"BTW - didn't a lame duck start the ball rolling in Somalia?..."

Yep you would be correct.

Bush I threw both Somalia and the Bosinan criss at Clinton as a nice "how do you do". I remember laughing about those ones around the table with my fellow brown shirted friends back in the day.

We never thought Clinton would get through those two. He did one, but not the other. Clinton had a thing were he didn't want to commit group troops, only as a last resort. Somalia bloodied his nose and we all thought for sure that he'd screw up again in Bosina.

I'm happy to say that we were wrong about that one.

Ah, those were the good old days..........




NOT!”

“We had limited military actions in Haiti and Liberia during the Bush administration. They seem to have worked to avoid massive death. I don't have a problem with American intervention.

The problem is that the Canadians, Europeans and others spend so little on their military that they aren't legitimate forces. So, when something happens, the only country able to change things is the U.S.

This is largely a problem of Europe not stepping up to the plate. However, we have traditionally liked the idea of a weak military in Europe, Japan and elsewhere. And we demand command of multinational operations.

However, we should only enter Sudan if we CAN. We don't have enough troops right now to do the job in Iraq. This might be a moment when NO ONE in the world will be able to stop a genocide.

Maybe China could send some forces.”

“How come know one remembers Bush's lame duck maneuvers?

We don't have troops? We have troops in about 130 countries. here's some interesting numbers:

there are @75,000 US troops in Germany. 11,000 in the UK, and 13,000 in Italy. Those are just a few.

What are they doing, keeping Europe safe from the Chechnyans?”

“"How come know one remembers Bush's lame duck maneuvers?...."

Because it's much easier to divert attention away from that by hating on Kerry. That's all they do.


Hate...Hate....Hate....

Pay no mind to the man behind the curtain.....!”

“Someone forgot their Zoloft this morning. tisk tisk. Such hatred and negativity...”

“It is interesting:

Sudan harbored Al Qeda and their leaders professed kinship with Bin Laden (their families even intermarried) - they ate committing genocide against their people. And they have no oil. Anyone thing Bush will invade to stop these murderers?”

“But Ped, if you try to establish that these same outlines were not enough to go into Iraq how can you demand we go in under the same circumstances somewhere else?”

“African warfare is a whole other animal that we are not too experienced with

Neither is anyone else. The UN has a history of peace keeping, not peace making. Sudan doesn't want the Americans - it doesn't want an occupying force. Reformed Lurker is right - the Europeans aren't stepping up to the plate. The situation seems fairly hopeless, really.

Oh, and pedXing is being intellectually dishonest again. The AQ activity in Africa is not centered in Sudan, and where it concentrated, the U.S. has been active in combating it.”

“Oh, and Mutt is being intellectually dishonest again. The AQ activity in the middle east is not centered in Iraq, and where it concentrated, the U.S. has been active in combating it”

“LOL! I need a Map!”

“No, but by virtue of having force in Iraq, the U.S. has been able to pressure the countries with the highest levels of AQ activity to cooperate in cracking down on them...

Phaedrus, you really set yourself up for these humiliations, don't you.”

“Ohhh yeah, Mutt. I'm red-faced.

Just call me mister masochist.

Our plan seems to be working like a well oiled machine. You're so right.”

“Considering what's been happening in SA, yeah, somewhat effective.”

“Worth every penny. We couldn't have accomplished equivalent results any other way.”

“Africa is free of AQ? Phew. I feel safe now.”

“Not without meaningful leverage, no.”