Darfur, The UN, and WTF?

For those of you that are unaware a geneocide has been going on in this country for several years with no intervention.

In a nutshell, the conflict is between Muslim Arabs and non-Muslim black Africans. It’s pretty much a one-sided conflict in that the Africans have been the ones that have died in greater numbers. According to reports 50,000 of them have died thus far. For the most part this is not high-tech killing, but rather Arabs on horseback with small arms, so they certainly put a lot of work into it, if you admire that sort of thing.

I believe that at the end of August the UN finally decided to do something about it. Amazingly, they were given pause by the government of Sudan, who complained that the UN had no right, and so forth. I don’t know where it stands now.

When I was growing up, the concept behind the UN was that it was not going to let this kind of thing go on anymore. The idea was that all the nations would gang up on the nation(s) that were engaging in such aggressions and stop them. Where did this go wrong?

It seems to me that there should be a certain low number on the amount of people that die before the UN steps in, and 50,000 isn’t it.

Questions:

  1. What is the UN mean to you, and what value do you see in it?

  2. Should there be a max on the amount dead in a conflict before the UN steps in, and what is that number?

  3. Do you believe that countries should join forces to limit killing?

1:the UN is about politics,not justice. politics costs lives, not saves them.
the only society more usless than the UN would be the international hiccup society.

2:i dont know about that 2nd one,being inexperienced i’d say 100 should be more than outrageous.

3:yes. i also agree that politics and decency should join hands…
all politicians in the room go into hysterics for a full hour

nope. countries should join forces to increase killing.

-Imp

That would solve the problem if selected groups were the targets.

The UN has long outlived its usefullness, if indeed it ever served any usefull purpose at all.

Drift, it’s odd but 100 is the figure that I thought of, and even that’s large.

It actually was designed for the purpose noted in my OP.

In another post I complained about the conspiracy crowd making all kinds of statements but not doing anything about them. I believe that inaction is some part of the new age.

I’m not sure, but it could be related to movements of the past such as Leninism and fascism, that have soured the population from decisions. Surely, something is wrong when calm discussions are still being had over the bodies of 50,000 bodies.

It has never been suited for the purpose for which it was designed. A lemon from the get-go.

That certainly seems true in regard to the kind of conflicts that I mentioned.

So, what does everyone think should be done or formed to limit world governments’ ability to engage in mass murder?

I thought that there would be more activity on this topic.

As a side topic:

Why are you having difficulty with it?

:unamused:
that’s all i got…

I’m confused. If the US went against the UN’s trend of apathy and laziness to invade Darfur, kill all the bad guys, and liberate the people…

…would the liberals be angry or happy this time? Or is it, angry when a Elephant does it, but happy when a Donkey does?

On a completely unrelated note, how much oil is the Sudan sitting on?

I don’t know about the oil, sorry.

Just this second I actually saw a TV commercial begging Bush to stop the rape and murder in Darfur! I have no idea if this ad came from a liberal group, or what.

I would like to know why the commercial is aimed at the US. It’s a strange world mechanism to expect the US to solve these kind of problems while seeing the US as a villian more often than not.

Perhaps, China might like a turn at saving people.

Good point.