Darfur children dragged from mothers and shot

[Behind the Aegis]

WHEN the fighters came, the mothers of Jebel Maun could not protect their children. Screaming toddlers were ripped from their grasp and shot; older children who tried to save their brothers and sisters were hunted down.

“Four children escaped in a group and ran under a tree for protection. An attacker came and shot at them, killing one of the children,” said a witness in an account to United Nations staff.

Another group, aged five, seven and nine, tried to run away. The five-year-old fell down and was shot dead. Another boy stopped and told the attacker: “You killed this child. Please let me go.” It was no use. He too was killed, one of more than 20 children who died that day.

Local people in the Darfur region of Sudan put the number of dead in the attack earlier this month at 63, mostly old men and children. The African Union, which has a peacekeeping force in Darfur, said 92 people died in the eight villages attacked.

more...

Why is this of little interest on the "World Stage?"

[lostnfound]

1. Because it hurts too much.

That's where our troops SHOULD be, if anywhere other than home.

[NGC_6822]

8. 2.35 soldiers

I strongly recommend that you read "Shake Hands with the Devil" by Lt. General Romeo Dallaire. He was the general in charge of the 500 troops that the UN sent to Rwanda in 1994 to defend the people. However, he was given orders by the UN not to shoot. Subsequently, 800,000 people were slaughtered while he was forced to standby and watch. The international community refused to provide further support.

One US government staffer called Dallaire to ask how many people were being killed. In the conversation, the staffer commented that he had made a calculation that it would take 85,000 deaths to justify one American soldier death.

Taking this "equation" we can see that 200,000 deaths so far in Darfur would work out to 2.35 US soldiers killed.

This Thanksgiving, I suggest everyone think about the people in this world, in the wake of Iraq, that won't receive anymore help from the Western world--or any other part of the world. Responding to humanitarian disasters is officially finished. And I do mean officially.

[aquart]

2. This IS genocide.

And I do not use the word lightly. They are clearing the land of black people. Black muslims.

Who is committing the genocide, btw?

[NGC_6822]

5. Janjaweed Arabs

Who is committing the genocide, btw?

The answer to your question is well agreed by the international community and specifically by the UN. An Arab militia known as the Janjaweed is committing the genocide. This militia is widely believed to be supported by the Sudanese government although they try to deny it--naturally.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

15. It's my understanding that our very moral

... leaders have decided it's not prudent to step in and help these slaughtered children because this same Arab militia is an intelligence source.

How utterly disgusting is that?

[Behind the Aegis]

27. Yes it is!

And the world seemingly sits by and does little to nothing.

[RC]

3. Skin too dark, no oil. So how would this be of any interest to our present government.

Does anyone really expect the money grubbing criminals, the same criminals that ignores New Orleans, allowed 9/11 to happen (MIHOP really) and lied this country into a very profitable war in Iraq, to be interested in the problems of a few poor black people? Sorry, they don't vote republican nor have enough money to buy any votes.

[NGC_6822]

7. Oil vs Genocide vs Action

Perhaps you should understand some facts:
1) The UN is limited by its charter to take any action in a country that would violate its fundamental principle of "national sovereignty." This is the reason why disasters like "Rwanda" happen.
2) The UN can bypass its own "national sovereignty " roadblock if it defines the human catastrophy as a "genocide."
3) The US has fought very hard in the UN to obtain this definition of genocide in the Darfur issue.
4) China has fought against the definition because China is ready to do business, and especially oil business, with any country in the world no matter what kind of ugly dictatorship it is. Please understand that China is desperate for oil to fuel its rapidly growing economy.
5) Even China, thankfully, has finally caved in to international pressure and accepted the genocide definition in Darfur.
6) With the genocide definition in place, the UN subsequently, announced a decision to send in troops to stop the killing.
7) For a few days, Sudan agreed for the so called "help", but has now declared the UN unwelcome and the killing has accelerated. The Sudan has said in the past that they will fight any UN troops that arrive and Momar Qadfy (sp) has supported the Sudan for keeping the UN out.

SOOOOO, do you want the US to work with the UN or independently for these problems?

[RC]

10. And yet we can 'liberate' a country for its oil...

[NGC_6822]

11. Oil interests

That's your opinion.

I can also make a very strong case that Russia and France voted against taking out the brutal dictatorship of Saddam because they wanted to PROTECT their oil interests. Lukoil in Russia had the largest contract which was signed but in suspension until the "UN issue was finished." The French Elf oil had the second biggest contract, but it was not signed. Saddam said he would sign it when the "UN issue....." Germany had construction contracts. Is it any wonder that these countries fought tooth and nail to defend the Saddam regime?

If you want to be cynical, learn something about the rest of the world. It's pretty grim.

[Swede]

13. But Russia and France turned out to be right.

Welcome to DU,by the way. I take it you have an interest in astronomy.

[NGC_6822]

22. Thanks

Thanks for the welcome; it's a lively and stimulating site. I do enjoy reading about astronomy and NGC 6822 is a close by galaxy as you obviously know. I chose the name because if things get worse on this planet, NGC 6822 is where I want to go!

[Swede]

24. Well don't forget to send some nice photos.

But,do stick around here at DU for awhile.

[Horse with no Name]

17. They voted against taking out Saddam

because it was the wrong thing to do.
Turns out they were right.
By the way...how many tours have you served in Iraq liberating them?

[NGC_6822]

20. Military service

I'm too old to serve now, but I was in the military service during the Viet Nam war. Both this question and the debate about Iraq are off the subject, however. I would be happy to go into these questions in another forum, and won't pursue them further here.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

4. And people wonder why the Rwandan government...

...doesn't trust the international tribunal to sort out the prepetrators of that genocide.

[jody]

6. Invokes images of Japanese troops in Nanking throwing babies in the air

and catching them on their bayonets described in "The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II" by Iris Chang

[terip64]

9. kick for awareness. Give to Doc w/o borders if you can...

http://doctorswithoutborders.com/

[mzmolly]

12. Bush said of Rwanda "not on my watch"

so much for that tough talk.

Tragic beyond words.

[NGC_6822]

21. UN vs unilateral action

Thank you very much because you have hit precisely on a point that I consider the most important.

Kofi Annon said exactly the same thing after Rwanda, "Never again!" It was a famous statement. But here we are again with Darfur. So, we come down to this absolutely crucial question: a) Should any American administration and congress (democrat or republican) work within the slow and mostly incompetent "legal" framework of the UN? or b) Should the US take "illegal" independent, unilateral action when it believes necessary?

For me this question is paramount. I watched the presidential debate on foreign affairs word for word between Bush and Kerry before the last election. This UN question, nor anything remotely like this question, was ever presented to the two candidates for response. Apparently, the two had agreed before the debate to avoid the issue totally. I was flabbergasted!

[mzmolly]

29. Cute question.

Post it of your President - who had no problem with pissing on the UN to kill innocent people."

I would have to believe your premise that the UN is slow and incompetent" in order to answer your question.

Remember the UN and Clinton disarmed Saddam Hussein, not GWB.

Guess * should have said - "Not on my watch unless the UN is slow and incompetent?"

[NGC_6822]

30. Cute?

I'm sorry if you find the question "cute."

I don't find it cute that the UN stood by and did nothing while 800,000 innocent people were killed in Rwanda in 1994; that's twice the 400,000 Americans that were killed in all the years and all the campaigns of WWII.

I don't find it cute that the UN hems and haws for several years while 200,000 people are killed and another one million or more are made homeless in Darfur.

I suggest that you reread the article above and tell me specifically who or what organization on this planet is responsible for stopping this kind of disaster. Try to get a mental picture of how many more men, women, and children are being run down and slaughtered while you and I carry on our "cute" little debate.

[mzmolly]

31. The issue isn't "cute"

your presentation on the other hand, was.

[al bupp]

33. It's an interesting question, sir.

IMO, no categorical answer can be given, rather it clearly must be made on a case by case basis. The moral justification for intervention in Sudan, at least by the yardstick of ongoing suffering and crimes against humanity, certainly exceeds anything ever offered, and not subsequently disproved, in the case against Iraq.

Please don't take this to mean that I think Saddam was anything but a brutal dictator. I simply assert that his crimes, bad as they were, never amounted to genocide.

The common sentiment in this thread which expresses derision and cynicism in regards to the current admin's interest in this matter, particularly in light of the fact that Sudan lacks significant strategic resources, and so therefore can be safely ignored, or at least put on a back-burner, may understate efforts which have been made. However, it's understandable since no widely coordinated effort has been mounted to build public support for any kind of intervention, such as was done for Iraq.

Your points regarding French, Russian and German opposition to intervention in Iraq are well made, and do indeed point to the fact international politics contain many examples of governments placing economic interests ahead of moral and ethical issues.

The UN leaves much to be desired in terms of both efficiency of it operation, as well as in terms of outcomes. As broken an institution as it may be, though, if it didn't exist in some form, we'd be busy trying to invent it. The question is how can it be made to function. I assert that the permanent member system of the security council with veto power is inherently flawed and unfair, even if unlikely to be surrendered by it current holders anytime soon.

Also, welcome to DU!

[NGC_6822]

34. An unpleasant scenario

Your obviously informed and well thought out remarks are much appreciated.

A scenario has come to mind that is frightening, terribly depressing, but nevertheless illustrates the paradox that is presented by the question of taking unilateral action or waiting for UN action in the face of a human disaster.

As the genocide in Darfur continues, suppose the UN plods down its normally ineffective road. Then suppose the American public becomes angry and impatient enough to demand that its government step in (not likely, but bear with me). The moment the US would independently set foot in another Arab or Muslim country, al-Qaeda would immediately start pumping the terrorists in to what they would consider another front for the war against the west. They would accelerate the killing of the local people (as they are now doing) and blame it on "outside interference." The Sudanese army would join the fight, and as I mentioned before, Momar Qaddafi said a few days ago that Sudan should resist any intrusion from the West. In other words, an effort to rescue a population would quickly be transformed by the world news media into another American aggression against the Muslims.

Whatever anyone thinks about the war in Iraq, it is becoming clear that the terrorists have won the propaganda war and probably the ground war. They would win both wars also in Sudan by exactly the same formula. In other words, the US is checkmated from taking any independent action.

I predict that the UN will never invade Sudan either without permission, because the UN charter does not permit such action.

So the depressing part of this scenario is that the future for the Sudanese tribal people looks painfully hopeless.

I invite comments.

PS: There is oil in the Sudan, and that's the reason China has held out against punishing Sudan in the past.

PPS: I have written an article about the UN that I want to post, but I don't know how to ping you for comments.

[al bupp]

35. Sir, I would be happy to comment on your article

Although I'm not sure you'll see this, it being so long after your reply, that's what a holiday respite from being online will do.

I tried sending you a private message, but apparently your user account doesn't yet have such privileges. However, you may be able to PM me by clicking on the little letter icon beside my user name.

As for your comments on Darfur, the UN and Al-Qaeda's check-mating of US policy options, I agree completely. It's actually quite ironic from a detached perspective, that is. On a human level, you're right, all the US is left w/ is good old-fashioned diplomacy, meanwhile the tragedy continues for the tribal people of Sudan.

[Xenotime]

14. What happened to *'s "war on terror" Lot of good it's doing.

[Lurking Dem]

16. The world turns its back.

We'll call this over here an "atrocity." And that? That we'll call "oppression". This stuff we'll refer to as "ethnic cleansing". Over there is a "human rights violation".

And Darfur? What about it? We'll piss and moan later that somebody should have done something. But not us. And not now. We apparently have better things to do.


(I'm using a royal "we" in this post for anyone who is wont to be offended.)

[Horse with no Name]

18. This is what we are supposed to fight

Not a tin-horn dictator we propped up and then decided at a later date to steal his oil.

[Chulanowa]

19. Because it's Africa

Africa is nothing to the "world stage". The apparent hope, from both West and East, is that the Africans will wipe each other out so that everyone else can have a go at their resources. Can you name a single instance where outside intervention in Africa actually helped? I can't. Rather it seems every involvement from the rest of the world in Africa has been with hte sole intention of creating more instability, stoking ancient rivalries, empowering minorities over majorities, and just plain ol' murder.

If these children where pretty white Christian children from Belarus or Montenegro, you bet your ass there wouldhave been capable and effective intervention years ago. But it's black children, who are equal parts Muslim, animist, and Chrisitan (not protestant, so they don't count, remember). So they get to suffer while our leaders hem and haw about "what must be done? Hmmm, I wonder. Let's hold a meeting about when we'll have a committee that will have a meeting to inquire about investigations that could lead to a consultation regarding potential problems..." ad nauseum.

I hate using the word, but world policy regarding Africa is "let the niggers die", and it pisses me the hell off that my country is part of this philosophy.

[NGC_6822]

23. Totally right

You hit the point exactly.

[RiverStone]

25. Thanks. We need to do all we can to keep Darfur in the light.

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/sdn-index-eng

[Lurking Dem]

26. kick

[JNelson6563]

28. Kickin' this

So much more important than a stupid 08 poll or some other such GD nonsense!

:kick:

[WinkyDink]

32. Maybe because Islam will be shown in a bad light?