Cantr II Discussion Forum

Darfur, is basically a genocide against the natives of its area. The area itself is roughly the size of Texas. The Sudanese proxy army (Janjaweed) are systematically taking out the Africans there. I'm not sure on the details. But I thought I'd get a conversation going, because I for one am outraged. The UN has been waffling around for over 2 years. And the US went into a place where they gased their people instead of a place where they are genociding their's. I want opinions people! What should be done? Why? When? Where? Etc.

Considering the US is a part of the UN like any other member nation, I don't think you can just easily blame the UN without blaming in part the US, as well. Of course, the US has no 'real' interest in the area unless there's some black gold to mine.

And as seen by the League of Nations before it, if the US chooses not to back the instrumental organization which is the UN, then what else do you expect?

In that light, Bush's nominee and disgusting tactics for getting him to be the US ambassador to the UN, just shows what he thinks of it....

I've been complaining about this situation for over a year, it's old news.

But still pretty despicable.

nitefyre wrote:Considering the US is a part of the UN like any other member nation, I don't think you can just easily blame the UN without blaming in part the US, as well. Of course, the US has no 'real' interest in the area unless there's some black gold to mine.

That isn't what I meant. I just meant that the US had plans to make a more agressive approach to this. I blame both.

Just don't blame the citizens of the US. I had no clue about any of this.

Seen the movie Black Hawk Down? I think that was about the fiasco of an agressive American approach. In Mogadishu, Somalia, very close to Darfur.


Other Agressive American Fiascos: Vietnam, Korea, Gulf War II(the one going on now),.....




On this topic let me tell you something about Rwanda...probably the same happened there in the early 1990's as what's happening in Darfur now. The UN sent peace forces, but way too few. Why didn't America move in as great saviour there? Because the poor Rwandians had no Oil, Diamonds, Copper or other valuable stuff. (film Rwanda is great on this topic)


The day the Americans realize they are not the World Police and stop acting like it will be a great day for peace and humanity. (Film on this topic --> Team America! This one just rocks)

But then you'll also consider the US was involved with NATO in Kosovo/Yugoslavia, although mostly from a 'safer' air war. Somalia pretty much decided everything that the Clinton administration was going to do militarily---if they bomb the US embassies, send a few Tomahawks; etc.

Floris wrote:
The day the Americans realize they are not the World Police and stop acting like it will be a great day for peace and humanity.

There's a great contradiction in that sentence in terms of the prior incidents and blaming the US for not getting involved.

Taking history into account with the rise of the Fascism in the 1920/30s and the US in isolation (uninvolved with the League), it pretty much says the United States needs to realize its role in the International Community. Nonetheless, there are a lot of mixed signals when they do get involved, and they are blamed when they don't. Somehow, being the world's (currently) main superpower seems like a no win situation.

Please notice my use of the term "World Police".




I have no problem with NATO/UN actions. I have problems with Americans thinking to have the right to go on solving problems unilaterally in regions they are interested in. While they ignore other problem regions.

Kosovo/Yugoslavia, and the first gulf war as well as the interventions in the world wars were successful. But those were also the actions of the Allies, in which the Americans have always been a major partner.