UN continues to wait.more die.

  • News
  • Thread starter member 5645
  • Start date
  • #1
member 5645
UN continues to wait.........more die.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3741875.stm

It's genocide folks, and the great satan is the only country willing to even verbally condemn these actions. We even used the "G" word to describe it, which mandates a UN intervention, but no action is happening. Instead the UN continues words like "acts of ethnic cleansing" to avoid the need to move in right away.

Where is the moral high horse that everyone has been on lately???
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
kat
39
0
Their moral high horse is only concerned when it's white's killing others, browns killing brown is not so important, you know. It's an elitist form of racism that's been ignored far too long. As for other statesmen, they know where from their bread is buttered, interferance might mess up their big oil plans. Have to clear those natives off their lands to get to those deposits, you know.
Of course the U.S. companies are not allowed to drill there..and cannot until there is some peace.....So, be aware that if the U.S. gives too much interest and intervenes, foreign countries who are reaping benefits from sudanese oil will be the first to cry fowl.
I'm not sure the U.N. is needed at this point, they seem to be doing a good job of cleaning up without U.N. sanctioned Genocide to aid them. Eh?
 
  • #3
39
0
phatmonky said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3741875.stm

It's genocide folks, and the great satan is the only country willing to even verbally condemn these actions. We even used the "G" word to describe it, which mandates a UN intervention, but no action is happening. Instead the UN continues words like "ethnic cleansing" to avoid the need to move in right away.
Incorrect. The USA using the "G word" does not mandate UN action. "Genocide" comes under "ethnic cleansing", as one of the means by which ethnic cleansing is accomplished.

Where is the moral high horse that everyone has been on lately???
My friends in the ICG have been all over it. So have people here. Have you not been paying attention?
 
  • #4
member 5645
Adam said:
My friends in the ICG have been all over it. So have people here. Have you not been paying attention?
My mistake, post has been edited for accuracy. And I know the G word doesn't require UN action when used by the US.It requires it when used by the UN


I don't live there.
You've said nothing.
The UN still hasn't acted, and the US is still the ONLY country on the security council willing to condemn this.
 
  • #5
39
0
Actually I have denounced activities in many nations over the years, many times over. Including Sudan. Not Sudan specifically here on physicsforums, but other places here, and Sudan elsewhere. Feel free to start more such threads, about the various trouble-spots of the world. You have my permission.

And yes, the UN is bogged down in bureaucratic garbage, and needs to be rebuilt entirely.
 
  • #6
member 5645
Adam said:
And yes, the UN is bogged down in bureaucratic garbage, and needs to be rebuilt entirely.


WE AGREE!!! :surprise:


Do you believe this is the only thing at play on why no other SC members want to be involved with this ??
 
  • #7
39
0
Any and every political body will gladly put other peoples' lives in danger to gain some benefit. National governments, the UN, whoever... they will all gladly kill, or allow to be killed, people who have no influence on matters, as long as they get whatever it is they want.
 
  • #8
The UN seems pretty impotent here. For one thing, there are too many countries with too many selfish interests involved.
 
  • #9
member 5645
Dissident Dan said:
The UN seems pretty impotent here. For one thing, there are too many countries with too many selfish interests involved.


Our selfish interests require there to be peace in the region- is that bad?
 
  • #10
No. In this instance, it seems to be the selfish interests of other nations that prevent them from taking decisive action.
 
  • #11
member 5645
Dissident Dan said:
No. In this instance, it seems to be the selfish interests of other nations that prevent them from taking decisive action.
AS to not derail this thread, I'm going to start another one on this subject.
 
  • #12
kat
39
0
Well, in order for there to be peace you either have to wait til the ruling party slaughters all of those who are sitting on the land where the oil reserves are, and as some suggest..since it is also a religious war, dominate the opposing religions which I believe are animilist and christian..then there would be peace, but of course the U.S. won't be particularly welcomed, I suppose. OR the U.S. could go invade, enforce peace, of course then there is still that pesky problem of natives on the same land as the oil reserves..But...It seems timing in any invasion would be critical, late enough so the lands are free but early enough to still get the upper hand...
 
  • #13
kat
39
0
Adam said:
Incorrect. The USA using the "G word" does not mandate UN action. "Genocide" comes under "ethnic cleansing", as one of the means by which ethnic cleansing is accomplished.
I know that the U.S. is obliged to act according to the senate ratified Genocide Convention. I'm not sure what other countries are ratified. But, once the "G" word is used there are countries that are obligated to act. That was one reason presidents have been so careful about calling it genocide and instead have used like words.
 
  • #14
russ_watters
Mentor
21,084
7,839
kat said:
Their moral high horse is only concerned when it's white's killing others, browns killing brown is not so important, you know. It's an elitist form of racism that's been ignored far too long.
As pessimistic as I am... damn, kat.

IMO, its a little simpler: the view most people in the world is 'as long as they don't kill me or someone I know, I don't care.'

Ironic either way: we really are the only ones willing to make a stand.
 
  • #15
jcsd
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,097
12
kat said:
I know that the U.S. is obliged to act according to the senate ratified Genocide Convention. I'm not sure what other countries are ratified. But, once the "G" word is used there are countries that are obligated to act. That was one reason presidents have been so careful about calling it genocide and instead have used like words.

All countries which have signed and ratified the convention must act to prevnt and punish genocide as defined below (it's not a case of the "G word" being used it just has to fit the description below) wherever it occurs:
Article 2
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Here's a list of countries which have NOT ratified the convention (this includes Sudan)

http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/gencon/nonparties-unmember.htm

Sudan recently kept there seat on the UNCHR as they were nominated by the African regional group. There is definite trend now of countries with poor human rights record sticking together .
 

Related Threads on UN continues to wait.more die.

  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
20
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
O
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
42K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
60
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
2K
Z
Top