# Peacekeeping in Darfur Hits More Obstacles



## Gunny (Mar 24, 2008)

> By LYDIA POLGREEN
> Published: March 24, 2008
> 
> ABU SUROUJ, Sudan  As Darfur smolders in the aftermath of a new government offensive, a long-sought peacekeeping force, expected to be the worlds largest, is in danger of failing even as it begins its mission because of bureaucratic delays, stonewalling by Sudans government and reluctance from troop-contributing countries to send peacekeeping forces into an active conflict.
> ...



The UN is beyond incompetent.  Not to worry though ... sooner or later they're going to run out of people to kill so people can get down to the real business of chastising themselves for doing little or nothing and letting it happen.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 24, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> The UN is beyond incompetent.  Not to worry though ... sooner or later they're going to run out of people to kill so people can get down to the real business of chastising themselves for doing little or nothing and letting it happen.



No NO, the liberals will demand we send troops. Ohh wait, no they won't cause they don't care either.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 26, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> No NO, the liberals will demand we send troops. Ohh wait, no they won't cause they don't care either.



Sure they do ... after the fact.  Remember Rwanda?  AFTER the killing was done they said we should be ashamed for letting it happen ...


----------



## jreeves (Mar 26, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Sure they do ... after the fact.  Remember Rwanda?  AFTER the killing was done they said we should be ashamed for letting it happen ...


----------



## Larkinn (Apr 9, 2008)

Alright, then lets give the UN an army and an ability to invade countries for HR violations.

No?   Then shut the fuck up when its ineffective.   Its hilarious that people bitch about how its ineffective, but don't support making it effective.   

And yes, you should be ashamed for letting Rwanda happen.   But more so, the liberals should be ashamed.   Its expected that conservatives won't give a fuck if brown people are being genocided.   You all just fulfilled expectations.   Liberals, and Clinton, are the ones who really failed.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 9, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Alright, then lets give the UN an army and an ability to invade countries for HR violations.
> 
> No?   Then shut the fuck up when its ineffective.   Its hilarious that people bitch about how its ineffective, but don't support making it effective.
> 
> And yes, you should be ashamed for letting Rwanda happen.   But more so, the liberals should be ashamed.   Its expected that conservatives won't give a fuck if brown people are being genocided.   You all just fulfilled expectations.   Liberals, and Clinton, are the ones who really failed.



Remind us who sold out South Viet Nam? Who wants to sell out Iraq?


----------



## Larkinn (Apr 10, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Remind us who sold out South Viet Nam? Who wants to sell out Iraq?



Because those are the worst humanitarian catastrophes around the globe?

Not quite.   Not even close.   Don't try and claim actions are humanitarian when they are anything but.


----------



## Gunny (Apr 13, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Alright, then lets give the UN an army and an ability to invade countries for HR violations.
> 
> No?   Then shut the fuck up when its ineffective.   Its hilarious that people bitch about how its ineffective, but don't support making it effective.
> 
> And yes, you should be ashamed for letting Rwanda happen.   But more so, the liberals should be ashamed.   Its expected that conservatives won't give a fuck if brown people are being genocided.   You all just fulfilled expectations.   Liberals, and Clinton, are the ones who really failed.



Not sure where you get your conclusion that conservatives don't give a fuck about brown people.  It doesn't matter what color they are, for one thing.

And I have been pushing this issue since I became aware of it YEARS ago and I was quite vocal about Rwanda.  Last I checked, no one's been calling me a liberal lately.

What happened in Rwanda was wrong and what is currently happening in Sudan is wrong.  And while I'm not into your "One World Order" organization, I support any effort that puts a stop to the genocide of a people.

As far as who supports what, I have posted articles on Darfur for years on this board and others and they go largely ignored, and definitely by the left.  One or two responses from a few conservatives maybe, and that's it.

The real problem is NOBODY gives a shit.


----------



## Larkinn (Apr 13, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Not sure where you get your conclusion that conservatives don't give a fuck about brown people.  It doesn't matter what color they are, for one thing.



Well cheers, y'all don't care about anyone then!



> And I have been pushing this issue since I became aware of it YEARS ago and I was quite vocal about Rwanda.  Last I checked, no one's been calling me a liberal lately.



Its meant as a generalization, as all statements of that type are.   Conservatives are more prone to say people need to "pull themselves up by their boostraps", take "personal responsibility" and simultaneously push isolationism and free trade.   Some liberals have, mistakenly due to the Iraq fiasco, started to push for isolationism unfortunately.   

I've seen you push this issue, but rarely in a form other than "omg the UN is fucked and this is why".   



> What happened in Rwanda was wrong and what is currently happening in Sudan is wrong.  And while I'm not into your "One World Order" organization, I support any effort that puts a stop to the genocide of a people.



So you don't want one world order, but you want everyone in the world to be held to some certain standards.   But any organization that would enforce those standards is terrible because its pushing one world order.   But the US isn't the world police either.   Wait...

Your views about the UN are incoherent.   You, and others, simultaneously bash it for being too weak and too powerful at the same time.   One second its  "OMG one world order" and the next second its "sovreignity?  Whats that?  We need to invade countries!".   



> As far as who supports what, I have posted articles on Darfur for years on this board and others and they go largely ignored, and definitely by the left.  One or two responses from a few conservatives maybe, and that's it.
> 
> The real problem is NOBODY gives a shit.



Speak for yourself Kemo Sabe.   There are lots of organizations that DO give a shit and try to get the word out about these issues.   Liberal feel-good bullshit organizations like HRW, Amnesty International, the UN.    But no, neither side of the American political spectrum as a whole are talking about these issues.   On the national scale you are correct, nobody cares.


----------



## Gunny (Apr 13, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Well cheers, y'all don't care about anyone then!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My views about the UN are quite coherent.  I NEVER have bashed it for being too "powerful."  That's an oxymoron.  I criticize the UN for being just another level of ineffective bureaucracy.  

Even if the UN was half-ass worth something, I would oppose the US subjugating itself to UN authority, or any authority based on the "One World Order" concept.  The US needs to do what is in the US's best interest.  The rest of the world does what's in their best interest at the National level, and turn around and point fingers at us for not thinking about them first.  And we have people who fall for the crap.

I was actually addressing the "nobody cares" at the message board level, but the national level will do as well.  At the UN level it appears they want to just keep discussing the issue.


----------



## Larkinn (Apr 13, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> My views about the UN are quite coherent.  I NEVER
> have bashed it for being too "powerful."
> 
> That's an oxymoron.  I criticize the UN for being just another level of ineffective bureaucracy.
> ...



Yes, this is incoherent.   You say that no state should subjugate its will to the UN, but yet think the UN should do something about Darfur and criticize it when it can't because idiots think that no state should subjugate its will to the UN.   

The UN can have no authority over Darfur unless states are willing to delegate some powers to the UN.   

By the way...I care about Darfur, I just don't care to constantly have long conversations with people about it who want to blame everything under the sun on the UN.


----------



## dread (Apr 13, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Yes, this is incoherent.   You say that no state should subjugate its will to the UN, but yet think the UN should do something about Darfur and criticize it when it can't because idiots think that no state should subjugate its will to the UN.
> 
> The UN can have no authority over Darfur unless states are willing to delegate some powers to the UN.
> 
> By the way...I care about Darfur, I just don't care to constantly have long conversations with people about it who want to blame everything under the sun on the UN.






Oh...A UN sympathizer.......


----------



## Larkinn (Apr 13, 2008)

dread said:


> Oh...A UN sympathizer.......



Oh...a mindless UN basher....


----------



## Gunny (Apr 16, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Yes, this is incoherent.   You say that no state should subjugate its will to the UN, but yet think the UN should do something about Darfur and criticize it when it can't because idiots think that no state should subjugate its will to the UN.



Again, hardly incoherent.  Facetious.  Condescending.    



> The UN can have no authority over Darfur unless states are willing to delegate some powers to the UN.



It doesn't require delegation of powers.  It only requires that the UN actually take a stance and call for support.  If the UN would quit "discussing the issue," take a stance and present a solution, I doubt there would be a shortage of volunteers.  Was there in Kosovo?

The UN has been in a position to lead for decades.  It lacks only leadership to assume that postion.  You aren't going to impress others with your leadership if all you're known for is vacillating.



> By the way...I care about Darfur, I just don't care to constantly have long conversations with people about it who want to blame everything under the sun on the UN.



Taking a shot at the UN for its usual ineffectiveness -- and you can't say the UN has done much of anything but talk on this issue -- is different than blaming the UN for the situation Darfur.  That would be the fault of the Government of Sudan.

I have no more problem supporting an actual effort made by the UN in Sudan than I had with them stepping in in Yugoslavia.

I also have no problem with limited interdiction by US military.  Not like we have the manpower at the present to just step in what with someone's genius decision to open a second front before completely securing the first one.


----------



## Swamp Fox (Apr 16, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Alright, then lets give the UN an army and an ability to invade countries for HR violations.
> 
> No?   Then shut the fuck up when its ineffective.   Its hilarious that people bitch about how its ineffective, but don't support making it effective.
> 
> And yes, you should be ashamed for letting Rwanda happen.   But more so, the liberals should be ashamed.   Its expected that conservatives won't give a fuck if brown people are being genocided.   You all just fulfilled expectations.   Liberals, and Clinton, are the ones who really failed.



The only thing we should give the UN is a swift kick in the ass.  And I didn't see Clinton sending any troops to Darfur when he was in office......


----------



## Larkinn (Apr 17, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Again, hardly incoherent.  Facetious.  Condescending.



Quite incoherent.



> It doesn't require delegation of powers.  It only requires that the UN actually take a stance and call for support.



http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/sc8050.doc.htm

There are lots of statements like that that have been issued by various groups at the UN, including I believe, both the former and the current UNSG.   



> If the UN would quit "discussing the issue," take a stance and present a solution, I doubt there would be a shortage of volunteers.



LMAO...really?   You think the world would just call up arms and go into another country for humanitarian reasons?   Just because the UN asked?   



> Was there in Kosovo?



Kosovo didn't have the worlds superpower involved in 2 wars already and too preoccupied to deal with humanitarian measures.

Oh, and NB...Kosovo was not sanctioned by the UN and was not a UN action.  
It was a NATO action.   



> The UN has been in a position to lead for decades.  It lacks only leadership to assume that postion.  You aren't going to impress others with your leadership if all you're known for is vacillating.



No, it really hasn't.   Russia, China, and the US are all on the UN Security Council.   That Council must vote for anything binding to occur.   How often do you suppose thats going to happen?

It'd be nice if we made the USGA resolutions binding.   But then the US wouldn't have so much power, and we all know you would never agree to that.   



> Taking a shot at the UN for its usual ineffectiveness -- and you can't say the UN has done much of anything but talk on this issue -- is different than blaming the UN for the situation Darfur.  That would be the fault of the Government of Sudan.



So give it more power to do things.   Nope, wait... can't give it more power.   Why?  



> I would oppose the US subjugating itself to UN authority



    

No, your not inconsistent at all.   



> I have no more problem supporting an actual effort made by the UN in Sudan than I had with them stepping in in Yugoslavia.



Kudos, a good thought, but a simplistic one.   The UN can't step in anywhere unless the UNSC votes on it.   Want to make the UN more streamlined?   Reduce the power of the UNSC?  Give the UN overall more power?   All things I greatly support.   

Its not the criticism of the UN that bothers me.   I recognize that it has massive problems.   Its the double edged hypocrisy which is just fucking annoying.   People say "hell no we won't give the UN more power", and then go on to blame the UN when its ineffective.   



> I also have no problem with limited interdiction by US military.



I do if its unilateral.   But I don't think it would be if the US pushed other countries to go along.   But they won't.   Because, as you said...



> Not like we have the manpower at the present to just step in what with someone's genius decision to open a second front before completely securing the first one.


----------



## Larkinn (Apr 17, 2008)

Swamp Fox said:


> The only thing we should give the UN is a swift kick in the ass.



Stunning argument.   Your debate skills are formidable.  



> And I didn't see Clinton sending any troops to Darfur when he was in office......



No he didn't.   Hence my comments about liberals failing.   Not that he was entirely a liberal, but still.


----------

