# U.N.: 100,000 more dead in Darfur than reported



## Gunny (Apr 22, 2008)

> NEW YORK (CNN) -- The number of deaths in Sudan's Darfur region since 2006 may have been underestimated by as much as 50 percent, the U.N. undersecretary-general for humanitarian affairs said Tuesday.
> 
> In March, international figures, including U.N. data, put the death toll in Darfur at 200,000, with another 2.5 million people displaced.
> 
> ...



Un-fucking-sat.


----------



## onedomino (Apr 22, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Un-fucking-sat.


If only the UN was half as good at stopping the killing as it is counting the dead.


----------



## CSM (Apr 22, 2008)

onedomino said:


> If only the UN was half as good at stopping the killing as it is counting the dead.



The UN is obviously not very good at either.


----------



## onedomino (Apr 22, 2008)

There will not be many athletes from Darfur in Beijing:



> *Chinas Genocide Olympics *
> 
> complete article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/opinion/24kristof.html
> 
> ...


----------



## Gunny (Apr 23, 2008)

onedomino said:


> If only the UN was half as good at stopping the killing as it is counting the dead.



Darfur is the manifestation of my problem with the UN.  They're so busy playing bureaucratic parlor games they ignore the bodies piling up.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 23, 2008)

Selling arms to a legal Government is not, in my opinion, a problem. The problem is China blocks any attempts to rein in the abuse by that Government.

Just as I had no official problem with Chavez buying tons of Ak-47's, I have no problem with Sudan buying arms and weapon systems nor the people that sell them to a legal Government.


----------



## Larkinn (Apr 23, 2008)

So any solutions?

Or are you going to continue to blame the UN for things which it has no control over?   

Blaming the UN for this is stupid unless you are blaming the structure of the UN.   If you want to reduce the control of countries and allow UN greater autontomy, I'm all for it.

If you want to blame individuals for acting under the current system, point your fingers at China, not the UN.   The UN is powerless.   Which you all support.   So blaming it for being unable to act, when you support that fact, is hypocrisy at its finest.


----------



## Larkinn (Apr 23, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Selling arms to a legal Government is not, in my opinion, a problem. The problem is China blocks any attempts to rein in the abuse by that Government.
> 
> Just as I had no official problem with Chavez buying tons of Ak-47's, I have no problem with Sudan buying arms and weapon systems nor the people that sell them to a legal Government.



Legal government or not, its pretty fucking horrific and immoral to sell arms to a government engaging in genocide.


----------



## Gunny (Apr 26, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> So any solutions?
> 
> Or are you going to continue to blame the UN for things which it has no control over?
> 
> ...




Are you going to continue to ask this is every thread on Darfur?  Just wondering.  I'd assume you will get pretty-much the same answers.

No reduction in control of countries is necessary, nor giving the UN greater autonomy is necessary for the UN to do that which it is designed to do.  The UN as organization is not the problem here.  It has all the tools necessary to bring this abomination to anyone's idea of humanity to a halt.

It is the professional bureaucrats that make up the membership of the UN that's a big part of the problem.  The current world political viewpoint which varies from one end of the spectrum to the other that's part of the problem.

It's unscrupulous nations like China, gaining its oil for blood, that no one wants to offend -- Heaven forbid THAT -- that's part of the problem.

It's the hypocrisy of the different Nations and their people that demand something be done then turn around and criticize and/or make bullshit accusations when someone DOES actually do something.  

You'll have to excuse my simplistic, military approach but I'd put a carrier task force off shore, draw a line in the sand and bomb the hell out of anything that so much as stuck a toe across it.  

Then I'd use that same military task force to provide some medical aid and food to whatever's left of those people.  

All the while my actions being generally condemned by the UN and the pussy-ass nations of the world.  Tough.  It would be doing the right thing.  Something that seems to be only words on paper in our ideals anymore.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 26, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Are you going to continue to ask this is every thread on Darfur?  Just wondering.  I'd assume you will get pretty-much the same answers.
> 
> No reduction in control of countries is necessary, nor giving the UN greater autonomy is necessary for the UN to do that which it is designed to do.  The UN as organization is not the problem here.  It has all the tools necessary to bring this abomination to anyone's idea of humanity to a halt.
> 
> ...




  You can't be puss in a tough world


----------



## roomy (Apr 26, 2008)

100,000 or 1000,000 what difference does it make to us here in the west and why should we care? I don't, particularly.Do you think for one minute they give a flying fuck about any of us? I can tell you the resounding answer is no.


----------



## Gunny (Apr 27, 2008)

roomy said:


> 100,000 or 1000,000 what difference does it make to us here in the west and why should we care? I don't, particularly.Do you think for one minute they give a flying fuck about any of us? I can tell you the resounding answer is no.



You're just still mad cuz General Gordon dies in the end of "Khartoum."


----------



## BrianH (Apr 27, 2008)

It really makes you think about what "nations'" priorities are.  I had to explain to some kids the other day that the U.S. did not enter WWII to stop the genocide of the jews.  They were floored.  They were under the impression that the U.S. got involved in WWII in order to stop the holocaust.


----------



## roomy (Apr 27, 2008)

BrianH said:


> It really makes you think about what "nations'" priorities are.  I had to explain to some kids the other day that the U.S. did not enter WWII to stop the genocide of the jews.  They were floored.  They were under the impression that the U.S. got involved in WWII in order to stop the holocaust.



They joined the war to help ensure sure they got their money back from Britain. 

And they like to back a winner, had we won it on our own we would have been insufferable, as it is we are a teeny bit grateful for your better late than never help.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 27, 2008)

roomy said:


> They joined the war to help ensure sure they got their money back from Britain.
> 
> And they like to back a winner, had we won it on our own we would have been insufferable, as it is we are a teeny bit grateful for your better late than never help.



lol.  World War I and World War II eh? lol.


----------



## Larkinn (Apr 27, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Are you going to continue to ask this is every thread on Darfur?  Just wondering.  I'd assume you will get pretty-much the same answers.



Are you going to make the same bullshit accusations?   If so, then yes, I will continue to bring it up.  



> No reduction in control of countries is necessary, nor giving the UN greater autonomy is necessary for the UN to do that which it is designed to do.  The UN as organization is not the problem here.  It has all the tools necessary to bring this abomination to anyone's idea of humanity to a halt.



Really?   All the tools?   

So care to tell me which UN bureaucrat can over-ride Chinas veto on the UNSC, which is required for the UN to have binding action on any country?

I'd love to know how the UN can get around Chinas veto.   If you have some advice, feel free to share it.   



> It is the professional bureaucrats that make up the membership of the UN that's a big part of the problem.  The current world political viewpoint which varies from one end of the spectrum to the other that's part of the problem.



Bureaucrats have nothing to do with why the UN hasn't involved itself in Darfur.   



> It's unscrupulous nations like China, gaining its oil for blood, that no one wants to offend -- Heaven forbid THAT -- that's part of the problem.



People aren't worried about offending China.   If they were there wouldn't be so much talk about boycotting the Olympic games.   Or is that not offending China?   No, it has nothing to do with offending China.   Rather, it has the ability to veto any and every binding UN move.   So, again, tell me how the UN is supposed to act without Chinas consent?



> It's the hypocrisy of the different Nations and their people that demand something be done then turn around and criticize and/or make bullshit accusations when someone DOES actually do something.



Care to cite examples?   



> You'll have to excuse my simplistic, military approach but I'd put a carrier task force off shore, draw a line in the sand and bomb the hell out of anything that so much as stuck a toe across it.
> 
> Then I'd use that same military task force to provide some medical aid and food to whatever's left of those people.



And care to explain who at the UN is authorised to make such a military move?   



> All the while my actions being generally condemned by the UN and the pussy-ass nations of the world.  Tough.  It would be doing the right thing.  Something that seems to be only words on paper in our ideals anymore.



Like the UN condemned Kosovo, an illegal invasion into a sovreign state?   Like the UN condemned Iraq, a clearly illegal invasion that had no legitimate humanitarian purpose into a sovreign state?   

When "doing the right thing" involves breaking the law and diminishing int'l law which DOES have effects, yes you will have some resistance.   A respect for the law does not make one "pussy-assed".


----------

