UN to Deploy peacekeepers to Darfur

Cypress said:
Uh-huh.....

Newest excuse for Darfur inaction from President Bush, Tony Blair, and Jacque Chirac:

"But, Kofi didn't pressure us enough to do anything!!!"


SF, Fox News might not have told you this, but on balance, Kofi was one of the most popular, respected, and effective UN Secretary Generals ever. Was he perfect? LOL, no one ever said he was.
Click to expand...

So tell me Cypress... are you saying that Bush and Blair could have just gone in without UN approval? Isn't that one of your bitching points about Iraq...that they did just that?
 
Superfreak said:
So tell me Cypress... are you saying that Bush and Blair could have just gone in without UN approval? Isn't that one of your bitching points about Iraq...that they did just that?
Click to expand...


Kofi is one man, with a salary of about 200k a year, and a few dozen staffers in New York.

Bush is in command of the 2 trillion dollar United States Government, and the Leader of a 12 trillion dollar economy.

Who do you think has more leverage and sway with China?


Kofi has a role to play - but only a role. Trying to blame him, is like trying to blame some benchwarmer on the Dallas Cowboys, for the team having a horrible, losing season.
 
Superfreak said:
So tell me Cypress... are you saying that Bush and Blair could have just gone in without UN approval? Isn't that one of your bitching points about Iraq...that they did just that?
Click to expand...


I think the UN is about as effective as the goverments of US, UK, France, Russian, and China allow it to be.

A UN Secretary General can be a skillful diplomat, and a good cajoler, but ultimately it depends entirely on the commitment and skill of the big 5 on the secrurity council.

I've never seen Bush as a president, or an adminstration, that is committed to the UN. In fact, I don't think they even like the UN or see value in it.


If you want to belive Darfur is Kofi's fault, that's fine.

The reality is that the overwhelming majoirty of the governments and diplomats of the world consider Kofi to be one of the finest, and most respected Secretary Generals ever.
 
Cypress said:
I think the UN is about as effective as the goverments of US, UK, France, Russian, and China allow it to be.

A UN Secretary General can be a skillful diplomat, and a good cajoler, but ultimately it depends entirely on the commitment and skill of the big 5 on the secrurity council.

I've never seen Bush as a president, or an adminstration, that is committed to the UN. In fact, I don't think they even like the UN or see value in it.


If you want to belive Darfur is Kofi's fault, that's fine.

The reality is that the overwhelming majoirty of the governments and diplomats of the world consider Kofi to be one of the finest, and most respected Secretary Generals ever.
Click to expand...

Well then, by that logic, you can no longer bitch about Bush not getting UN approval for Iraq.

Personally, I could care less what teh governments and diplomats think. What do the Sudanese people think? THAT is what should matter to you.
 
uscitizen said:
Right so if bush really was for it why did we not go in ?
Click to expand...

Because the UN was blocked by China... and Bush didn't have what it took to go into another country again... without the precious UN's approval. For that, he shares in the blame.

By Cypress can apologize for Annan and the UN failure all he wants... because it is obvious what that the change in Secretary Generals has resulted in a change to the correct course of action.
 
Superfreak said:
and again Cypress... ARE you saying that Bush and Blair should have gone in on their own?
Click to expand...


No, I simply want a president who's committed to the UN, and sees it as a valuable tool. A good secretary general is nice, but that and a cup of coffee won't get you jack shit, if the governments on the security council aren't committed to working together.

I don't see Bush as a president who values the UN. Christ, he sent that moron Bolton to be our ambassador. Do you honestly think that helped us work with europe, russia, and china on a host of issues, darfur included?

I don't blame Bush soley for darfur. China surely must share blame. I don't heap a whole lot of blame on kofi. He's a talented, yet still, glorified bureacrat.


There's a lot of blame to go around.
 
Cypress said:
No, I simply want a president who's committed to the UN, and sees it as a valuable tool. A good secretary general is nice, but that and a cup of coffee won't get you jack shit, if the governments on the security council aren't committed to working together.

I don't see Bush as a president who values the UN. Christ, he sent that moron Bolton to be our ambassador. Do you honestly think that helped us work with europe, russia, and china on a host of issues, darfur included?

I don't blame Bush soley for darfur. China surely must share blame. I don't heap a whole lot of blame on kofi. He's a talented, yet still, glorified bureacrat.


There's a lot of blame to go around.
Click to expand...

Why was China so set against going in, do you know?
 
Darla said:
Why was China so set against going in, do you know?
Click to expand...


Well, supposedly they have economic ties with the Sudanese government, that they were reluctant to jettison.

That's one theory. I'm sure the chinese have their side of the story.
 
"Sudan is China's largest overseas oil project. China is Sudan's largest supplier of arms, according to a former Sudan government minister. Chinese-made tanks, fighter planes, bombers, helicopters, machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades have intensified Sudan's two-decade-old north-south civil war. A cease-fire is in effect and a peace agreement is expected to be signed by year-end. But the fighting in Sudan's Darfur region rages on, as government-backed Arab militias push African tribes off their land. "

from...

http://www.genocidewatch.org/SudanChinaInvestsHeavily23December2004.htm
 
Superfreak said:
The problem Cypress, is that the UN is not a valuable tool. It is a bureaucratic nightmare.
Click to expand...


I disagree.

I don't know how anybody can be against the social, health, and education stuff the UN does: UNICEF, the World Health Organization, the IAEA....I mean, just because Fox News doesn't report on all the valuable work the UN does, doesn't mean it isn't happening.


The UN has successes and failures on the diplomatic front. East Timor=good. Rwanda = Bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top