UN to Deploy peacekeepers to Darfur

I think one could also put forth the idea that China is backing off because they now already have a stronghold in the Sudan AND they are seeing the African oil nations realize they will do much better with competition and thus, there is not much of a point to trying to monopolize it anymore.
 
uscitizen said:
Ahh but it is not that simple SF. America has a bunch invested in China and a big vested interest in seeing them succeed.
And they own a bunch or our national debt as well.
plus many other considerations I have not even thought of.
Click to expand...

what exactly does that have to do with the issue of the Sudan?????? I am not following this line of logic...???
 
That could well be a factor as well.
there is no one simple answer in this situation. Wheels within wheels.
 
Sigh perhaps someday you will understand that the world of economics, politics and such is very convoluted on a global scale.
 
Runyon said:
There actually is quite alot on Bolton, Darfur, and Sudan. Here's one:

http://www.state.gov/p/af/rls/rm/2006/66389.htm
Click to expand...

Yeah stonewalling
from the article:
" Well, the acceleration is to accelerate the planning and the preliminary work that needs to be done. We've said previously that before the Abuja agreement was signed we needed to get DPKO military planners from the UN into the Sudan, into the Darfur region, so that the contingency plans that were under preparation could be made accurate and more fitted to the circumstances. And that remains an urgent decision. It appeared that over the weekend the government of Sudan had accepted the fact of the UN Mission. I understand that today there's been a somewhat different signal. I don't think our objective changes; I think we want the deployment of the UN peacekeeping force as soon as possible. But until you get the planning done, you can't speed that date up. So the answer to accelerating the deployment up depends on the pace of which the planning can take place. But I don't think there's any doubt we also want to accelerate assistance to the AMIS force to strengthen its hand while the transition continues. And I think the President this morning addressed the issue of requesting potentially interested countries for their participation in the peacekeeping operation and that will continue."
 
uscitizen said:
Sigh perhaps someday you will understand that the world of economics, politics and such is very convoluted on a global scale.
Click to expand...

Give me a break... you had NO support for your statement at all... expand beyond a sentence and someone might be able to understand the point you are trying to make. I guarantee i understand the world of economics better than you and from all appearances, I would guess to say that I have followed the Sudan problem much closer than you.

Unless you would care to do something other than make vague comments?
 
uscitizen said:
Yeah stonewalling
from the article:
" Well, the acceleration is to accelerate the planning and the preliminary work that needs to be done. We've said previously that before the Abuja agreement was signed we needed to get DPKO military planners from the UN into the Sudan, into the Darfur region, so that the contingency plans that were under preparation could be made accurate and more fitted to the circumstances. And that remains an urgent decision. It appeared that over the weekend the government of Sudan had accepted the fact of the UN Mission. I understand that today there's been a somewhat different signal. I don't think our objective changes; I think we want the deployment of the UN peacekeeping force as soon as possible. But until you get the planning done, you can't speed that date up. So the answer to accelerating the deployment up depends on the pace of which the planning can take place. But I don't think there's any doubt we also want to accelerate assistance to the AMIS force to strengthen its hand while the transition continues. And I think the President this morning addressed the issue of requesting potentially interested countries for their participation in the peacekeeping operation and that will continue."
Click to expand...

yep... you are simply looking for one-liners... you have little to no comprehension of what was going on.
 
Runyon said:
There actually is quite alot on Bolton, Darfur, and Sudan. Here's one:

http://www.state.gov/p/af/rls/rm/2006/66389.htm
Click to expand...


There's a significant difference between rhetoric and capability.

I've never denied that Bolton may well have had some concernes about genocide in Sudan.

The problem is, that Bolton was widley mocked and ridiculed by the world community. He wasn't an effective american UN diplomat. In short, he wasn't equipped nor did he have the credibility or capability to be a good diplomat for the united states at the UN.


Edit: and that's what happens when you have an adminstration that is hostile towards the UN. They're not neccessarily going to put the best people, or have the proper level of committment to using the UN to advance american and humanitarian interests
 
Last edited:
uscitizen said:
Yeah stonewalling
from the article:
" Well, the acceleration is to accelerate the planning and the preliminary work that needs to be done. We've said previously that before the Abuja agreement was signed we needed to get DPKO military planners from the UN into the Sudan, into the Darfur region, so that the contingency plans that were under preparation could be made accurate and more fitted to the circumstances. And that remains an urgent decision. It appeared that over the weekend the government of Sudan had accepted the fact of the UN Mission. I understand that today there's been a somewhat different signal. I don't think our objective changes; I think we want the deployment of the UN peacekeeping force as soon as possible. But until you get the planning done, you can't speed that date up. So the answer to accelerating the deployment up depends on the pace of which the planning can take place. But I don't think there's any doubt we also want to accelerate assistance to the AMIS force to strengthen its hand while the transition continues. And I think the President this morning addressed the issue of requesting potentially interested countries for their participation in the peacekeeping operation and that will continue."
Click to expand...

Hmmm, let's try for a moment to remove the blinders. The US was not going unilaterally into Darfur, that was never going to happen. The UN was the organization that would have to, but they were stonewalling by issuing lots of conferences, condemnations, and studies. Then of course there were the issues of Oil for Food and sex scandals with the UN, much like the problems confronting the US with being stretched too thin because of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The fact that other nations, especially those that keep ballyhooing about human rights, have not been applying the pressure that Bolton was, truly was shameful.
 
"Every day that we delay in deploying a U.N. peacekeeping operation means more innocent civilians are slaughtered; it means more innocent women and children are raped; it means more people will question the ability of the Security Council to take meaningful and decisive action," Bolton said in his remarks to the Security Council.
 
Runyon said:
Hmmm, let's try for a moment to remove the blinders. The US was not going unilaterally into Darfur, that was never going to happen. The UN was the organization that would have to, but they were stonewalling by issuing lots of conferences, condemnations, and studies. Then of course there were the issues of Oil for Food and sex scandals with the UN, much like the problems confronting the US with being stretched too thin because of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The fact that other nations, especially those that keep ballyhooing about human rights, have not been applying the pressure that Bolton was, truly was shameful.
Click to expand...

I don't think our objective changes; I think we want the deployment of the UN peacekeeping force as soon as possible. But until you get the planning done, you can't speed that date up. So the answer to accelerating the deployment up depends on the pace of which the planning can take place. But I don't think there's any doubt we also want to accelerate assistance to the AMIS force to strengthen its hand while the transition continues. And I think the President this morning addressed the issue of requesting potentially interested countries for their participation in the peacekeeping operation and that will continue."

Well, I will tell you, this quote stinks so bad I had to hold my nose while reading it.

It sounds like Rice explaining why, even though she and the President were besides themselves with grief over the dead children in Lebanon, we could not pressure Israel to stop cluster fu..bombing them, because we need a peace that will last not a bandaid. Well, when something is bleeding here is what you do: Stop The Bleeding.

One thing I can smell is Bullshit and that paragraph is bullshit.
 
Runyon said:
Hmmm, let's try for a moment to remove the blinders. The US was not going unilaterally into Darfur, that was never going to happen. The UN was the organization that would have to, but they were stonewalling by issuing lots of conferences, condemnations, and studies. Then of course there were the issues of Oil for Food and sex scandals with the UN, much like the problems confronting the US with being stretched too thin because of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The fact that other nations, especially those that keep ballyhooing about human rights, have not been applying the pressure that Bolton was, truly was shameful.
Click to expand...
Yep more planning and research....
Strange attitude to have after the rush to invade Iraq....
 
Darla said:
I don't think our objective changes; I think we want the deployment of the UN peacekeeping force as soon as possible. But until you get the planning done, you can't speed that date up. So the answer to accelerating the deployment up depends on the pace of which the planning can take place. But I don't think there's any doubt we also want to accelerate assistance to the AMIS force to strengthen its hand while the transition continues. And I think the President this morning addressed the issue of requesting potentially interested countries for their participation in the peacekeeping operation and that will continue."

Well, I will tell you, this quote stinks so bad I had to hold my nose while reading it.

It sounds like Rice explaining why, even though she and the President were besides themselves with grief over the dead children in Lebanon, we could not pressure Israel to stop cluster fu..bombing them, because we need a peace that will last not a bandaid. Well, when something is bleeding here is what you do: Stop The Bleeding.

One thing I can smell is Bullshit and that paragraph is bullshit.
Click to expand...


Some of us understand Darla....
 
Superfreak said:
"Every day that we delay in deploying a U.N. peacekeeping operation means more innocent civilians are slaughtered; it means more innocent women and children are raped; it means more people will question the ability of the Security Council to take meaningful and decisive action," Bolton said in his remarks to the Security Council.
Click to expand...

Well that contradicts what was said in the other quote I just highlighted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top