Worldwide rallies call for end to Darfur crisis
- Thread starter CBC News
- Start date
Now that the NDP is warmongers Jack Layton would agree to send a Canadian military into that region to commit to another war.
So, you are not a believer in Mr. Paul Martin's philosophy of "the responsibility to protect"?
Like most Liberals, you'd rather just make pompous, hypocritical speeches on your own superiority.
Excuse me while I puke.
No, never believed in Paul Martin.
As far as I am concerned he got power hungry.
I firmly believe that if Chretien ran for another term Canada would have had a Liberal majority.
Paul Martin was a good financial minister
Your other comment I think the same about Stephen Harper is pompous, and gives hypocritical speeches on his own superiority
Speaking of puking....look a little deeper, just because he is called liberalman...guess what...he isn't.
Actually...he's just a lame, agitator troll...but not a single one of his positions could be called REMOTELY liberal or left wing....nice try though.
I think he has a point. Can Jack Layton call for the end to genocide in Darfur well at the same time trying to pander to the anti war elements in his party?
KHS: Are you saying there are no rebels involved in Darfur?
PR: There are also rebels involved, but this time it is a militia armed by the government. But also in Rwanda before 1994, the militia Interahamwe was also killing civilians.
KHS: What I'm trying to say is that in Rwanda before 1994, in the international press, you didn't see anything about the RPF, they were almost not even there, even though they were invading a country. And today, it’s the same with the “rebels” in Darfur.
PR: Because the RPF was smart enough: if you were a journalist not on their side, they [RPF] would just push you away; you were not allowed to cover their zone. Simply you were not allowed.
KHS: So the media coverage was very slanted in favor of the RPF. Don't you think that is happening in Darfur, with the rebels?
PR: No, with the rebels, I don't think so: because we crossed and went on the rebel side.
KHS: Where do the rebels in Darfur get their weapons and their arms?
PR: They get them, of course, from the West. You see, whatever happens, there's always a superpower behind.
KHS: Well, this is what I am saying, no? So who's giving the rebels in Darfur their weapons? Who supports them?
PR: Well, I don't really know.
KHS: The African Union forces have 2,000 of Kagame's men, and these are the same people who have committed genocide in Congo and Rwanda… (25)
PR: Yes, of course. Those are armed by the U.S. This is actually the observers—if you can call it that—because I can no more call them peacekeepers, or peacemakers. They are, to me, they are just observers.
KHS: These are the Darfur A.U. peacekeepers...
PR: No, to me, they are not peacekeepers, they are just observers.
KHS: And what about Roger Winter, today he is the chief of United States Agency for International development [USAID] in Sudan. What can you say about his involvement in Rwanda before 1994? When he was head of the U.S. Committee for Refugees? Wasn't he close with Paul Kagame and the RPF even before 1990? (26)
PR: This is what they say; they say also that he was a good friend to the RPF people since the beginning, since 1980.
KHS: Did you see Roger Winter when you were there [Darfur]?
PR: No, I didn't see him, because he was supposed to be in Khartoum. He's a representative of the U.S. administration in Khartoum. He's not in Darfur.
KHS Global Research, April 27, 2007
PR: There are also rebels involved, but this time it is a militia armed by the government. But also in Rwanda before 1994, the militia Interahamwe was also killing civilians.
KHS: What I'm trying to say is that in Rwanda before 1994, in the international press, you didn't see anything about the RPF, they were almost not even there, even though they were invading a country. And today, it’s the same with the “rebels” in Darfur.
PR: Because the RPF was smart enough: if you were a journalist not on their side, they [RPF] would just push you away; you were not allowed to cover their zone. Simply you were not allowed.
KHS: So the media coverage was very slanted in favor of the RPF. Don't you think that is happening in Darfur, with the rebels?
PR: No, with the rebels, I don't think so: because we crossed and went on the rebel side.
KHS: Where do the rebels in Darfur get their weapons and their arms?
PR: They get them, of course, from the West. You see, whatever happens, there's always a superpower behind.
KHS: Well, this is what I am saying, no? So who's giving the rebels in Darfur their weapons? Who supports them?
PR: Well, I don't really know.
KHS: The African Union forces have 2,000 of Kagame's men, and these are the same people who have committed genocide in Congo and Rwanda… (25)
PR: Yes, of course. Those are armed by the U.S. This is actually the observers—if you can call it that—because I can no more call them peacekeepers, or peacemakers. They are, to me, they are just observers.
KHS: These are the Darfur A.U. peacekeepers...
PR: No, to me, they are not peacekeepers, they are just observers.
KHS: And what about Roger Winter, today he is the chief of United States Agency for International development [USAID] in Sudan. What can you say about his involvement in Rwanda before 1994? When he was head of the U.S. Committee for Refugees? Wasn't he close with Paul Kagame and the RPF even before 1990? (26)
PR: This is what they say; they say also that he was a good friend to the RPF people since the beginning, since 1980.
KHS: Did you see Roger Winter when you were there [Darfur]?
PR: No, I didn't see him, because he was supposed to be in Khartoum. He's a representative of the U.S. administration in Khartoum. He's not in Darfur.
KHS Global Research, April 27, 2007
What's stopping the rest of the righteous world from getting involved ?
What is their excuse ---uh I mean their reasons ?
What is their excuse ---uh I mean their reasons ?
I have a good idea. They don't want their troops getting hurt.
Darfur will go on and on becuase the US isn't sending any of their troops so that leaves it up to the rest of the world.
In essence... they are screwed.
Darfur will go on and on becuase the US isn't sending any of their troops so that leaves it up to the rest of the world.
In essence... they are screwed.
The rest of the world has been involved for a long time Jim, that's way there is a problem. Most of the violence is tribal, nomadic, and resource based because of the dwindling water and grazing. Get used to the term resource-war, it's what Darfur is about. I suspect you already know that though.
The rest of the world has been involved for a long time Jim, that's why there is a violence problem. Most of the violence is tribal, nomadic, and resource based because of the dwindling water and grazing. Get used to the term resource-war, it's what Darfur is about. I suspect you already know that though.
What's stopping the rest of the righteous world from getting involved ?
With most of the major powers who would normally take on the role of peace keepers in Darfur already at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, Darfur is slipping through the cracks of history. In another era where the worlds leading peace keeping nations were free of military commitments, intervention would have already happened. Unfortunately they are on their own and the whole world will loose as a result.
With most of the major powers who would normally take on the role of peace keepers in Darfur already at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, Darfur is slipping through the cracks of history. In another era where the worlds leading peace keeping nations were free of military commitments, intervention would have already happened. Unfortunately they are on their own and the whole world will loose as a result.