Kofi Annan Nagging for More US Military
- Thread starter Curiosity
- Start date
ITN, I think that's true with some countries, the US is damned either way. The US is always going to be the bad guy in Iran, Pakistan, whatever. But, I think that's not true for most of the world and it's too often used as a reason to NOT get involved when we should. Despite all the media hype, I don't believe the French hate America, the Germans don't, the Thais don't, the Canadians don't, etc. But ignoring suffering or genocide certainly doesn't create warm feelings for America. Doing something about it with the help of other countries does.
CNN reported on an interesting phenomenon after the earthquake in Pakistan. Positive feelings about Americans increased greatly thanks to the aid that Americans personally delivered.
CNN reported on an interesting phenomenon after the earthquake in Pakistan. Positive feelings about Americans increased greatly thanks to the aid that Americans personally delivered.
I'll repeat my earlier statement....
In case people decided not to read the lost post....
Can you see the U.S. military attempting to patrol "militarily" a Chinese "oil leasehold"??? I see Annan as trying to set yet another stage for punishing military action in which he expects the U.S. to participate. A stage for China and the U.S. to commence what could be the war to end all wars.
So you think it would be ok for the U.S. military from a capitalist nation - be sent to guard the Communist Chinese oil gatherers in order to save the Sudan? The Chinese are going to protect their energy interests at any cost and to hell with the Sudanese people.
Please people don't bring it down to a "republican" or "damned" kind of argument. It is far deeper than that. You guys are perfectly willing to send the US military into a no win cause without thought as to the ramifications.
In case people decided not to read the lost post....
Can you see the U.S. military attempting to patrol "militarily" a Chinese "oil leasehold"??? I see Annan as trying to set yet another stage for punishing military action in which he expects the U.S. to participate. A stage for China and the U.S. to commence what could be the war to end all wars.
So you think it would be ok for the U.S. military from a capitalist nation - be sent to guard the Communist Chinese oil gatherers in order to save the Sudan? The Chinese are going to protect their energy interests at any cost and to hell with the Sudanese people.
Please people don't bring it down to a "republican" or "damned" kind of argument. It is far deeper than that. You guys are perfectly willing to send the US military into a no win cause without thought as to the ramifications.
Re: RE: Kofi Annan Nagging for More US Military
Agreed
I read that article, I assure you it's a blip. The US has been giving humanatarian assistance for decades, via the US military and otherwise. It's a lost cause as far as I'm concerned. At least some of us know what's going on. I am certainly not implying that the US is a saint, but we have done lot's of good that is always swept under the carpet. That's all I'm saying.
tracy said:
Agreed
tracy said:
I read that article, I assure you it's a blip. The US has been giving humanatarian assistance for decades, via the US military and otherwise. It's a lost cause as far as I'm concerned. At least some of us know what's going on. I am certainly not implying that the US is a saint, but we have done lot's of good that is always swept under the carpet. That's all I'm saying.
From what I read there, it doesn't own or even lease all of Darfur. I seriously doubt China would start the war to end all wars over their partial share in land partly located in Darfur which may or may not even be affected by a peacekeeping mission. That isn't in their best interests. The Chinese aren't stupid. There are already peacekeepers in Darfur, so it just doesn't make sense to me that there can't be a better equipped force or a larger force there.
Maybe I'm confused, but wasn't China also opposed to the invasion in Iraq? Didn't they also have oil interests there? That didn't make them start a war with us. Why would this be so different?
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/08jim.htm
During the 1990s, Russia’s Lukoil, China National Petroleum Corporation and France’s TotalFinaElf held contract talks with the government of Iraq over plans to develop Iraqi fields as soon as sanctions are lifted. Lukoil reached an agreement in 1997 to develop Iraq’s West Qurna field, while China National signed an agreement for the North Rumailah field in the same year (China’s oil import needs from the Persian Gulf will grow from 0.5 million barrels per day in 1997 to 5.5 million barrels per day in 2020, making China one of the region’s most important customers).
Maybe I'm confused, but wasn't China also opposed to the invasion in Iraq? Didn't they also have oil interests there? That didn't make them start a war with us. Why would this be so different?
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/08jim.htm
During the 1990s, Russia’s Lukoil, China National Petroleum Corporation and France’s TotalFinaElf held contract talks with the government of Iraq over plans to develop Iraqi fields as soon as sanctions are lifted. Lukoil reached an agreement in 1997 to develop Iraq’s West Qurna field, while China National signed an agreement for the North Rumailah field in the same year (China’s oil import needs from the Persian Gulf will grow from 0.5 million barrels per day in 1997 to 5.5 million barrels per day in 2020, making China one of the region’s most important customers).
Re: RE: Kofi Annan Nagging for More US Military
I get what you're saying. Maybe I'm just more optimistic. If Japan can become a friend after we dropped the bomb on them, I think we can become allies with a lot of other countries too. I don't think it's a lost cause yet. I don't expect it to happen tomorrow or anything, but the world can sure change a lot in the span of a few decades.
I think not said:
I get what you're saying. Maybe I'm just more optimistic. If Japan can become a friend after we dropped the bomb on them, I think we can become allies with a lot of other countries too. I don't think it's a lost cause yet. I don't expect it to happen tomorrow or anything, but the world can sure change a lot in the span of a few decades.
Well obviously this isn't causing alarm..... so I'll stop now...
A last observation: What if it were Canadian military Kofi Annan
was enlisting to perform a mission in Sudan.....
Here is one for comparison:
http://www.espritdecorps.ca/new afghan role.htm
Perhaps U.S. forces are easily expendible.
A last observation: What if it were Canadian military Kofi Annan
was enlisting to perform a mission in Sudan.....
Here is one for comparison:
http://www.espritdecorps.ca/new afghan role.htm
Perhaps U.S. forces are easily expendible.
I've already said I would like the Canadian military and government to do more. I'm obviously not an American, so it isn't really my place to lobby American politicians and I wouldn't do that anyways. I hope they'll act, but beyond that I don't have anything to do with it. And again, from what I read, it doesn't have to be American troops going to Darfur.
I actually think smaller conflicts like this are an area where smaller countries like Canada could make the biggest difference.
I actually think smaller conflicts like this are an area where smaller countries like Canada could make the biggest difference.
It is good to see there is civil dialoge here in this forum concerning this issue.
I have to say I fall in line with ITN. I think the US is overlooked on what is really owed to the UN. Things such as our Maritime and Airlift capability are used quite a bit by the UN but ignored. To use those services cost quite a bit of money I would say.
Now if China has interests perhaps they should deploy their troops. But I think China's interest is as long as the oil keeps flowing they do not care how many massacres occur. They are part of the UN and I do not see any of their troops ditty-bopping through the streets of Africa. And China has a MASSIVE army to boot. They can well afford to send a heck of a lot more troops than the US afford.
I think it would be prudent for the US to stay at home on this one. We have enough troops away from home.
I have to say I fall in line with ITN. I think the US is overlooked on what is really owed to the UN. Things such as our Maritime and Airlift capability are used quite a bit by the UN but ignored. To use those services cost quite a bit of money I would say.
Now if China has interests perhaps they should deploy their troops. But I think China's interest is as long as the oil keeps flowing they do not care how many massacres occur. They are part of the UN and I do not see any of their troops ditty-bopping through the streets of Africa. And China has a MASSIVE army to boot. They can well afford to send a heck of a lot more troops than the US afford.
I think it would be prudent for the US to stay at home on this one. We have enough troops away from home.
Again, it would be nice to see all the critics
force their own countries to take the bull by
the horns in Sudan:
Here are some FACTS about the US and assistance to Sudan.
As the largest humanitarian and peacekeeping donor for Sudan and an advocate of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, the U.S. leads international efforts to achieve peace and stability for Sudan. The U.S. has brokered humanitarian cease-fire efforts and supported the intervention of the African Union peacekeeping mission in Sudan. The U.S. has provided more than $1 billion in humanitarian assistance to the people of Sudan. These efforts have directly contributed to substantially reducing mortality and to meeting the needs of more than 3.5 million people affected by the conflict.
Supporting Darfur Peacekeeping:
-- In July 2004, the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) began with a few hundred observers.
-- On September 9, 2004, then Secretary of State Colin Powell stated, "Genocide has been committed in Darfur ... and that genocide may still be occurring."
-- Since July 2004, the U.S. has supported the construction and operation of 34 AMIS camps, airlift of Rwandan troops, and training and equipping of Nigerian troops.
-- On January 13, 2006, the AU's Peace and Security Council (PSC) agreed to seek a transition from AMIS to a United Nations mission.
-- The U.S. has signaled strong support for quick United Nations Security Council action to plan for and authorize a UN peacekeeping mission (UNMIS), which would build on the achievements of AMIS.
The Abuja Peace Process:
-- The U.S. has provided strong support for AU-mediated talks in Abuja between Sudan's Government of National Unity and the Darfur rebel movements. Senior U.S. officials are participating in the Abuja talks.
-- Some progress has been made since the negotiations reconvened in mid January 2005 on power sharing and wealth sharing, but progress remains slow, particularly on security arrangements. We are working to accelerate the talks.
U.S. Action Through the UN:
-- In 2005, the U.S. has led Security Council actions on Sudan and Darfur, including seven Resolutions and four Presidential Statements.
-- The U.S. supports the on-going deployment of UN troops in Sudan, with an early expansion into Darfur.
-- The U.S contributed $132 million to UNMIS in FY05 and $113 million so far in FY06.
-- The U.S. is taking action on Darfur during its current Presidency of the UN Security Council.
Oslo Donors Conference:
-- In April 2005, the U.S. pledged $1.7 billion for Sudan for FY 2005-2007.
-- The U.S. has exceeded its $853 million FY 2005 pledge by $66 million, not counting additional funds directed towards Sudan from the FY 2005 Supplemental.
-- The $853 million allocated in FY2005 by the U.S. has been used in both Darfur and Sudan to meet the needs identified in the Joint Assessment Mission (JAM) report, the 2005 UN Work Plan, and other needs such as security sector transformation and assistance to the African Union Mission.
U.S. Humanitarian Assistance:
-- In 2005, the U.S. provided over 60% of aid to Darfur and 50% of overall Sudan aid.
-- The U.S. has shown its concern and leadership for combating violence against women in Darfur by instituting a $16.4 million humanitarian campaign to prevent rape, treat victims, build crisis centers, and educate local populations over the last six months. The U.S. continues to press the government for action, which has resulted in more rape treatment for victims and more prosecutors devoted to rape in Darfur.
-- From 2003-2005, the U.S. provided approximately $2 billion in assistance, working hard to improve the situation in the refugee camps.
-- The U.S. will continue its humanitarian support to Darfur in 2006.
force their own countries to take the bull by
the horns in Sudan:
Here are some FACTS about the US and assistance to Sudan.
As the largest humanitarian and peacekeeping donor for Sudan and an advocate of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, the U.S. leads international efforts to achieve peace and stability for Sudan. The U.S. has brokered humanitarian cease-fire efforts and supported the intervention of the African Union peacekeeping mission in Sudan. The U.S. has provided more than $1 billion in humanitarian assistance to the people of Sudan. These efforts have directly contributed to substantially reducing mortality and to meeting the needs of more than 3.5 million people affected by the conflict.
Supporting Darfur Peacekeeping:
-- In July 2004, the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) began with a few hundred observers.
-- On September 9, 2004, then Secretary of State Colin Powell stated, "Genocide has been committed in Darfur ... and that genocide may still be occurring."
-- Since July 2004, the U.S. has supported the construction and operation of 34 AMIS camps, airlift of Rwandan troops, and training and equipping of Nigerian troops.
-- On January 13, 2006, the AU's Peace and Security Council (PSC) agreed to seek a transition from AMIS to a United Nations mission.
-- The U.S. has signaled strong support for quick United Nations Security Council action to plan for and authorize a UN peacekeeping mission (UNMIS), which would build on the achievements of AMIS.
The Abuja Peace Process:
-- The U.S. has provided strong support for AU-mediated talks in Abuja between Sudan's Government of National Unity and the Darfur rebel movements. Senior U.S. officials are participating in the Abuja talks.
-- Some progress has been made since the negotiations reconvened in mid January 2005 on power sharing and wealth sharing, but progress remains slow, particularly on security arrangements. We are working to accelerate the talks.
U.S. Action Through the UN:
-- In 2005, the U.S. has led Security Council actions on Sudan and Darfur, including seven Resolutions and four Presidential Statements.
-- The U.S. supports the on-going deployment of UN troops in Sudan, with an early expansion into Darfur.
-- The U.S contributed $132 million to UNMIS in FY05 and $113 million so far in FY06.
-- The U.S. is taking action on Darfur during its current Presidency of the UN Security Council.
Oslo Donors Conference:
-- In April 2005, the U.S. pledged $1.7 billion for Sudan for FY 2005-2007.
-- The U.S. has exceeded its $853 million FY 2005 pledge by $66 million, not counting additional funds directed towards Sudan from the FY 2005 Supplemental.
-- The $853 million allocated in FY2005 by the U.S. has been used in both Darfur and Sudan to meet the needs identified in the Joint Assessment Mission (JAM) report, the 2005 UN Work Plan, and other needs such as security sector transformation and assistance to the African Union Mission.
U.S. Humanitarian Assistance:
-- In 2005, the U.S. provided over 60% of aid to Darfur and 50% of overall Sudan aid.
-- The U.S. has shown its concern and leadership for combating violence against women in Darfur by instituting a $16.4 million humanitarian campaign to prevent rape, treat victims, build crisis centers, and educate local populations over the last six months. The U.S. continues to press the government for action, which has resulted in more rape treatment for victims and more prosecutors devoted to rape in Darfur.
-- From 2003-2005, the U.S. provided approximately $2 billion in assistance, working hard to improve the situation in the refugee camps.
-- The U.S. will continue its humanitarian support to Darfur in 2006.
JimMoyer
And regarding this Annan request:
UNITED NATIONS - The United States should contribute troops and equipment to a planned new U.N. force designed to stop the killings and rape in Sudan‘s Darfur region, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said on Thursday.
What say you?
I am certainly for financial aid and assistance to the people on a global commitment by the U.S. - under U.N. sponsorship - but I am against donating any more military while the insolent "dues to be paid" are still unchanged; while the U.S. is waging a large war in the mid-east; and, while other U.N. mandated military operations staffed by U.S. forces have been left untouched for decades.
And regarding this Annan request:
UNITED NATIONS - The United States should contribute troops and equipment to a planned new U.N. force designed to stop the killings and rape in Sudan‘s Darfur region, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said on Thursday.
What say you?
I am certainly for financial aid and assistance to the people on a global commitment by the U.S. - under U.N. sponsorship - but I am against donating any more military while the insolent "dues to be paid" are still unchanged; while the U.S. is waging a large war in the mid-east; and, while other U.N. mandated military operations staffed by U.S. forces have been left untouched for decades.
I say the Americans will support someone who has
the guts to take the lead.
So far no nation is willing to move beyond their
righteous comfort zone to take the lead.
Americans will help, but sheeezus we got a lot of balls juggling in the air, what with the size of England
around the New Orleans going through a ressurrection
and construction to the war in Iraq, to still helping
the Tsunami victims with aircrafts carrier lifts (a non UN funded matter) to funding programs in Africa with
the AIDS epidemic and working with the aids epidemic
in China.
I'm disgusted with the comfortable snobbery of the
world, but as I say, Americans will still help, and it would be good
to take a back seat (because we're hated in that area) and
bring up logistical backup to any NATION that has the GUTS
to take the lead.
the guts to take the lead.
So far no nation is willing to move beyond their
righteous comfort zone to take the lead.
Americans will help, but sheeezus we got a lot of balls juggling in the air, what with the size of England
around the New Orleans going through a ressurrection
and construction to the war in Iraq, to still helping
the Tsunami victims with aircrafts carrier lifts (a non UN funded matter) to funding programs in Africa with
the AIDS epidemic and working with the aids epidemic
in China.
I'm disgusted with the comfortable snobbery of the
world, but as I say, Americans will still help, and it would be good
to take a back seat (because we're hated in that area) and
bring up logistical backup to any NATION that has the GUTS
to take the lead.
JimMoyer
As always - thank you for defining your concept of aid. I cannot see the U.S. being allowed in a peace keeping capacity if the Chinese are in the area to mine oil and slaughter citizens.
I've seen too many young lost to wars. We as a world with all of our gifts, should be way beyond killing as a means of settlement.
Perhaps the universal "stand down" might bring these strange oligarchical maniacs to stop assuming we the common man will fight for their aggressions and I include the U.S. in that definition.
If no one would raise the sword, would words be used?
I dream eh?
As always - thank you for defining your concept of aid. I cannot see the U.S. being allowed in a peace keeping capacity if the Chinese are in the area to mine oil and slaughter citizens.
I've seen too many young lost to wars. We as a world with all of our gifts, should be way beyond killing as a means of settlement.
Perhaps the universal "stand down" might bring these strange oligarchical maniacs to stop assuming we the common man will fight for their aggressions and I include the U.S. in that definition.
If no one would raise the sword, would words be used?
I dream eh?
Well Wednesday's Child, one of your posts reminded
us this is the 2nd genocidal attempt in Sudan.
We are all so moved by the headlines, I wonder what
little the world did about the child and women slave
trade northern Sudan did to the Southern christians ??
Now we got the cause du jour in Dafur.
And which nation is going to have the balls to take
the lead and bring down the Sudanese leaders ?
us this is the 2nd genocidal attempt in Sudan.
We are all so moved by the headlines, I wonder what
little the world did about the child and women slave
trade northern Sudan did to the Southern christians ??
Now we got the cause du jour in Dafur.
And which nation is going to have the balls to take
the lead and bring down the Sudanese leaders ?
Re: RE: Kofi Annan Nagging for More US Military
That's assuming anyone will. We've seen again and again how little the rest of the world cares about Africa.
jimmoyer said:
That's assuming anyone will. We've seen again and again how little the rest of the world cares about Africa.
JimMoyer/Tracy
You know I was so caught up in the assumed deployment of more U.S. troops by the U.N. I didn't give enough thought to the Dark Continent of Africa.
Until we can raise that place up out of the medieval oppressions it now experiences, and as long as evil dictators are the rulers of the lands, we will never be an enlightened world. It is as if evil itself resides there.
I feel Africa will be the last place to arrive in freedom. Such a rich continent, and we have left it to rot.
Thank you both for reminding me.
You know I was so caught up in the assumed deployment of more U.S. troops by the U.N. I didn't give enough thought to the Dark Continent of Africa.
Until we can raise that place up out of the medieval oppressions it now experiences, and as long as evil dictators are the rulers of the lands, we will never be an enlightened world. It is as if evil itself resides there.
I feel Africa will be the last place to arrive in freedom. Such a rich continent, and we have left it to rot.
Thank you both for reminding me.
Beautiful post WC.
Africa has so much potential, it's so sad to see it wasted and it's so sad to see how easily African lives are forgotten. National Geographic produced one whole issue on Africa over the summer that I picked up. It was a great read with some sad stories, some happy stories, some amazing pictures and a lot of hope.
Africa has so much potential, it's so sad to see it wasted and it's so sad to see how easily African lives are forgotten. National Geographic produced one whole issue on Africa over the summer that I picked up. It was a great read with some sad stories, some happy stories, some amazing pictures and a lot of hope.