Why arent we doing more in Sudan?

[southernleftylady]

KHARTOUM, Sudan -- Sudan's foreign minister has rejected a U.S. Congressional declaration that bloodletting in the country's western region of Darfur amounts to genocide.

Foreign Minister Mustafa Osman Ismail insisted his government was doing all it can to end the conflict in Darfur which so far has killed 30,000 people and forced a million to flee.

On Friday members of the U.S. Congressional Black Caucus called for President Bush's Administration to declare that genocide is taking place in Darfur.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/africa/07/24/sudan/index.html

[DaveSZ]

1. What do you think we should do?

Wouldn't it be hypocritical for liberals to support military intervention in Sudan but not Iraq?

[southernleftylady]

3. Or a better question, If the righties said that they are doing it for the

Iraqi people... to "free" them and all.. then why dont they want to help out there?
I was against the war because of the reason given... that saddam was a threat to us... that he had wmd that he was just seconds away from using... and that they forgot about bin ladden all of a sudden....

[gottaB]

11. exactly

West Faces its Real Test in Sudan

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. Interesting - that is an edited version of a UK Times article

by Anatole Kaletsky - who normally writes about economics (and is fairly free market). The original is aimed directly at Blair and is very scathing. Some snippets:

"IS TONY BLAIR a lying hypocrite or just a deluded dreamer? This question can no longer be avoided after the events of the past few weeks. What justifies such language is not the predictably docile Butler report or the Prime Minister’s shiftiness in the parliamentary debates on Iraq, but the infinitely more shocking disaster unfolding thousands of miles from Westminster or Baghdad: the extermination of tens of thousands of Sudanese Africans by Arab death squads.
...
When the Prime Minister decided to join the American invasion of Iraq, he gave many different reasons for this risky and potentially illegal act. He claimed that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD), defying the United Nations and threatening its neighbours. But none of these were adequate justifications for invading and colonising a sovereign country.
...
There was, however, another set of considerations which trumped these dishonourable motives, at least in the eyes of many principled supporters of the war — a group in which I would have included Mr Blair until recently.
...
Sudan, in other words, should have offered an answer to the question plaguing Mr Blair in the build-up to the Iraq conflict. If you are helping the people of Iraq by overthrowing Saddam, why don’t you do the same for the people of Zimbabwe by ousting Robert Mugabe? Mr Blair had a memorable answer: “I would if I could.” In Sudan, Britain and America could act, but have chosen not to. Instead of acting on his new doctrine of humanitarian deterrence, Mr Blair has demonstrated that his pieties about human rights apply only to white people and the denizens of oil-rich states."

[Baltimoreboy]

17. You can't go to war in every situation

The West, not just the U.S., doesn't have the armies to do that and there are a lot of awful situations around the world.

[rman]

9. Isn't it hypocritical for conservatves to support military intervention

in Iraq but not in Sudan?

Even though there was no genocide and no famine in Iraq, while there are in Sudan?

[Sparkly]

16. Exactly

What do all the rightwingers who defend the invasion of Iraq as "humanitarian" say about Sudan?

[izzie]

2. We are out of Army and it has no oil

All us rich countries seem to sit back and watch this stuff go on. Try to recall any time in history we have not just washed our hands. Heck we would not even take in a boat load of Jews in this country in the late 30's as if they would have hurt us.

[Solly Mack]

4. Sudan has oil and natural gas

http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/11/sudan112503.htm

http://www.mbendi.co.za/indy/oilg/af/su/p0005.htm


http://www.usaid.gov/locations/sub-saharan_africa/sudan/map_oil_text.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1894648.stm

[DaveSZ]

6. Sudan has oil, and lots of it:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/sudan.html

OIL
As of January 2004, Sudan's estimated proven reserves of crude oil stood at 563 million barrels, more than twice the 262 million barrels estimated in 2001. As of June 2004, crude oil production was averaging about 345,000 barrels per day (bbl/d), up from 270,000 bbl/d during 2003. Crude oil production has been rising steadily since the completion of a major export pipeline in July 1999 and is expected by Energy Minister Awad al-Jaz to surpass 500,000 bbl/d by the end of 2005. It is possible that Sudanese production could reach 750,000 bbl/d by the end of 2006 if planned production increases at new and existing fields progress as planned. In August 2001, in recognition of Sudan's growing significance as an oil exporter, OPEC granted the country observer status at OPEC meetings.


Iraq:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html


According to the Oil and Gas Journal, Iraq contains 115 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, the third largest in the world (behind Saudi Arabia and Canada). Estimates of Iraq's oil reserves and resources vary widely, however, given that only 10% or so of the country has been explored. Some analysts (the Baker Institute, Center for Global Energy Studies, the Federation of American Scientists, etc.) believe, for instance, that deep oil-bearing formations located mainly in the vast Western Desert region, for instance, could yield large additional oil resources (possibly another 100 billion barrels or more), but have not been explored. Other analysts, such as the US Geological Survey, are not as optimistic, with median estimates for additional oil reserves closer to 45 billion barrels.

[KharmaTrain]

5. Sorry...We're Not Everyone's "Savior"

In this sad case, the "international" community has fallen asleep for decades and the US is supposed to do something? This is where I can see why some consider the U.N. to be totally worthless bloodletting has gone on for at least 20 years that I know of, if not longer, and rarely has gotten much international attention...even when the local black tribes were starved to death.

And, yes...what do we do? Invade? Where, who, what? Then what? Bring in Paul Bremmer? And, then there's that little matter of where do we find the troops to invade.

Last night a gorup of us were talking about how tenuous our situation is here at home. If there was a disaster where the governor had to call in the National Guard, he'd have no one to call...they're all in Iraq. Yea, we're a lot safe...<sarcasm /off>

The best thing this country can and has done is to shine a light and shame the rest of the world into action. This was how Ethiopia became a big deal in the 80's and Rwanda in the 90's...put the images of those dying on International television and let's see what the reaction is.

We can be benevolent without being the cure-all...assist these people in developing an infrastructure that will bring self sufficiency, but that also doesn't serve in our national interest. Expect this regime to sit and do nothing...since there's no oil and lots of dark skinned non-Christians there.

[DoYouEverWonder]

7. In the past, it has been the responsibility

of the former colonial ruler to intervene.

That was why we were expected to do something about Liberia, since Liberia was the only African country that was formerly associated with the USA.

I'm not sure who was in charge of the Sudan, but it looks like Britain is planning to send troops, so I would guess it had been one of theirs.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. Yes, Britain was sort of the colonial power

The Anglo-Egyptian Condominium

It wasn't colonised by Britons in the same way as some other Afican countries; but Britain was definitely the ruling military power.

[Catt03]

8. WE are out of troops, bullets and money.

[rman]

10. Sudan is on PNACs list,

but Iran and Syria are more urgent concerns now.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Same reason we didn't go into Rwanda. Politics.

There is nothing to be gained politically by aiding the people of Darfur. Just more non-whites who are having genocide committed on them who won't provide votes.

To his credit, Kerry has spoken out about it.

[Jackpine Radical]

13. If we let them continue to kill each other off,

there will be fewer of them to deal with when we go in for the oil.

[leesa]

18. Because we are busy conducting our own genocide.