Rwanda, Take II

[ysobelle]

And, as before, our government does nothing. I wouldn't be so angry, I think, were it not that this President has made such a screaming point about America being the world's police, and loudly proclaimed that we stood for peace and justice all over the globe.

Well, where's the peace and justice now, Mr. Bush?


http://www.itv.com/news/846086.html

Sudan emergency aid appeal under way
11.44PM, Wed Jul 21 2004

A new appeal for emergency aid has been launched as the humanitarian crisis in Sudan continues to escalate.

A million people have been forced to leave their homes in the Darfur region of Sudan because of civil war.

They are living in desert camps over the border in neighbouring Chad and are desperately in need of food and clean water.

The Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC), representing the UK's leading international aid agencies, is aiming to raise desperately needed cash.

Government-backed militia known as the Janjaweed are accused of carrying out the mass rape of women and young girls. Around 30,000 people are believed to have been murdered.

Amnesty International has said that testimonies from refugees show that the attacks are occurring on a massive scale.

To make a donation visit the DEC website at www.dec.org.uk, telephone 0870 60 60 900 or send a cheque/postal order made payable to: DEC Sudan Emergency, PO BOX 999, London EC3.

"Women and girls are being killed, raped and gang-raped, raped in public, abducted, tortured and forced into sexual slavery," Amnesty said.

A DEC spokeswoman said: "The scale of people's suffering in Sudan is immense and is getting worse. People have lost family members, been driven from their homes and lost everything they own.

The DEC charities appealing for help are British Red Cross, CAFOD, CARE International UK, Christian Aid, Concern, Help the Aged, Merlin, Oxfam, Save the Children, Tearfund and World Vision.

Yesterday, a human rights organisation accused the Sudanese government of arming and supporting the militia.

Human Rights Watch's director Kenneth Roth said: "We can no longer trust Khartoum to police itself when Khartoum is part of a large problem. It's like the fox guarding the chicken coop."

"We in no sense contest Sudanese government efforts to suppress that rebellion.

"The way the Sudanese government had chosen to try to suppress the rebellion is by attacking any member of the two ethnic groups that have given rise to the scorched earth policy."

Comments

[mauser.livejournal.com]

No, I'm not missing your point. I'm asking you what you want. Do you want a President who takes the lead in intervening around the world and being the world's policeman, or do you want one that sits back and waits for the world community to make a decision, because at the moment, it seems like what you really want is simply the opposite of whatever the President does.

By the way, has Kerry articulated a position on Sudan? The closest I've been able to discern is that he's on the sitting back and waiting for the world community side of the equation.

I'm just looking for a consistant principle here.

[ysobelle.livejournal.com]

I gave you a consistent principle. I didn't bring Kerry into it at all, cos Kerry isn't the President. Nor did I bring up the UN. Don't switch arguments on me, either, and don't make condescending comments about what I want. I thought I stated it pretty clearly.

When there is an urgent, pressing need to go into a country to offer humanitarian aid, go. When there isn't, don't. I don't support "pre-emptive war." And I despise hypocrisy in a President. Is that simple enough?

Do you just come here to bait me? You KNOW we don't agree politically. And coming here and saying, "There's no pleasing some people" isn't going to win me to your argument.

[mauser.livejournal.com]

When there is an urgent, pressing need to go into a country to offer humanitarian aid, go.

"The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning."

The humanitarian disaster that was Iraq under Saddam was one of the four reasons given in the State of the Union speech for going. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed. If humanitarian reasons are justification for going anywhere, then it was justified. In my opinion, opening the doors of a prison with hundreds of children under five in it justifies a lot.

You didn't give a consistant principle, you gave a threshold with a gray area, what decides "Immediate" enough? You faulted Bush for not waiting for the UN in one situation, and faulted him for waiting in another. Then you demand that he be consistant, but to be consistant on the position that you faulted him for before. "We're led by a President who believes America should stand alone, but we live in a world where all countries must work together." I assume you don't LIKE it when America acts alone. You should be happy, you're getting your wish now.

If you want Bush to be the world's policeman NOW, then stop complaining about him having been it THEN. If you want that, then you have to accept all that comes with it.

I didn't "come here to bait you." I still have you on my friends list, so I saw the post. I thought it would be a one shot thing, giving you a poke in the contradiction. That you don't see how you're being inconsistant is troubling.

By the way, I'm not opposed to intervention in Sudan, but I'd like to see the rest of the world step up for once, since they too bitch about the US taking the lead.
ÿ

[ysobelle.livejournal.com]

The horrors in Iraq had been going on for DECADES. Bush's decision to suddenly pay attention and jump in was every bit as hypocritical as what he's doing now. He decided it'd become an issue when he needed a diversion to cover the fact that he couldn't find Osama Bin Laden. There was no connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq-- it looks now like there MAY be one between Al Qaeda and Iran-- but Bush went in anyway. He said there was a link. There wasn't. He said there were weapons of mass destruction. There weren't. He said there were horrible humanitarian crimes. Well, one out of how many isn't bad, but these atrocities had been going on for years, and he'd done nothing. All of a sudden, they were the most pressing thing on his plate?

What's happening in Sudan has built to a crisis NOW. And again, because there doesn't seem to be some pressing political gain, Bush isn't saying anything about it. He isn't even bringing it up, though soon, as the situation worsens-- which it inevitably will-- he'll have to.

I do think Bush should have gone in with the support of the UN in Iraq, and I never said he shouldn't go in with the UN's support now. You want to bring up a lack of consistency? Explain why, when humanitarian aid was so important in Iraq, it matters nothing now in Sudan?

And you can take your condescending tone and shove it, Rich.

[mauser.livejournal.com]

The horrors in Iraq had been going on for DECADES. Bush's decision to suddenly pay attention and jump in was every bit as hypocritical as what he's doing now.

Soooo, he should have kept ignoring it then? Afganistan was over, and we waited months and months trying to do it the diplomatic way.

He decided it'd become an issue when he needed a diversion to cover the fact that he couldn't find Osama Bin Laden.

Osama is, more than likely, in the northern reaches of Pakistan. We can't go there, it would mean violating the sovreignty of our fragile ally, and the result would be a takeover by the Islamic fundamentalists, making Pakistan a terrorist nation with nuclear weapons. So the best we can do is keep him cornered, and deal with the rest of al Qaeda.

In the meantime, Afganistan is going to have free and open elections in October.

There was no connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq... He said there was a link. There wasn't.

Not according to the 9/11 commission. There may not have been one between Iraq and the 9/11 attack, but there was definitely a connection between the two.

I do think Bush should have gone in with the support of the UN in Iraq,

Except, that wasn't going to happen, not while France, Germany and Russia were getting fat kickbacks from the Oil for Food program. That 18th resolution was just about to have enough votes to go through before Chirac announced it was going to be vetoed, no matter what, rendering it moot.

Explain why, when humanitarian aid was so important in Iraq, it matters nothing now in Sudan?

Because everyone complained about Iraq, so now you're getting what you wanted. Also, all our resources are committed right now. Why doesn't the rest of the world take up some of the slack?

I'm sorry if I'm coming off as condescending, but dammit, I expect smarter analysis of these things from you, not just the regurgitated party line that ignores the facts. Since when did you give a damn about Sudan, or any other African nation, until it became a tool to attack Bush?

You're better than this.

[ysobelle.livejournal.com]

Do NOT come into MY journal, twist my words around, change arguments on me over and over, and tell me how I think. Since when do I care about Sudan? Did you ever ask me how I felt about Rwanda? As you've clearly demonstrated, you know nothing about how I feel about just about any issue. Don't you DARE presume to tell me that my fury over this situation is opportunistic Bush-bashing, especially when I've been extremely vocal in many other ways about my dislike of Bush. I didn't need this to hate the man's politics, I was already there.

I've stated my opinions, and I'm not going to figure out a different way to say them so they get through to you. I'm not going to change your opinion-- I just happen to disagree with just about everything you've said.

And you have the right to be condescending because you're disappointed in me? Well. That's not condescending, is it? You take your facts and believe your arguments, I take mine and believe mine. I happen to think I'm right, and at this point, I really don't give a damn. I see just about everything this administration has done as having self-serving ulterior motives, and just about everything they've said as weak, defensive justification. I would have been fine debating this in a mutually respectful manner, but once you started in with the "Aren't you happy now?" and "There's just no pleasing you!" bullshit, it was pretty much game over. And no, it's not just this argument. This is just the final straw. I stopped discussing politics with you years ago, and this is why.

If you can't stop yourself from arguing every time you see a liberal, stop reading my journal.

[mauser.livejournal.com]

My point is, if you want an interventionist United States, then you're going to have to accept the Iraqs and the Afganistans if you want us in Rwanda and Sudan. If you try to split hairs over which intervention is good enough, you're always going to run into those who think the dividing line is somewhere else.

As I said, I happen to AGREE WITH YOU that something should be done. But I also think that the rest of the world ought to take up some of the burden, rather than leaving it just to the United States.

I don't think this is opportunistic Bush bashing on your part, just the reverse, that your hatred is so intense that ANYTHING would be interpreted in negative terms.

But you know, I don't even discuss politics in my own journal (at least not very much) and I usually just skip over it when I see it in yours. But I noticed you un-friended me and stopped reading mine quite some time ago. Perhaps I should do the same.