Please stop the Geneocide!!!
It's a shame the UN in particular, and the world at large, are so dependent on the USA to step in and fix all of this. If Iran, Korea, Cuba and Vietnam want some more clout at the global table, they should step up to the plate and eat some of the garbage that the heavy hitters are so reticent about. Could get the ball rolling for other nations to follow suit, while improving perceptions of their nations. I mean, at least some kind of public outcry.
Where is the outrage that should be outpouring from our resident humanists, tree huggers, and multilateral UN supporters here on Newsvine? I see many articles here almost daily going on about the wrongs the United States has committed, and yet... never anything about Darfur by the loudest, most self-righteous people here.
I guess their attention is all focused on the United States... still. Or, maybe they forgot about Darfur?
It's easier to care about hooligans in your own yard than criminals across town.
But they're always drilling it into our heads that the easy way isn't likely the best way. Shouldn't they be making a bigger ruckus about this?
Yes, Matt. We should. Write your congressmen. Write the president. Write middle school civics teachers, even. Tell your friends, family, and co-workers. Tell them to do the same. If people put forth even a modicum of effort, the knowledge could expand like a pyramid scam into some kind of change. It may not seem like much, but a mile is comprised of inches: every little bit counts.
Nah, let's wait and see what Europe's solution to the problem is first. Should be coming any year now.
The UN refuses even to call the mass murder in Darfur genocide, because to do so would require them to do something about it.
They will only say "crimes against humanity" have occurred in Darfur (I suppose at least 400,000 of them), but according to the UN that doesn't constitute genocide.
The UN remains as utterly craven as it was in Rwanda.
The U.N. does not need the U.S.A. for anything. The reason people are so reluctant to do anything in these parts of Africa is because interfering always seems to make it worse. There are also cultural issue's that are difficult to comprehend for us plump comfortable Westerners
The U.N. does not need the U.S.A. for anything
I assume you mean except for a large part of the financing of the UN as well as the brunt of any peacekeeping force they wish to deploy. Just look at the poor job the UN did in the Balkans, which then required NATO to pressure the US into sending forces for peacekeeping (as well as stopping the violence).
The reason people are so reluctant to do anything in these parts of Africa is because interfering always seems to make it worse. There are also cultural issue's that are difficult to comprehend for us plump comfortable Westerners.
I guess if killing hundreds of thousands of people is the norm there, that would be a cultural issue that's difficult to comprehend for us in itself.
I know it is for me.
yes preator805 the U.N track record when going without the U.S is poor indeed.
Matt Kennedy yes the value placed on a life when in a region where crop failure means starvation and death is difficult for us to comprehend Under such circumstances people have different priorities
I think mediocre harvests and outright genocide are somewhat removed from each other, I SPY. You're correct in the assertion that the average "westerner" can't grasp the former, but I think the latter is universally reviled.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |