Lindaland
  Global Unity
  More on Darfur

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   More on Darfur
Eleanore
Moderator

Posts: 112
From: Okinawa, Japan
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 23, 2008 02:52 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Eleanore     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
[I know we have numerous threads on Darfur but I couldn't find one atm.]

UN says Darfur conflict worsening, with perhaps 300,000 dead
By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 11 minutes ago


UNITED NATIONS - The conflict in Darfur is deteriorating, with full deployment of a new peacekeeping force delayed until 2009 and no prospect of a political settlement for a war that has killed perhaps 300,000 people in five years, U.N. officials said Tuesday.

ADVERTISEMENT


In grim reports to the Security Council, the United Nations aid chief and the representative of the peacekeeping mission said suffering in the Sudanese region is worsening. Tens of thousands more have been uprooted from their homes and food rations to the needy are about to be cut in half, they said.

"We continue to see the goal posts receding, to the point where peace in Darfur seems further away today than ever," said John Holmes, undersecretary-general for humanitarian affairs.

The conflict began in early 2003 when ethnic African rebels took up arms against Sudan's Arab-dominated central government, accusing it of discrimination. Many of the worst atrocities in the war have been blamed on the janjaweed militia of Arab nomads allied with the government.

A joint U.N.-African Union peacekeeping force took over duties in Darfur in January from a beleaguered 7,000-man AU mission. But only about 9,000 soldiers and police officers of the authorized 26,000 have deployed.

"We are late and we are trying to speed up the deployment of this mission, and we facing many obstacles," said the U.N.-AU force's envoy, Rodolphe Adada. "But eventually, with the help of some donors, we could be in a position to achieve maybe 80 percent of the force by the end of this year."

The mission faces major problems in putting troops into a very hostile environment, Adada said. It still lacks five critical capabilities to become operational — attack helicopters, surveillance aircraft, transport helicopters, military engineers and logistical support.

Holmes said further progress in deploying the joint peacekeeping force, known as UNAMID, would help protect civilians and possibly humanitarian convoys.

"But only an end to all violence and concrete steps towards a political settlement will make the fundamental difference needed, as the rebel movements themselves above all need to recognize," Holmes said. "Otherwise the reality is that the people of Darfur face a continued steady deterioration of their conditions of life and their chances of lasting recovery."

The U.N. and AU have tried for months to open new peace talks between Sudan and rebel groups following the failure of a 2005 agreement to stem violence. But most rebel chiefs are boycotting the negotiations, and security in Darfur has further deteriorated in recent months.

Adada told the council that "unfortunately, it is commonly understood today in Darfur that peace is not at all attractive — neither economically nor politically."

Darfur's main rebel chief said Tuesday he told Security Council representatives last month that no peace talks can be held until security is restored.

"Wrong negotiations will only complicate the matter and prolong the suffering of the people of Darfur," Abdulwahid Elnur, head of the Sudan Liberation Movement, told The Associated Press during an interview in Paris, where he lives in exile.

When former U.N. humanitarian chief Jan Egeland brought the Darfur conflict to the Security Council's attention in April 2004, he said approximately 750,000 people were in danger.

Today, Holmes told the council, "of Darfur's estimated 6 million people, some 4.27 million have now been seriously affected by the conflict."

He said nearly many of them have had to flee their homes — some 2.45 million people are sheltering elsewhere in Sudan and 260,000 more in neighboring countries. Some 100,000 civilians have been forced to flee just this year, Holmes said. Some 60,000 of them were displaced in West Darfur, which has seen an upsurge in violence.

"Those in the camps feel helpless and voiceless," Holmes said. "The fear of never being able to return to their areas of origin, and the pressure by government authorities to return when conditions are clearly not right, lead to increasing tension, polarization, politicization and even militarization."

The U.N. World Food Program announced last week that it will have to halve the amount of food provided to Darfur's needy next month because humanitarian convoys are being attacked. The cut "could not come at a worse time ... as the rainy season approaches," Holmes said.

Egeland, the former U.N. humanitarian chief, estimated in 2006 that 200,000 people had lost their lives because of the conflict, from violence, disease and malnutrition. He said this was based on an independent mortality survey released in March 2005 by the U.N. World Health Organization.

"That figure must be much higher now, perhaps half as much again," Holmes said Tuesday.

Sudanese Ambassador Abdalmahmood Abdalhaleem Mohamed countered that "in our own calculations, the total number does not exceed 10,000."

He said his government counts only people killed in fighting, saying there are no dead from malnutrition and starvation "because in Darfur there is no epidemics, no starvations."

"The exaggerated number given is to serve political ends," Mohamed said. "It is only to give the impression that the government is not doing much in the peacekeeping to save its own people." <-- (my addition)

Queried by reporters, Holmes said the estimate of 300,000 dead "is not a very scientifically based figure" because there have been no new mortality studies in Darfur, but "it's a reasonable extrapolation."

"What I'm saying is if that figure of 200,000 was anything like right in 2006, then that figure must be much higher now," he said.

Egeland told AP last month that he estimated the toll had risen to around 400,000.

South African Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo, the current Security Council president, said he was especially concerned that "there's absolutely nothing (moving) on the political process."

Asked if the council consider sanctions against those obstructing peace efforts, Kumalo said: "Well, the people who are obstructing the peace process are sitting in the nice capitals of Europe, so what can we do? And Europe is represented in the council."

He was clearly referring to Elnur, the rebel chief living in Paris.

Sudan's ambassador said one message came through "loud and clear" from Tuesday's meeting.

"We should give priority again to the peace process, because even peacekeeping with the maximum number is not a substitute to the political process," Mohamed said.

Western officials have blamed Sudan's government for the delay in deploying peacekeepers and key military equipment. Sudan denies that, but it has vetoed troop contributions from some non-African or non-Muslim nations.

"Contributors have to come from the whole world. It's the only guarantee that the force works on the ground, with neutrality," Elnur told AP.

IP: Logged

pidaua
Knowflake

Posts: 67
From: Back in AZ with Bear the Leo
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 23, 2008 03:34 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for pidaua     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
This is so heartbreaking Eleanore. Too many lives lost over a senseless ideal and for political power.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 23, 2008 03:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Just as it was last time we talked about Darfuf Eleanore. Nothing much is happening and as long as the UN is involved nothing much is going to happen...except talk, talk, talk which in UN speak is "something happening".

IP: Logged

pidaua
Knowflake

Posts: 67
From: Back in AZ with Bear the Leo
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 23, 2008 05:11 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for pidaua     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
You are SO right about that jwhop. The UN is an impotent entity that needs to be disbanded. What have they done in all of their history, with the exception of being a road block for real progression?

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 23, 2008 05:32 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hi Pid, good to see you again. Before I forget, let me ask you to give my best regards to Bear.

Now to your comment about the UN. You are so right about the UN. Rather than being the answer to many problems, they're, as you said, a roadblock to getting anything useful done. The UN has become the problem.

If the subject of US participation in the UN ever comes to a citizens vote in the United States, the UN will be out of here.
The sooner the better.

IP: Logged

pidaua
Knowflake

Posts: 67
From: Back in AZ with Bear the Leo
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 23, 2008 05:50 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for pidaua     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Jwhop.. thank you for asking about Bear. We just moved and got our Internet hooked up. He is in the field and won't be back for a few days. They are gearing up for the next deployment.... not too soon... but soon enough... I will tell more AFTER he leaves... You know... the whole OPSEC thing..

In any case.. anywhere the UN has stepped in has been like the reverse of the Midas touch. I have to admit, as much as I knew before I became an Army wife, I know more know. The UN is a defunct organization living off of what we keep feeding them. They need to go.. they are more of a liability than they are a help...


I'm just so happy that where Bear is going is off limits to the UN... LOL..


BTW.. jhwop.. I am so out of popcorn... Time to buy more! Did we not foresee what was going to happen with this Clinton / Obama debacle?

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 23, 2008 06:36 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It's hell isn't it when you don't have a computer or Internet access? I know. My computer went into the shop and never came out After weeks, I found out the shop was closed, my computer was inside and the State of Florida had seized the owners business assets and stock for failure to pay sales taxes on his sales. Anyway, glad to see you're back online.

In my opinion the OPSEC thing you talked about could and probably should be directed towards the NY Times and other news outlets who compromise US military security and US security in general by publishing top secret classified information, not to mention publishing stories about troop movements and troops strengths. I wouldn't tell them if their hair was on fire.

God, how I would love to get into their files down at the UN, rummage around and find out just how corrupt those boobs really are. It's shocking to think these corrupt morons think they are capable of running the world. I'm sure you know more now than you did before. I can't imagine anything more discouraging or disgusting to US military personnel than to be assigned duty where they have to interface with the UN.

Yeah, our crystal balls must be properly tuned. O'Bomber, who proposes to "Save America...and the World".. is self destructing before our very eyes. Hillary's baggage is strewn all over the airport and she has more "gates" than any presidential candidate in history..and all of them screech to high heaven anytime one of them is opened. I doubt there's enough oil on earth to quiet them down.

Better stock up on popcorn. I think there's going to be a popcorn shortage when the real fireworks show starts.


IP: Logged

pidaua
Knowflake

Posts: 67
From: Back in AZ with Bear the Leo
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 23, 2008 07:21 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for pidaua     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
jwhop said;

"In my opinion the OPSEC thing you talked about could and probably should be directed towards the NY Times and other news outlets who compromise US military security and US security in general by publishing top secret classified information, not to mention publishing stories about troop movements and troops strengths. I wouldn't tell them if their hair was on fire. "

LOL.. that is why we never listen to the LA Times for the NY Times.. They even brief us on those news organizations. Most often their so called "embedded" journalists are writing the news from a post hotel as far from enemy fire as possible.

If people only knew the real story and everything our Soldiers have been doing on behalf of the Iraqi people. Heck, if things were so bad would we actually be already doing the draw back, shortening deployment times and increasing dwell times?

Half the comatose media fed dinks have no idea about the real world. They feel safer digesting the BS from the liberal news organizations and believing that Dafur is just a place on the map. They have no idea, or refuse to acknowledge, that President Bush is the ONLY President to dedicate as much funds and gov power to trying to solve the problem in Dafur than any other president has combined.

I guess we should leave the sheep to their daily feed trough full of Obama said this.. well Hillary said that, fuel source so the rest of the US can do what really needs to be done

I missed you too BTW

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 23, 2008 09:15 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well Pid, that's the reason I seldom read anything from the NY Times of any of the leftist so called "newspapers". Unless something catches my eye when I'm reading other news sites which happen to have a reprint from one of the fishwrappers...like this story from the NY Times announcing a loss for the quarter. Of course, to hear them tell it, their readership and advertising revenues are down...because of the economy, the Internet, blah, blah, blah. But, their revenues have been declining all through the great economy of the last 6 years. Investors on NY Times stock have been attempting to oust the publisher who has run the paper into the ground with it's leftist bias and ranting against everything American.

April 17, 2008
New York Times Company Posts Loss
By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA

The New York Times Company, the parent of The New York Times, posted a $335,000 loss in the first quarter — one of the worst periods the company and the newspaper industry have seen — falling far short of both analysts’ expectations and its $23.9 million profit in the quarter a year earlier.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/bu siness/media/17cnd-times.html?ei=5065&en=27ae5edad023fa83&ex=1209096000&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

As for the LA Times, I seem to recall a crisis there and I think the LA Times was sold...yes, sold to the Tribune Company sometime in the early 2000's. I also read somewhere the paper is "for sale" again along with other "Tribune" assets.

Of course, the fishwrappers blame the Internet, blame the economy and blame everything under the sun for their losses but the truth is not many people believe much of the lies and propaganda they publish...as news.

I'm sure Bush doesn't expect any credit for the good he's done from the fishwrappers of America and they aren't going to disappoint Bush in that respect. He's made it clear he doesn't read their gossip, rumor, supposition, innuendo and outright lies.

Well, Darfur is a sad case of bungling, inaction and endless talk. It's also most counter productive to have the government which is causing and promoting the genocide there to have veto power over what is to be done about their crimes.

IP: Logged

Eleanore
Moderator

Posts: 112
From: Okinawa, Japan
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 23, 2008 11:20 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Eleanore     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Well, Darfur is a sad case of bungling, inaction and endless talk. It's also most counter productive to have the government which is causing and promoting the genocide there to have veto power over what is to be done about their crimes.


This is precisely what I don't understand. Some people go on about the UN and "peace" talks and pat themselves on their ever evolved backs ... completely ignoring 300,000 murdered innocent people, not to mention all those who haven't died but have nevertheless been tortured, raped, etc. How is that acceptable "collateral" damage in the name of "peace"? But heaven forbid our or any military were to get involved. Then the people trying to stop the genocide would be the "real killers". The argument is always that people suffering under their nation's regime is none of our business and maybe they like living like that .... Taking all the "compassionate" views together, people being purposefully slaughtered have a choice and we shouldn't get involved but people who can't get their own acts together need a lifetime of free aid, no questions asked.


******

Hi, pidaua! It's nice to see you back! And you're right, of course, most people have no idea. They think they "know the truth" when all they're doing is following other people's theories or assumptions or outright lies ... that naturally are played up as some sort of secret that is only available to or understood by the "superior" ones.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 24, 2008 12:19 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"This is precisely what I don't understand. Some people go on about the UN and "peace" talks and pat themselves on their ever evolved backs ... completely ignoring 300,000 murdered innocent people, not to mention all those who haven't died but have nevertheless been tortured, raped, etc. How is that acceptable "collateral" damage in the name of "peace"? "

No Eleanore, you don't understand it at all. No reasonable person could understand why the government of Sudan has veto power over what is done to intervene in Sudan to stop the genocide.

It's like giving Hitler veto power over whether the allies should be permitted to fight against Germany over Hitler's invasions.

It's like giving Saddam veto power over whether he could be deposed, captured, tried, convicted and executed.

It's like giving any common murderer veto power over whether the police can arrest him, the District Attorney can try him in a court of law, convict him and a judge can sentence him.

You don't understand it because you're a reasonable person and the UN is full of bungling, incompetent idiots and unreasonable tyrants.

If Bush sent a Brigade of Marines and special ops military personnel to Sudan and cleaned out the terrorists who are doing the killing, the screeches, screams, howling and shrieking from the UN...and other leftists would be heard on Mars.

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2011

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a