Comments on: Dropping a Pollard

By: sean

sean — Sat, 21 Aug 2004 22:08:18 +0000

Go ahead and make that “AND supports US action”.

By: Sean

Sean — Sat, 21 Aug 2004 21:48:17 +0000

For what it’s worth (yes, I know, it ain’t worth much), I’m a “leftist” that supported regime change in Iraq AND US action in Sudan.

By: UN rulez

UN rulez — Fri, 20 Aug 2004 22:19:18 +0000

un rulez – The point you make about the US refusal to send ground troops is valid. This does not invalidate the point that the US government has done more to resolve issues in Sudan compared with other nations. Which is indeed correct. Though for example the Dutch, holding the current EU presidency, are also very active. And most importantly, the African Union countries are supplying the monitors and peace keepers. (And btw. the US have good reasons for not sending troops. Normally I’m all for a bit of Powell bashing, but in this case, given the activity of the US I don’t think it is appropriate here)

By: james

james — Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:04:19 +0000

By: Robin Green

Robin Green — Fri, 20 Aug 2004 18:13:02 +0000

This is a matter for the Sudanese government to handle. And here we see Colin Powell (who has previous – he was responsible for “investigating” and whitewashing the My Lai massacre in the Vietnam War), downplaying the Sudanese governments “ethnic cleansing” operations that are working hand-in-glove with the paramilitaries. So much for the theory that the US government is speaking the truth about the situation in Sudan!

By: Tom

Tom — Fri, 20 Aug 2004 12:51:14 +0000

I have kind of lost interest in Mr Pollard’s writings since he started writing those god-awful rants about why he hates tennis, rock festivals, modern fiction, blah, blah, blah……..Which is a pity, since he usually is on the side of the angels when it comes to the MidEast and All That.

By: UN rulez

UN rulez — Fri, 20 Aug 2004 05:49:37 +0000

No - The House and Senate called it genocide. The US government is still uncommitted. And it is the administration that has to take action. So again the position of the US government and the EU countries and the main actors in the UN don't differ much. The State Dept. Press Briefing from Aug 18 makes the point a bit stronger: MR. ERELI: But the other point I would make, and it's a point that we've made consistently, is that the process of getting that evidence, the process of coming to a determination on genocide in no way affects what we're doing on the ground in Darfur. So you can't make the argument that, oh, you're dilly-dallying to make a genocide determination; meanwhile, you're doing nothing to stop what's going on or doing nothing to -- you're sleeping while Darfur is burning. That is not the case. We are not doing -- if a genocide determination were made tomorrow, we would not be doing anything on the ground in Darfur different than we're doing today. To give another quote from Powell But Powell rejected suggestions of military action. "This is a very large area. There is not a simple military solution that is at hand," he said. "This is a matter for the Sudanese government to handle."

By: james

james — Fri, 20 Aug 2004 04:52:48 +0000

However – Only the US was willing to call the actions of in Sudan “Genocide”. Neither the UN or the EU was willing to do this. The UN and EU are dragging their feet on the Darfur issue.

By: UN rulez

UN rulez — Thu, 19 Aug 2004 23:53:28 +0000

But – – no one is seriously considering sending any troops other than in the currently agreed African Union mission. It is not the exact wording of the resolution but the status on the ground and the possibility of intervention that determine the outcome. Currently the AU is assembling a force for a peacekeeping mission. And if needed the deployment of that force will be authorized by the UN. That is the current status. It is not the current resolution that prevents the use of force, it is the fact that there are no countries that see a possibility or benefit in the use of force. And that includes the US. – Yes, French troops are not in Sudan. US troops are not in Sudan, Dutch troops are not in Sudan, but what is the point? African troops are going into Sudan, as is agreed. And if needed they may be supported by US or other troops in logistics and other functions. – As for the oil, the arguments have already been exchanged in the Iraq case.

By: james

james — Thu, 19 Aug 2004 22:19:45 +0000

The standard international first response to a potential use of force is to invoke sanctions. The denial of this standard first step can only be seen as an effort to slow down or stop any international action. As to the effectiveness of sanctions. Other than South Africa, I am not aware of any time sanctions have resulted in the desired outcome. French troops are not in Sudan. They are not actively defending any Sudanese. Therefore their presence is merely token. Until the troops actually do something, how can they be considered anything else? I agree that oil interests are a driving factor in both Sudan and Iraq. Oil is a strategic resource. There is a major aspect of oil interests in Iraq that is constantly overlooked. Namely, France and Russia where benefiting from the presence of Saddam. Both France and Russia stood to gain even more oil contracts if Saddam was in power when the sanctions where lifted. At least the US was willing to remove a viscous dictator. In order for France and Russia to maintain their Iraqi oil contracts, they needed to keep Saddam in power.

By: UN rulez

UN rulez — Thu, 19 Aug 2004 21:04:44 +0000

The first resolution the US tried to pass through the UN called for full sanctions. Both France and China rejected this resolution. Both nations have oil interests in Sudan that are taking priority over any humanitarian concerns. France’s troops are a token force. France’s actions have been contrary to actually forwarding any resolution of the issues in Darfar. This part of your opinion lacks any credibility. What is the point of stating that French troops are a token force as they are the only troops there from non African countries? And the current consensus among all parties is that the Africans will supply the troops? And that they are willing to do that? And the US government has stated that sanctions are not going to solve the issue. So what exactly have France and China prevented in negotiating a slightly different wording in the resolution? A different wording that has only diplomatic consequences since the sanctions made possible by the original text of the resolution can still be applied after the current ultimatum expires? And the parroting of the "liberal/left" argument that oil interests determine the positions on Iraq/Sudan are equally credible regarding both conflicts.

By: james

james — Thu, 19 Aug 2004 19:11:28 +0000

The US successfully negotiated a peace treaty between southern Sudan and the Sudanese government. This put a stop to over 20 years of war between the two groups. To say that the US has not been involved in Sudan in a positive manner is disingenuous. The first resolution the US tried to pass through the UN called for full sanctions. Both France and China rejected this resolution. Both nations have oil interests in Sudan that are taking priority over any humanitarian concerns. France’s troops are a token force. France’s actions have been contrary to actually forwarding any resolution of the issues in Darfar.

By: self

self — Thu, 19 Aug 2004 18:09:07 +0000

on the question of trust in the U.S. motives for “humanitarian intervention” in Sudan… http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=66123 Surely Pollard was aware of this when the article was written. Yep, no doubt about it, “we should do something about the Sudan. And as usual, ‘we’ is going to have to mean the US or very little of use is going to happen.” The NERVE

By: dsquared

dsquared — Thu, 19 Aug 2004 02:54:14 +0000

Virtually the entire Muslim world thinks Israel was behind both the invasion and occupation of Iraq and the current “rebellion” and “genocide” in Sudan. Lots of non-Muslims think so, too Virtually the entire Muslim world believes something plainly insane about Israel and we’re meant to believe it’s nothing to do with anti-Semitism? Remind me again why you’re not banned from this site? I also think it’s particularly egregious to conflate the sentiments and actions of all Jews with the duplicity and ruthless inhumanity of some Oh well, question’s moot; you are {pop}

By: Lance Boyle

Lance Boyle — Thu, 19 Aug 2004 02:16:29 +0000

neil- “The Sudan government is busy blaming the Jews for the whole problem.” Well no, they’re blaming Israel. More specifically, the government of Israel. Haaretz has a Reuters article that says as much. That the government of Israel has its own welfare confused with the welfare of all Jews seems to be exactly the problem. It’s dishonest to frame it as a particularly Sudanese kind of anti-Semitism, as well. Virtually the entire Muslim world thinks Israel was behind both the invasion and occupation of Iraq and the current “rebellion” and “genocide” in Sudan. Lots of non-Muslims think so, too. Given that before any open debate has taken place the suggestion is being immediately dismissed out of hand as mindless bigotry, as is any open criticism of the Israeli government’s arrogant viciousness, it’s more than likely to be true. I also think it’s particularly egregious to conflate the sentiments and actions of all Jews with the duplicity and ruthless inhumanity of some; which happens too often, on both sides of these crucial issues.