#1 Posted on 15.9.04 0855.47 Reposted on: 15.9.11 0856.24
This came from a German Source(Die Welt) so we'll have to see what becomes of it. But it is bad news if it is true:
Originally posted by Agent France Presse via Channel NewsAsiaSyria tested chemical weapons on civilians in Sudan's troubled western Darfur region in June and killed dozens of people.
The German daily Die Welt newspaper, in an advance release of its Wednesday edition, citing unnamed western security sources, said that injuries apparently caused by chemical arms were found on the bodies of the victims.
It said that witnesses quoted by an Arabic news website called ILAF in an article on August 2 had said that several frozen bodies arrived suddenly at the "Al-Fashr Hospital" in the Sudanese capital Khartoum in June.
Die Welt said the sources had indicated that the weapons tests were undertaken following a military exercise between Syria and Sudan.
Syrian officers were reported to have met in May with Sudanese military leaders in a Khartoum suburb to discuss the possibility of improving cooperation between their armies.
According to Die Welt, the Syrians had suggested close cooperation on developing chemical weapons, and it was proposed that the arms be tested on the rebel SPLA, the Sudan People's Liberation Army, in the south.
But given that the rebels were involved in peace talks, the newspaper continued, the Sudanese government proposed testing the arms on people in Darfur.
If this is true, than a lot of people dropped the ball on Darfur. The UN has not done anything about this situation for some time, and a lot of other places punted on it as well.
There are a lot of serious accusations here, and there will be serious implications if found to be true.
#4 Posted on 15.9.04 0944.24 Reposted on: 15.9.11 0946.11
So let's see...North Korea is working on nuclear weapons, Iran is enriching Uranium, Syria has chemical weapons stocks, Sudan is now holding chemical weapons...yes, I see why the brunt of our force is in Iraq. They're protecting us from the Weapons of Mass Destruction which are apparently EVERYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD EXCEPT IRAQ!
#5 Posted on 15.9.04 1335.25 Reposted on: 15.9.11 1335.39
I really wish I could reconcile "We shouldn't even be in the UN, globalization is worthless" rhetoric with "The UN has yet to do anything about this ". That occasionally comes from the same people.
It'd be nice if you'd just make up a little chart designating which parts of the world America is supposed to police, and which parts are the UN's responsibility. Seems a tad hypocritcal when the UN is the one that's always dropping the ball even when America has done nothing on the same front (or heads up the UN Security Council!).
#6 Posted on 15.9.04 1339.19 Reposted on: 15.9.11 1339.21
Originally posted by JaguarI really wish I could reconcile "We shouldn't even be in the UN, globalization is worthless" rhetoric with "The UN has yet to do anything about this ". That occasionally comes from the same people.
I don't think it's hard to reconcile. The UN has failed to act yet again in a massacre situation. Now....
Originally posted by JaguarSeems a tad hypocritcal when the UN is the one that's always dropping the ball even when America has done nothing on the same front (or heads up the UN Security Council!).
I will agree that we have dropped the ball on this too. But the last time we unilaterally acted to stop something, the UN and the Democrats got in a tizzy, you might have heard.
#7 Posted on 15.9.04 1411.52 Reposted on: 15.9.11 1411.56
Originally posted by GrimisI will agree that we have dropped the ball on this too. But the last time we unilaterally acted to stop something, the UN and the Democrats got in a tizzy, you might have heard.
Ah, but that was because our troops moved in on failed intelligence regarding WMD's. We invaded a sovereign nation based on WMD's that may or may not have existed.
On the other hand, here we KNOW there are atrocities going down in Sudan while Bush erroneously focuses on Iraq. Our nation is at fault as much as the UN.
#14 Posted on 15.9.04 1747.11 Reposted on: 15.9.11 1747.14
Originally posted by MalarkyAll humour aside, could the US, even if it wanted to, invade ANY country (Syria, Iran, Kimland, Sudan) convincingly and overwhelimingly enough to minimize casualties barring a draft?
No we couldnt, not alone. We could repel an Invasion, like if Iran decided to invade Iraq. But we are out of the "Invade and Regime change" business for awhile. Probably forever.