The UN acts as a way of us all keeping check on each other, not allowing any nation to become another Nazi Germany.

Are you kidding us with this?

The problem in Sudan is precisely the institutional state-sponsored genocide the Nazis were so famous for. The UN is allowing this right now, today. It allowed the same thing in Rwanda. It allowed the same thing in Iraq.

It is, in fact, a toothless organization that cannot keep its most powerful members in check, and refuses to keep in check anybody else. It serves only as a convenient mantle of fake legitimacy, something for a rogue state to drape around its shoulders when it can, and use for toilet paper when it no longer serves as a cloak.

If and when China makes its big play for world dominance, it will use the U.N. as a shield against all opposition. Should the U.N. stand against it, China will ignore it and carry on. And either way, China will put the U.N. at the top of its list of institutions to cast down.

China won't do this because it is an evil state. I don't believe that nations, or peoples, are inherently evil (though some governments and ideologies certainly can be). China will do this because this is the only practical course of action to take with the U.N.

I would say that the U.N. at least serves to limit any action, whether good or bad. I believe in the law of unintended consequences. I think that would be fine, if that's what the U.N. did. But in reality, it strives to limit the actions of the powerful, regardless of their morality, while turning a blind eye to the most horrible atrocities commited by the weak.

The U.N. is set up so that the worst human rights abusers can elect one of their own to chair the U.N.'s council on human rights abuses. And these people exploit this constantly. How can such an organization ever favor good over evil? It can't. At best, it can favor inaction over action, bureaucracy over diligence, corruption over responsibility.

Winston Churchill once said that democracy is the worst form of government known to man, except for all the other forms of government we know of.

Perhaps you're one of those who likes to despise the American system of government. Perhaps you ridicule the way the American people wield power. But if you dislike the kind of government the American system produces, consider this: the U.N. purports to be a world government, composed partly of freely-elected representatives, and partly of petty despots, dictators, and tyrants. Between these two choices, I'd have to say Churchill was right.

heh, funny, I was just busy quoting the same Churchill site on another forum while you wrote this. Great minds.

I don't like to despise the USA style of Government, I just happen to disagree with it. I would really like to find a way to like it, but I don't.

"The problem in Sudan is precisely the institutional state-sponsored genocide the Nazis were so famous for. The UN is allowing this right now, today. It allowed the same thing in Rwanda. It allowed the same thing in Iraq."

Sorry, perhaps I misread my own article, but I thought that was what I was saying. I don't pretend that the UN is perfect, but like democracy, no one has come up with a better system yet (that too I think is a Churchill comment). My point still stands about what I think happened when Bush ignored the UN.

Some time ago I was reading about how there was civil unrest somewhere in your part of the world, maybe Port Moresby, Papua-New Guinea? Anyhoo, the Americans would've sent in the Marines. The Australians did something far more sinister:

They sent 38 bureaucrats.

I'm not suggesting an squadron of swivel servants is what is needed in Sudan right now. But in the big picture, long term, there are too many countries in the world that, for whatever reason, cannot effectively establish peace, order, and good govenment. We need to deal with that. One suggestion is screw the UN. The UN's one nation-one vote system is a perversion of democracy; vote buying of tiny nations is rampant. We need to set up a parallel body of democratic nations, sorta G-20ish, with a mandate to bring the planet Earth into the 21st century.

At a time where we are close to discovering a cure for cancer, developing cold fusion, and sending a man to Mars, it is inconceivable we as a species are hacking each other to death with machetes. There are many countries that need to be told "clean up your mess, or we'll get neocolonial on your ass". And should we choose to go down this path, make no mistake: it is neocolonialism. I, for one, have no problem with that.

Getting to your question, no, the USA should not invade Sudan. Too many too obvious reasons to list.

David St. Hubbins

Umm well on the topic of my corner of the world, there is a suggestion that West Papua is going to be the next East Timor. We're doing nothing, like we did in East Timor, and genocide is going ahead. But what caused these problems was colonialism in the first place. West Papua worked a lot better before it had to become part of Indonesia because the Dutch said so. So I don't think neocolonialism is going to work either. Hmm, I might have to face something ridiculous like it's an imperfect world, shock horror. But still, I feel like I can't turn my back on this situation, yet I don't know if us doing something would help.

But what caused these problems was colonialism in the first place.

that's exactly the case. not just in the former brit colony of sudan nor the former british mandate of palestine nor iraq (british), nor the former french/belgian/dutch colonies of central africa, nor the former british, dutch, french colonies of saharan, east and south africa, nor the former conglomerate colonial territories of malaysia, indonesia, the philippines, etc., etc., etc.

the un is only as powerful as its most powerful members permit it to be.

Should the U.N. stand against it, China will ignore it and carry on.

by then bolton & wolfowitz may be available to consult for them.

Please feel free to continue debating this, but I have made up my mind after another visit to the site that hosts the petition. I recently saw Hotel Rwanda and the effect it had on me still stays. The sight of all those bodies, the fear in the people's eyes, the injustice, was simply the most abominable thing I have ever seen apart from Nazi Germany.

The site has this to say:

"A preventable humanitarian crisis, affecting more than two million people, is raging in the Darfur region of western Sudan. Not since the Rwanda genocide of 1994 has the world seen such a calculated campaign of slaughter, rape, starvation and displacement. Government-backed militias, known collectively as the Janjaweed, are systematically eliminating entire communities of African tribal farmers. Villages are being razed, women and girls raped and branded, men and boys murdered, and food and water supplies targeted and destroyed...The effects of this ethnic cleansing campaign have been devastating...It is estimated that at least 200,000 people have died. More than 1.6 million people have been displaced from their homes and over 200,000 have fled across the border to Chad. Many now live in camps lacking adequate food, shelter, sanitation, and health care. Women and girls who leave the camps to gather much needed firewood risk being attacked and raped by Janjaweed patrolling the countryside."

"The U.S. Congress declared that the killings in Darfur amount to "genocide," while also urging U.S. President George W. Bush to call the situation in Sudan "by its rightful name -- genocide." For the first time in its history, the Committee on Conscience of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum has declared a "genocide emergency" in the Sudan, indicating that genocide is imminent or is actually happening in the Darfur region."

And then finally, they make the link to Hotel Rwanda themselves:

"Hotel Rwanda tells the story of something we promised would happen "never again" -- the world watching passively as genocide takes the lives of innocent civilians.

Don Cheadle, nominated for an Academy Award for his role in the movie, and Paul Rusesabagina, the hotel manager he portrayed in the film, recently traveled to Darfur to experience first-hand how the horrors portrayed in the film are replaying themselves in real life. They went home committed to stopping the carnage."

Bad as it might be if Bush takes it upon himself to invade, it is far preferable to what is about to happen in Sudan. Rwanda just can't happen again. Nothing could be worse. It must be stopped at all costs. So Ihave signed the petition and I urge everyone to do the same.

This, by the way is what I sent Mr Bush. It is not the original words of the petition, but my own words.

Dear President Bush:

You have recently demonstrated your intense desire to bring peace and freedom to the world through your intervention in Iraq. Although this was met with controversy, there can be no doubting that similar intervention is required immediately in Darfur.

I urge you as President of the United States of America to demonstrate once again the leadership that you showed during your first term in office. Genocide is not something that should ever occur on this planet. The resolution currently before the United Nations Security Council is too weak to effectively stop the violence.

Another weak resolution will exacerbate rather than ameliorate the situation in Darfur. The current draft resolution sends precisely the wrong signal after one year of unfulfilled promises and continued attacks, further emboldening the Government of Sudan.

The United States must spearhead a campaign encouraging Council members to adopt a strong resolution that aims to end the crisis. An acceptable resolution must include provisions that address:

*Security – an immediate end to the violence.

*Humanitarian Relief – sufficient aid to meet the basic needs of refugees and the displaced.

*Accountability – holding accountable those responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

*Safe Return – establishment of conditions that allow the safe, dignified, and voluntary return of individuals to their homes and villages.

Security Council members have the responsibility and authority to protect international peace and security. The Government of Sudan has repeatedly violated prior resolutions. I therefore urge you to encourage the Security Council to pass a strong resolution – one that ensures accountability and provides enforceable mechanisms to protect the people of Darfur.

Sudan is not the only hot spot right now.  The Congo (not the Republic of) is seeing a rise in this very same type of violence, and it will probably only get worse.

I wish we could make the UN do something, but I dont see it happening.

The UN acts as a way of us all keeping check on each other, not allowing any nation to become another Nazi Germany.

I can't stop laughing at this.

Well doesn't that sound familiar, hit too close to home, make you shiver when you think of the way things could go in Sudan. For those of you who are unaware, the Sudanese Government is sanctioning mass killings of its people. Many predict that Sudan will be the next Rwanda. Genocide is on its way to Africa again

Saddam killed his own people also. I love the leftist thought. We shouldn't invade Iraq, but lets invade Sudan.

Let's see now. Should the US invade Sudan....hmmmmm....Ok.....it says here...that...Sudan is an impoverished nation = dark skin = poor country = not the least bit of a threat to the US = third world country = no military defences = no chance for resistance = yes the US could possibly invade Sudan. USA will never attack an armed military nation. That's why North Korea is free and able to tell the US to go suck on their own douchebags while the US sends in the Big Red to big mean scary Iraq.

USA will never attack an armed military nation

We have before, and will do again if necessary.

Well doesn't that sound familiar, hit too close to home, make you shiver when you think of the way things could go in Sudan.

Missy Higgins is well known for her political commentary on this issue

The UN's one nation-one vote system is a perversion of democracy; vote buying of tiny nations is rampant.

I propose the far more sensible One goat-One vote system. It rhymes and it will give certain nomadic tribes more power than they have ever had before.

For those of you who are unaware, the Sudanese Government is sanctioning mass killings of its people.

Screw the Sudanese, save the whales.....just kidding, or am I? (Do Do do do Do Do do do Do Do do do)

On that disturbing note I shall go.

"Saddam killed his own people also. I love the leftist thought. We shouldn't invade Iraq, but lets invade Sudan."

Can I suggest that for once you stop thinking about scoring points against "the Left" and start considering the genocide of a few million people.
I have explained my position on Iraq. There are people who were more opposed to it than I was, and you may well be able to accuse them of hypocrisy. I opposed the Iraq War because I didn't think it would be successful and because I didn't see Saddam's mass killings as bad enough as to outweigh the killings and destruction of society that has been caused by the Coalition's campaign there. I admit that the Coalition's campaign has been more successful than I anticipated, but I think it's been less sucessful than Bush makes out. Who cares?!?! We're not here to debate yesterday. We're not here to debate Iraq. We're here to discuss what to do about Sudan. Already the USA is trying to get stronger resolutions against Sudan, and I commend Bush for this. I want him to go further.

Sudan is a worse situation in my view. But I have hinted that Iraq was not as bad as I originally thought. I would have in time supported Bush's invasion, I just think he was better off waiting for the UN...

"I can't stop laughing at this. "

I think we probably disagree less on the UN than you realise. I think it is horribly corrupted and has become so bureaucratic that too much of the money devoted to it doesn't actually get to the causes required. But it also does some good. Like democracy, no one has yet come up with a better system. It is the least worst system. Regardless, let's talk about this Sudan issue as rational human beings debating an issue, not people trying to score points agsinst the enemy.

i read the petition and hesitated similarly, champas. before i demand the US do something (particularly from a "i voted you in, do something about it" tone, which is untrue as i am not american) i would want to know precisely what i'm asking them to do. and at this stage i'm still not entirely sure what i'd want them to do.

on a lighter hearted, less appropriate note:

I propose the far more sensible One goat-One vote system. It rhymes and it will give certain nomadic tribes more power than they have ever had before.

hear hear. i, for one, am the owneress of several hundred votes and i intend to wield my pastoral power any way i can. maaaa.

Can I suggest that for once you stop thinking about scoring points against "the Left" and start considering the genocide of a few million people.

I'm simply pointing out the double standard by the left in this country. They seem to be quite selective in where they show their "compassion" for people around the world. All they do is complain about what we did in Iraq is so bad, which is not true of course, but that doesn't matter to them. So now people want military action to stop this "genocide" that is going on.

I think we probably disagree less on the UN than you realise. I think it is horribly corrupted and has become so bureaucratic that too much of the money devoted to it doesn't actually get to the causes required. But it also does some good. Like democracy, no one has yet come up with a better system. It is the least worst system. Regardless, let's talk about this Sudan issue as rational human beings debating an issue, not people trying to score points agsinst the enemy.

We can talk about Sudan. I'm sure Sudan will go down as the next Rwanda, another U.N. failure.