Only normal people, as you say you and me, and a tiny minority of those.

Attacking GW over incompetence (that may or may not be his fault) that lead to the deaths of a small number of people. Now thats worth getting upset over.

Darfur? Is the west involved? No? then it doesn't count.
EU Serf | Homepage | 04.10.05 - 2:58 pm | #

Why the assumption that the BBC does not care?
Sunny | Homepage | 04.10.05 - 6:21 pm | #

Chin up, as soon as all of the blacks are dead, the BBC will feel free to oppose the genocide and mention it more often.
Joshua Scholar | 04.10.05 - 11:00 pm | #

Judging by the post just above, genocide occurring in North Africa right now is less interesting to your average anti-imperialist bigmouth than the European Crusades of the Middle Ages. Funny how Eurocentrism keeps on coming back, in ever more grotesque disguises.
siaw | 05.10.05 - 12:31 am | #

Ah yes, interesting editing there Wilson.

You don't quote the serious criticisms that Hari makes of US and UK failures.

As for the African Union, they were encouraged to intervene by Blair, but we all know that the AU does not have the resources to deal adequately with the situation.
Benjamin | 05.10.05 - 1:22 am | #

Judging by the post just above, genocide occurring in North Africa right now is less interesting to your average anti-imperialist bigmouth than the European Crusades of the Middle Ages.

Danny Glover is most certainly an "anti-imperialist big mouth", and "Stopper" indeed.

Unlike SIAW though, he's been on demonstrations outside the Sudanese embassy, even being arrested for his pains.
Benjamin | 05.10.05 - 1:27 am | #

First they murdered Black Christians, didn't they, before they started on the Black Muslims? Who's next?
dearieme | 05.10.05 - 2:26 am | #

Benji: You're really raving now ...
(1) *Nobody* was referring to Danny Glover, or any other mainstream American liberal, and he'd be very surprised indeed to be called an "anti-imperialist". WTF do you imagine you're on about? Do you even know what "anti-imperialist" means, either in its original sense or in its current debased sense?
(2) You have no idea what demos we may or may not have been on, so cut the sanctimony.
(3) If the African Union ever did get enough resources you'd be among the first to complain about its descent into militarism, blah blah blah.

Fuck off, Benji, we can't even be bothered to ban you any more.
siaw | 05.10.05 - 6:46 am | #

Would you guys (siaw, Eric and Co) support intervention by some kind of coalition in Sudan?

(Given Johan's article this coalition would have to have occupied Khartoum a few years ago I suppose.)
Brian | 05.10.05 - 9:47 am | #

The fact of the matter is that the United Nations. directed in this endeavour by the holy Kofi Annan (who didn't sound the alarm about Rwanda either), sent a "team" to "investigate" whether genocide was occurring in Darfur. Apparently the extensive eyewitness accounts, photos and documentation passed them by. They decided that what was happening in Darfur fell short of genocide although there had been atrocities and human rights abuses.
This was a very useful finding for Mr Annan, because otherwise his disgraceful organisation would have hosted the spectacle of two and perhaps more members of the Security Coucil vetoing action against a government committing crimes against humanity, as I believe it's called.
Instead, Mr Annan was able to turn the matter over to the Human Rights Committee, whose members include Zimbabwe --- and Sudan.

Those who seek to diffuse blame in this matter are being c riminally stupid or have a personal agenda.
Who cares, it's only Africans being murdered and raped and ethnically cleansed, eh?

And Benjy, I live in South Africa and I know your bloody game. Don't try to make excuses for the AU. It hasn't a good governance leg to stand on. If this grandiose organisation had the gumption to tackle Sudan, it would have been supported by the West (with the exception of the French, always, naturellement).
shoutingdave | 05.10.05 - 12:42 pm | #

If we agree that the UN is a toss-pot organisation, why not put our bodies where our mouths are and set up an international brigade?
Jim Buck | Homepage | 05.10.05 - 5:02 pm | #

Like Mark Thatcher's?
Eric | Homepage | 05.10.05 - 6:57 pm | #

If we agree that the UN is a toss-pot organisation, why not put our bodies where our mouths are and set up an international brigade?

Because, quite frankly, that's part of what I pay my taxes for. I'll take care of my recycling if the Princess Pats' take care of my foriegn policy.
angua | Homepage | 05.10.05 - 8:30 pm | #

>Like Mark Thatcher's?

Now that you point it out! But to tell you the truth, I was thinking more along the lines of Michael O'Riordan's lads:
www.geocities.com/irishafa/irishvets.html
Jim Buck | Homepage | 05.10.05 - 8:52 pm | #

angua: What's a Princess Pat?
(Get Fuzzy is great, by the way - thanks for linking to it on your blog.)
siaw | 06.10.05 - 12:04 am | #

There are still some 'niggers' left in Darfur, even if they are in camps. So the crisis isn't over yet.
DavidP | Homepage | 06.10.05 - 3:38 pm | #

SIAW:

Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry:
http://www.army.dnd.ca/2PPCLI/co.../ contents_e.htm

They are based in your new neck of the woods, I think?
angua | Homepage | 06.10.05 - 3:43 pm | #

"Because, quite frankly, that's part of what I pay my taxes for. I'll take care of my recycling if the Princess Pats' take care of my foriegn policy."

This would make a great motto for the Regiment, if they should ever decide to change it.
File Closer | Homepage | 06.10.05 - 9:03 pm | #

angua: Thanks for the link. As they're based in Manitoba, they're not exactly in the same neck of the woods as us - at any rate, nobody here in Saskatchewan would ever admit that. It's weird: even though Sask is an entirely artificial entity, with no natural boundaries - hard to spell, easy to draw, as they say - it has generated some strong local patriotism over its 100 years - and it has quite a nice flag too:
http://www3.sympatico.ca/goweeze...da/ flagSASK.htm.
Next question: who the hell was Princess Patricia? Off to Wikipedia again ...
siaw | 06.10.05 - 9:25 pm | #

Yeah, but the Great Flag Debate was in the comments to the post above, not this one.
Oops.
siaw | 06.10.05 - 9:29 pm | #

Green and gold? Where's the Boxing Kangaroo?
hakmao | Homepage | 06.10.05 - 11:03 pm | #

What's that the flag of? The Green Left Light-headed Infants?
siaw | 07.10.05 - 12:09 am | #

It's appears at sporting matches, usually waved by those people who yell 'Aussie Aussie Aussie! Oi! Oi! Oi!' - it supposedly symbolises the Australian attitude. Probably enough about flags here anyway - my apologies to comrade Wilson.
hakmao | Homepage | 07.10.05 - 1:04 am | #

Princess Patricia of Connaught, 1886-1974 - the first member of the Royal Family to formally relinquish her title of a British princess and the style of Her Royal Highness - that has to be worth a pint.
hakmao | Homepage | 07.10.05 - 10:30 am | #

Interesting how the intial upset, about the murders in Darfur, petered out into the usual flim-flam.
Jim Buck | Homepage | 07.10.05 - 6:57 pm | #

Come off it: a comments box at a blog is not the best place to have an attack of pomposity, especially when you've just been bombarding this blog with your own brand of repetitive "flim-flam". The upset hasn't "petered out", and it's a bit presumptuous of you to infer that it has. This may be news to you, but it's possible to be upset about Darfur *and* amused/intrigued about such people as Princess Patricia *and* (for instance) wonder what to have for supper, while listening to David Byrne's The Catherine Wheel, all at the same time. Or is that all just too complicated for you?
siaw | 07.10.05 - 11:28 pm | #

>Or is that all just too complicated >for you?

Touche! you are quite correct; please accept my apology.
Jim Buck | 08.10.05 - 11:21 pm | #

>Or is that all just too complicated for you?

No; you are quite right; sorry for any offence caused.
Jim Buck | 08.10.05 - 11:32 pm | #

Oops! didn't mean to apologise twice (thought the first one had deleted)
Jim Buck | 08.10.05 - 11:33 pm | #