[Peace-discuss] re: Iraq and Darfur

Sat Feb 10 12:38:04 CST 2007

 "Quashing a bunch of rebels does not reduce Sudan.  Supporting them, as the US proposes to do via the UN, does, as supporting the KLA in Kosovo reduced Serbia.  --CGE"

This statement is flat out false, Carl, and indicates a fundamental confusion about Darfur, and specifically the three years of USG policy wrt to it. Worse, the above statement is verifiably false in about 4 minutes of DoS website research. The rebel groups have been committing atrocities, and in turn the USG (at the prodding of advocacy orgs) have been heavily pressuring the SLA-Minawi faction, even harder than it has been the GoS. The reason a peacekeeping force is *needed* is to protect civilians and the displaced from the government AND the rebels, not force some political solution.  

I'm not going to argue, but the Kosovo-Darfur parallel you keep drawing makes little sense to me, and I consider myself a minor enthusiast of international relations. 

> From: peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net> Subject: Peace-discuss Digest, Vol 37, Issue 28> To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 20:26:21 -0600> > Send Peace-discuss mailing list submissions to> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to> peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net> > You can reach the person managing the list at> peace-discuss-owner at lists.chambana.net> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific> than "Re: Contents of Peace-discuss digest..."> > > Today's Topics:> > 1. Re: Iraq and Darfur: the politics of war crimes (C. G. Estabrook)> 2. Clint Eastwood against Iraq war - all over now (Ricky Baldwin)> 3. Re: Iraq and Darfur: the politics of war crimes (Chas. 'Mark' Bee)> 4. Re: Clint Eastwood against Iraq war - all over now (Ron Szoke)> 5. Re: Iraq and Darfur: the politics of war crimes (C. G. Estabrook)> 6. Re: Iraq and Darfur: the politics of war crimes (Chas. 'Mark' Bee)> 7. Re: Clint Eastwood against Iraq war - all over now> (Morton K. Brussel)> 8. Tenacity (Bob Illyes)> 9. Re: Iraq and Darfur: the politics of war crimes (C. G. Estabrook)> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------> > Message: 1> Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 12:08:42 -0600> From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Iraq and Darfur: the politics of war> crimes> To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> Message-ID: <45CCB8AA.5090905 at uiuc.edu>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed> > A good article. See also the earlier pieces (links at the end).> > I think it's worthwhile drawing the parallel Kosovo/Darfur (as in > another article in the series), which is not just accidental. In both > cases the USG (Republicans and Democrats) wants to use someone else > (NATO, the UN) to reduce a recalcitrant state (Serbia, Sudan) related to > the cynosure of US foreign policy, ME energy reserves. Washington has a > tendency to try to repeat its effects. --CGE> > > Thomas Mackaman wrote:> > Iraq and Darfur: the politics of war crimes> > By James Cogan> > 9 February 2007> > http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/geno-f09.shtml> > > ------------------------------> > Message: 2> Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 11:42:32 -0800 (PST)> From: Ricky Baldwin <baldwinricky at yahoo.com>> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Clint Eastwood against Iraq war - all over> now> To: peace discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>> Message-ID: <543373.3880.qm at web39713.mail.mud.yahoo.com>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1> > But seriously, folks, I do think statements like this> help, "tenacity" and all. I think some folks need to> hear from somebody outside the Bush-is-evil camp ...> somehow makes it OK for them to oppose the war ...> > And it was on Fox News???> > Ricky> > Clint Eastwood against Iraq war, but admires Bush> "tenacity" > > AFP Fri Feb 9, 12:21 AM ET > > Hollywood icon Clint Eastwood has said he opposed the> United States' decision to go to war in Iraq but said> he admired the "tenacity" of President George W. Bush.> In an interview with Fox News, Eastwood, who has been> nominated for a best director Oscar at this month's> Academy Awards for World War Two movie "Letters from> Iwo Jima", said he was against the US-led 2003> invasion of Iraq.> > The United States' goal of trying to impose democracy> on Iraq was flawed, the 76-year-old said.> > "I wasn't for going in there," Eastwood said. "Only> because democracy isn't something that you get> overnight. I don't think America got democracy> overnight. It's something we had to fight for and> believe in."> > While other Hollywood celebrities have been outspoken> in their criticism of Bush, Eastwood said he admired> the US leader's tenacity.> > "I think -- you know, I kind of admire the tenacity he> has," Eastwood said.> > Asked how he though Bush would be remembered, Eastwood> replied: "Well, somebody who -- you've got to admire> somebody who stands up for what they believe> regardless of how the polls go.> > "A lot of presidents do everything by the polls. They> do a focus group then all of a sudden they say OK,> that's what I'm going to be for because that's where> focus group is leading me."> > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________> The fish are biting. > Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.> http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php> > > ------------------------------> > Message: 3> Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 13:56:12 -0600> From: "Chas. 'Mark' Bee" <c-bee1 at itg.uiuc.edu>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Iraq and Darfur: the politics of war> crimes> To: <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>> Message-ID: <000a01c74c84$5987bb10$b87e7e82 at scribe>> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";> reply-type=response> > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>> To: <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 12:08 PM> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Iraq and Darfur: the politics of war crimes> > > >A good article. See also the earlier pieces (links at the end).> > > > I think it's worthwhile drawing the parallel Kosovo/Darfur (as in > > another article in the series), which is not just accidental. In both > > cases the USG (Republicans and Democrats) wants to use someone else > > (NATO, the UN) to reduce a recalcitrant state (Serbia, Sudan) related to > > the cynosure of US foreign policy, ME energy reserves. Washington has a > > tendency to try to repeat its effects. --CGE> > Just out of curiosity, what was the economic payoff to the US from Kosovo?> > > ------------------------------> > Message: 4> Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 13:58:36 -0600 (CST)> From: Ron Szoke <r-szoke at uiuc.edu>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Clint Eastwood against Iraq war - all> over now> To: Ricky Baldwin <baldwinricky at yahoo.com>, peace discuss> <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>> Message-ID: <20070209135836.AJI46117 at expms6.cites.uiuc.edu>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii> > Other people have made similar statements praising Dubya's supposed "tenacity," > adherence to principle in the face of widespread opposition, etc. They should be > asked if they were equally admiring of those same qualities in Hitler & Stalin.> > -- Ron Szoke> > > > ------------------------------> > Message: 5> Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 15:58:24 -0600> From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Iraq and Darfur: the politics of war> crimes> To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> Message-ID: <45CCEE80.80306 at uiuc.edu>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed> > We have the answer from the horse's mouth, as it were. One of the kept > intellectuals of the Clinton administration, Strobe Talbott was Deputy > Secretary of State from 1993 until 2001 and a long-time FOB. He was the > lead American negotiator and director of a joint National Security > Council-Pentagon-State Department task force on diplomacy during the > bombing. He's now the head of the Brookings think-tank. In a > "Foreword" to a book by his communications director, John Norris, > "Collision Course: NATO, Russia, and Kosovo" (2005), he confirms that > the books tells "how events looked and felt at the time to those of us > who were involved” in the war in Kosovo.> > Here's what Norris says: "The gravitational pull [sic] of the community > of western democracies highlights why Milosevic's Yugoslavia had become > such an anachronism. As nations throughout the region sought to reform > their economies, mitigate ethnic tensions, and broaden civil society, > Belgrade seemed to delight in continually moving in the opposite > direction. It is small wonder NATO and Yugoslavia ended up on a > collision course. It was Yugoslavia's resistance to the broader trends > of political and economic reform -- not the plight of the Kosovar > Albanians -- that best explains NATO's war" (p. xxii f.).> > The excuse that Clinton offered for bombing Serbia in his March 1999 > speech was simply false: the real reason for the US/NATO attack was not > the people of Kosovo, who were supposedly suffering a "genocide." (For > a version of that speech, see <http://www.zmag.org/satire.htm>.) > Instead, it was the refusal of Serbia to subordinate itself to the > neoliberal social and economic programs by which the US and the EU were > incorporating Eastern Europe. (Remember that to secure Soviet approval > of a united Germany remaining in NATO, the USG promised that NATO would > never expand further east...) The US meant to remove a "threat of a > good example" of resistance to US domination of the world economy (just > as it did in Vietnam), as the Rambouillet agreement showed. And they > did. --CGE> > > Chas. 'Mark' Bee wrote:> > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>> > To: <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>> > Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 12:08 PM> > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Iraq and Darfur: the politics of war crimes> > > > > >> A good article. See also the earlier pieces (links at the end).> >>> >> I think it's worthwhile drawing the parallel Kosovo/Darfur (as in > >> another article in the series), which is not just accidental. In both > >> cases the USG (Republicans and Democrats) wants to use someone else > >> (NATO, the UN) to reduce a recalcitrant state (Serbia, Sudan) related > >> to the cynosure of US foreign policy, ME energy reserves. Washington > >> has a tendency to try to repeat its effects. --CGE> > > > Just out of curiosity, what was the economic payoff to the US from Kosovo?> > > ------------------------------> > Message: 6> Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 16:16:39 -0600> From: "Chas. 'Mark' Bee" <c-bee1 at itg.uiuc.edu>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Iraq and Darfur: the politics of war> crimes> To: <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>> Message-ID: <016801c74c97$f830aa20$b87e7e82 at scribe>> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252";> reply-type=response> > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>> To: <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 3:58 PM> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Iraq and Darfur: the politics of war crimes> > > > We have the answer from the horse's mouth, as it were. One of the kept > > intellectuals of the Clinton administration, Strobe Talbott was Deputy > > Secretary of State from 1993 until 2001 and a long-time FOB. He was the > > lead American negotiator and director of a joint National Security > > Council-Pentagon-State Department task force on diplomacy during the > > bombing. He's now the head of the Brookings think-tank. In a "Foreword" > > to a book by his communications director, John Norris, "Collision Course: > > NATO, Russia, and Kosovo" (2005), he confirms that the books tells "how > > events looked and felt at the time to those of us who were involved” in > > the war in Kosovo.> >> > Here's what Norris says: "The gravitational pull [sic] of the community of > > western democracies highlights why Milosevic's Yugoslavia had become such > > an anachronism. As nations throughout the region sought to reform their > > economies, mitigate ethnic tensions, and broaden civil society, Belgrade > > seemed to delight in continually moving in the opposite direction. It is > > small wonder NATO and Yugoslavia ended up on a collision course. It was > > Yugoslavia's resistance to the broader trends of political and economic > > reform -- not the plight of the Kosovar Albanians -- that best explains > > NATO's war" (p. xxii f.).> >> > The excuse that Clinton offered for bombing Serbia in his March 1999 > > speech was simply false: the real reason for the US/NATO attack was not > > the people of Kosovo, who were supposedly suffering a "genocide." (For a > > version of that speech, see <http://www.zmag.org/satire.htm>.) Instead, it > > was the refusal of Serbia to subordinate itself to the neoliberal social > > and economic programs by which the US and the EU were incorporating > > Eastern Europe. (Remember that to secure Soviet approval of a united > > Germany remaining in NATO, the USG promised that NATO would never expand > > further east...) The US meant to remove a "threat of a good example" of > > resistance to US domination of the world economy (just as it did in > > Vietnam), as the Rambouillet agreement showed. And they did. --CGE> > So I guess my question still stands. What was the economic payoff, > related to the cynosure of US foreign policy, ME oil reserves?> > Also, how does quashing a bunch of rebels reduce Sudan?> > >> >> > Chas. 'Mark' Bee wrote:> >>> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>> >> To: <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>> >> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 12:08 PM> >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Iraq and Darfur: the politics of war crimes> >>> >>> >>> A good article. See also the earlier pieces (links at the end).> >>>> >>> I think it's worthwhile drawing the parallel Kosovo/Darfur (as in > >>> another article in the series), which is not just accidental. In both > >>> cases the USG (Republicans and Democrats) wants to use someone else > >>> (NATO, the UN) to reduce a recalcitrant state (Serbia, Sudan) related to > >>> the cynosure of US foreign policy, ME energy reserves. Washington has a > >>> tendency to try to repeat its effects. --CGE> >>> >> Just out of curiosity, what was the economic payoff to the US from > >> Kosovo?> > _______________________________________________> > Peace-discuss mailing list> > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> > http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > > ------------------------------> > Message: 7> Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 16:45:24 -0600> From: "Morton K. Brussel" <brussel4 at insightbb.com>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Clint Eastwood against Iraq war - all> over now> To: Ricky Baldwin <baldwinricky at yahoo.com>> Cc: peace discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>> Message-ID: <8BF90B76-ED87-4C08-8227-DF987E694312 at insightbb.com>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed> > Pretty sickening to me. When did Eastwood announce he was against > attacking Iraq?> What is his stance on Iraq now? Should we pull out or stay (and > attack Iran?)?> How many deaths are due to Bush's tenacity?> > --mkb> > This is no help in the anti-war movement.> > > On Feb 9, 2007, at 1:42 PM, Ricky Baldwin wrote:> > > But seriously, folks, I do think statements like this> > help, "tenacity" and all. I think some folks need to> > hear from somebody outside the Bush-is-evil camp ...> > somehow makes it OK for them to oppose the war ...> >> > And it was on Fox News???> >> > Ricky> >> > Clint Eastwood against Iraq war, but admires Bush> > "tenacity"> >> > AFP Fri Feb 9, 12:21 AM ET> >> > Hollywood icon Clint Eastwood has said he opposed the> > United States' decision to go to war in Iraq but said> > he admired the "tenacity" of President George W. Bush.> > In an interview with Fox News, Eastwood, who has been> > nominated for a best director Oscar at this month's> > Academy Awards for World War Two movie "Letters from> > Iwo Jima", said he was against the US-led 2003> > invasion of Iraq.> >> > The United States' goal of trying to impose democracy> > on Iraq was flawed, the 76-year-old said.> >> > "I wasn't for going in there," Eastwood said. "Only> > because democracy isn't something that you get> > overnight. I don't think America got democracy> > overnight. It's something we had to fight for and> > believe in."> >> > While other Hollywood celebrities have been outspoken> > in their criticism of Bush, Eastwood said he admired> > the US leader's tenacity.> >> > "I think -- you know, I kind of admire the tenacity he> > has," Eastwood said.> >> > Asked how he though Bush would be remembered, Eastwood> > replied: "Well, somebody who -- you've got to admire> > somebody who stands up for what they believe> > regardless of how the polls go.> >> > "A lot of presidents do everything by the polls. They> > do a focus group then all of a sudden they say OK,> > that's what I'm going to be for because that's where> > focus group is leading me."> >> >> >> >> >> > ______________________________________________________________________ > > ______________> > The fish are biting.> > Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.> > http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php> > _______________________________________________> > Peace-discuss mailing list> > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> > http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss> > > ------------------------------> > Message: 8> Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 17:06:20 -0600> From: Bob Illyes <illyes at uiuc.edu>> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tenacity> To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.2.20070209170122.024cada0 at express.cites.uiuc.edu>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed> > Bush's "tenacity" is just a bad case of "real men don't admit> they've made a mistake". Looks like Clint thinks he and W. are> "real" men. If most men were like these guys, it would be> curtains for civilization, I suspect.> > Bob> > > > ------------------------------> > Message: 9> Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 20:26:24 -0600> From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Iraq and Darfur: the politics of war> crimes> To: "Chas. 'Mark' Bee" <c-bee1 at itg.uiuc.edu>> Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> Message-ID: <45CD2D50.1030409 at uiuc.edu>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed> > The map makes the matter clear. SW Asia, like NE Africa, is to the US > part of the approaches to the ME. Read about the US base in Kosovo, > Camp Bondsteel: > <http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/camp-bondsteel.htm>.> > Quashing a bunch of rebels does not reduce Sudan. Supporting them, as > the US proposes to do via the UN, does, as supporting the KLA in Kosovo > reduced Serbia. --CGE> > > Chas. 'Mark' Bee wrote:> > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>> > To: <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>> > Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 3:58 PM> > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Iraq and Darfur: the politics of war crimes> > > > > >> We have the answer from the horse's mouth, as it were. One of the > >> kept intellectuals of the Clinton administration, Strobe Talbott was > >> Deputy Secretary of State from 1993 until 2001 and a long-time FOB. > >> He was the lead American negotiator and director of a joint National > >> Security Council-Pentagon-State Department task force on diplomacy > >> during the bombing. He's now the head of the Brookings think-tank. > >> In a "Foreword" to a book by his communications director, John Norris, > >> "Collision Course: NATO, Russia, and Kosovo" (2005), he confirms that > >> the books tells "how events looked and felt at the time to those of us > >> who were involved” in the war in Kosovo.> >>> >> Here's what Norris says: "The gravitational pull [sic] of the > >> community of western democracies highlights why Milosevic's Yugoslavia > >> had become such an anachronism. As nations throughout the region > >> sought to reform their economies, mitigate ethnic tensions, and > >> broaden civil society, Belgrade seemed to delight in continually > >> moving in the opposite direction. It is small wonder NATO and > >> Yugoslavia ended up on a collision course. It was Yugoslavia's > >> resistance to the broader trends of political and economic reform -- > >> not the plight of the Kosovar Albanians -- that best explains NATO's > >> war" (p. xxii f.).> >>> >> The excuse that Clinton offered for bombing Serbia in his March 1999 > >> speech was simply false: the real reason for the US/NATO attack was > >> not the people of Kosovo, who were supposedly suffering a "genocide." > >> (For a version of that speech, see <http://www.zmag.org/satire.htm>.) > >> Instead, it was the refusal of Serbia to subordinate itself to the > >> neoliberal social and economic programs by which the US and the EU > >> were incorporating Eastern Europe. (Remember that to secure Soviet > >> approval of a united Germany remaining in NATO, the USG promised that > >> NATO would never expand further east...) The US meant to remove a > >> "threat of a good example" of resistance to US domination of the world > >> economy (just as it did in Vietnam), as the Rambouillet agreement > >> showed. And they did. --CGE> > > > So I guess my question still stands. What was the economic payoff, > > related to the cynosure of US foreign policy, ME oil reserves?> > > > Also, how does quashing a bunch of rebels reduce Sudan?> > > >>> >>> >> Chas. 'Mark' Bee wrote:> >>>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>> >>> To: <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>> >>> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 12:08 PM> >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Iraq and Darfur: the politics of war crimes> >>>> >>>> >>>> A good article. See also the earlier pieces (links at the end).> >>>>> >>>> I think it's worthwhile drawing the parallel Kosovo/Darfur (as in > >>>> another article in the series), which is not just accidental. In > >>>> both cases the USG (Republicans and Democrats) wants to use someone > >>>> else (NATO, the UN) to reduce a recalcitrant state (Serbia, Sudan) > >>>> related to the cynosure of US foreign policy, ME energy reserves. > >>>> Washington has a tendency to try to repeat its effects. --CGE> >>>> >>> Just out of curiosity, what was the economic payoff to the US from > >>> Kosovo?> >> _______________________________________________> >> Peace-discuss mailing list> >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> >> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________> > Peace-discuss mailing list> > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> > http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss> > > ------------------------------> > _______________________________________________> Peace-discuss mailing list> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss> > > End of Peace-discuss Digest, Vol 37, Issue 28> *********************************************
_________________________________________________________________
Personalize your Live.com homepage with the news, weather, and photos you care about.
http://www.live.com/getstarted.aspx?icid=T001MSN30A0701
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20070210/889c8a9b/attachment-0001.html