We must help the people of Darfur

Brit envoy: Darfur options must be eyed
By ANGELA CHARLTON, Associated Press Writer.

UNITED NATIONS - The international community should consider all options — including military intervention — as it mulls how to deal with Sudan's rejection of a U.N. peacekeeping force for war-ravaged Darfur, a top British official said Monday.

Last month, the Security Council passed a resolution that would give the
United Nations' control over a peacekeeping operation in Darfur now run by the African Union. The AU force has been largely ineffective and understaffed because of a lack of funding, and its mandate expires at the end of this month.
Sudan has so far refused to give its consent for the U.N. takeover, stalling the transfer of power.
"The international community is going to have to keep its options open," David Triesman, the British Foreign Office's minister for Africa, told reporters in New York ahead of a
U.N. Security Council' meeting on Sudan later Monday. He added that nothing was being ruled out, and that the situation was nearing a "tipping point."
Asked about the possibility of an international force intervening even if the Sudanese government continues to resist a U.N. peacekeeping force, he said: "There is bound to be a consideration of a range of options if there is no movement."
The Darfur conflict began in early 2003, when ethnic African tribes revolted against the Arab-led government, which was accused of unleashing militiamen blamed for rapes and killings. At least 200,000 people have died and more than 2 million people have been displaced.
The Sudanese government has said a U.N. force would infringe on the country's sovereignty and has offered to send government troops to Darfur instead. Critics say such troops would escalate violence in the region
Sudanese presidential adviser Ghazi Salhuddin Atabani was quoted by Britain's Guardian newspaper Monday as saying that Sudan may agree at an African foreign ministers meeting in New York this week to allow AU troops to remain in Darfur past the deadline at the end of this month.
The African Union's Peace and Security Council had been scheduled to meet Monday in New York to discuss breaking the deadlock, but Britain's U.N. Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry said the meeting was postponed. He did not say why it was postponed or when it might take place.
Atabani said Sudan wanted to consider a plan under which AU peacekeepers remain in Darfur but get help such as helicopters and surveillance technology from Western nations.
Hundreds of thousands of people rallied in cities across the world Sunday to protest the violence and urge world leaders to intervene to resolve it. U.N. Undersecretary-General for Political Affairs Ibrahim Gambari called Darfur the most urgent issue at this week's U.N. General Assembly.
"No issue needs more urgent attention than Darfur. There is no longer any time to waste. When we say 'never again' to genocide and serious human rights abuses, we must mean it," Gambari said.
Triesman warned, however, that anyone considering intervening against the Sudanese government "has got to make the calculation whether more people will be killed and more will be displaced if we do," he said.
With the end of the AU force's mandate less than two weeks away, Triesman said diplomats were focusing on pressing the Sudanese government to accept a U.N. force and a continued African force for the next two or three months, until a U.N. force could be ready.
He suggested that the international community could put together an incentives package to encourage Sudan's cooperation — but not until after it commits to ensuring the full implementation of the May peace agreement with a key rebel group.
That peace pact has sparked months of fighting among rival rebel factions.
In Khartoum on Monday, the Darfur rebel faction that signed on to the May peace deal again urged Sudan's ruling party to allow U.N. peacekeepers in.
French President Jacques Chirac' said Monday that he would make a "solemn appeal" to Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir during the General Assembly meeting. A new catastrophe in Darfur "could destabilize all the countries in the region," Chirac said.
In Geneva on Monday, U.N. Secretary-General
Kofi Annan' urged the United Nations' human rights watchdog to focus its attention on Darfur. Annan has warned that if the 7,000 African Union troops leave and a U.N. force cannot replace them "we are heading for a disaster"

Where are you Mssrs, Bush and Blair? though I acknowledge that you at least, Blair, are calling for "military action" will it come to pass, or shall you let GENOCIDE take place because you are scared of yet another Islamic country (Sudan) chucking bombs at us rather than doing what is right?
You two World leaders want more respect? then DO something positive, like send in 4000 Marines and soldiers to protect these poor people who have been systematically Raped, tortured and KILLED for three years already. Get the troops in you two leaders and for once get some respect for your actions. I am sure that most people will be behind you on this one.

Immigration.

A very topical subject to discuss nowadays, and one which invokes many heated arguments. I heard a part of the Australian Prime minister's "talk" on this, a few days ago; here's the gist of John Howard's thoughts:

"Any immigrant who is prepared to contribute to the prosperity of this country is welcome; however we are not prepared to change or alter our heritage, culture, or way of life for you.
If you are not prepared to accept our rules and lifestyle, then get out"

Any British MPs reading this?

Iran: can we take a chance?

We've been hearing of the "catastrophe" that will ensue should the Iranians ever make a Nuclear device ie: BOMB. But are we merely echoing the United States' paranoia, when we shake with fear at the prospect?
Shouldn't we remember that the Iranians are leading the world in Stem-cell research, and giving it's women "nose-jobs" on a regular basis. Yep, Iran is plastic-surgery mad, and wants to join the "Technology club" which we in the West enjoy.

Is it beyond the realms of belief to actually suppose that the Iranians REALLY want to have a Nuclear programme for peaceful purposes?
We must learn from history, and in particular the Cold war, when we were brain-washed into thinking that the Soviets were going to attack us at any minute. It transpires they had no real intention to, any more than Hitler was really going to invade England.

Can we take the chance that Iran will not try and obliterate Israel, or us ,if it had the means? Certainly the rhetoric coming from their President is not a good sign.

It is said that WWII could have been avoided if we had taken "measures" against Hitler and his thugs when they were perceived to be building up a vast army and armaments, in direct contravention of the treaty signed after the end of WWI. Britain stood by and watched this, doing nothing until after the invasion of Poland.

Should we idly stand by NOW and watch the next likely protagonists arming themselves for a possible conflagration?

We should take action only when we actually see the evidence for bomb-making. I hope that by that time it isn't too late.