Sudan 'resumes bombing in Darfur'

[Heracles 417]

Sudan 'resumes bombing in Darfur'

Sudan's government has resumed bombing in the country's troubled western region of Darfur, says US special envoy to Sudan Andrew Natsios.

Mr Natsios urged Sudan to stop its campaign and respect a 2004 ceasefire.

He said the bombing was focused on the Jebel Marra region, a stronghold of one of the rebel faction leaders, Abdul Wahid Mohammed Nour.

Some 200,000 people have died in Darfur in the past four years, while 2m have fled their homes, the UN says.

The BBC's Amber Henshaw in Khartoum says no-one was available from the Sudanese government to comment on Mr Natsios' claims.

'Warlordism'

"After a halt in the bombing between the beginning of February and the end of April in 2007, the Sudanese government has resumed bombing in Darfur," Mr Natsios said.

He also accused rebel groups of descending into "criminality and warlordism".

"Some rebel leaders are cynically obstructing the peace process and the United States government is very disturbed by this. It needs to end now," he said.

The US special envoy's comments come as Britain, France and Ghana circulate a draft resolution to the UN security Council for a joint African Union-United Nations peacekeeping operation for Darfur.

The Sudanese government finally agreed to allow a 20,000-strong hybrid force into the region after months of pressure from the international community.

There are also moves to get the government and the rebels back to peace talks in the next few months.

Government officials say they are more than ready for talks.

A widely unpopular peace deal was signed last year by one of the three negotiating factions but the groups have now splintered and many are calling for fresh negotiations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6898158.stm

Number_6 you where saying how we should stop them..

The international community seems to be quite on the western front..

Edited July 13, 2007 by Infidel

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I said its hard to believe the claims that Iraq was about humanitarian concerns when the likes of this goes pretty much unanswered.

At least this time, like Kosovo and unlike Rwanda - western governments have been shamed into some sort of action.

[Heracles 417]

I said its hard to believe the claims that Iraq was about humanitarian concerns when the likes of this goes pretty much unanswered.

At least this time, like Kosovo and unlike Rwanda - western governments have been shamed into some sort of action.

Iraq was a huge miscalculation which has unfortunately come at a huge cost. I just do not believe in abandoning the innocent there by cutting and running.

The mistake was already made. Lets not make it twice by leaving those people to be slaughtered. The lesson of Iraq is that if your not going to do a job, do it right or don't start it at all. If we had 500,000 troops the outcome would be a different story. And I agree this operation would probably have been carried out much more successfully with the involvement of the international community. No matter what we do, people only want to believe we are there for oil and our own economic gain.

Edited July 13, 2007 by Infidel

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I said its hard to believe the claims that Iraq was about humanitarian concerns when the likes of this goes pretty much unanswered.

At least this time, like Kosovo and unlike Rwanda - western governments have been shamed into some sort of action.

Iraq was a huge miscalculation which has unfortunately come at a huge cost. I just do not believe in abandoning the innocent there by cutting and running.

The mistake was already made. Lets not make it twice by leaving those people to be slaughtered. The lesson of Iraq is that if your not going to do a job, do it right or don't start it at all. If we had 500,000 troops the outcome would be a different story. And I agree this operation would probably have been carried out much more successfully with the involvement of the international community. No matter what we do, people only want to believe we are there for oil and our own economic gain.

I haven't said any different. I do think however that we should (and likely will) be more careful in future about allowing ourselves to be railroaded into a war that turns out to be nothing short of a convenient "for profit" side-show.

Can't up sticks up pull out - but again we have significantly fewer options now than we did in the run up to this war. And the President as CIC, the elected official in charge of the country is to blame by default.