Sudan peace deal brokered by the tea and a bun set

Related Articles

Mummy!

I don't have much today but I found this...

Tweetpoo for Tuesday January 24 2023

OK ! I'm good! I'm now more than fully...

Justin Trudeau and Canadian “news” media don’t look up.

For years, "Connecting rural Canada" has been a huge...

The Article

(Alert… New Term Added To Our PTBC Lexicon …Alert …)

Excited over the Sudan peace deal?  Don’t be.  Be wary.  And ready to move in.  With troops.  Canadian troops with guns.  Not for the purpose of killing people but for the purpose of stopping it.  To once again stop the genocide there like the one in Rwanda where 800,000 humans were slaughtered under Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien’s and Democratic President Bill Clinton’s watch.  Because actually, that’s what a compassionate peace-loving country of means and moral fortitude can do for the world. 

Yes, in an ironic twist, sometimes you have to use guns to bring peace and freedom and security to people and nations, as in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan.  Yes that sounds rough and tough.  Life has a lot of rough edges. Freedom isn’t free, it costs a lot.  Yadda.

Oh what’s that you say?  “Give peace a chance”?  Yes well OK that’s precisely the point so let’s.  How?  The teetotalling chitchats and negotiations for peace over a cup of tea and a bun have so far successfully resulted in the slaughter of roughly TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND in Sudan only in the most recent past—more before that.  Under Liberal Team Chretien/Martin’s watch.  So how’s that working out for you?  We’re up to a million or more slaughtered folks between Rwanda and Sudan depending on how far back you go with that whole “tea and a bun” thing. 

For best results, actually, stick your bun on the end of a massive tank cannon or on the pointy end of an F-18 fighter jet.  That’s how Ronald Reagan won the Cold War, for example. 

Darfur peace pact finally signed

By MICHELLE FAUL

ABUJA, Nigeria (CP) – The Sudanese government and the main Darfur rebel group signed a peace plan Friday to end the death and destruction in western Sudan after an international diplomatic push led by the United States.

Now the hard part: ensuring pledges to stop the fighting and begin rebuilding translate to an end to Darfur’s suffering. The key may be a robust UN peacekeeping force, which Sudan’s government has indicated it is willing to accept.

Two rebel groups, however, rejected the accord backed by the African Union, Britain, Canada, the United States, the European Union and the Arab League.

The dissenting rebels skipped the signing ceremony at a Nigerian presidential villa. Optimism over the deal was muted by their absence and a history of failure to live up to agreements struck over two years of negotiations in the Nigerian capital.  […]

And the OpinionJournal.com further solidifies the needed doubt in its editorial this morning:

[…] It sounds promising, and if it sticks it will be a diplomatic triumph for the Bush Administration, which has so far provided $1 billion in humanitarian aid to the region and which sent Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick to help arrange the deal.

But we have seen Sudanese governments violate too many previous agreements to place too much stock in this one. Between 1983 and 2005, Khartoum killed as many as two million people (and enslaved hundreds of thousands) in its war against the black Christians of southern Sudan. That war itself began when Khartoum violated the 1972 Addis Ababa Accords, which had ended a previous civil war, in a bid to Islamicize the south.

And it ends with a piquant and astute advisory:

This leaves the United States, the only country in the world with the capability and, potentially, the will to aid Darfuris and every other group threatened with genocide or brutal oppression. President Bush has certainly been engaged with the crisis in Darfur, more so than any of his alleged moral betters in places such as France and Sweden. Yet having endured so much opprobrium and resistance to his last two acts of international hygiene—the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq—it’s no wonder he’s reluctant to carry another burden, particularly when American interests are not directly at stake.

There’s a lesson here for all of those liberal internationalists who now demand the Administration “do something” in Darfur: If you want to stop genocide, don’t shackle the world’s only policeman.

Read the whole OpinionJournal piece in 90 seconds

Joel Johannesen
Follow Joel
Latest posts by Joel Johannesen (see all)

You can use this form to give feedback to the editor. Say nice things or say hello. Or criticize if you must. 

    Your Name (required)

    Your Email (required)

    Your Message

    Do you Have a File to Send?

    If so, choose it below

    This is just a question to make sure you're not a robot:

    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

    — Normally this would be an ad. It's a doggy. —spot_img