[ November 02, 2004, 08:10 AM: Message edited by: Sopwith ]
Posted by Defenestraitor (Member # 6907) on :
I hope that whoever wins today will deal with this crisis as swiftly as possible. It's gone on for too long.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I fear that by the end of this day, it won't matter. I also think that is just what was intended by this move at this time. The Sudanese government knows that on this day, at this time, the US can take no action against them.
Posted by Defenestraitor (Member # 6907) on :
That makes me sad.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Oh no... Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
This is bad. And, unfortunately, not getting as much media attention as it should....as it would on any other day....
FG
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I think the US would be able to handle it pretty easily. Those committing the genocide are small bands of "guerillas" from what I understand and a couple thousand US troops with air support, etc. should be able to dominate.
If we could spare that many.
Posted by Defenestraitor (Member # 6907) on :
I hear France has thousands of idle troops. Wouldn't it be nice to see the step up to the plate?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Never happen. The Muslim outcry in that country would be huge. They are already walking on thin ice with the Hijab banning in public schools.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
It is interesting to note that what is happening in Sudan right now is the modern day equivalent of the "Manifest Destiny" and "American Indians" of 200 to 150 years ago on this continent.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Considering that those opposing us in Iraq (at least, the ones we're actually fighting instead of just letting sit in their cities) are small bands of guerrillas, and we have considerably more troops there, I think you may be underestimating guerrilla fighters.
Or then there were our experiences with guerrillas in Vietnam.
Yeah, guerrillas are real easy to deal with *rolls eyes*.
Most people I know who have been/are in the military tend to speak of guerrilla combat as one of the most effective forms of warfare a small force can engage in (when defending a country, for instance), as all they have to do to win is keep doing it.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:I think the US would be able to handle it pretty easily. Those committing the genocide are small bands of "guerillas" from what I understand and a couple thousand US troops with air support, etc. should be able to dominate.
The thing is that now it isn't guerrillas anymore. It was government-backed guerrillas, but as of this morning it's the Sudanese army. They are putting the official government seal of approval on this and pretty much just thumbing their nose at the rest of the world. "Hey, UN, EU, and US: we don't give a f*#% what you think about the atrocities we've been committing and about to commit even more blatantly. You won't do anything until it's much too late."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
fugu, you're right about the eficacy of guerillas. But, I doubt guerillas can effectively carry out a genocide in the face of occupation by a conventional army.
Guerillas gain their power by having no objective other than the harassment of the occupiers. Having an objective that requires capture of people (and by implication, territory, at least temporarily) makes this a different matter.
Not that the army could stop random killings witness Iraq), but it could likely seriously hinder any genocide efforts.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, certainly.
But the army would have to stay there. Permanently.
And if a side is determined enough to commit genocide, there isn't a timer running. Once the army leaves, they start killing people again.
Suggesting we could take care of the problem with a few thousand troops is arrogant and ludicrous.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
I could be wrong, but didn't the UN tell the Sudanese government to stop committing genocide? Wasn't there a UN resolution?
Hmmm...wonder why the Sudanese government would thumb their nose at a UN resolution?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I think Dag said what I was thinking. I think a well trained/organized US/UN army with Air Support would fare pretty well in defending the Darfur region. Also "pressure" put on the Sudanese government by destroying key military installations in the north, would very much force them to pull their troops back to defend the "Arab" occupied parts of the country.
It reminds me of the first Gulf War as well.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But the army would have to stay there. Permanently.
True. Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Gah, this makes me angry .
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Yeah, but those sanctions won't save anyone's lives in the Darfur region unfortunately. (I wish they did. Look at Iran and the UN lately.)
One thing also to think of is the Slave Trade occurring in Sudan.
Really sad.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Good site with news/photos of what is happening there.
Although the troops deployed are "African only" (Sudan threw a fit when the possibility of "western" troops was brought up) we are transporting them using our Air Force.
Posted by Defenestraitor (Member # 6907) on :
Yes, but Sudan's government hasn't made good on their promise to crack down on the Junjaweed rapists and murderers. If there's any ethnic cleansing going on, the UN has no choice but to respond. Should they leave it up to Nigeria and Rwanda then to police the entire region? How long could they possibly last before calling for reinforcement? Who would they turn to? Sudan simply isn't in a position to make such demands.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Its not particularly like the first gulf war at all. Genocide is a wholly different motivation that economic gain and power. A person is swayed from achieving the second (at least through a particular means) with relative ease, but not the first.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
But FUgu, the reason for the Genocide is not ethnic superiority, its economic. This is a scarce resource (arable land) dipute combined with Rich South/Poor North civil war.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Land can be controlled absent genocide. They've already displaced these people, remember?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I would argue that genocide has been occurring for quite some time. As individuals I would encourage all of you to wear a green ribbon until the crisis/genocide/conflict is over in order to raise awareness.
I still believe that the US is perfectly capable of conducting a Kosovo-like operation and literally bombing the Sudanese government into submission.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Wouldn't you like to find out that overnight, the US government flew in the 82nd Airborne and placed pickets around the refugee camps, but did not announce it so that it wouldn't affect our elections?
It didn't happen, though.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:This is bad. And, unfortunately, not getting as much media attention as it should....as it would on any other day....
It doesn't matter. People are quicker to concern themselves with Scott Peterson. _______________________________________________
If we had a true coalition, including Arab and African countries, the coalition could fix this in a hurry. But there has to be a clear-sighted goal from the beginning to get everyone to rally to the cause.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Yes, but it won't happen due to the "knee jerk" reaction of some to that type of military action.
It is the only way you can deal with this however.
Remember, this is the country that Bill Clinton launched 75 cruise missles at, blowing up a pill factory in retaliation for the 1st World Trade Center bombing, then refused to take OBL when offered by the same Government.
And OBL is considered a "hero" by the local populace to the north. (he adorns more cab/buss windows than any other figure)
They have NO love for the US and will reject any "olive branch" negotiation automatically if it comes from us.
I am with nfl. You insert a couple thousand US troops into the south and demolish the Sudanese Army that is in the south now through aerial bombardment, coupled with a strategic bombing of key military facilities to the north, and you have an immediate withdrawl to the north of their troops to defend against an "Invasion".
You need to put Sudan on the DEFENSIVE instead of the OFFENSIVE which is where they are now.
By the time the UN even reaches the conclusion that there is a "genocide", it will be over.
I'm sick of the "Let's talk about it while the people suffer".
The talking doesn't save their lives.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
The only thing the UN is good for is mediation between two equal powers with rational interests. When a coalition needs building the UN has shown that it is more an obstacle than a stepping stool. Kosovo wasn't even a UN operation, it was NATO. Now NATO doesn't care because Sudan isn't in the North Atlantic or Europe and therefore out of "jurisdiction." In reality Kosovo could even be called a pathetic operation. It is true we lost no lives, but in the meantime while we took our sweet time with aerial bombardment more and more civilians were slaughtered. Clinton was afraid of committing ground troops on a significant level, Bush or Kerry will be unable to. We need to get Sudan's neighbors to realize the harm of thousands of refugees followed by militias poring over their borders will cause to them. Then we need our air force and navy to coordinate with what I assume would the African coalition and forcibly end the genocide. We should also try to get Russia, France, and China to commit troops. They may say no again, but again its not as if we didn't ask. Has anyone else been wondering what our navy has been doing since the initial invasion of Iraq?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Another thing is that a Sudan warning "Strike" could easily be accomplished using the forces already deployed in the Middle East. You send in a "few" bombers and hit key installations then you give them an ultimatum:
All Sudanese Army and Arab Fighters withdraw past ______ point within 72 hours or else this preview of comming attractions becomes the only matinee in town. And believe me, the constant wail of air raid sirens really grates on the nerves.
EDIT: Once they have withdrawn you insert your multinational forces.
[ November 02, 2004, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:You need to put Sudan on the DEFENSIVE instead of the OFFENSIVE which is where they are now.
This is where I just don't know what you are talking about. By "Sudan," who do you mean?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I'm pretty sure that he obviously means the Sudanese forces who are perpetrating the genocide, and yes it is Sudanese that are killing other Sudanese.
[ November 02, 2004, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: newfoundlogic ]
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Bomb a government building a day until it stops.
Or that's what I'd want to do.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
The Darfur tragedy show just how toothless the UN is.
I was struck by the meaning of Janjaweed-- it translates as "a man with a horse and a gun," although it is more usefully translated as "armed men on horse."
Perhaps a more fitting translation would be cowardly pigs on horseback. Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Crap crap crap! Never Again people! We need to get our forces over there now! Not another Rawanda! Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
We definately need to get in there now. Send the planes over and start raining Hell on the north. Move the "front" to the north and the troops will have to follow.
Posted by Traveler (Member # 3615) on :
This will be a good test for our 'moral compass' president. Let's see if he does the right thing.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Ha! That was a joke, right?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Please, had Al Gore won the 2000 election, he wouldn't be doing anything either. If John Kerry had won this election and this happened on his watch, he wouldn't be doing anything. Our inaction isn't a political party issue. It's an American culture issue.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I was discussing this last night and was told, "it's not in our national interests to do anything. Let another country take the lead." Posted by Traveler (Member # 3615) on :
quote: It's an American culture issue
What issue is that exactly? The one where nearly everyone claims to be Christian and moral yet never acts that way?
or the issue in this country where people seem to think that the events that occur outside of this country's borders are not worth noticing or mentioning? The whole not our problem mentality.
Posted by Defenestraitor (Member # 6907) on :
Try the culture of selective moral indignation. Saddam Hussein was obviously so bad we had to depose him. But Sudan: no oil, no strategic foothold in the Middle East, no reason to go. Our fine president's "moral compass" has a pretty thick finger on it, moving the needle where he see fit.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Nope, this is a world-wide cultural phenomenon.
We tied our hands to protect the peace. We pledged to all work together.
It takes us time to all get together and untie each others hands to lend aid and protect innocents.
And it is time that those whose hands were not bound, can put to murderous intent.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Sudan has huge oil reserves in the south, so that argument is faulty at best.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Sudan has no idea how much oil they have. It's too much trouble and expense for us to try and figure it out. Why bother fighting in Africa for an unknown when we can fight in the Middle East for a known?
And I wasn't trying to imply that Bush wouldn't do anything about it because he was Republican. I would have said the exact same thing if Kerry had won. No one in the government gives a crap about what happens in Africa.
Posted by Traveler (Member # 3615) on :
I think we would be fighting in Sudan to save hundreds of thousands of lives...not for oil.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:No one in the government gives a crap about what happens in Africa.
Actually, to be even more accurate, nobody in all of the governments of the whole industrialized world gives a crap about what happens in Africa. Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I do, but I'm not in government.
But I will say this, the election being "over" for lack of a better word, definately bodes well for "Attention" in the media at least to hopefully be turned towards Africa/Sudan/Darfur.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I doubt it... but I suppose you never know.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Traveler, exactly. Unfortunately, people in the government (and, after the election, I suspect a large portion of the population) disagrees.
twinky, too true. Wait till India and China are overtaken with AIDS. Wait, we'll probably consider that a good thing. No more outsourcing jobs to India and a huge security threat out of the way. Or is that fewer jobs to be outsourced because Chinese markets dried up and major instability as panic leads to widespread violence? We are just too short-sighted for our own good.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Sopwith, Yeah, no doubt it's a world-wide cultural problem too. I was just trying to forestall treating it like a political football. Not nearly enough people anywhere care enough about what happens in Sudan to countenance being inconvenienced by it.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I believe that deep down, we all, as citizens of this planet, want to see help come to these people.
But I believe we will be too slow to move.
I hope and pray that I am wrong, though.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
And I believe that the majority of people, deep down, are far too selfish to pay even a small price to prevent the coming atrocities. If there was a way to stop it without people having to in any way be inconvenienced by it, it might happen. Otherwise, I think it's very unlikely.
The potential to care is well within mankind's potential, but far away from it's actuality.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I'm almost afraid to check the news on this today.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: Most people I know who have been/are in the military tend to speak of guerrilla combat as one of the most effective forms of warfare a small force can engage in ...
fugu. At least one military analyst (his name escapes me) says low-intensity conflicts are the only decisive ones in the long term, though many would disagree.
I think the only hope for many of the refugees and others at risk is either relocation or partitioning of Sudan. I also think violence followed by partitioning will become very familiar in the 21st century. . .
[ November 04, 2004, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
The UN is going to be the stumbling block in this instead of actually helping.
On the bright side, in a MONTH they are actually going to Kenya I think it is, and going to talk some more.
That's going to save innocent lives.
The UN reminds me of "Monty Python's Life of Brian"
quote: Door [Sound of Opening]
Judith They've arrested Brian!
All What? What?
Judith They dragged him off! They're gonna crucify him!
Reg Right! This calls for immediate discussion!
Judith What?
Sibling Immediate!
Sibling II Right!
Loretta New motion?
Reg Completely new motion! Uh, that, uh, that there be, uh, immediate action...
Francis ...uh, once the vote has been taken.
Reg Well, obviously once the vote has been taken resolution the oh -- -- resolution!
Judith Reg, let's go now, please!
Reg Right, right!In the - in the light of fresh information from sibling Judith...
Loretta Ehm...not so fast, Reg.
Judith Reg, for God's sake! It's perfectly simple! All you've gotta do is to go out of that door now and try to stop the
Romans nailing him up! It's happening, Reg! Something's actually happening, Reg! Can't you understand? Oooh!
Door [Sound of Closing]
Reg Yeah, hello. Another little ego trip from the feminists...
Rogers Hrm.
Loretta What?
Francis [Whistle]
Reg Oh, sorry, Loretta. Uh, read that back, would, you?
That's funny, this is not. Basically they sit and talk about how they are going to act for so long to stop the crucifixion, he's already crucified by the time they do act.
It may be inappropriate to use in a thread this serious and for that I apologize, but it sums up my feelings about the "ineptitude" of the UN in actually addressing swiftly moving issues and problems.
BUSH be a man and send some troops and aerial support over there now and make change start to happen.
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
This looks good on the surface, but I have little faith in it:
Maybe, just maybe, those folks will have a chance now.
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
It's about to get worse.
The UN is pulling their people out of some areas because of government interference. There are also worries about the safety of the UN aid workers.
So the monitors will be leaving. Who will sweep in to fill the vacuum? Probably the militias that have been attempting to eradicate the refugees.
Why didn't the UN just send peacekeepers in to protect their workers and cordon off safe areas for the refugees?
How can Kofi Annan just sit back and lightly consider this crisis? If no one acts soon, then 10 years from now we won't be talking about the genocide in Rwanda when we need an example of fiddling while Rome burns. Darfur will be what we speak of and feel ashamed about.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
.
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)