Sudan

Observer the only problem with the good old US of A "doing something" about it is that their intervention if it comes will follow the usual gun-ho lines. This is why I would be against America entering Sudan. I, like any decent other, feel deeply for the people of Sudan who are being murdered by their own genocidal government. However Im sceptical, to say the least, at the thought of a US invasion of Sudan. I have two main reasons for this scepticism.

Firstly we have all seen the disastrous after-effects of the US invasion of Iraq. Whether this invasion was right or wrong it does not change the fact that many innocent Iraqi citizens have died either directly or indirectly, as a result of the invasion. The problem here as I see it is that America often underestimate its enemy. Vietnam, Iraq (first gulf war) and Iraq (second gulf war) to name the most infamous examples. They often find themselves in the midst of guerrilla warfare and as a result things get very messy and instead of the fatalities consisting solely of soldiers (which in itself is not a good thing) it is largely the civilian populations of the towns and cities where the skirmishes take place that suffer. As a general rule of thumb it does not show good tactical planning when many of the people you are trying to liberate are killed in the crossfire.

The second reason is quite simply that it is not up to America to decide who or when to invade. They may be one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful, countries in the world but at the end of the day they are still just one country and no country has the automatic right to invade whoever they like. If they had then Israel could justify invading Palestine, Iraq could justify invading Kuwait, and so on and so on... These decisions should be made by the UN and if it is decided that Sudan should be invaded then it should be planned and carried out according to their guidelines.

Anyway whether America should or should not invade Sudan is most probably irrelevant as it is very unlikely, in my humble opinion, that America will invade Sudan as there would be no economic benefits attached to such an invasion !!!
 
Prometheus 2 i hear and feel your points, Iraq has caused utter chaos in the middle east region, severe casualties and untold devastation to hundreds of thousands of people.. unfortunately Iraq is in danger of becoming the next Vietnam
and the whole war is turning into a real nightmare,
But when you talk of the death and carnage Iraq, what about the death and carnage of down town Manhattan...when scum from that region flew two aircraft loaded with innocent passengers into a office block full of innocent working people.
Why is this never mentioned anymore by all you anti American
posters out there.
What about the Balkans, Sierra Leone , Liberia ,Rwanda etc where it was up to the US and Brits to send troops in... why cause as usual other countries didn't bother their Ass in fear of damaging public relations and worrying that terrorists might target them next.
The Americans are far from angels and do act a lot off their own interest's and steam but clearly when the UN and the nations of this world needs troops to support their campaign ..why then is it the US are not frowned upon..
Don't forget how many where killed in the Balkans by Milosovic and Co, in Rwanda over a million died, 300,000 in Liberia and Sierra Leone.. so why is it none of you felt any pitty for the leaders of those countries... when Saddam clearly was worse.
I am sick of the double standards you all show..
 
Piggy, if you think Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 then you surprise me... if you think he was not harbouring these scum then you need to take a long hard look at yourself, i you think alomost ever Arab nation is that region is not finacailly backing these scum then you honestly see the world through tinted glasses.

Eh...can you provide one shred of evidence to back that theory up? International belief would seem to suggest differently. Maybe I surprise you owensy but I'm fascinated at discovering the links between 911 and Iraq.

That reference to every nation in the region financially backing terrorism would suggest that you hold personal prejudices towards all Middle Eastern countries based on little or no evidence.

At the end of the day owensy you need to do your own research into these issues to be honest. Perhaps you have an interest in these types of affairs. I don't know. But your grasp of the facts (nothing whatsoever to do with your opinion of them) is pretty flimsy. It's all out there if you look for it. I'm growing tired of making the same points time and time again on these subjects.
 
But when you talk of the death and carnage Iraq, what about the death and carnage of down town Manhattan...when scum from that region flew two aircraft loaded with innocent passengers into a office block full of innocent working people.
Click to expand...

By that reckoning, if the hijackers were Irish, then America would be justified in attacking us. Or even worse, if they were English, they could still attack us (as the attackers were Saudis).
As much as the American administration would like there to be links between Iraq and Sep 11, the commission investigating it last week said there was NONE!

As for Sudan, why should America have to go in alone. Maybe if they got rid of that stupid veto system in the Security Council, they could get a coallition together to solve the problem.
I feel that since the invasion of Iraq, the UN is a lot weaker, and problems like this are harder to solve.
 
Sudan and the UN

I have to agree with macefaces last posting.
As I have said before, the neoconservatives in the US are now pushing the US into filling the role of international policeman that the UN should fill.
I also agree with Observer's post about a European army;
until we can offer an alternative to American intervention our voices will ring hollow.
Attacks by pastoral nomads on farmers during times of drought have gone on for hundreds, if not thousands, of years in sub Sahara Africa. The difference here is that the government of a country is using this fact to maintain control by arming the nomads to weaken potential trouble makers.
This will not be described as genocide by any international leaders since nearly all of them have signed the Genocide convention (1948 ) which obliges all signatories to intervene using any and all means necessary to stop genocide with or without a UN mandate.
 
Re.Re.Sudan and the UN

If the aid is given to the people who need it there is no problem however in the case of Sudan the central government would have to distribute the aid the they are the ones who have caused and sustained the problem. Giving them a few hundred million in aid would not help those going hungry, it would just feed the governments forces.
The US is right in this one; the only solution is to force the government to stop arming the nomads.
Aid given at this point would not help the situation.
 
Re: Re.Re.Sudan and the UN

You may be right purple. But is the aid money given to the Sudanese government, or to aid organisations directly?

Are the US proposed sanctions the way forward too? What will the sanctions consist of? It'll depend largely on how they impose them as to whether they'll stop the massacre.
 
aid

The aid organisations, both UN and NGO's would need protection from attack. This protection would take the form of most of the aid going to the army as bribes and payment in kind before the meager remains would get to the people who need it.
That's why the Americans went in in the "black hawk down" incident, it was to stop the war lords from robbing most of the aid. They went a bit overboard when things went pear shaped for them but their motives were good.
I agree that the sanctions must take the right form but at the end of the day the people who are suffering now get nothing from the government anyway...
 
Re: aid

If sanctions are to have any immediate and dramatic effect on the government they would need to target oil, as it accounts for 73% of Sudan's exports.
www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/sudan.html

I don't know whether or not sanctions are the right road to take...but I know that this (oil sanctions) has been talked about as the only solution that would get things to change in the immediate future.
The political route that is being taken at present is the right route (albeit futile). In an ideal world the Sudanese government would be given a short period of time (less than 30 days) to comply with the UN before UN peacekeepers were sent in (to protect those in harms way only) while more political solutions were sought...long term targets being met over time.
 
Intervening in Sudan

Some people ask why no demonstrations against the Sudanese government: the millions who demonstrated against the invasion of Iraq did not stop that invasion. Still, when people march the streets in democratic countries they expect to have some impact on their own governments, and that is what they were doing in 2003. Sudan is not the only serious situation at the moment. We ignore the Congo all the time, and the elected leader of Burma is still imprisoned by the generals.

What we need is a strong international organisation with the power to intervene to protect life and democracy. This is what the UN was supposed to be, but the old and new imperial powers have a veto on action, and a vested interest in keeping the greatest military power to themselves.
Instead of a European Army, which would of course serve EU interests exclusively, we need a standing force under UN command with enough resources to intimidate, and intervene forcefully against, governments or warlords such as those of Sudan and Burma.

But while the most powerful members of the UN are the major manufacturers and exporters of arms, [US, UK, China, France, Russia] and their international policies are aimed at securing markets for those arms, and cheap supplies of oil and other raw materials the organisation will not have the resources or the moral power needed to act effectively in Sudan or elsewhere.

Dirmarmament used to be on the agenda but is now forgotten. The terrible crises in Africa do not hurt us in our pockets at the moment and so they are ignored. In the medium term of course, we will pay.
 
Re.Intervening in Sudan

Sudan is not the only serious situation at the moment. We ignore the Congo all the time, and the elected leader of Burma is still imprisoned by the generals.
Click to expand...
And the list goes on. We live in a country who's economy depends on the international status quo being maintained.
What we need is a strong international organisation with the power to intervene to protect life and democracy. This is what the UN was supposed to be, but the old and new imperial powers have a veto on action, and a vested interest in keeping the greatest military power to themselves.
Instead of a European Army, which would of course serve EU interests exclusively, we need a standing force under UN command with enough resources to intimidate, and intervene forcefully against, governments or warlords such as those of Sudan and Burma.
Click to expand...
He who pays the piper calls the tune...
But while the most powerful members of the UN are the major manufacturers and exporters of arms, [US, UK, China, France, Russia] and their international policies are aimed at securing markets for those arms
Click to expand...
Jacquie Shirac's (spelling?) son is one of the biggest arms dealers in Europe (see my posts on the UN).
The terrible crises in Africa do not hurt us in our pockets at the moment and so they are ignored
Click to expand...
Liz O'Donnell had to threaten to resign to keep the overseas development aid budget intact when it was her brief. As far as I know since she has left that job the budget has been cut.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top