Sudan Crisis

[bonko the sane 2]

Quote[/b] ]I'd like to see China get involved with boots on the ground. No, really - I mean it. They want to be a superpower and this is the perfect opportunity for them to get their feet wet in the international scene.

China in Africa....WTF

The US cannot allow China to become a real superpower. I call for the arab countries to help....nm

Edit: Oh crap, sorry....

China doesnt need anyone to allow them to do anything, trust me on this one.

In 50 years time, they WILL BE the superpower on earth, at least thats how i see it.

The problem with Sudan is that:

1-Its not in\near Europe (to those that mentioned the Balkans)

2-Its in the interest of extremely wealthy and influential arabic neighbours that no international action takes place.

3-Has no resources and its about the dead end of the world

4-As already stated...its Africa

Its a mindless tribal\ ethnical war between ruling muslims and unorganized christian\animistic sheperds that noone cares about  

edit: btw, interestingly enough China is by far their biggest export target.

from CIA fact book:

Exports - partners:

China 53.3%, Japan 13.4%, South Africa 4.9%, Saudi Arabia 4.7%

[ran 0]

Quote[/b] ]If you knew me you would know why I am losing my temper, I've stuck my nose in the human mud (made of people's distress, ethnical hate, horrifying poverty, growing pademias, illeducation and putrifying bodies, no racial insinuations there) Africa is.

I will not tolerate somebody who has never crossed the line which separates your warm living room from the rotting heat of such a shithole to say anything like that. I've served under my country's flag and done my share which often consisted in the sighting rotten human limbs laying accross a fucking road or unidentified bodies waiting in a mass grave as a result of human idiocy and hipocrisy and helplessness from our side.

Reducing this goddamned mess as a simple political game is lame, plain lame.

I could type even more, but you're not worth it and I don't feel like wasting my time today.

Interesting, I was the one who turned it in to a simple political game by saying "Call France...America is busy.....". It seems only denoir got it because he reply France is busy too.

Yes we are busy.

[reconmercs 0]

Well, I will say this for France, atleast they TRY in Africa...France has been involved in trying to keep the continent of Africa from killing off itself for as long as history has been recorded.  The sad truth is because America has nothing invested in Africa so the politicans couldn't care less about genocide of a couple thousand black people period(Its sad but the truth.  Honestly could us Americans really sit here and say we would support going into Sudan militarily...for one we ain't got any more troops to go in there, second this nation is still trippin over Somalia.  Remember all the craziness that was on the news when the Marines went into Liberia a couple months back? Tears of the Sun had a very important quote at the end "the only thing needed for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing"  Sadly, we don't have a good man in the White House right now and I honestly don't know if Kerry would put boots on the ground either..this nation seems to only care when their own wants and desires are in danger or there is a Haliburton contract up for grabs...

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Well, I will say this for France, atleast they TRY in Africa...France has been involved in trying to keep the continent of Africa from killing off itself for as long as history has been recorded. The sad truth is because America has nothing invested in Africa so the politicans couldn't care less about genocide of a couple thousand black people period(Its sad but the truth. Honestly could us Americans really sit here and say we would support going into Sudan militarily...for one we ain't got any more troops to go in there, second this nation is still trippin over Somalia. Remember all the craziness that was on the news when the Marines went into Liberia a couple months back? Tears of the Sun had a very important quote at the end "the only thing needed for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing" Sadly, we don't have a good man in the White House right now and I honestly don't know if Kerry would put boots on the ground either..this nation seems to only care when their own wants and desires are in danger or there is a Haliburton contract up for grabs...

Polls taken after the mog incident reported a majority still supported staying in Somalia but Clinton pull them out. Blame Clinton not Bush.

[reconmercs 0]

Quote[/b] ]Well, I will say this for France, atleast they TRY in Africa...France has been involved in trying to keep the continent of Africa from killing off itself for as long as history has been recorded.  The sad truth is because America has nothing invested in Africa so the politicans couldn't care less about genocide of a couple thousand black people period(Its sad but the truth.  Honestly could us Americans really sit here and say we would support going into Sudan militarily...for one we ain't got any more troops to go in there, second this nation is still trippin over Somalia.  Remember all the craziness that was on the news when the Marines went into Liberia a couple months back? Tears of the Sun had a very important quote at the end "the only thing needed for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing"  Sadly, we don't have a good man in the White House right now and I honestly don't know if Kerry would put boots on the ground either..this nation seems to only care when their own wants and desires are in danger or there is a Haliburton contract up for grabs...

Polls taken after the mog incident reported a majority still supported staying in Somalia but Clinton pull them out. Blame Clinton not Bush.

Yeah, and I don't see Bush either offering a helping hand to the victims in Sudan...

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Yeah, and I don't see Bush either offering a helping hand to the victims in Sudan...

He tried to help in Haiti and Liberia. It is not like he sitting on his ass.

[reconmercs 0]

Quote[/b] ]Yeah, and I don't see Bush either offering a helping hand to the victims in Sudan...

He tried to help in Haiti and Liberia. It is not like he sitting on his ass.

No thas exactly what he's been doing unless it has something to do with getting revenge on Saddam for attacking the smarter Bush( Bush Sr.) he ain't interested..he just goes on talking his bullshit about being resolute(how many times is he gonna use that phrase by the way) and screwing up the economy.."sitting on his ass"..that should be Kerry's election slogan..."While I was out fighting for my country..earning medals, Bush was at home "SITTING ON HIS ASS" playing air force"" and lets not even get started with Cheney....

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]No thas exactly what he's been doing unless it has something to do with getting revenge on Saddam for attacking the smarter Bush( Bush Sr.) he ain't interested..he just goes on talking his bullshit about being resolute(how many times is he gonna use that phrase by the way) and screwing up the economy.."sitting on his ass"..that should be Kerry's election slogan..."While I was out fighting for my country..earning medals, Bush was at home "SITTING ON HIS ASS" playing air force"" and lets not even get started with Cheney....

/off-topic

Then why did he sent those troops to them countries?

Hey, the economy is improving.....  

[ralphwiggum 6]

Polls taken after the mog incident reported a majority still supported staying in Somalia but Clinton pull them out. Blame Clinton not Bush.

i think you should say that to some people who criticize Clinton for pulling out.

[reconmercs 0]

Hey, the economy is improving.....  

AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAA LOL...for who bro?!  do you have a car? have you seen the gas prices lately..do you have a job...alot of people don't who want one.... You might have not seen it but I voted for this idiot so your gonna have to try alot harder to convince me then the regular ol "bush is great" party line

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]i think you should say that to some people who criticize Clinton for pulling out.

oookkkkkaaayyyy.

[joltan 0]

The sad thing about Sudan is that it's nothing new. The civil war there has been going on for how long? I remember reading news (not in any ways different from what we read now) over ten years ago. But Sudan has nothing in resources that makes it important enough for any european nation or the US to take some action. [sarcasm]After all it's just africans slaugtering each other in the bush... who cares abot them anyways!?[\sarcasm]

France at least tries to keep the peace in his former colonies (Ivory Coast, Congo, etc.). They are about the only western governement that immediately comes to mind when talking about repeated military deployment in Africa for decades. But even they can't be everywhere.

[Grizzlie 0]

Hmm, maybe someone has noticed that "peacekeeping" or "peaceenforcing" operations in form as they r beeing used now r useless. With ROE they have "blue helmets" r living targets for every sides of conflicts and helpless.

Maybe i'm wrong but i do not recall any successfully finished operation like this.

I aggree with joltan. I'm not French fan, but even i have noticed that France r trying to do more than yelling "let someone do something with this".

And i do not understand one thing. Why always US?

Isn't it comfortable for other countries? Why not UN? Isn't it made for situations like this too?

[Longinius 1]

Quote[/b] ]Hmm, maybe someone has noticed that "peacekeeping" or "peaceenforcing" operations in form as they r beeing used now r useless. With ROE they have "blue helmets" r living targets for every sides of conflicts and helpless.

Maybe i'm wrong but i do not recall any successfully finished operation like this.

True, however things have changed. Two friends of mine are leaving with a Swedish contingent for Liberia in a couple of months. They are not going to just keep the peace, but enforce / create it. According to what they have been told, they have a much more realistic mandate in forcing combatants into peace, instead of just keeping whatever peace might appear after one side whiped out the other.

If this works out in reality remains to be seen. They are quite happy about going in as "fredsframtvingande" (peace makers) instead of "fredsbevarande" (peace keepers) however.

[bonko the sane 2]

Hmm, maybe someone has noticed that "peacekeeping" or "peaceenforcing" operations in form as they r beeing used now r useless. With ROE they have "blue helmets" r living targets for every sides of conflicts and helpless.

Maybe i'm wrong but i do not recall any successfully finished operation like this.

I aggree with joltan. I'm not French fan, but even i have noticed that France r trying to do more than yelling "let someone do something with this".

And i do not understand one thing. Why always US?

Isn't it comfortable for other countries? Why not UN? Isn't it made for situations like this too?

East Timor is the exception methinks, UN presence there solved the situation.

They will be a stable and wealthy island if they get their act together and dont sell out to Australia's Corporations.

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

Hands up who thinks the UN is inept

/raises hand

I really want the UN to do something and i really want it to be something important but c'mon who didn't see this comming

[ozanzac 0]

East Timor is the exception methinks, UN presence there solved the situation.

They will be a stable and wealthy island if they get their act together and dont sell out to Australia's Corporations.

East Timor was a sucess story because it was in Australia's interest that stability be established as soon as possible after the vote for independence had been carried out.

As much as I hate to say it. We've had a sizable chunk of the Timor Oil Fields under our wings since 1972, been shared with Indonesia since 1989 and with the current arrangements, Australia shares it with East Timor, but the oilfields of greater capacity are excluded from the Joint Petrolium Development Area, and the current Australian government has been (and will continue to be) reluctant to let it go, even though they need it a hell of a lot more than we do in order to get themselves out of the financial rutt that they're in.

I don't agree with it, as East Timor could reap greater benefits had it been left alone in order to let themselves develop it in due time. But at least they're gaining some cashflow (Now) from it. But that oil shelf was what made stability in the region important, and without it, I don't know what our reaction to the East Timor Crisis would have been. The greatest difference between the East Timor crisis and the current Sudan crisis is that there was money to be made in East Timor. Sudan does not have that appeal.

Other than that (the oil shelf). They'res not alot our companies would exploit East Timor for. I think we're establishing basic services, in conjunction with the Portuguese, and that's about it.

[theavonlady 2]

Hands up who thinks the UN is inept

/raises hand

I really want the UN to do something and i really want it to be something important but c'mon who didn't see this comming  

Quote[/b] ]Annan: Int'l Intervention in Sudan Possible

Thursday, June 17, 2004

UNITED NATIONS — Secretary-General Kofi Annan raised the possibility Thursday of international intervention to protect more than 1 million people threatened by fighting in the Darfur region of western Sudan.

The Sudanese government is responsible for safeguarding civilians in Darfur, Annan said, but it may need help from the international community.

"And the Sudanese government should be willing to accept that assistance," Annan said.

Fighting between Arab militias, believed to be backed by the government, and the black African population has killed thousands of people and forced more than 1 million to flee their homes.

The Sudanese government has denied backing the militias, known as the Janjaweed, blaming the trouble in Darfur on rebels and criminal gangs.

Annan said he wasn't ready to describe the situation in Darfur "as genocide or ethnic cleansing yet" but he did call it "a tragic humanitarian situation."

Last week, the Security Council adopted a resolution giving the United Nations a green light to start planning for a U.N. peacekeeping mission in Sudan.

At the moment, the peacekeepers are supposed to monitor an agreement, expected to be finalized shortly, that will formally end a 21-year civil war in southern Sudan, but their mission could be expanded to Darfur with council agreement.

[denoir 0]

I really want the UN to do something and i really want it to be something important but c'mon who didn't see this comming  

It won't. The UN does not have any military power of its own and it can't force anybody to submit troops. Right now nobody is interested in Sudan. The US is tied up in Iraq and has really no interest in such an enterprise. Even if they wanted to, they wouldn't have the man power.

The EU has troops in Congo, Afghanistan, Ethiopia and Eritrea, Western Sahara, Rwanda, (A bunch of other African countries), Bosnia and Kosovo. Overall under UN and NATO command there are more European troops in peace keeping services than there are Americans in Iraq. As the by far largest contributor of troops and money, Europe thinks it does more than enough. There is no interest and probably not enough resources to make a major troop commitment to Sudan.

We're talking peace keeping here, a long, expensive process. It's not just 'drop bombs and go home'. It's a mess that will take years, if not decades to fix.

And without America and Europe nobody else in the world is willing or able to take the military or political initiative for an intervention.

Just like in Rwanda it is much easier to look the other way and pretend that it's raining. And all the UN can do is in vain try to beg to get troops - which they also know won't happen. Bottom line is that it's not UN's fault. It's the fault of the UN members who do not wish to get their hands dirty in yet another African conflict.

And this will happen again in the future. The only solution that I see is to make a permanent UN force that is fully under UN and not national command. But that won't happen anytime this century.

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

And this will happen again in the future. The only solution that I see is to make a permanent UN force that is fully under UN and not national command. But that won't happen anytime this century.

UNATCO or GDI

but yea okay but does the worlds Military Troops revolve around the US and the EU, what about China, Australia, Japan, S Korea (highly unlikely), India, Pakistan, Canada etc etc the world should not rely on the US or the EU.

[cozza 24]

when this reading this thread i really was thinks Australia might sends troops in a UN operation but we got operations going on. Somoman's, timor and iraq. thats basicly the big 3

[ozanzac 0]

Those operations aren't all that taxing though, even by our meagre forty-odd thousand defence personnel numbers.

It's possible to send a majority of reserves to Timor and the Solomons on a rotational basis. Besides, They aren't exactly hotspots anymore, and as for Iraq....The contingent that's there is for consular security and a few Air Traffic Controllers. A token 'force' really.

We have the ability to deploy a sizeable peacekeeping force if the question comes. There's no doubt about that. As for the logistics to support the multiple operations. In that respect, we'd probably need some help. But if there's a UN response, that shouldn't be a problem.

[cozza 24]

well i learned somethin today. I join the army in two years. I just need to get out of High school

[Balschoiw 0]

Who says that blue helmets only do strict ROE missions ?

That´s nonsense. The problem about Sudan is that the government itself carries out most of the attacks on ground and from air. They are supported by muslim militias who conduct operations of ethnic cleansing.

The UN itself has little chance to pacify the region. Latest estimations would require a troop strength of at least 40,000 to 70, 000 troops to permanently pacify (that means toppling the regime) the region. A number that can be hardly staged right now. India and Pakistan are still on the african continent conducting several UN missions so they drop through the roster. The only thing that can be done right now is to create safe guarded refugee-camps with UN´s help. That is done right now. The UNHR , WFP , IRCC and other NGO´s are already trying to deal with it.

What worries me is that the rain - period is just beginning wich will make support for camps very hard. 70 percent of the "roads" will be closed then. Food and medicine and the things to keep up structured life in the camps has to be taken in on the airway. Right now there are not enough capacities for this.

And for billybob who thought that US was aiding in Liberia. They did not. There was a discussion about it and the US had forces offshore but they did not participate in any mission on grounds others than protecting and evacuating US citizens.

What is needed in Sudan is a diplomatic solution. Cut of the regime, cut it of money, cut it of financial support mostly coming from the SA region and then force the government back in it´s shoes. A military solution right now would be no solution as there is noone who could form a longterm presence there right now. A violent oppression of the conflict will not solve it but only delay it.

That´s the lesson the US had to learn from Somalia.

The exaggerate use of force in Somalia by US troops escalated the situation not the serious efforts to get Aidid out of power.

Today Aidid´s son took over the boat, a guy who studied in the US and he does exactly what his father did.

[BoweryBaker 0]

Thats just like the idea of a war on terror and not assaulting the kkk.