Sudan Crisis

[ran 0]

Quote[/b] ]The only way for these countries to stand up again is to learn some kind of self-leadership and self-assurance.

Also the African Union is a good step in the right direction. African countries are NOT totally helpless, but I think this conflict is a bit too much to handle. And that the Western governments should interfere.

Yes, we should interfere, but they should move their ass too, it's their fucking backyard, not ours. It's too easy to throw all the responsability on the western government, sure we have done our share to make the situation in this region of the world what it is today, but we're not the one feeling the urge do dismember eachothers with machettes

[ran 0]

I think the only reason that western countries wait to interfere is that the majority of the people who are living in Sudan are Muslim. If you overtrow the regime Muslims (extremists) will see this as an attack on the Muslim world. This will lead to more tensions between Muslims and Western people.

And a second Iraq is born

This is another problem, but we can't let this go on.

[Ironsight 1]

I think the only reason that western countries wait to interfere is that the majority of the people who are living in Sudan are Muslim. If you overtrow the regime Muslims (extremists) will see this as an attack on the Muslim world. This will lead to more tensions between Muslims and Western people.

And a second Iraq is born

This is another problem, but we can't let this go on.

That's the dillemma that western countries are standing for. Getting harmless people murdered or getting hated even more by extremists/Muslims.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Quote[/b] ]The only countries who are responsible for what happens in Africa are the former colonial powers -> England, France, Germany and Italy.

Huh ? What rock are you living under ?

You may want to check the nationalities of the companies nowadays that exploit africa. It´s a worldwide cake.

But when these countries left Africa they left an instable country with a weak and unstable government wich is part of the problems in Africa.

This conflict is about belief and religion and supported by the government, isn't it the fault of the countries who left Africa, (and who actually put the government there) that they left the country with so many problems?

And now you have modern imperialism by compagnies instead of countries. Wich obviously plays a big role in the problems too.

Sorry buddy, but colonies were rarely left in a bad state. The truth is much more concerning, the earlier the independance was given to those nations the worse they look now.

Sure, most colonial powers enforced their ways of runing things on these mostly stone-age cultures. Unfortunately they never had the time to find their own way to the industrialisation age.

But Zimbawe and Co. are perfect examples of what happens once you return souvereignity to them.

European nations are to blame that the eco-system was disturbed ... but they cant be blamed for the current situation.

This cultural diffusion has led to the fact that tribal wars are suddenly fought with AKs and this lack of peace and security is the main reason of poverty.

(can you please explain to me why former german colonies now look so bad? In what extent?)

[Ironsight 1]

Sure, most colonial powers enforced their ways of runing things on these mostly stone-age cultures. Unfortunately they never had the time to find their own way to the industrialisation age.

But Zimbawe and Co. are perfect examples of what happens once you return souvereignity to them.

European nations are to blame that the eco-system was disturbed ... but they cant be blamed for the current situation.

This cultural diffusion has led to the fact that tribal wars are suddenly fought with AKs and this lack of peace and security is the main reason of poverty.

But if Africa wasn't colonised at all, Africa would be better off.

African countries weren't left in bad shape?

If you look at the map of Africa and see how Africa is divided, you can see the western countries didn't care. If they would care they had divided it better and they would have looked better at religion and race instead of only the same ammount of land.

This is exactly the problem in Darfur, whole Sudan is Muslim except the region Darfur. If the colonial powers would care about how the land was divided, Darfur would now be part of Chad were the same race of people live.

Quote[/b] ]

(can you please explain to me why former german colonies now look so bad? In what extent?)

I wasn't speaking of any particular country but more in common.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

German colonies such as Neu Guinea, Samoa, Kamerun, Togo, Sansibar (Tansania) and Namibia are now amongst the most stable and organised african states per se. And the transition was carried out peacefully.

Now you can blame germany for a lot of historical misery but colonial wise we have comparably better references. (though there were some bloody times)

Quote[/b] ]But if Africa wasn't colonised at all, Africa would be better off.

African countries weren't left in bad shape?

If you look at the map of Africa and see how Africa is divided, you can see the western countries didn't care. If they would care they had divided it better and they would have looked better at religion and race instead of only the same ammount of land.

This is exactly the problem in Darfur, whole Sudan is Muslim except the region Darfur. If the colonial powers would care about how the land was divided, Darfur would now be part of Chad were the same race of people live.

Better dividing Africa? I have the slight impression that you have never been there. A large extent are normads, wich means they dont care much about borders. Secondly people in africa live where the water is. Thirdly is the cultural seperation of opposing tribes near to impossible. Fourthly is the lack of birth control much more of a problem than allocation of farm-land. Fifth...most of the countries are destroying themselves with corruption.

[Ironsight 1]

Better dividing Africa? I have the slight impression that you have never been there.

True

The problem is that due to colonisation we have stopped a lot of developments in the country itself. We stopped the political and social evolution or we showed them the wrong way to solve problems. If during the colonial period we showed that you can solve a lot of things with diplomacy and teached people that technology is important. Instead of making wars, using people as slaves and don't give them any kind of education. A lot of problems would have been solved.

Off course there are always other problems that lie deeper. But a lot of it is caused by the colonial period.

But back on topic: The problem in Darfur:

If Darfur would be a part of Chad now, there woulden't be a war between Muslims and locals.

[hellfish6 7]

German colonies such as Neu Guinea, Samoa, Kamerun, Togo, Sansibar (Tansania) and Namibia are now amongst the most stable and organised african states per se. And the transition was carried out peacefully.

Now you can blame germany for a lot of historical misery but colonial wise we have comparably better references. (though there were some bloody times)

[imghttp://www.traditionsverband.de/grafik/marsch.jpg[/img]

Quote[/b] ]But if Africa wasn't colonised at all, Africa would be better off.

African countries weren't left in bad shape?

If you look at the map of Africa and see how Africa is divided, you can see the western countries didn't care. If they would care they had divided it better and they would have looked better at religion and race instead of only the same ammount of land.

This is exactly the problem in Darfur, whole Sudan is Muslim except the region Darfur. If the colonial powers would care about how the land was divided, Darfur would now be part of Chad were the same race of people live.

Better dividing Africa? I have the slight impression that you have never been there. A large extent are normads, wich means they dont care much about borders. Secondly people in africa live where the water is. Thirdly is the cultural seperation of opposing tribes near to impossible. Fourthly is the lack of birth control much more of a problem than allocation of farm-land.  Fifth...most of the countries are destroying themselves with corruption.

I would argue that Namibia is much more a former South African colony instead of a German colony - I believe South Africa controlled it for longer than the Germans did. Tanzania also had some difficult times, and still does, but by comparison with its neighbors it is doing rather well now. Samoa and New Guinea, though, were not African colonies.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

true true.. I was counting up colonies in general. Tried to show off a little by surprising you all "yes we had colonies.. and not too few".

Kamerun was governed by germany for over 30 years. The administrational structures as well as the infrastructure was built by germany, South Africa got Kamerun through the Versaille Treaty and that is about it, AND they screwed it up pretty badly untill 1966.

Now we still got Helgoland left!

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]If Darfur would be a part of Chad now, there woulden't be a war between Muslims and locals.

It is not Muslims vs. local, but Muslims (arab) vs. majority Muslim group with other religious groups/tribal things(africans).

/off-topic

Darfur region was a majority hub were black africans were sold into slavery by arabs to the arab countries.

[hellfish6 7]

Kamerun/Cameroon is doing pretty well lately. It's been some time since they've had a coup or uprising, at least.

My primary concern about intervention in Darfur is that we'd essentially be involving ourselves in a civil war, which is one of the most dangerous possible situations to put your troops into. We might stop the fighting for a little while, but how long will European or American troops have to remain there to stop the fighting entirely? Should we just work to create an independent Darfurese republic? Should they seceede on their own like Eritrea did?

[Chill 0]

2 ways we can get help there:

1: Lets send a rumour that there is WMD there

2: Lets tell the USA theres alot of oil there.

[ralphwiggum 6]

2 ways we can get help there:

1: Lets send a rumour that there is WMD there

2: Lets tell the USA theres alot of oil there.

2 ways to get warning

1. spam the thread

2. try to drive OT with flamebaiting.

[denoir 0]

France deploys troops to Sudan border [bBC]

Quote[/b] ]

France is deploying 200 soldiers to help secure Chad's eastern border with Sudan's conflict-torn Darfur region.

The French Ambassador to Chad, Jean Pierre Bercot, said the troops would also bring humanitarian aid to tens of thousands of Darfur refugees in Chad.

Sudan-backed Arab militias has driven about a million civilians from their homes and mounted raids inside Chad.

Sudan said that despite reservations it would comply with a UN resolution ordering it to rein in the militias. Sudanese Foreign Minister Dr Mustapha Osman Ismail said government's Council of Ministers' would take a final decision at a meeting on Sunday.

Up to 50,000 people have died since the conflict began in early 2003. The Janjaweed, the main Arab militia group allied with the government, has been blamed for mass rapes, killings and burning of villages in Darfur.

'Securing border'

France has about 1,000 troops in Chad, who until now have been helping to promote stability and train Chadian forces for peacekeeping duties. Ambassador Bercot told the BBC from Chad's capital, N'Djamena, that 200 French soldiers would now be deployed to Chad's eastern frontier with Sudan to help the aid effort and watch out for possible incursions.

"The French government and President Chirac wanted our troops here in Chad to assist the African Union in its observation role, as well as in securing the area on the Chadian side of the border," he said.

Mr Bercot said that for the time being the French contingent was to remain inside Chad after he was asked if the troops would engage with the Janjaweed if the militias crossed the border.

He stressed that the French troops would work alongside Chadian forces "with the complete authority and co-operation" of the government in N'Djamena. Given that the frontier stretches through 1,200 kilometres (745 miles) of inhospitable terrain, this could be no more than a token presence, the BBC's Africa editor, Grant Ferrett, reports.

Nevertheless, the French military presence adds to the impression that the rest of the world is becoming more willing to take action over Darfur, our editor adds.

Aid agencies in Chad who have been struggling to help some 180,000 Sudanese refugees have welcomed the French move to use its military might to help supply the refugee camps. A French military cargo plane with humanitarian aid had already left for eastern Chad.

Earlier promises

The US-drafted resolution demands that Sudan to make good on promises it made on 3 July to rein in the fighters. It calls for UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to issue a report in 30 days on the progress made in each of those areas.

The resolution was only adopted after the US dropped the word "sanctions" and added economic and diplomatic "measures". Sudan's UN ambassador Elfatih Erwa, and its ambassador to the African Union, Osman al-Said, separately said Khartoum would comply.

"We are not happy with the resolution, but we are going to implement it - we have no other option," Mr al-Said told reporters in the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa earlier this week.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell said during a visit to the Middle East: "They [The Sudan government] can say whatever they wish to say. The Security Council has spoken (and) in a rather strong vote."

[GoOB 0]

Once again, France to the rescue. This should give the yanks a reason to stop taking shots at the French.

[Balschoiw 0]

While I´m still sitting on my hands hoping that EU or my own government will come up with something soon.

200 is an intitial step but way from being sufficient.

Anyway, thx France. Again, you are the first to come.

Edit: Oh sun is coming out again. Need to improve my ass-bomb skills in the pool. Cu later

[Ironsight 1]

Anyway, thx France. Again, you are the first to come.

Finally, at least some help for the thousands of refugees.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Quote[/b] ]Finally, at least some help for the thousands of refugees.

Aid agencies have been providing help for some time now. As welcome as they are I dont think 200 French troops on the border are going to turn the situation around, in fact they might get a bit tired securing a thousand kilometre border whilst distributing humanitarian aid.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Once again, France to the rescue. This should give the yanks a reason to stop taking shots at the French.

"roll eyes"

[Ironsight 1]

Quote[/b] ]Finally, at least some help for the thousands of refugees.

Aid agencies have been providing help for some time now. As welcome as they are I dont think 200 French troops on the border are going to turn the situation around, in fact they might get a bit tired securing a thousand kilometre border whilst distributing humanitarian aid.

But at least it's some help

[ran 0]

The 200 troops are from a 460 men strong prepositionned contingent in Tchad, those were the only ones available in the shortest delays, other may follow, but the French logistical meens will come in handy to the NGO's and other organisations already on spot. Now it's just a humanitary mission, for the peacemaking and peacekeeping, the international community will have to move its fat ass as we're alreay quite stretched in the region (we've not yet reached the red line and we still have troops deployable in the region, but not enough to carry out any other mission than humanitary support and limited security for the refugees on the border by securing it (200 men might be a bit short to secure the 800km or so of Tchadian borders with the Sudanese Darfur).

[hellfish6 7]

Is it a Foreign Legion unit that's been sent? Does the FFL still send companies to Tchad?

[ran 0]

Is it a Foreign Legion unit that's been sent? Does the FFL still send companies to Tchad?

The men aren't from the French Foreign Legion as far as I know, but I didn't take the time to look into it.

[Balschoiw 0]

The FFL is pretty much stretched thin atm. Haiti, Congo, Afghanistan...

Anyway now that the start has been made it´s time to jump on the wagon and push this through NATO or EU or both. UN takes too long and they are still busy with freaking Bush war.

[Nemesis6 0]

Too bad the U.N. Are only gonna impose 'sanctions' they should replace the government like they're doing in Iraq. A government that supports ethnic-genocide should be removed, right?