posted
It says we are imposing sanctions. Isn't that what everyone in hindsight says we should have done to effect change in Iraq?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
This is why I lack faith in the UN and why I didn't really care when the UN did not support going into Iraq. There were many other much better reasons to care about whether or not to go into Iraq.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Genocide is a completly different beast. There is only a small window of opportunity to actually do something. This is it and it's closing fast. 50,000 are already dead and 1.2 million are at risk of dying by the end of the year. Comparisons to Iraq are absurd. Kerry has the right idea of what to do. Apparently, he learned the lessons from Rawanda. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/03/politics/campaign/03sudan.htmlPosts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Be careful because now UNICEF will blame the US for every death that occurs in Sudan after the sanctions take effect.
And what does Kerry want to do? Is he willing to committ American soldiers? What if "occupying" Sudan becomes necessary, is he willing to let it turn into another Iraq? In reality he'll just twidle his thumbs clamoring for international support that he knows will never come, never willing to actually unilatterally committ US soldiers.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And yet, Bush, who doesn't need international cooperation to commit troops can't seem to do anything about this but ask for sanctions. You know, it's rather sickening to watch people use arguments against invading Iraq as some type of aha! argument in Darfur. They aren't the same. It's not "let's play political payback" and "eat your words." Eat your own words. Where the heck is Bush? Why was the humanitarian crisis in Iraq so important? Why isn't the imminent death of hundreds of thousands bothering anyone in this administration to the point that they are actually willing to do something?
At this point and time, conservatives make me sick. I'm ashamed to be an American because of you and I'm flat out dead dog tired of being a "fellow human being."
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hear you Kayla. It's all about scoring points for both sides. Sadly, daily sound bites on Fox and CNN don't actually save lives. Everyone's playing the wrong freaking game Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unfortunately, Bob, I agree with you. The problem is that no one agrees on what the rules are or even the ultimate goal of the game. Every entity has their rallying cry and their own agenda, makes for a very confusing and unwinnable (game).
Posts: 2022 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:At this point and time, conservatives make me sick. I'm ashamed to be an American because of you and I'm flat out dead dog tired of being a "fellow human being."
Fine. Then my incentive to reach any accord with you would be what, exactly?
Edit: Especially since the last time this was discussed, you refused to believe that we might be too extended to do anything on our own, yet would provide no hard data to back it up.
By the time the leaders might feel some impact, the offenses for which sanctions were imposed have been finished.
Sanctions would not have worked in Iraq - it certainly didn't persuade Saddam to leave Kuwait any sooner and I highly doubt it will bother the leaders sanctioning genocide much, either.
posted
Dag, how has your life been affected by the war? It hasn't, has it? You can't tell me that we are overextended. Sure, you won't let homeless people live with you, but as soon as your sisters house burns down, it's amazing how quickly you have room. We could do it if we really wanted/felt we needed to. And in Rwanda, a very few UNAMIR made a big difference. Something as easy as jamming their radio signals would have made a huge difference. Have you read Bystanders to Genocide? http://thereitis.org/displayarticle73.html There is something we could do. We just don't want to.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kayla, when you can demonstrate your knowledge of our force capabilities, let me know. Until then, I keep hearing that we're overextended from people with actual military experience.
I'm interested as to why UN action in this case is so anathema to you.
posted
How many people on this board Kayla, aside from you and me, have said that they would be willing to committ American soldiers to resolve the situation in Dafur? Where are the "bleeding heart" liberals? Its you, Tom, Lalo, and a number of other liberals that make me sick. You're willing to condemn conservatives as bigots without any reasons that connect the two terms. I lambast Kerry because he won't do anything either. I also point out that what we can do is limited because I am a realist. I want the United States to use as much force as it can to resolve the situation. Unfortunately, there isn't much force left. National Guard units are overworked as it is fighting Sadr, Charley, Frances, and Ivan. It doesn't help that Europe's governments are still denying that there is genocide. Before you condemn the US, condemn France, Germany, Russia, Spain, and all the other nations of Europe that standby.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, totally agree that sanctions--particularly sanctions of oil--are really stupid.
I'm not sure what the answer is in this case. I do think the US, rightly or wrongly, has its plate full right now and that it would be nice to see other countries in the world step up to the plate and commit troops. Maybe Mr. Bush can give a little of that stuff he apparently thinks grows on trees to support the effort.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, we are about to bring home 70,000 troops from Europe. They could just as easily be deployed to Darfur.
quote: There are currently more than 100,000 American troops in Europe, including about 70,000 in Germany, and another 100,000 in the Asia-Pacific region. About 150,000 additional troops are now in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Personally, I don't think we need 100,000 troops in Europe. Neither does Bush, apparently. What we could use would be some troops in Darfur.
Tmedina, you realize that with the finding of genocide, we have the moral obligation to act, right? It's not my moral outrage. It's part of the Geneva Convention. Not that we haven't thrown that out the window too.
nfl, I don't see Tom or Lalo in here using liberal reasons not to invade Iraq as reasons to not stop a genocide. Clinton makes me sick also. His bewilderment over the Rwanda genocide is nauseating. However, the liberals aren't the ones who are throwing aha comments about. That would be you. And I have no need to condemn Europe. They are the bright, shining example of what democracy and moral uprightness. They aren't the ones that who are supposed to be better than the rest of the world. They don't claim moral superiority.
Storm, maybe if Bush hadn't blown all the US credibility with the war in Iraq, there would be more support now.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I don't see anyone using "conservative" reasons not to intervene either.
The point is, and its why I'm sick of people like you, Tom, Lalo, and others is because you are so quick to call those that lean to the right all sorts of names. This pisses me off especially when Tom calls me a bigot after I expresses disagreement with the proposed Michigan law that bans things like partner benefits or when you condemn conservatives after I expressed the my desire to do anything we can to help those in Dafur. Apathy runs just as strongly in liberals camps as it does in conservative ones.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kayla--the 70,000 coming home from Europe is a mass reduction to be undertaken over the next 10 years. The US is over-extended. Ask anyone in the reserves who miss thier family and are looking at a second, or third rotation into Iraq.
France, Germany, Australia, Canada, all have large militaries that may be used in this endeavor if their governments wished. I like the idea of Presiden Bush's to help support the Pan-African Military in intervening. They don't have any sophisticated military gear, so perhaps the US or better, NATO, could supple technical support.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
We don't have a moral obligation to waste lives needlessly in a vain, if moral effort to make a gesture.
And you may not like to hear this, but the US is not the world police force. How refreshing would it be to have the UN actually agree on something?
And until we consolidate our forces or clear up some of our outstanding issues, morality will have to take a back seat to practicality and pragmatic decision making.
posted
One more thing. I think, though I'm not entirely positive, that currently the majority of units stationed in Europe are rear support and not combat arms.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty sure a majority of military units everywhere with the exception of the Marines are support or "civilian" troops. By civilian I mean scientists, doctors, and things like that.
Trevor, it is not needless when we are preventing the extinction of an entire people. The fact that they were by chance born in Sudan does not make them any less valuable then you. Don't ask a fireman or policeman to put his or her life on the line for you if you don't think its worthwhile for our soldiers to save those in other countries. The US may not be world's police force, but since we do have a capability we do have the moral responsibility and we if we don't go by our morals then what compels society to not degenerate into anarchy? What make us better than other primates? How do we justify killing animals for food if we can't justify our lives being worth more than theirs?
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:How many people on this board Kayla, aside from you and me, have said that they would be willing to committ American soldiers to resolve the situation in Dafur?
posted
Sigh. Granted. What I mean is a higher percentage than the normal, what, 9 in 10 ratio of rear support to combat arms, because most are already in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And tell me what is the point of sending a fireman into a three alarm fire with a squirt gun?
Very dramatic, very noble and ultimately pointless.
Of course, I'm sure it would make great public relations and be infinitely cheaper to lose one man and let the building burn to the ground rather than commit an effective operation to combat the fire and save surrounding buildings.
posted
There was something recently on NPR regarding the sheer amount of "civilian" forces in place in Iraq - such as armed security since there aren't enough regular military forces - that receive minimal training - and certainly not effective combat training. It gives one pause . . . I wish I could remember the name of the report - it was very disheartening - particularly for families that are facing the loss of their "reservist" for the second or third time around . . . anyone hear it or remember what the name of it was . . . ?
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But you wouldn't be fine with a fire truck putting out a camp fire before it turns into a forest fire. You would say, "Its not been proven that its a threat yet, let's not waste resources." Then when it did become a forest fire you would say, "Its too big to control now, no point in wasting lives for a pointless cause."
In the last thread on Dafur you argued that we shouldn't intervene because it wasn't genocide yet. Well now it is. But now according to you its too late to act. Why is that? Because we waited too long to find out if genocide would break out. No one thought that anyone would actually try to exterminate an entire religious group during World War II so they decided to ignore it. I ask that we don't make that same mistake again, that we learn from history. And while you're talk might make it sound that you want the same, you are not willing to act when the need arises. You overplay the threat to American lives, and downplay the threat to the survival of an entire race of people. How many must die before you proclaim, "Never again," and yet even then again it will happen because even after the Holocaust, even after Pol Pot, even after Rwanda and Kosovo no one is willing to act. "Show us the proof." you say. "Hitler was an anomaly." you insist. But in the mean time while you twiddle your thumbs men, women, and children die.
I think Kayla wants too much. She wants an invasion of Sudan that the American military cannot bear. I would like that because it would save more lives than could be counted, but I know its unrealistic. Instead we should do what we can. We can send our carrier fleets to the Arabian Ocean just off the coast of Sudan. From there we can begin an air war similar to what we saw in Bosnia. We can also use B-2s and B-52s to make long range bombing runs while the rest of air force finds a home. By that I mean there must be a bordering country that supports our actions. We can also exert more pressure on the UN to declare it genocide and get the Security Council to "authorize" war. We can commit our small amount of remaining soldiers to join a coalition of other nations that are willing to act. Sudan's neighbors and other African nations can be persuaded that helping is in their best interest. By that I don't mean bribes or threats, but to show them how bad it would be if Sudanese militia men started following refugees into their countries. Nations like the UK, Austrailia, and Italy may also join. Others like France and Russia may also commit troops if we exert enough pressure. If we say that name that ends all discussions enough times the nations of Europe may finally get the picture. If we point to the beaches of Normandy and its decorations Europe may finally get the picture. But if we do none of these things than we condemn thousands if not millions to die. I do not blame this on conservative or liberals, Republicans or Democrats, I blame this on isolationism which is again taking root as people draw the parallel to Vietnam
posted
So, have we come to the agreement that sanctions rarely work, and that military force is the only thing that has proven effective in dealing with repressive regimes?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if you're familiar with the last thread on this, you'll know it's been a topic of interest for me for the past couple of years.
Here's my take on our actions there and where I hope they will lead:
First, I do believe that the administration has designs to send troops to Darfur and Sudan in general. Right now, we're the ones beating this drum the loudest in the UN and building support. However, it's becoming more and more obvious that Khofi Annan isn't likely to make the UN move on anything in Africa. Perhaps he has his own prejudices there, or, more likely, he believes that Africa is best suited to solve its own problems and would avoid the Europeans from coming back in to "save the black man."
Khofi sat and fiddled during Rwanda and in Liberia it fell to the French and Americans to help out.
Why would we go there? First off, this is, without a doubt a public relations coup if we can pull it off. Secondly, this is a good deed. No one can question the reasoning behind it.
Thirdly, it is a blow against radical Muslim groups that could and do spawn terrorists. Fourth, one doesn't have to look to far back to the point when Al Qaeda used the Sudan as their home base.
What I would like to see is the US send a convoy of supply ships laden with food, medicine and emergency supplies. Dock the ships and surround them with American soldiers, then proclaim that the supplies are for Darfur and march them to those who need them, bringing the security troops (and many of them with them).
Once they arrive in the Darfur region, they should proclaim this as a "No Fire" zone and vigourously enforce it. And yes, that means hunt down anyone who enters the region with the intent, or even capability, of causing harm there.
Provide the aid, provide the security, hunt down the scum doing these savage acts to other human beings.
And let the Sudanese government howl and wring their hands.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
We really need to apply sanctions to France, since that is the nation that has obstructed international efforts to end the carnage in Sudan--because France gets a lot of its oil from Sudan and wants to maintain good relations with the inhumane government. This is typical of France's behavior throughout history. Totally selfish, no regard for others.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Snicker. Ron, I'm really looking for the hidden sarcasm tag on that one.
NFL, it seems you and I are bound to be at opposite ends of almost any argument.
Full-scale military intervention isn't practical, for a variety of reasons, most of which have been detailed on this thread.
As for your fire truck reference - that would be a suitable application of force to achieve the desired objective. My argument remains we do not have the military force necessary to mount such an operation.
I'll have to re-phrase the rest of my post, except for the "twiddling my thumbs while men, women and children die." People die on a daily basis and my thumbs need exercise.
posted
Really, our air force and navy is doing what exactly? Oh yeah, that Al Queda built a whole navy with carriers and cruisers complimented by Tomahawk missiles... There is nothing stopping us from using our navy and air force and there is nothing stopping us from bringing our case to the UN. Even if the UN as whole doesn't act we may at least convince enough members to undertake an operation. If Kofi Annan, who really is powerless by the way, is afraid of the white man coming to save the black man then thats fine because we should be targeting Sudan's African neighbors for help first and foremost, they can provide the manpower even if not the hardware. Trevor, you still have not provided one reason why we can't do what I have proposed except for vague claims that we don't have the man power. I'm not suggesting a 100,000 plus troop invasion, just an operation similar to Kosovo.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:How many people on this board Kayla, aside from you and me, have said that they would be willing to committ American soldiers to resolve the situation in Dafur? Where are the "bleeding heart" liberals? ... Apathy runs just as strongly in liberals camps as it does in conservative ones.
It is quite possible that such people are not apathetic about the situation, they are just apathetic about discussing it, specifically with you.
[That is, discussing it here is something you are absolutely welcome to do. I don't want to discuss it with some people here, as what I do in my real world life to address this issue is depressing enough to me. I certainly don't want to be besieged here about it. But my lack of excitement at debating any given topic here isn't hand-in-hand with lack of excitement elsewhere.
I think we should send troops. I think we should keep pressuring the UN. I write letters about it, I send money. And I talk about other things at Hatrack, which -- to give full due -- was where I became educated about Darfur.]
[And edit again: newfoundlogic, I don't find you depressing. I'm glad you are here discussing this. It's just that I'm pretty sure if we were to engage in serious discourse about it, my own failings and inability to maintain perspective would lead me to say un-nice things. I think I could talk to Scott R or Dag about it, but that would be in email, as I would never restrict a public thread in such a way.
It's a mess that goes past perspective to me. That's a confession of weakness, by the way, not a statement of bragging rights about how much I care.]
[ September 10, 2004, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
nfl, I don't want a full scale invasion! I want something more than half assed suggested sanctions at the UN. By the way, the UN, at the US's urging, pulled troops out of Rwanda. And if you read what worked in Rwanda, you'd understand that I'm not asking for much. Jamming the radios would have been incredibly helpful. A couple of hundred soldiers saved thousands of lives.
If Africa actually thought that the US would bring down the wrath of God the next time the started committing genocide, I think they'd think twice. However, they know that we will "study" the situation, "monitor" the situation, discuss what to do about the situation, then maybe suggest sanctions, then by the time they are done slaughtering all offending races, we might actually impose sanctions.
Moving a carrier fleet and even just pretending that we are sending ground troops would probably be enough to save hundreds of thousands. Really, I'm not asking for much. In the beginning, even less would have been required. But we wait too long when things like this happen. We don't want to be bothered. For some reason, politicians and the media think that we don't care. Or that we don't have the resources. And we are the world's police force. Who else will do it? Not the UN. The UN is to busy being kowtowed by us. We are the reason the UN pulled out of Rwanda. We pull our troops out of the UNAMIR, and the UN doesn't have much left. The US provides the majority of the UN funding and troops. Either we want the ideal of having a UN and are willing to fund it and provide troops until we can cajole the rest of the world into doing more, or we quit the UN and stop pretending that we aren't the world's police force.
And if we weren't in this ridiculous war in Iraq to begin with, whether or not we "could" do anything would be moot. But, I'm still of the opinion that we could do something if we wanted to. Hell, we could ask for volunteers and I bet there'd be thousands willing to go stop a genocide.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, have we come to the agreement that sanctions rarely work, and that military force is the only thing that has proven effective in dealing with repressive regimes?
No, we have agreement that it's complicated. In my eyes, sanctions(the etymolgy of the word is intriguing, and how it's come to mean what it means in today's political discourse is telling) are an off-shoot of terrorism, they knowingly target poor civilians because most of the time the government officials, if they are corrupt, which is usually why we impose sanctions, are going to get whatever they want anyway.
Sanctions to effect the political process are only slightly more artful than sending a plane into the Trade Center to disrupt the economy. It's works, kind of, but they do create an incredible amount of enmity.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kayla, for the record, I'm very worried about this, and so is the rest of my family. I would like to see America do a lot more about it, and I've always been confused about why we didn't see more about this in the media. I am not sure what we could do, but I'd like to hear some ideas and see some plans. This isn't something I want to ignore.
posted
Nicholas Kristoff in the NY times devoted about two months worth of coverage during the run up and happening of the genocide.
We didn't here about it because Americans are clannish and unimaginative, and the media reflects this. We didn't here about it because people in the battle ground states are too busy trying to shore up their pork to worry about the Sudan. We didn't hear about it because no candidate wanted to sell this as a battle on the war on terror. I'm not surprised or disappointed in the American apathy towards the genocide, but don't be surprised when I'm distrustful of those same Americans to do anything more complicated than drive a forklift.
posted
Sara, when reading my comments regarding individual apathy it is very important to remember the context of the statements. The context is that I'm getting really pissed off the people on this board are ready to start blaming conservatives for the world's problems when liberals haven't shown that they're any different. Clearly there are liberals who are outspoken about the situation in Dafur, but there are also conservatives outspoken as well. The fact that Kayla admits that Clinton did nothing about Rwanda shows that this isn't a liberal conservative issue. Remember, Colin Powell is a REPUBLICAN.
Kayla, if people want to volunteer they can take a flight now, but what are they going to do there other than get shot at. I suppose they can buy replica UN peacekeeper helmets and maybe Janjaweed won't shoot them, but...
Storm, you are joking right? Knowing that the UN won't ever "authorize" force at least not until there are 6 million corpes, gas chambers, and crematories you really want to wait for UN approval? Should the UK and France have waited until the League of Nations "authorized" war on Germany?
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Now that is the attitude that more American men need to have, we tend to sit and complain about how the government doesn't take care of us, but why should it, most of us would do anything to avoid risking our own lives in the interest of our government, which tends to be interested in acting as a one country international police squad.
It is only time before Bush does exactly what he did with Iraq, he'll plead with the UN, then he'll get tired of it, and take on the burden of another conflict. The US has and always will have the "city on a hill" concept in our heads.
As far as our military being stretched thin, yep it is, it is stretched thin because we have no draft, and we have very little motivation to join the army.
quote: We really need to apply sanctions to France, since that is the nation that has obstructed international efforts to end the carnage in Sudan--because France gets a lot of its oil from Sudan and wants to maintain good relations with the inhumane government. This is typical of France's behavior throughout history. Totally selfish, no regard for others.
posted
These comments about France being totally selfish, without regard for others, "throughout history" -- I'd like to know what the hell you're talking about, please. I can't think of anything that makes France worse than any other nation.
Are nations other than the US capable of sending troops around the world? Realistically, no. The British are the only other nation with the ability to support any signifigent movement of troops across oceans, especially into hostile territory. So lambasting Europeans and Canadians for not sending troops to the Sudan is kind of pointless, because we couldn't do it if we wanted to.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It isn't a Democrat/Republican issue. And it's not as if we need 20,000 people with shot guns to buy plane tickets. It's an issue of politicians who are incapable of articulating the tough message. It's about Americans who equate action with violence.
The problem is that politicians are so scared that the good families in the mid-west and the south are so self-centered that they would not accept a candid claim for help from the Sudan, and the politicians sure as heck are scared of passing the can around for people to pay for it.
It's not even the fault of families, it's the fault of the officials being scared to talk sense to the families. It's dishonesty and incompetence, and the reason we need more smarter more articulate and courageous leaders, and in public office in a democracy, you can't afford one not to have clear-sighted wisdom and be able to articulate the situation and engage in a meaningful dialogue about the issue. ____
Even further, it's our love of common sense. Common sense doesn't yield anything. You have to wrestle with the situation. You have to anticipate, and none of that comes with common sense, it comes from thinking well about the appropriate issue. That's the charge put to the American people, and that's the charge the politicians are scared to put to the people. Common sense is for people who have gotten on in their life by money, good looks, or a trade, and not by the use of any sense.
posted
Really Foust? France has an aircraft carrier, one of the world's top air forces, and a large conventional force but can't sustain any sort of overseas operation? France's military is top notch. They have two completely new fighters that can knock all of America's fighters with the exceptions of the F-15 and and the F-22 out of sky. They have one of the "original" nuclear arsenals. They have a sizable navy complete with cruisers, destroyers, and nuclear subs. They were perfectly capable of sending soldiers to Kuwait in 1991 and to Afgahnistan in 2001. They maintain military bases in many African countries. If Austrailia can send the third largest contingent to Iraq, France can do its share in Sudan. France is not alone however. Japan's "Self Defense Force" is becoming one of the world's most capable militaries. Russia has thousands of tanks just rusting away. Germany has a small yet extremely capable military force capable of deployment. China has thousands upon thousands of soldiers whose only purpose is to look menacingly across the sea at Tawain. All of these countries and many more could act, but choose not to.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
