I hope that whoever wins today will deal with this crisis as swiftly as possible. It's gone on for too long.
Posts: 236 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hear France has thousands of idle troops. Wouldn't it be nice to see the step up to the plate?
Posts: 236 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 236 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
posted
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. Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Crap crap crap! Never Again people! We need to get our forces over there now! Not another Rawanda! Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This will be a good test for our 'moral compass' president. Let's see if he does the right thing.
Posts: 512 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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." Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 512 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 236 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
.
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
