US/UK to invade Sudan

lostexpectation

The UN haven't moved in cos the they don't want to break Sudan soverignty
but Blair backs plan for no-fly zone over Darfur

oh cos its the air they won't notice?
ony Blair has backed imposing a no-fly zone over Sudan's Darfur
region and military planners in Washington are also developing plans
for air strikes and a naval blockade to pressure Khartoum to stop the
violence in the region, the Financial Times has learned.

A no-fly zone would be designed to prevent the Sudanese government
from using its air force or helicopter gunships in attacks against
villages in Darfur. Such attacks have been alleged by UN monitors and
human rights organisations.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c5f9c7cc-8a4e-11db-ae27-0000779e2340.html

how can i convinced it not neo-imperialism? even the right thing for the wrong reasons


although these numbers are hard to dispute

The U.N. has called the Darfur conflict the world's worst humanitarian crisis. More than 200,000 people have been killed and more than 2.5 million driven from their homes in the three-year fight between the government and ethnic African rebels. The government is accused of unleashing the janjaweed to help put down the revolt, and the militia is accused of widespread atrocities against civilians.

Food, Basic Aid Said Not Reaching Darfur
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6277501,00.html


save few a people and take massive contracts way from chinese ,in the process nice
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0612140227dec14,1,6644357.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

ooh looks like the french have already started
France admits air raids on Darfur neighbours
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article2076138.ece

Manic Moran

Damned if they do, damned if they don't, is it?

If they sit back and do nothing, there fly accusations of 'You'd be doing something if there was oil' or just 'You're heartless'.

If they go in and do something, it becomes 'neo-imperialism'

Oh well..

NTM

There is actually quite a bit of oil in Sudan, which goes along towards explain why China has not been very helpful on the issue.

crybaby

Its good to hear that someone is actually ready to stand up and be counted in regards to this issue

El Stuntman

sending troops into Sudan is far more justified than the decision to go into Iraq was

not that they'll do it of course

flogen

Agree with el stuntman; there's actually a verified, viable and visible reason for an invasion at this stage.

I'd much rather see UN action, though, but that's not going to happen. I'd imagine that if there was unilateral action, it would be a far more considerable force than the one in Iraq and would probably amount to a pseudo-UN force of sorts.

It could, of course, still be classed as neo-Imperialism, but I'd only make that claim if the post-war situation beared similarities to the one in Iraq (not the violence, but the way contracts were dished out, the way the US could decide that any election results were 'not democratic' if they so wished etc.)

El Stuntman

as someone who travels to Africa quite a lot, it's hard to be optimistic about Sudan (and specifically the fate of the black African & Christian half of that country)

in fact it's hard to find much cause for optimism looking around the whole contintent but it was ever thus....depressing

in terms of military intervention, the AU either can't or won't do anything meaningful, the only country with the military resources to alleviate the problem is South Africa and they're not interested.
So it's down the UN. ha, watch this space

Dr_Teeth

Agreed, if there's ever a reason to invade another country, this is it. The U.S. has shown it can do a decent enough job when the population are willing ('Kurdistan') and they stay away from regime change.

sovtek

I think the operating principle of using the military should be "first do no harm". Would actually invading Sudan help or make things worse? The US military hasn't a clue about their culture...etc etc and could very well turn the population against them.
It's like when they went into Somalia. They were greeted warmly at first and then they ****ed up so much they incurred the animosity of the population that people cheered when soldiers bodies were dragged through the city.
And that was under two competant CNC's. That isn't the case here at all.
Then you have any underlying motives there might be for invasion...which will always effect the situation. I have yet to see the US military deployed for honest to goodness humitarian reasons.

mike65

The USA should issue a statement saying they will not, in any circumstances intervene in another state. Then sit back and wait for the pleas for help.

Mike.

sovtek

mike65 wrote:

The USA should issue a statement saying they will not, in any circumstances intervene in another state. Then sit back and wait for the pleas for help.

Mike.

Outnumbered significantly by the sighs of relief

Fratton Fred

sovtek wrote:

I think the operating principle of using the military should be "first do no harm". Would actually invading Sudan help or make things worse? The US military hasn't a clue about their culture...etc etc and could very well turn the population against them.
It's like when they went into Somalia. They were greeted warmly at first and then they ****ed up so much they incurred the animosity of the population that people cheered when soldiers bodies were dragged through the city.
And that was under two competant CNC's. That isn't the case here at all.
Then you have any underlying motives there might be for invasion...which will always effect the situation. I have yet to see the US military deployed for honest to goodness humitarian reasons.

but why does it always end up with the US?

France, Germany, Italy and Spain all have decent enough armies to go in and do something. A UN resolution may make them get for their arses and do something for a change.

It worked in Bosnia and Kosova so why the delay in Sudan?

El Stuntman

I don't think there's any international actors (states or supra-national) with the willpower or resources to do anything about Darfur in a military context

therefore I think the best way to help is probably economic sanctions

Manic Moran

El Stuntman wrote:

I don't think there's any international actors (states or supra-national) with the willpower or resources to do anything about Darfur in a military context

Change that to 'willpower and resources'

Plenty of countries -can- do something: Egypt's right next door, and they're not total slouches militarily, for example. I'd like to see Sudan go up against M1 Abrams tanks (Egypt has twice as many Abrams as the UK has Challenger 2s, for example) or F-16 fighters. Are the Egyptian military particularly busy right now? I might perhaps see historical arguments against the French or Italians going down that way, from the old colonial histories, but still, there are lots of militaries with troops available. They just don't want to.

NTM

El Stuntman

Manic Moran wrote:

Change that to 'willpower and resources'

Plenty of countries -can- do something: Egypt's right next door, and they're not total slouches militarily, for example. I'd like to see Sudan go up against M1 Abrams tanks (Egypt has twice as many Abrams as the UK has Challenger 2s, for example) or F-16 fighters. Are the Egyptian military particularly busy right now? I might perhaps see historical arguments against the French or Italians going down that way, from the old colonial histories, but still, there are lots of militaries with troops available. They just don't want to.
NTM

yes I can really see the Egyptian government taking on their Arab brethern in Khartoum....

never happen, forget 'the military option' because there just isn't one

Sand

Sudan has a sacred right of sovereignty. Any intervention is clearly more about oil than anything else, and hence is neo-imperialism. Hence, everyone needs to campaign against intervention. If the people of Darfur wanted help, theyd ask for it. And even if they did only the UN has the right to intervene. So if genocide occurs its all the UNs fault for not intervening.

therefore I think the best way to help is probably economic sanctions...forget 'the military option' because there just isn't one

Punish the people of Darfur for their government commiting genocide against them? Sounds like a fine idea.

Manic Moran

Sand wrote:

Punish the people of Darfur for their government commiting genocide against them? Sounds like a fine idea.

On a practical matter, do you think they really care about economic issues when they're getting massacred?

NTM

Sand

I dont think the policy makers care about how economic sanctions make their people suffer - especially given theyre trying to kill some of them. Sanctions always hit ordinary people hardest, not the political leadership. Sanctions might work in democratic nations where the government is accountable, but not elsewhere.

Gurgle

Sand wrote:

I dont think the policy makers care about how economic sanctions make their people suffer - especially given theyre trying to kill some of them. Sanctions always hit ordinary people hardest, not the political leadership. Sanctions might work in democratic nations where the government is accountable, but not elsewhere.

Agreed.
Sanctions just don't work, the people imposing the sanctions become the country's enemies and take the blame for the situation.

Darfur is the only country in the world where I would deploy an army.

Either the government has totally lost control of its army or it actually supports the rape and murder of tens of thousands of the country's citizens.

Ideally the government and its army would be brought under control by neighbouring countries, otherwise there is a serious risk that it would become another staging ground for militant muslims to battle militant christians.

Even then its hard to see how the situation would be any worse for the people.

Sand wrote:

And even if they did only the UN has the right to intervene. So if genocide occurs its all the UNs fault for not intervening.

The UN had its last teeth pulled with the invasion of Iraq against the UN position. Now they're afraid to do anything at all in case they'll be called hypocrites by one side or the other of the Iraq arguement. They need to grow their balls back and actually do something here.

AbusesToilets

The UN had its last teeth pulled with the invasion of Iraq against the UN position. Now they're afraid to do anything at all in case they'll be called hypocrites by one side or the other of the Iraq arguement. They need to grow their balls back and actually do something here.

I think you're working off the flawed principle that the UN has,at some point in history,actually had some balls.The UN is hopeless when it comes to military intervention,there's a long list of instances of this - Bosnia and Somalia to name some recent ones.

FatherTed

Why wont Ireland go in and fix up things?

Manic Moran

Korean War was a UN Op, though admittedly the US would have probably gone in regardless. Congo was fairly aggressive too.

NTM

sovtek

AbusesToilets wrote:

I think you're working off the flawed principle that the UN has,at some point in history,actually had some balls.The UN is hopeless when it comes to military intervention,there's a long list of instances of this - Bosnia and Somalia to name some recent ones.

I think you're working off the flawed principle that the UN isn't largely controlled by the 5 permanent members of the Security Council.

sovtek

Gurgle wrote:

The UN had its last teeth pulled with the invasion of Iraq against the UN position. Now they're afraid to do anything at all in case they'll be called hypocrites by one side or the other of the Iraq arguement. They need to grow their balls back and actually do something here.

That might happen when they aren't gelded by the Big Five that run it.
There are ways of sanctioning a government without punishing the population.

sovtek

Fratton Fred wrote:

but why does it always end up with the US?

It doesn't and it shouldn't.

France, Germany, Italy and Spain all have decent enough armies to go in and do something. A UN resolution may make them get for their arses and do something for a change.

The amount of times "doing something" should mean military action is next to nil.

It worked in Bosnia and Kosova so why the delay in Sudan?

I'm not that up on Bosnia but Kosova isn't going all that well.

Gurgle

sovtek wrote:

There are ways of sanctioning a government without punishing the population.

How?

Black Swan

One common denominator: Oil.

sovtek

Gurgle wrote:

How?

Google "targeted sanctions"

El Stuntman

Gurgle wrote:

Agreed.
Sanctions just don't work, the people imposing the sanctions become the country's enemies and take the blame for the situation.

errr, South Africa anyone? that seemed to work pretty well

GreenHell

Don't China have the must vested interest in the Sudan? Maybe it would be in their interest to lead a peace keeping force into the area. Although China and UN Peace Keeping doesn't exactly sound right.

cold_filter

Fratton Fred wrote:

but why does it always end up with the US?

France, Germany, Italy and Spain all have decent enough armies to go in and do something. A UN resolution may make them get for their arses and do something for a change.

It worked in Bosnia and Kosova so why the delay in Sudan?

they all have good armies with good technology backing them up.
They lack the balls to actually make a stand for what is right.

Now before i get the iraq was spiel from the pacifists.
America mostly tries to do good in the world though their good intentions are usually paralled with greedy ambitions "like get rid of saddam oh and then we can administer iraws oil".

America though misguided is the only state save israel that will actually go on the attack these days and they've been slated for going into iraq so they shouldnt go to darfur unless they are asked too. The states that cry foul over the iraq war are the same states that want the US to incur both financial and human risks of fighting a was in Somalia.

cold_filter

Sand wrote:

Sudan has a sacred right of sovereignty. Any intervention is clearly more about oil than anything else, and hence is neo-imperialism. Hence, everyone needs to campaign against intervention. If the people of Darfur wanted help, theyd ask for it. And even if they did only the UN has the right to intervene. So if genocide occurs its all the UNs fault for not intervening.



Punish the people of Darfur for their government commiting genocide against them? Sounds like a fine idea.

The Un is now a defunct organisation like the League of NAtions was before WW2. They need 5 million resolutions passed before they can create a resolution to actually do something. The Un in matters of Darfur and such should be governed by morals too many people can object.
Innocent people are getting killed, The AU force there can't stop it. Is it time to send in the UN military forces, answer Yes. No resolutions just action.

Marksie

Sand wrote:

So if genocide occurs its all the UNs fault for not intervening.

The UN has an overriding directive when a genocide is declared.

However, witness what happened with the american veto in Rwanda. Toying with the dictionary definition of what consituted genocide, acts of genocide or whatever.

The UN is a spent force

Frederico

Genocide on a huge scale could happen but arms will just be flapped. The US/UK/whoever will let it happen. The UN will write stern letters. The only thing that would cause any kind of Meaningful Western reaction are pictures of women and children being slaughtered on our TV's while we eat our dinner.

cold_filter

Frederico wrote:

Genocide on a huge scale could happen but arms will just be flapped. The US/UK/whoever will let it happen. The UN will write stern letters. The only thing that would cause any kind of Meaningful Western reaction are pictures of women and children being slaughtered on our TV's while we eat our dinner.

Thats exactly whats happening in Iraq, sunnis are trying to kill shiites and vice versa... america is trying to stop that.

Frederico

cold_filter wrote:

Thats exactly whats happening in Iraq, sunnis are trying to kill shiites and vice versa... america is trying to stop that.

Not quite sure what you are saying.. the Sunnis and Shiites were not killing each other before the US went in, they were not killing each other directly after the US went into Iraq either. Maybe you are mistakenly thinking they just started attacking each other for the hell of it? I am not sure what the comparison is here.

cold_filter

Frederico wrote:

Not quite sure what you are saying.. the Sunnis and Shiites were not killing each other before the US went in, they were not killing each other directly after the US went into Iraq either. Maybe you are mistakenly thinking they just started attacking each other for the hell of it? I am not sure what the comparison is here.

What i am saying is that now saddam is not in power the shiites are trying to get their own back for years of oppression under the sunnis. Then the sunnis are trying restore the staus quo, basically they're just killing each other but the US/uk are trying to stop it. Apologies frederico i seem to have gone off on my own tangent here....

Frederico

cold_filter wrote:

What i am saying is that now saddam is not in power the shiites are trying to get their own back for years of oppression under the sunnis. Then the sunnis are trying restore the staus quo, basically they're just killing each other but the US/uk are trying to stop it. Apologies frederico i seem to have gone off on my own tangent here....

Okay, but I firmly believe that the civil war between Sunnis and Shiites is 99% the fault of foreign Jihadists who sparked it, the tensions were there but the foreign element through a very intensive bombing campaign set the current strife in motion. There are plenty of countries in the world where two or more groups of the population hate each other.

Darfur is a situation where military intervention could NOT possibly make the situation any worse, but the plain fact of the matter is - WE aren't interested, its not news, Darfur is not killing any prostitutes, its not going out without boozing without its panties, and its not murdering any child beauty queens.

cold_filter

Frederico wrote:

Okay, but I firmly believe that the civil war between Sunnis and Shiites is 99% the fault of foreign Jihadists who sparked it, the tensions were there but the foreign element through a very intensive bombing campaign set the current strife in motion. There are plenty of countries in the world where two or more groups of the population hate each other.

Darfur is a situation where military intervention could NOT possibly make the situation any worse, but the plain fact of the matter is - WE aren't interested, its not news, Darfur is not killing any prostitutes, its not going out without boozing without its panties, and it certainly didn't kill benet.

Totally agree with that but how many of them have not descended into violence, we dont need to go far for the first example... just north of dundalk...

Manic Moran

El Stuntman wrote:

errr, South Africa anyone? that seemed to work pretty well

UN Embargos started in 1963. I'm not convinced the people of Darfur are entirely willing to wait thirty-one years for their salvation.

NTM

Frederico

I think that only sanctions that would have any effect are:

Anything that can be used by the military

and

Luxuries

Most other things just hurt the people (i.e. half a million dead babies in Iraq)

philologos

the US and UK are overstretched as it is in Iraq and Afghanistan. There needs to be a new UNIFIL force set up, not an exclusive imperialist style war like we have seen since 2001.

mike65

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=136&art_id=qw1167235920850B235

Mike.