Sudan fears US military intervention over Darfur

[Red_Dave]

Sudan fears US military intervention over Darfur | World news | guardian.co.uk I get the feeling US foriegn policy may start to grow on me over these next few years:mrgreen: . Lets hope Clinton is better at humanitarian intervention then her husband was

 

[RightOfCenter]

I don't think they should be. Our military isn't really in a position right now to do this. With UN help it could be possible.

 

[Red_Dave]

I don't think they should be. Our military isn't really in a position right now to do this. With UN help it could be possible.

I accept that regime change is unfeisable at present but it would be possible to send a small amount of people to defend refugee camps and aid workers. I think the best tactic right now would be to bolster the existing UN operation which is suffering from a lack of manpower, helicopters, equipment etc. If i remember rightly theres only a couple of hundred or so people on the ground at the moment*

Edit: by "a couple of hundred" I actually meant 19,555 military personel and 3,772 police:doh African Union - United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Why is Dafur a worthy interventionist cause again?

 

[Red_Dave]

Why is Dafur a worthy interventionist cause again?

Well as far as im concerned the sheer volume of innocent people are being killed is in itself a good enough reason to get involved but ultimatly I think its in everyones interest that the situation is adressed due to.

>The risk of the conflict spreading to other states [as it already has in Chad]
>The risk of instability created by a heavy flow of refugees [as we are already seeing with Zimbabweans in South Africa]
>The correalation between stability and food production. Case in point: Zimbabwe
> The fact that failed states become a haven for terroists, piracy etc.
> Also bear in mind Bin Larden and the National Islamic front have a long history of colusion.

 

[JMak]

I wonder if Red Dave was supportive of removing Hussein?

 

[Red_Dave]

I wonder if Red Dave was supportive of removing Hussein?

I had a feeling that was coming. I,ve mixed feelings to be honest. As ive said before its not the removal of Saddam Hussein itself that I object to. I think the removal of Saddam Hussein as an isolated event was a good thing, though i wish it could have happend differently. Indeed it was crazed leftists like myself that opossed arming him in the first place. The thing about the Iraq war I take issue with is the wider context*.

I think the main issue i take with the whole thing is the prioritys and the methods. If humanitarian goals where the basis of the intervention then we would have intervened somewhere were the need was more urgent. If our prioritys were based on stopping terroism then we would have concentrated our efforts on Afganistan, Somailia and the like. I think my objections to the methods are pretty much self evident.

*i.e removing a former ally on the basis of non-existent ties to Bin Larden, and of a genocide we helped him with 20 years ago while ignoring a comtemporty genocide in Sudan.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Well as far as im concerned the sheer volume of innocent people are being killed is in itself a good enough reason to get involved but ultimatly I think its in everyones interest that the situation is adressed due to.

>The risk of the conflict spreading to other states [as it already has in Chad]
>The risk of instability created by a heavy flow of refugees [as we are already seeing with Zimbabweans in South Africa]
>The correalation between stability and food production. Case in point: Zimbabwe
> The fact that failed states become a haven for terroists, piracy etc.
> Also bear in mind Bin Larden and the National Islamic front have a long history of colusion.

Sounds like good reasons to invade Iraq my friend.

 

[Red_Dave]

Sounds like good reasons to invade Iraq my friend.

I did sence a trap there:lol:. See above post

 

[JMak]

The thing about the Iraq war I take issue with is the wider context*.

*i.e removing a former ally on the basis of non-existent ties to Bin Larden, and of a genocide we helped him with 20 years ago while ignoring a comtemporty genocide in Sudan

Well, none of the admin's rationale relied on citing a single connection between Hussein and bin laden but rather citing Iraq's broader support and sponsorship of terrorism, inlcuding AQ. That Iraq provided safe haven and had some relationship with AQ is indisputable. This was recognized as far back as Clinton and the Senate Select Intelligence Cmte concluded that such intelligence conclusions were substantiated by the intelligence data they review after the fact.

What "genocide" did the US help Hussein commit twenty years ago?

Lastly, the US has not ignored the genocide happening in Darfur. Just because the US has not taken any action that you think she should doesn't mean that the event is being ignored.

I think the main issue i take with the whole thing is the prioritys and the methods. If humanitarian goals where the basis of the intervention then we would have intervened somewhere were the need was more urgent. If our prioritys were based on stopping terroism then we would have concentrated our efforts on Afganistan, Somailia and the like. I think my objections to the methods are pretty much self evident.

The basis was partly humanitarian as Bush cited Hussein's gross human rights violations. The basis was partly citing Iraq's support and relationship with terrorists. These were in addition to the violation of the ceasefire and UN resolutions and wmd's and wmd programs. Together, these factors formed the basis of the administration's rationale for war.

I'd argue that the ceasefire violation by itself justified war. But I'd also argue that the other factors, individually, would not have justified war. However, the combo of the four factors, imo, presented a compelling and just argument for war.

It seems to me, though, that you should actually have supported the war on the human rights factor basis but that you're withholding that because you believe that there were other alternative targets that should have been addressed first. Am I reading you right?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I did sence a trap there:lol:. See above post

My point is. You have two places. 1. Iraq, who had a humanitarian crisis due to the criminal nature of many at the UN and Hussein. The oil for palaces program.

Now while certain countries, the Kofi's son and others were making money off this program they were at the same time blaming the sanctions on the US...

Iraq had also not ceased it bluff came....


2. the second place you also have wonton killing. The UN is supposedly in there. but thats it.


If you were the US who would you choose?

 

[Laila]

I don't think they should be. Our military isn't really in a position right now to do this. With UN help it could be possible.

I hope military action is taken by UN/NATO and US on Darfur. Its horrible what is occuring there. It should take precedence than anything happening in Middle East.

I do notice the general trend to bombard my television on Palestinians dying but none on Africans :/

 

[JMak]

I hope military action is taken by UN/NATO and US on Darfur. Its horrible what is occuring there. It should take precedence than anything happening in Middle East.

I do notice the general trend to bombard my television on Palestinians dying but none on Africans :/

So, now you're all for the US/NATO to be the world's policeman?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I hope military action is taken by UN/NATO and US on Darfur. Its horrible what is occuring there. It should take precedence than anything happening in Middle East.

I do notice the general trend to bombard my television on Palestinians dying but none on Africans :/

What is the difference?

 

[Laila]

So, now you're all for the US/NATO to be the world's policeman?

What do you mean now?

I have always wanted US and NATO in Darfur
Im for military action when the end result is stopping a horrific genocide.

 

[Laila]

What is the difference?

Between Iraq and Darfur?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

What do you mean now?

I have always wanted US and NATO in Darfur
Im for military action when the end result is stopping a horrific genocide.

Why not Iraq then, afghanistamn? Were not horrible atrocities being committed there?

 

[Laila]

Why not Iraq then, afghanistamn? Were not horrible atrocities being committed there?

Afghanistan im torn.
Not Iraq tho because Iraq's problems was not going to be solved by stripping down the country and leaving a power vaccum on the basis of a bunch of lies due to not only its historical differences but religious divides.
Saddam, although he was a bastard. Kept control of Sunnis, Shias, Kurds, Christians and Jews. That is amazing

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Afghanistan im torn.

So burkas making women homeless if the husband died, soccer field executions has you torn?

Not Iraq tho because Iraq's problems was not going to be solved by stripping down the country due to not only its historical differences but religious divides.
Saddam, although he was a bastard. Kept control of Sunnis, Shias, Kurds, Christians and Jews. That is amazing

So control through tyranny, fear, and 400,000 dead, rape rooms, etc is progress to you? :roll:


What makes you think in your mind we could do any different in Dafur? It would be the same thing.

 

[Laila]

So burkas making women homeless if the husband died, soccer field executions has you torn?

It is horrible yes and it shouldn't happen but we can't solve the entire world. Just those in the most harshest need and i see Darfur's plight which has been ignored by the world as precedent over Muslim females being opressed. There will always be opression in this world and the only way it'll change in the Islamic world is when females get more power. Guns and bombs will not do that

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

It is horrible yes and it shouldn't happen but we can't solve the entire world. Just those in the most harshest need and i see Darfur's plight which has been ignored by the world as precedent over Muslim females being opressed. There will always be opression in this world and the only way it'll change in the Islamic world is when females get more power. Guns and bombs will not do that

You are right, we Can not solve the entire world. We chose the parts that affect us the most.

 

[winston53660]

It is horrible yes and it shouldn't happen but we can't solve the entire world. Just those in the most harshest need and i see Darfur's plight which has been ignored by the world as precedent over Muslim females being opressed. There will always be opression in this world and the only way it'll change in the Islamic world is when females get more power. Guns and bombs will not do that

Do you think a Western style Democracy is a solution? And if not what would you propose?

What would a Middle Eastern style look like?

 

[Laila]

You are right, we Can not solve the entire world. We chose the parts that affect us the most.

I think that is just wrong.
Pretending to help people for our own interest whilst ignoring those who really need our attention

The moral fibre of the west shines through :roll:

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I think that is just wrong.
Pretending to help people for our own interest whilst ignoring those who really need our attention

The moral fibre of the west shines through :roll:

Wait. so you say we should go into any place that we have no interest in, but stay away from any place that has our national security interests in?

This is the bar you set for as you say "meddling in the affairs of other nations"?


And you say we lack moral fibre? :shock::lol:

 

[Laila]

Do you think a Western style Democracy is a solution? And if not what would you propose?

What would a Middle Eastern style look like?

Western style democracy in Muslim countries? lol
No way in this lifetime or the next
It would not work.
If US or UK goes to countries and goes we want democracy here and then implant their own version as if its the right way. It wouldn't be accepted by the people and as a result it would not last

I think Arabs need to devise their own form of democracy that is different to the wests and it be based on Islamic cultures and traditions. Some things in the Western democracy wouldn't be accepted inside the Islamic world.
Homosexuality for one, freedom of religion' for another.

Islam would probably be the state religion, voting but i'd bet there would be a chamber for religious sheikhs/Imams to ensure no Islamic/Sharia law would be violated by the leader.