Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Genocide In The Sudan-Should UN Troops Be Sent?  
User currently offlineGo Canada! From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 2955 posts, RR: 11
Posted (10 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1942 times:

Should troops be sent into the Sudan to stop the genocides there or should sanctions be put into place first?


It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
59 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13208 posts, RR: 77
Reply 1, posted (10 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1931 times:

Blair is considering sending British troops, the Sudan government don't seem happy with this, well they wouldn't, would they?
As their fingerprints are all over this crisis.


User currently offlineCon-pilot From United States of America, joined exactly 12 years ago today! , 54 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (10 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1929 times:

Sanctions never work. Only military intervention will stop the genocide and by the time the UN gets around to doing anything militarily about it everybody will be dead or be starving refugees.

The UN is worthless in cases like this.



Remember that different is different, not better or worse, just different.
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17504 posts, RR: 45
Reply 3, posted (10 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1924 times:

"The UN is worthless in cases like this."

Hush now! They were brilliant in Rwanda!

Signed,

The Hutus



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14026 posts, RR: 62
Reply 4, posted (10 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1920 times:

Even more reason hgiving the UN some rwal teeth, like e.g. the discanbed Gurkha regiments, and put them under control of the security council, so that the UN doesn´t have to go begging with lots of countries until they get the troops.

Jan


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14026 posts, RR: 62
Reply 5, posted (10 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1917 times:

Even more reason for giving the UN some real teeth, like e.g. the disbanded Gurkha regiments, and put them under control of the security council, so that the UN doesn´t have to go begging with lots of countries until they get the troops.

Jan

[Edited 2004-07-23 18:37:53]

User currently offlineIakobos From Belgium, joined Aug 2003, 3313 posts, RR: 34
Reply 6, posted (10 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1917 times:

And here we are again.........
The Sudanese government is evil, the rebels are the good guys.

I am wondering how long it takes many of you here to define who is the cow boy and who is the indian.

Anyone been there ? or just watching the news and building up a very substantiated opinion ?


User currently offlineGalaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 24
Reply 7, posted (10 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1918 times:

I think the UN should do something. They should send troops, and give them the power and authority to do what ever necessary to protect themselves and the victims of the crisis. And leave the politicking and PC crap out.


"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13208 posts, RR: 77
Reply 8, posted (10 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1907 times:

The UN is only as good as it's members, and the more powerful the member, the more they can screw things up, usually for domestic political reasons.

It's not about good or bad guys anyway in Sudan, more about those caught in the middle.


User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17504 posts, RR: 45
Reply 9, posted (10 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1907 times:

"The Sudanese government is evil, the rebels are the good guys."

They're both absolute shit; but the government happens to be the one chopping the rebels into bits right now, which does not need to be happening while the world watches it happen.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16259 posts, RR: 56
Reply 10, posted (10 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1908 times:

The UN should stay out of it.

We should rely on the good will of the Sudanese people to solve this crisis themselves. Only Sudanese people can stop Sudanese from killing each other.

Why should foreigner's lives be put at risk to save Sudanese from other Sudanese?






Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17504 posts, RR: 45
Reply 11, posted (10 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1900 times:

"We should rely on the good will of the Sudanese people to solve this crisis themselves. Only Sudanese people can stop Sudanese from killing each other.
"

Fair enough, and in most cases I'd agree, but in every conflict in Africa, an ounce of prevention can have a phenomenal impact.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16259 posts, RR: 56
Reply 12, posted (10 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1896 times:

Fair enough, and in most cases I'd agree, but in every conflict in Africa, an ounce of prevention can have a phenomenal impact.

How would you feel if that ounce of prevention involved giving your own life (or your son's) to save Sudanese? When you commit foreign troops to solve other people's conflicts, you are risking lives.

I simply think that Sudan should solve its own problems. And if we all believe in the general "goodness" of people, then we will have faith that the "good" people in Sudan will solve this crisis on their own.






Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 42
Reply 13, posted (10 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1891 times:

"How would you feel if that ounce of prevention involved giving your own life (or your son's) to save Sudanese? When you commit foreign troops to solve other people's conflicts, you are risking lives."

Simple thing: Not joining the military will keep everyone from giving his life for a cause he doesn't believe in. Unless people get drafted and sent to war after a week of training, of course.

"I simply think that Sudan should solve its own problems. And if we all believe in the general "goodness" of people, then we will have faith that the "good" people in Sudan will solve this crisis on their own."

Just like the good people in Iraq should have solved their "Saddam problem" on their own, right? After all, the Janjaweed militia is only killing people like Saddam killed the Kurds - the difference being that their weapons are good old AK-47 instead of gas.  Yeah sure



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16259 posts, RR: 56
Reply 14, posted (10 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1885 times:

We're talking about Sudan, not Iraq Aloges. If you are unduly concerned about Sudanese genocide, then you are free to become a mercenary and do your part to stop it. Whining on anet will not stop it.

The onus should be on Sudanese people to stop this genocide, not Westerners.




Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 42
Reply 15, posted (10 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1878 times:

How can you be so double-tongued? The genocide in Sudan doesn't bother you one bit, but you have no problem with the war in Iraq, for which one justification was a genocide against the Kurds.

How are the people in Darfur less worth intervention than the Kurds?

"If you are unduly concerned about Sudanese genocide, then you are free to become a mercenary and do your part to stop it."

That one doesn't work in my case. Check http://www.afs.org/ if you want to know what I do for peace - I don't need to go anywhere and kill people to try to improve one or two things. Is that too difficult to grasp? I guess so.

"Whining on anet will not stop it."

Instead of explaining your point, you just say "go fight those who you don't like and stop the whining". I have an opinion, just like you, and a forum is a place to talk about opinions. Say what you think, bitch about things that annoy you, but don't tell others to shut up.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16259 posts, RR: 56
Reply 16, posted (10 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1876 times:

The genocide in Sudan doesn't bother you one bit,

I never said it didn't bother me, but don't you agree it should be stopped immediately by the Sudanese themselves? Barring that, what about their neighbours? Perhaps Kenya, Uganda, Egypt & Somalia can resolve this regional conflict if Sudan can't.

Wy is it automatically assumed that Western nations should step in and prevent/resolve genocide in all 4 corners of the world?








Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 42
Reply 17, posted (10 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1866 times:

"I never said it didn't bother me,"

but the "let them solve it on their own" attitude sounded like that.

"but don't you agree it should be stopped immediately by the Sudanese themselves?"

The problem is that the Sudanese government is supporting the Janjaweed, and the people in Darfur are unable to defend themselves. If it weren't for the Sudanese government, all of this wouldn't be happening. The "solution" that government favours is either killing or expelling the people in Darfur (anyone know a shorter term?).

"Barring that, what about their neighbours? Perhaps Kenya, Uganda, Egypt & Somalia can resolve this regional conflict if Sudan can't."

Look at the "Democratic Republic of the Congo"  Yeah sure and Rwanda, its eastern neighbour, for a fine example of "solutions" some African governments offer their neighbouring countries. To think that economic aid paid for many of the weapons used by the Rwandans to secure the natural resources in the DRC makes me nothing short of furious.

"Wy is it automatically assumed that Western nations should step in and prevent/resolve genocide in all 4 corners of the world?"

Theoretically, it would indeed be best if all nations solved their own problems, without killing people and without civil wars. In today's reality, when governments are trying to solve their nations' problems by killing people (like Saddam, Milosevic and now the Sudanese), should other nations just let them proceed? A genocide is a genocide and should be stopped by those who say they defend human rights, freedom and democracy - which are the "Western nations".
The expulsion of the Armenians was a genocide, Hitler's concentration camps were a genocide, Stalin's "resettlements" were often genocides, the Chinese "cultural revolution" was a "class"-based genocide, Saddam gassing the Kurds was a genocide, Milosevic's "ethnic cleansing" was a genocide, and the Janjaweed are committing a genocide. Now that there might be a chance to stop a genocide while it's already happening, you think it should not be taken?



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 18, posted (10 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1860 times:

Wy is it automatically assumed that Western nations should step in and prevent/resolve genocide in all 4 corners of the world?

How about "Because no-one else is doing it"?

True, YYZ717, you're absolutely right that it would be best if the Sudanese would solve their own problems. But considering the fact that the Sudanese are actually the ones that created the problem, I have my doubts that such a solution will be reached before one side of the conflict is either dead or out of the country.

The UN needs teeth - but so far quite a few of the security council members have shied away from even calling this a genocide - because calling it a genocide would require them to do something... as long as it's "just" a domestic conflict, everyone can continue to sit at the sidelines, hold big speeches about how bad the situation is and that something should be done - and afterwards go back home and not think about Sudan anymore.

And I seriously doubt that that will improve anything.

Regards,
Frank



Smile - it confuses people!
User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (10 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1858 times:

"The genocide in Sudan doesn't bother you one bit, but you have no problem with the war in Iraq, for which one justification was a genocide against the Kurds.

How are the people in Darfur less worth intervention than the Kurds?"

Please.
No one gave a damn about the Kurds. This newly found concern for the Kurds trumpeted by the lying thuggish right wing in the US was purely a step-in once the much bally-hooed WMDs were never found. If we were so concerned about the Kurds, then we wouldn't have been in bed with Saddam Hussein while he was slaughtering Kurds back in the 80s.

The people in Darfur are worth less intervention than the Kurds because they do not live in a nation sitting on a bazillion barrels of oil.

Western nations - like all nations - act out of self-interest. The civil war in Bosnia had ramifications within Europe. Thus, NATO and the US reacted. The war in Rwanda was seen merely as a bunch of Africans, so black they were almost blue, fighting among themselves with nary an effect on the interests of the West. Somehow I dont think that the good folks of Peoria can either relate to- or care - about these people. Iraq as we all know is sitting on the lifeline of modern economies: oil; Sudan is just a big pile of sand.

Its not that hard to figure out.


User currently offlineL.1011 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 2209 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (10 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1850 times:

As the nations with the real weapons, I feel that NATO should go in there and deal with it. Letting the Sudanese "solve the problem themselves" will only result in more killing. Perhaps it's time to throw the government into chaois and stop the genocide. The UN proved what it's worth in Rwanda. We also need to carefully consider WHY there are violent rebels and HOW they got weapons. Neither the government nor the rebels are "good", which is why we need to go in there and help the people. That's my $.02.

User currently offlineIakobos From Belgium, joined Aug 2003, 3313 posts, RR: 34
Reply 21, posted (10 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1842 times:

What is going on in Sudan is a very very old story.
It is the story of a "nation" in the thirld world, where religious beliefs and appartenance to a clan/tribe are the deciding factors of who runs it and who remains in slavery.

As always, all sides have their helping and funding friends and there are always weapons merchants willing to cash in.
If preventing clashes to degenerate would be the right thing to do, it should have been done 20 years ago, at least. Nobody (or very few) cared back then.
Tens (or hundreds) of thousands are buried since and now suddenly the West
cries wolf.

The UN should have the means to put a halt to all hostilities, that should include a permanent and solid task force with its own transport and logistics capabilities, and establish a demarcation zone. Next would be working out an agreement between parties, and if not achievable, leave it to an international court.
Guess that some behind the scene do not like the idea...




User currently offlineGo Canada! From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 2955 posts, RR: 11
Reply 22, posted (10 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1839 times:

"As always, all sides have their helping and funding friends and there are always weapons merchants willing to cash in.
If preventing clashes to degenerate would be the right thing to do, it should have been done 20 years ago, at least. Nobody (or very few) cared back then.
Tens (or hundreds) of thousands are buried since and now suddenly the West
cries wolf."

Thats because this is 20 years on. You cannot have genocide, turning around and stating that just because it hasnt been stopped before it shouldnt be stopped now is appalling.

I think the arab world needs to play a role, after all Sudan is a aprt arab country, it is Arabs who are doing the massacring and Sudan is reported to have Al Queada elements. To send in troops into another country which has arabs onto top of iraq and afghanistan is going to cause issues.




It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
User currently offlineCaptoveur From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (10 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1831 times:

The UN has a knack for screwing this crap up, they should keep their little blue noses out of it and let the problem work itself out.

Since the UN will send troops anyway, because they love going where they aren't welcomed I just hope they send someone other than US troops. Let the entire third world start hating someone other than the US for doing what the UN says.


User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (10 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1826 times:


"I just hope they send someone other than US troops. Let the entire third world start hating someone other than the US for doing what the UN says."

You clearly have no clue what the makeup of the UN forces are. They are not predominantly American. Countries like India and Pakistan, Germany and Italy make up a large contingent of UN forces.

This is one instance where UN troops SHOULD be sent.


25 Iakobos : Go Canada, I think you misread my post. I said it is been going on for 20 years and the "civilized" world had that much to stop the fighting, it is ve
26 GDB : Head of UK land forces, Sir Mike Jackson (about as different a person as you can get from his more famous namesake) has told Blair that 5000 British t
27 Iakobos : GDB, Correct and decidedly such a move would be welcomed by anyone caring for the poor souls stuck in the middle. Professional soldiers with a clear (
28 Yyz717 : I think it would be highly symbolic and appropriate for an all-African UN contingent to halt this genocide, if the UN must get involved. Imagine that.
29 MaverickM11 : "Africans solving African problems. What a concept." Unfortunately, it's also a pipe dream.
30 MD11Engineer : The biggest problem with the traditional blue helmets is that they don´t get the right gear and training to do their job. Often enough both sides (wh
31 LY7E7 : I do not know what is the real situation in Sudan. I also think that the history had proved to us that rumours like this have to be tested by the inte
32 GDB : You pointed out perfectly that what is required is a UN sanctioned force, not so much a UN force in the traditional sense. If the British Army's leadi
33 Iakobos : LY7E7 Shalom, No assumptions to be made here. As I said the war of secession in Sudan is running for a good two decades. Back at the end of the 80's a
34 MD11Engineer : Concerning dividing Sudan into two countries, the Organisation of African Unity is strictly against any change of todays borders (and they were grumbl
35 Iakobos : MD11 You are right and the OAU is right in its assessment of opening a can of worms. (image) The geopolitical divisions in Africa are the results of a
36 Jcs17 : Sorry, we can't be bothered with genocide, we're too busy condemning Israel for building a wall that prevents the murder of its civilians. Warmest Reg
37 Post contains links MD11Engineer : http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/sudan.html Check this link. I remembered having read something about Sudan having oil fields. Acc. to this map it loo
38 QIguy24 : Hey Jcs17, Your Prez is a peaceloving man. Why doesn't he do anything about this crisis? Or is he to busy looking like a Saint after "liberating" the
39 JGPH1A : Re: I think it would be highly symbolic and appropriate for an all-African UN contingent to halt this genocide, if the UN must get involved. Won't EVE
40 Wingman : I have a better solution, instead of the EU just sitting back and bitching about the US, why not have the EU actually do something about it? Let's not
41 MaverickM11 : "The geopolitical divisions in Africa are the results of a century of colonialism. None of the powers took care of local factors when they drew border
42 777236ER : Yyz, the West arguably caused the problems in Sudan. Bear in mind the Anglo-Egyptian rule didn't end until 1955. Only 14 years later it was Nimeri's r
43 MaverickM11 : "the West arguably caused the problems in Sudan. Bear in mind the Anglo-Egyptian rule didn't end until 1955. " Is Egypt considered the West? India was
44 777236ER : Britain is considered to be in the West, surely. A lot of the problems in the world can be traced back to colonialism.
45 N766UA : Just like in the mid '90s, UN troops could help to stop the loss of life in the Sudan. In the mid '90s they stalled and never sent any troops- another
46 Cptkrell : Just a mere late $.02 worth, but I would not lose any sleep over anything that the UN did, except I would be very happy if the U.S. was mostly disenvo
47 Iakobos : Maverick, Another shining pearl of a post from you. It seems obvious you do not have a clue about Africa and Africans but still you cannot avoid to pa
48 GDB : For the US, there are unfortunate precedents, Lebanon in the early eighties, Somalia a decade later. Both were rushed and ill-defined operations, as t
49 MaverickM11 : "In your present state of mind, you are a lost case." Why? Just about every country has been a colony of someone at one point or another, and all have
50 MaverickM11 : "A lot of the problems in the world can be traced back to colonialism." A lot MORE of the world's problems can be traced back to poor access to clean
51 777236ER : Isn't it amazing how countries with the worst problems were former colonies.
52 MaverickM11 : "Isn't it amazing how countries with the worst problems were former colonies. " Yeah, like Australia, the US, Canada, Brazil, South Africa, New Zealan
53 Russophile : Should the UN be in Sudan? Yes! Should the UN be given more teeth? Yes! Except there are 5 things stopping that from happening, namely: 1) America 2)
54 JAL777 : I dunno... in order to make the UN more aggressive member states would have to start to surrender sovereignty (although limited). The permanent member
55 Post contains images Yyz717 : Yyz, the West arguably caused the problems in Sudan. Bear in mind the Anglo-Egyptian rule didn't end until 1955. Ummm....you're tying a 1955 political
56 777236ER : Ummm....you're tying a 1955 political event as some sort of pre-cursor for the current 2004 genocide? Nice quantum leap. Yes. When did the West earn m
57 Yyz717 : Yes. When did the West earn most of its wealth and standing in the world? In the 19th and early 20th centuries. The same time that countries that are
58 Iakobos : I said it is the quest for territories who made the then colonial powers divide usually very large pieces of land without any respect for anything loc
59 Airplay : Just like the good people in Iraq should have solved their "Saddam problem" on their own, right? Here we go again.... The US didn't go into Iraq to "s
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Where In The World Would You Rather Be? posted Sun May 14 2006 18:01:22 by Cosec59
Where In The World Should AA61hvy Study Abroad? posted Mon Mar 8 2004 21:02:49 by Aa61hvy
Should The Veto Be Available In The UN posted Sat Dec 4 2004 11:43:58 by HAWK21M
Should Ganguly Be In The Team posted Sat Jan 7 2006 12:22:20 by Lordanmol
Art Modell Should Be In The Hall Of Fame posted Sun Jan 4 2004 20:33:09 by Alpha 1
Who Should Never Be In The Hall Of Fame posted Fri Apr 5 2002 05:02:16 by Ady
Should Pete Rose Be Let In The Hall? posted Sun Mar 17 2002 23:00:30 by Donder10
Why Gays Should Not Serve In The Army posted Fri Sep 22 2006 00:10:03 by Braybuddy
Could This Be The Dumbest Guy In The World? posted Fri Jun 30 2006 05:19:09 by AAFLT1871
Togo: Do They Deserve To Be In The World Cup? posted Mon Jun 19 2006 12:18:35 by RootsAir