To stop the slaughter, and if the UN/EU/NATO refuse to act, would you support unilateral U.S. intervention in Darfur?
and as a follow up question, if, a year from now, a substantial american presence (equal to afghanistan) were still there, and there was still some civil unrest but the genocide had been stopped, would you consider the intervention a failure?
It depends on what action was taken to first try and enlist international aid. It depends on how the build up was handled, and what guidelines were set before the mission as to whether it was a success.
Texas Air National Guard! though I think it would be 'nuts' to send this dude. Maybe the Inactive Navy Reserve? This guy seems kind of stiff though.
Posted in this thread: <a HREF="http://bbs.clutchcity.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77738&perpage=30&pagenumber=2">For Sam, WSJ: UN turns a blind eye to Sudan</a>
I saw that, and the tighfistedness of our allies should be condemned. My question is what is being done to remedy that? It would depend on what measures were taken to turn that tide, and lead the world in a better direction
This is a perfect example of an action that we SHOULD take, but cannot due to the unjustified, elective war we started in Iraq. Had we simply stayed in and rebuilt Afghanistan, we might have troops to send, but as a result of Bush's misguided actions, we have nobody to send.
Can somebody point me to an article about what the UN, NATO, and the EU's position on Sudan is right now?
It's inexcusable, Mango. $4 million is nothing to France, Germany and any number of developed countries. If Bush were to call them on the carpet for it, I would be supportive. But if Bush hadn't invaded Iraq, we might have had the troops to intervene in the Sudan. Or at least credibly threaten to intervene. I wonder if France is still chapped about the British booting them out of the Sudan in the 19th century? If they are looking at it as being out of their sphere of influence, then that's a sorry excuse. They have the troops in West Africa to present a credible threat of intervention and have never been shy about doing it there. This is a chance for them to take the lead and they're dropping the ball, with hundreds of thousands of lives on the line.
I posted quite heavily about the <i>Continent</i> in the other Sudan thread and really lack for ideas on how to change their isolationist and/or pacifist mindset. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan show interest, but what plan/method do you suggest to change the current way of thinking on the <i>Continent</i>? <a HREF="http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_members.html">United Nations Security Council Members</a> <i> Chile 31 December 2004 (Membership Term Ends) China Permanent Member <b>France</b> Permanent Member <b>Germany</b> 31 December 2004 (Membership Term Ends) Pakistan 31 December 2004 (Membership Term Ends) Philippines 31 December 2005 (Membership Term Ends) Romania 31 December 2005 (Membership Term Ends) Russian Federation Permanent Member <b>Spain</b> 31 December 2004 (Membership Term Ends) United Kingdom Permanent Member United States Permanent Member Algeria 31 December 2005 (Membership Term Ends) Angola 31 December 2004 (Membership Term Ends) Benin 31 December 2005 (Membership Term Ends) Brazil 31 December 2005 (Membership Term Ends) </i> Going into the reasons and machinations of why some countries are Permanent Members and others have to settle for rotating membership on the UN Security Council would be the subject of another thread. Currently, Germany and Spain have temporary membership and France has <b>Permanent Membership</b> on the UN Security Council, yet the U.S. is expected to lead <b>again</b> on an issue?
WHAT A BUNCH OF CRAP !!!!!! What you should have said was this is the exact reason that the UN has become a debate society and is too frozen to act. This same type of thing happened in Bosnia..... The UN is a joke, sometimes doing something because it is the RIGHT thing to do is more important than appeasing our allies. Whether or not countries agreed with our invasion of Iraq should not have any bearing on the issue in Sudan.....that is just small minded thinking on the part of Chirac. We should have let Germany KEEP FRANCE !!! DD
The Netherlands has shown some interest. <a HREF="http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=19&story_id=9022">Dutch give EUR 3m, observers to Sudan mission</a> <hr color=blue> A nice read here: <a HREF=http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/697/fr2.htm">Dateline Darfur</a> <i>........... The US has provided Sudan with $110 million since the crisis in Darfur erupted in February 2003. Emma Bonino, member of the International Crisis Group which has recently released two reports on Darfur, told Al- Ahram Weekly that the Sudanese government has been obstructing the work of journalists and humanitarian aid workers in Darfur. Bonino, in Cairo to meet with Egyptian officials and Sudanese opposition figures, said "journalists and aid workers are key witnesses to the atrocities committed in Darfur against the civilian population. They do not want to be seen killing their own people." "Those responsible for the atrocities must be held accountable," Bonino said. The US must "secure the protection and security of civilians and humanitarian workers, disarm the militias and allow full and unimpeded access by humanitarian groups in Darfur."</i> Bonino doesn't seem to expect anybody but the U.S. to step forward and actually make an impact on the situation. <hr color=blue> <a HREF="http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/news/editorial/9065329.htm">France, Germany should take lead in Sudan (Editorial)</a> <i>...........Both Powell and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan were in Sudan this week. They got the usual government promises of action and reform, but Annan forthrightly said it might take international troops to disarm and disband the militias, and there is a draft U.N. resolution pending to authorize that. The ideal solution would be to use troops drawn from the region, but they don’t seem to have sufficient numbers and training. Thus, once again, the world will be standing around waiting to see what the United States does. However, we are already engaged in two foreign military projects – Iraq and Afghanistan. There are major nations fresh and rested from sitting on the sidelines that can and should take the lead in any intervention. How about it, France and Germany? The criteria are there you said you’d need to justify intervention – a clear humanitarian crisis and a U.N. resolution.</i> <hr color=blue> <a HREF="http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0702/dailyUpdate.html">No blinking on Darfur</a> <hr color=blue> Overall, it seems that countries on the <i>Continent</i> will send some funds & observers, but they are not very interested in intervening.
DD, I have some criticism for the UN, some for my own beloved country, and a whole lot for France these days. Chirac is being a real dimwit -- I don't think he's playing his cards well at all. ... But I'm still glad we drove the nazis out of France. I'll take Paris with the good food and trains that run behind schedule, thank you.
Am I the only one who finds the parameters set forthy by basso the least bit suspicious? 1) basso-To stop the slaughter, and if the UN/EU/NATO refuse to act, would you support unilateral U.S. intervention in Darfur? liberal poster- yeah, we have to help those people, regardless. basso- A-ha!!! Why didn't you feel that way about Iraq? Your partisan bias is why you don't support Bush and hate america etc.... 2) basso- if, a year from now, a substantial american presence (equal to afghanistan *[oski's note-or like in Iraq?]) were still there, and there was still some civil unrest but the genocide had been stopped, would you consider the intervention a failure? liberal- if the genocide was stopped, I'd say we did something good, yeah definately a success. basso- A-ha!!! So then why do you claim Iraq was a failure? Partisan, bias, blah, blah, america haters, etc.
