US/UK to invade Sudan

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.