Sudan - Next target?

MrBishop

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
End the Genocide Now
William Kristol and Vance Serchuk
Washington Post
September 22, 2004

...
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The United States will eventually act on Darfur. After the election President Bush or President Kerry will not sit by and permit the second genocide in Africa in a decade. We will intervene -- belatedly. The question is how belatedly, and how effectively.
Click to expand...
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The regime in Khartoum is unwilling to end the bloodshed it has unleashed in Darfur. Some 50,000 people have been killed, with 1.2 million forced to flee their homes. The Janjaweed militia backed by the Sudanese government continues to attack refugees, destroy villages and obstruct aid activities, acting in what the International Crisis Group has characterized as "a state of total impunity." [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The U.S. government has done everything it can diplomatically to resolve the crisis. For nearly six months Bush, Powell and other senior officials have urgently and publicly demanded that the Sudanese government pull back the militia. The U.S. government has repeatedly threatened "consequences" if Sudan failed to do so. In this, the Bush administration has the support, indeed the encouragement, of a bipartisan, right-left, "never again" consensus. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Now it's time for the threats to end and the consequences to begin. After all, in addition to the humanitarian imperative, the United States has a strategic interest in Sudan. Khartoum is one of seven regimes on the U.S. government's list of state sponsors of terrorism, and Sudan's dictatorship has had ties with almost every significant terrorist organization in the broader Middle East. Al Qaeda was based in Sudan during the 1990s, and other terrorist groups continue to operate there freely. This month Die Welt reported that Syria and Sudan have been collaborating in developing chemical weapons and may have used them against civilians in Darfur. Thus, in moving against Khartoum for its human rights abuses, we will also be striking a blow in the war on terrorism. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]For months it has been obvious that stopping Sudan's campaign in Darfur will require putting several thousand foreign troops on the ground. It has also been obvious that some of these troops will have to be American. As in the case of the Balkans, Rwanda and Iraq, U.S. policymakers have waited for the United Nations to take the lead in authorizing such a force. But after Saturday's Security Council vote, it is clear that at least two members of the council -- China and Russia -- will veto any genuine action against Sudan. Khartoum enjoys a strategic relationship with Beijing, which is hungry for Sudanese oil and doesn't worry about human rights or, for that matter, genocide. The Kremlin has a robust weapons trade with Sudan, having just this summer shipped an order of the very MiG warplanes that have been implicated in strafing civilians in Darfur. (The Sudanese ambassador in Moscow reports that his government is "very pleased" with the purchase, which the Russians delivered five months ahead of schedule.) ...
Click to expand...
[/font]
Source

So... anyone have a possible timeline?
[/font]
 
Winky

Winky

Well-Known Member
Bish you whackjob!

First of all I hope "we" (Americans that is) never set foot in that hellhole and secondly...

Who are you talking about? You Canucks gonna go in and pacify that place? Not very damn well likely!
 
Gonz

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
I nominate the UN mandated French troops that had the pimp ring going. Put these people to work, damnit.
 
AlladinSane

AlladinSane

Well-Known Member
unclehobart said:
Can Germany do one this time? How about India? Why are we always the one?
Click to expand...
Well it fits with the very same reasons your president alleged to invade Iraq. It woul be a natural follow-on. Are you saying you regret setting foot on Iraq?
 
Winky

Winky

Well-Known Member
I regret having to be the worlds policeman
but everyone can thank their Lucky Stars we are!!!
 
Winky

Winky

Well-Known Member
No way Jose!

Leave them to their own devices, or let someone else
go in there. It would be as bad as Somalia was, if not worse.

I as well as most Americans couldn't care less what goes on there.
 
Raven

Raven

Annoying SOB
unclehobart said:
Can Germany do one this time? How about India? Why are we always the one?
Click to expand...
Because your government decides you should be, no one forces anyone to take action.
 
Gonz

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
why should we get involved? it doesn't matter? these benevolent dictators will clean up their country & then hop aboard the UN bandwagon. Look, here's the first car pulling in now...

Corpi%20Ammassati%20Auschwitz.JPG


this one is even less important, they're only Arabs
14.jpg


Can't wait for the African shots
 
Raven

Raven

Annoying SOB
No signs there saying 'America please come now' that I can see, just a general plea for help. America put the role on itself as 'world police'....no one forced it on you, so like I said it's your governments decision to lead the charge.
 
Gonz

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
Correct...nobody forced us. Seeing how well the rest of the world responds, it's a damned good thing we are the police since the UN apparently can't handle their job & nobody else seems to care.
 
AlladinSane

AlladinSane

Well-Known Member
Let's get this straight, then. YOU unlike your friend Winky, support a possible military action against Sudan, right?
 
Shadowfax

Shadowfax

<b>mod cow</b>
probably Iran will be invaded first, due to the possibility of producing nuclear weapons. then we still have india and pakistan, who own nuclear weapons as well...

no, i don't think sudan is on high priority at the moment.
 
Gonz

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
AlladinSane said:
Let's get this straight, then. YOU unlike your friend Winky, support a possible military action against Sudan, right?
Click to expand...

Yes, I support military action in the Sudan. I do not, however, beleive it should be the US. This is exactly what the UN was made for. Maybe some other country that has lost itself & was reclaimed in their name.

We are busy saving the free world at the moment.
 
AlladinSane

AlladinSane

Well-Known Member
Please enlighten me then. Why Iraq deserves special attention from US and not Sudan? And why is Sudan out of the free world?
 
MrBishop

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
Shadowfax said:
probably Iran will be invaded first, due to the possibility of producing nuclear weapons. then we still have india and pakistan, who own nuclear weapons as well...

no, i don't think sudan is on high priority at the moment.
Click to expand...
They said the same kinda thing about many of the places that had mass-killings. The problem is..the longer you wait...the more people there die.

BTW - 60 years ago...Auchwitz was liberated (give or take a day or three). 6 million Jews died.

Bosnia
Kosovo
etc etc...

In some cases, hundreds of thousands of people killed, countless other displaced. With every passing day, hour, minute...someone dies, someone gets raped...and the world stands by

My question should've been - how long can we afford to wait?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top