NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/31/international/africa/31NATI.html
By a vote of 13-0 (with China and Pakistan abstaining), Sudan has thirty days to disarm the militias, or face consequences. To me, the resolution didn't go far enough. I'd have prefered the threat of force be thrown in there, including military occupation of Darfur. But, only a few days ago, it looked as it nothing at all would be done there.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/31/international/africa/31NATI.html
By a vote of 13-0 (with China and Pakistan abstaining), Sudan has thirty days to disarm the militias, or face consequences. To me, the resolution didn't go far enough. I'd have prefered the threat of force be thrown in there, including military occupation of Darfur. But, only a few days ago, it looked as it nothing at all would be done there.

The UN is a joke. They have just lost all power because without the US they have no real military power to stop anything, Sudan wouldn't be hurt that bad by economic sanctions because they are already really poor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/31/international/africa/31NATI.html
By a vote of 13-0 (with China and Pakistan abstaining), Sudan has thirty days to disarm the militias, or face consequences. To me, the resolution didn't go far enough. I'd have prefered the threat of force be thrown in there, including military occupation of Darfur. But, only a few days ago, it looked as it nothing at all would be done there.
Thank god for something, but I too would've liked more

30 days?? You can do a lot of massacuring of innocents in 30 days.

The UN is a joke. They have just lost all power because without the US they have no real military power to stop anything, Sudan wouldn't be hurt that bad by economic sanctions because they are already really poor.
Still, calling any military force deployed into Sudan a UN force is a mere formality in a large UN operation. Guess which nation's troops constitute much of that force in major operations?

Still, calling any military force deployed into Sudan a UN force is a mere formality in a large UN operation. Guess which nation's troops constitute much of that force in major operations?
Yeah, but its a symbolic thing, they're part of a UN force and they are commanded by the United Nations. It shows that any operation by them has global backing

Yeah, but its a symbolic thing, they're part of a UN force and they are commanded by the United Nations. It shows that any operation by them has global backing
Yes. Besides, I believe that with the government in Khartoum weakened, Sudan is in for radical change that may help in the War on Terror. But that won't happen, as there is no significant force going in, now will it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/31/international/africa/31NATI.html
By a vote of 13-0 (with China and Pakistan abstaining), Sudan has thirty days to disarm the militias, or face consequences. To me, the resolution didn't go far enough. I'd have prefered the threat of force be thrown in there, including military occupation of Darfur. But, only a few days ago, it looked as it nothing at all would be done there.


Ok I have to say that I have no confidence in the UN. "Face consequences"?
If I was a bad guy in Sudan I would laugh my ass off hearing that.

Don't get me wrong... that is another place in the world that could use a good thorough Marine Corp. cleaning.

Still, calling any military force deployed into Sudan a UN force is a mere formality in a large UN operation. Guess which nation's troops constitute much of that force in major operations?
Don't say the USA
Don't say the USA
Don't say the USA
Don't say the USA
Don't say the USA


Sorry we are busy at the moment...please leave us a message at the beep.

click

Yes, UN "consequences" for Sudan will be the same as those they threatened Iraq with...nothing.

The problem with the UN is that Sudan was recently appointed to the UN Human Rights Commision. Kind of like appointing Hitler to a UN committee for Multiculturalism.

Yes, UN "consequences" for Sudan will be the same as those they threatened Iraq with...nothing.

The problem with the UN is that Sudan was recently appointed to the UN Human Rights Commision. Kind of like appointing Hitler to a UN committee for Multiculturalism.
Oh God I'm having a good laugh every thread I go tonight.

Oh God I'm having a good laugh every thread I go tonight.

Agreed and here's something else that sounds like Iraq:

Sudan REJECTED the UN resolution!

Don't say the USA
Don't say the USA
Don't say the USA
Don't say the USA
Don't say the USA


Sorry we are busy at the moment...please leave us a message at the beep.

click
I consider Sudan as insurence for the US. Suppose Khartoum is deposed. Sudan would splinter into an Arab north, a Black Muslim West, and an African south. With three countries in need of rebuilding, at least one of them can succeed at being a liberal democracy, spreading the idea throughout North Africa, and possibly the Middle East. It's what I'm hopping Iraq will do.
But we can find the extra troops needed. Sudan will need two extra divisions, tops. It is almost a failsafe if the US sends troops there. The UN is only needed as a formality.
However, I see that the US is, on a diplomatic level, turning down an inexpensive yet effective insurance policy.

Responsible regional politics would involve any international force being made up of local forces, in this case that will realistically be Nigeria. Wont happen though cause they wont go unless the G8 countries agree to pay for it and why would they.

Responsible regional politics would involve any international force being made up of local forces, in this case that will realistically be Nigeria. Wont happen though cause they wont go unless the G8 countries agree to pay for it and why would they.
Actually, the AU will deploy forces there by year's end.

Agreed and here's something else that sounds like Iraq:

Sudan REJECTED the UN resolution!
*wipes tears away*

I can't take it anymore!

Which nations do our beloved and esteemed UN entrust with monitoring Human Rights? Read this and find out !!

http://www.house.gov/pitts/press/commentary/051501c-un.htm

I don't know about you but I feel so much safer knowing Human Rights is in the hands of such free and benevolant nations. :(

*wipes tears away*

I can't take it anymore!
Hell, Sudan is Iraq's little brother. Back in '91, Rumor has it that Sudan offered to host Iraqi troops to attack Egypt, as it was stated that Hussein was interested in a new Abbassid Empire.

I consider Sudan as insurence for the US. Suppose Khartoum is deposed. Sudan would splinter into an Arab north, a Black Muslim West, and an African south. With three countries in need of rebuilding, at least one of them can succeed at being a liberal democracy, spreading the idea throughout North Africa, and possibly the Middle East. It's what I'm hopping Iraq will do.
But we can find the extra troops needed. Sudan will need two extra divisions, tops. It is almost a failsafe if the US sends troops there. The UN is only needed as a formality.
However, I see that the US is, on a diplomatic level, turning down an inexpensive yet effective insurance policy.
I like your thinking. You would have to take those divisions from N. Korea.

I like your thinking. You would have to take those divisions from N. Korea.
True. I'd like North Korea to be gotten rid of, too, as the North Koreans deprive their citizens of the tremendous wealth of the south. Then again, South Korea can easily defend itself if need arises, and I'd sacrifice North Korea for insuring that US policy in the Middle East fails. Why start one project when another one needs finishing?

Which nations do our beloved and esteemed UN entrust with monitoring Human Rights? Read this and find out !!

http://www.house.gov/pitts/press/commentary/051501c-un.htm

I don't know about you but I feel so much safer knowing Human Rights is in the hands of such free and benevolant nations. :(
good post

Hell, Sudan is Iraq's little brother. Back in '91, Rumor has it that Sudan offered to host Iraqi troops to attack Egypt, as it was stated that Hussein was interested in a new Abbassid Empire.

Sudan currently occupies an area of south-east Egypt called the Halaib Triangle.

Sudan currently occupies an area of south-east Egypt called the Halaib Triangle.
I've heard that. It seems like Egypt doesn't really care, though. I don't know, though, what the situation about that is like.

I've heard that. It seems like Egypt doesn't really care, though. I don't know, though, what the situation about that is like.

It is listed as a disputed territory under Sudanese control. I am unsure of the reasons why Sudan has claimed the area or what Egypt is doing to reclaim it. It does show that Sudan is aggressive towards their neighbours and has claimed territory from them.

Here is a short article outlining the region and the source of the dispute.

http://www.megastories.com/sudan/map/halaib.htm

It is listed as a disputed territory under Sudanese control. I am unsure of the reasons why Sudan has claimed the area or what Egypt is doing to reclaim it. It does show that Sudan is aggressive towards their neighbours and has claimed territory from them.

Here is a short article outlining the region and the source of the dispute.

http://www.megastories.com/sudan/map/halaib.htm
Even better. Not only is Sudan an insurance policy for the US, but the Khartoum government will be missed by no one, except maybe the Janjaweed and a few al-Qaeda wackos.

It is listed as a disputed territory under Sudanese control. I am unsure of the reasons why Sudan has claimed the area or what Egypt is doing to reclaim it. It does show that Sudan is aggressive towards their neighbours and has claimed territory from them.

Here is a short article outlining the region and the source of the dispute.

http://www.megastories.com/sudan/map/halaib.htm
BTW, the Triangle is disputed because of oil reserves that may be there.

Yes, although it is widely believed that the area has minimal oil reserves it is in fact more valuable as a source of minerals such as manganese and phosphates.

BTW, the Triangle is disputed because of oil reserves that may be there.

*Here's the liberals yelling 'no troops for haliburton's greed' now*

Yes, although it is widely believed that the area has minimal oil reserves and is in fact more valuable as a source of minerals such as manganese and phosphates.
Well, that's found pretty much everywhere in the Sahara.

*Here's the liberals yelling 'no troops for haliburton's greed' now*
They're probably marginal, though. Perhaps about as much oil as the total reserves of Italy.

Well, that's found pretty much everywhere in the Sahara.

Yep, hence the fight over the territory is more about a "show of strength" between Sudan and Egypt.

It would be interesting to see what those that made light of human rights abuses in Iraq have to say about Sudan. I mean, if the war on Iraq to remove a murderous regime was not acceptable to them then surely Sudan cannot be invaded either..right?

They're probably marginal, though. Perhaps about as much oil as the total reserves of Italy.

Wouldn't matter to them. Anything that has oil will get Bush and Cheney in trouble! Mostly Cheney!

Yep, hence the fight over the territory is more about a "show of strength" between Sudan and Egypt.

It would be interesting to see what those that made light of human rights abuses in Iraq have to say about Sudan. I mean, if the war on Iraq to remove a murderous regime was not acceptable to them then surely Sudan cannot be invaded either..right?
Yep. Imagine, Amnesty International will certainly try to pull some crap in defense of Sudan. You know, they were the main advocates against Hussein until 2001. They said hardly anything on Iraq, because the West mamy act on it (which did happen).

Yep. Imagine, Amnesty International will certainly try to pull some crap in defense of Sudan. You know, they were the main advocates against Hussein until 2001. They said hardly anything on Iraq, because the West mamy act on it (which did happen).

You have a point then they criticize us for going into Iraq but yet have ignored the mass graves that we have found.

The UN will apply sanctions to Sudan after they defy the order to disarm the militias in 30 days. This will prove to be the huge success it was in Iraq keeping the current regime in power, enabling them to continue their atrocities and punishing only the civilians the sanctions are supposed to protect.
This will drag on for years with resolutions enacted and ignored. Sounding familiar? I would be interested to see if France, China and Russia veto any UN-backed military activity in Sudan because the circumstances are basically the same as for Iraq prior to the current war.

The UN will apply sanctions to Sudan after they defy the order to disarm the militias in 30 days. This will prove to be the huge success it was in Iraq keeping the current regime in power, enabling them to continue their atrocities and punishing only the civilians the sanctions are supposed to protect.
This will drag on for years with resolutions enacted and ignored. Sounding familiar? I would be interested to see if France, China and Russia veto any UN-backed military activity in Sudan because the circumstances are basically the same as for Iraq prior to the current war.

Yep it does sound familiar! Gee so when do we start gearing up for war in Sudan? (that was sarcastic)

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/31/international/africa/31NATI.html
By a vote of 13-0 (with China and Pakistan abstaining), Sudan has thirty days to disarm the militias, or face consequences. To me, the resolution didn't go far enough. I'd have prefered the threat of force be thrown in there, including military occupation of Darfur. But, only a few days ago, it looked as it nothing at all would be done there.

Impossible. The place is officially labled an Anarchy (not the good kind), so how the heck will the "government" (or what's left of it) disarm these people?

But seriously, why doesnt the UN send an intl military squad? that might help straighten things out

The UN will apply sanctions to Sudan after they defy the order to disarm the militias in 30 days. This will prove to be the huge success it was in Iraq keeping the current regime in power, enabling them to continue their atrocities and punishing only the civilians the sanctions are supposed to protect.
This will drag on for years with resolutions enacted and ignored. Sounding familiar? I would be interested to see if France, China and Russia veto any UN-backed military activity in Sudan because the circumstances are basically the same as for Iraq prior to the current war.
Luckily, there is a precedent. Enough people should see this coming, and should be able to voice concern. Action may not happen tommarow, but at least people should see it coming.

Impossible. The place is officially labled an Anarchy (not the good kind), so how the heck will the "government" (or what's left of it) disarm these people?

But seriously, why doesnt the UN send an intl military squad? that might help straighten things out
It's what I've been arguing in the past few posts.

Yep it does sound familiar! Gee so when do we start gearing up for war in Sudan? (that was sarcastic)

As soon as the job is done in Iraq! ;)

Seriously, I doubt it will happen, at least not in the near future. Especially if there is a change in government in the US. Also, the fact that the war in Iraq has generated a lot of negative comment and innuendo means a government will need to be extremely bold to advocate another conflict in the war on terror soon after Iraq.
Don't get me wrong, Sudan needs to comply or risk miltary action in my opinion. I am just waiting to hear what the difference is between invading Iraq and invading Sudan.

As soon as the job is done in Iraq! ;)

Seriously, I doubt it will happen, at least not in the near future. Especially if there is a change in government in the US. Also, the fact that the war in Iraq has generated a lot of negative comment and innuendo means a government will need to be extremely bold to advocate another conflict in the war on terror soon after Iraq.
Don't get me wrong, Sudan needs to comply or risk miltary action in my opinion. I am just waiting to hear what the difference is between invading Iraq and invading Sudan.

I agree with you Tygaland. It would be difficult right now and it is still along way off but to me, better start a war plan now just incase! LOL

As soon as the job is done in Iraq! ;)

Seriously, I doubt it will happen, at least not in the near future. Especially if there is a change in government in the US. Also, the fact that the war in Iraq has generated a lot of negative comment and innuendo means a government will need to be extremely bold to advocate another conflict in the war on terror soon after Iraq.
Don't get me wrong, Sudan needs to comply or risk miltary action in my opinion. I am just waiting to hear what the difference is between invading Iraq and invading Sudan.
Well, at least at home, the action won't be seen with such malice. Only a few warplanes and a couple of divisions would bring Sudan to its knees. But as I see it, why do we need the world to love us for this action? It's foolproof. In fact, it's actually better that more of the world's attention is focused on a US presence in Sudan, as it'd take attention away from Iraq. It may cause the security situation to improve, as militants are distracted. It's the best thing our government can do, and the best part is that, this time, the UN has given a green light.

Bump

Well, at least at home, the action won't be seen with such malice. Only a few warplanes and a couple of divisions would bring Sudan to its knees. But as I see it, why do we need the world to love us for this action? It's foolproof. In fact, it's actually better that more of the world's attention is focused on a US presence in Sudan, as it'd take attention away from Iraq. It may cause the security situation to improve, as militants are distracted. It's the best thing our government can do, and the best part is that, this time, the UN has given a green light.
With the recent war in Iraq and the ongoing hostilities in that country and the US still occupying it, I am sure the US are incapable of doing anything in Sudan at this time. Leave it to the rest of the UN to solve this, you can rest assured that the US is not the only country in the world with a military.

Also note that the US are by far not the largest contributor to UN peacekeeping missions. The largest contributor is, afaik, Pakistan, next to Canada, France and African nations. For its military size, the US do little to nothing for peacekeeping in the world.

With the recent war in Iraq and the ongoing hostilities in that country and the US still occupying it, I am sure the US are incapable of doing anything in Sudan at this time. Leave it to the rest of the UN to solve this, you can rest assured that the US is not the only country in the world with a military.

Also note that the US are by far not the largest contributor to UN peacekeeping missions. The largest contributor is, afaik, Pakistan, next to Canada, France and African nations. For its military size, the US do little to nothing for peacekeeping in the world.

HAHA so rich Gigatron. Get with the news for once. The occupation ended on June 28, 2004! Iraq has full soveriegnty. That is a known fact! To bad people dont recognize that fact.

As for the peacekeepers, here's the reason. WE don't like our people placed under foreign soldiers or nations. That is why we have less people than others. Our forces are better to serve on the offensive. Our capabilities in many military areas see to this.

With the recent war in Iraq and the ongoing hostilities in that country and the US still occupying it, I am sure the US are incapable of doing anything in Sudan at this time. Leave it to the rest of the UN to solve this, you can rest assured that the US is not the only country in the world with a military.

Also note that the US are by far not the largest contributor to UN peacekeeping missions. The largest contributor is, afaik, Pakistan, next to Canada, France and African nations. For its military size, the US do little to nothing for peacekeeping in the world.
I did not say all UN operations. I said most major UN operations. For example, some wars thought of as purely US actions were actually UN wars, and mostly multilateral (although the US had the most troops). Examples are the Korean war, Gulf War I, and the actions in Yugoslavia. As benevolent as Canada is, it hasn't supplied the UN with entire army groups.
BTW, even though the US has its hands tied in Iraq, everyone forgets the troops in Korea and Japan. Plus, who remembers that there is a Marine Corp? They'd be especially effective in securing Port Sudan in the first hours of any intervention.

I did not say all UN operations. I said most major UN operations. For example, some wars thought of as purely US actions were actually UN wars, and mostly multilateral (although the US had the most troops). Examples are the Korean war, Gulf War I, and the actions in Yugoslavia. As benevolent as Canada is, it hasn't supplied the UN with entire army groups.
BTW, even though the US has its hands tied in Iraq, everyone forgets the troops in Korea and Japan. Plus, who remembers that there is a Marine Corp? They'd be especially effective in securing Port Sudan in the first hours of any intervention.


Yugoslavia was NATO not UN PE!

Yugoslavia was NATO not UN PE!
Not Bosnia. In fact, that was the most expensive UN peacekeeping mission ever.

Not Bosnia. In fact, that was the most expensive UN peacekeeping mission ever.

Right Bosnia was different! Sorry for the confusion.

Right Bosnia was different! Sorry for the confusion.
That's ok. But at the time, Bosnia was just separating from Yugoslavia, and most of the trouble was caused by irregulars from Milosevic's army.

Well, at least at home, the action won't be seen with such malice. Only a few warplanes and a couple of divisions would bring Sudan to its knees. But as I see it, why do we need the world to love us for this action? It's foolproof. In fact, it's actually better that more of the world's attention is focused on a US presence in Sudan, as it'd take attention away from Iraq. It may cause the security situation to improve, as militants are distracted. It's the best thing our government can do, and the best part is that, this time, the UN has given a green light.

I don't think the US needs the world to love them for their actions. I was referring to the fact that the government of the US may become hesitant to commit to a war in Sudan based on the fall-out from Iraq. Not that I think they should worry about it, but it is a possibility, especially if Kerry is elected.

What amazes me is that the UN gave the green light for the threat of action (just what that entails is unclear) on Sudan for Human Rights abuses but not Iraq. Why won't France, Russia or China object to operations in Sudan just like they did in Iraq? I mean, Sudan has no WMD so how can they justify a war in Sudan but not Iraq on the basis of Human Rights abuses?

I don't think the US needs the world to love them for their actions. I was referring to the fact that the government of the US may become hesitant to commit to a war in Sudan based on the fall-out from Iraq. Not that I think they should worry about it, but it is a possibility, especially if Kerry is elected.


In my way of thinking, Sudan cleans the fallout of Iraq for us. Not only does it make the US shine in a slightly better light, but if Iraq descends into utter anarchy, we only need to point to Sudan, and show that we are suceeding in building democracy there. After all, I want Sudan partitioned into three states. One of them should work. If they all don't work, it'll be a miracle.

In my way of thinking, Sudan cleans the fallout of Iraq for us. Not only does it make the US shine in a slightly better light, but if Iraq descends into utter anarchy, we only need to point to Sudan, and show that we are suceeding in building democracy there. After all, I want Sudan partitioned into three states. One of them should work. If they all don't work, it'll be a miracle.

Don't get me wrong, I think Sudan needs to be sorted out but I am trying to look at it from the President's point of view. Honestly, I think Bush would have no hesitation in moving on Sudan once things are sorted in Iraq and I think it is a good move. If Kerry is elected then you can forget about Sudan, there is no way he will push for a war in Sudan after getting elected on the back of the anti-war vote. Unless the UN authorises military action which is highly unlikely unless Russia, France and China expose themselves as hypocrits and support the action in Sudan.

Don't get me wrong, I think Sudan needs to be sorted out but I am trying to look at it from the President's point of view. Honestly, I think Bush would have no hesitation in moving on Sudan once things are sorted in Iraq and I think it is a good move. If Kerry is elected then you can forget about Sudan, there is no way he will push for a war in Sudan after getting elected on the back of the anti-war vote. Unless the UN authorises military action which is highly unlikely unless Russia, France and China expose themselves as hypocrits and support the action in Sudan.
You're right in that respect: Bush may very well make a move into that country, but Kerry certainly won't. However, I think that it wouldn't be bad if Bush moves now. The two countries compliment eachother. The main problem in Iraq now, for example, is security. With a troop presence in another Arab country, Sudan, militants will be distracted to there. They'll probably work under the banner of the Janjaweed, so local Sudanese should be all but happy to stop them. Iraq, therefore, will have less of a security problem.
In addition, should Iraq fail, an experiment on democracy in Sudan can act as a backup. It wouldn't hurt to wait, but it wouldn't hurt to act now, either.

I don't think the US needs the world to love them for their actions. I was referring to the fact that the government of the US may become hesitant to commit to a war in Sudan based on the fall-out from Iraq. Not that I think they should worry about it, but it is a possibility, especially if Kerry is elected.

What amazes me is that the UN gave the green light for the threat of action (just what that entails is unclear) on Sudan for Human Rights abuses but not Iraq. Why won't France, Russia or China object to operations in Sudan just like they did in Iraq? I mean, Sudan has no WMD so how can they justify a war in Sudan but not Iraq on the basis of Human Rights abuses?

China did as did Pakistan! They abstained instead of Voting no which would have killed the resolution!

China did as did Pakistan! They abstained instead of Voting no which would have killed the resolution!
So China opposed this. I bet it's because they see themselves as being a big player. And of course, the diplomatic rite of passage for a nation is to vehemently oppose the US.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/31/international/africa/31NATI.html
By a vote of 13-0 (with China and Pakistan abstaining), Sudan has thirty days to disarm the militias, or face consequences. To me, the resolution didn't go far enough. I'd have prefered the threat of force be thrown in there, including military occupation of Darfur. But, only a few days ago, it looked as it nothing at all would be done there.
Surely.....just reach into the US chump change jar and pull out a few Billion more bucks? And you talk about Republicans wanting to keep on spending?

The UN is a joke. They have just lost all power because without the US they have no real military power to stop anything, Sudan wouldn't be hurt that bad by economic sanctions because they are already really poor.
That is not true and you know it (UN has no power without US)?

Don't say the USA
Don't say the USA
Don't say the USA
Don't say the USA
Don't say the USA


Sorry we are busy at the moment...please leave us a message at the beep.

click
You should have said that BEFORE invading Iraq?

Surely.....just reach into the US chump change jar and pull out a few Billion more bucks? And you talk about Republicans wanting to keep on spending?
It'd literally cost only that much. A few billion extra, and no more than two divisions of US troops. Action in Sudan would be overwhelmingly easy.

Another post addressed to CanuckHaven:
A revelation has struck me recently, and it's the reason why I'm beginning to dislike you. You're aren't repeating the fact that the US is in debt simply because you believe in fiscal policy. You're on a crusade. You want to somehow exploit this to encourage socialism, am I right? Well, I really hate such subtle moves like this. If you were worried about global finances, fine. But you aren't. You want to exploit this to make, in your words, capitalism fall like a cheap deck of cards.

Well, at least at home, the action won't be seen with such malice. Only a few warplanes and a couple of divisions would bring Sudan to its knees. But as I see it, why do we need the world to love us for this action? It's foolproof. In fact, it's actually better that more of the world's attention is focused on a US presence in Sudan, as it'd take attention away from Iraq. It may cause the security situation to improve, as militants are distracted. It's the best thing our government can do, and the best part is that, this time, the UN has given a green light.
Has given a green light to what? Sanctions or an invasion?

Has given a green light to what? Sanctions or an invasion?
Both. And that's the beauty of it, isn't it?

HAHA so rich Gigatron. Get with the news for once. The occupation ended on June 28, 2004! Iraq has full soveriegnty. That is a known fact! To bad people dont recognize that fact.

As for the peacekeepers, here's the reason. WE don't like our people placed under foreign soldiers or nations. That is why we have less people than others. Our forces are better to serve on the offensive. Our capabilities in many military areas see to this.
Iraq does not have FULL sovereignity. Please make sure of your facts?

Both. And that's the beauty of it, isn't it?
I don't see beauty in continual invasions into foreign countries. I didn't in Iraq and I wouldn't in Sudan. Sanctions should be applied first.

Iraq does not have FULL sovereignity. Please make sure of your facts?

They do CH! The Iraqis themselves are electing an interim, I guess parliment would be the word here. If that isn't soveriegnty I don't know what is. The election will take place in January. Their first election but the election for the interim parliment by conference of 1,000 or so iraqis sounds like full sovereignty to me.

I don't see beauty in continual invasions into foreign countries. I didn't in Iraq and I wouldn't in Sudan. Sanctions should be applied first.
The government in Khartoum has lost a right to exist. Besides, sanctions would hurt too many people fighting Sudan from the south. Thus, this further makes me fear that you're hiding a socialist agenda.

I don't see beauty in continual invasions into foreign countries. I didn't in Iraq and I wouldn't in Sudan. Sanctions should be applied first.

Sanctions are coming somewhat unless the UN authorizes force first! That'll be a switch. LOL!

Another post addressed to CanuckHaven:
A revelation has struck me recently, and it's the reason why I'm beginning to dislike you. You're aren't repeating the fact that the US is in debt simply because you believe in fiscal policy. You're on a crusade. You want to somehow exploit this to encourage socialism, am I right? Well, I really hate such subtle moves like this. If you were worried about global finances, fine. But you aren't. You want to exploit this to make, in your words, capitalism fall like a cheap deck of cards.
You are wrong once again. You should never assume anything? You want to know why I got involved in NS in the first place?

I will give you three guesses and expanding socialism is not one of them. Although I am truly surprised that a country as rich as the US has a poverty rate that is the worst amongst the OECD countries (17th out of 17).

They do CH! The Iraqis themselves are electing an interim, I guess parliment would be the word here. If that isn't soveriegnty I don't know what is. The election will take place in January. Their first election but the election for the interim parliment by conference of 1,000 or so iraqis sounds like full sovereignty to me.
FULL sovereignity means NO Bremer's Orders, NO US troops, and their own government. Iraqi police are NOT even allowed to have guns. Please do your homework. When you say something is a fact and 9 times out of 10, it isn't, you tend to lose credibility.

FULL sovereignity means NO Bremer's Orders, NO US troops, and their own government. Iraqi police are NOT even allowed to have guns. Please do your homework. When you say something is a fact and 9 times out of 10, it isn't, you tend to lose credibility.


Well Bremer is gone so that is accomplished, The troops will leave as soon the Iraqis can defend themselves, and France nearly blew that. They do have guns now. They are doing more of the patrols and doing their civic duty to defend the citizens. Iraqi Cops have died in firefights as have Iraqi guards.

You are wrong once again. You should never assume anything? You want to know why I got involved in NS in the first place?

I will give you three guesses and expanding socialism is not one of them. Although I am truly surprised that a country as rich as the US has a poverty rate that is the worst amongst the OECD countries (17th out of 17).

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/uk.html#Econ
While you'll find the UK is an OCED member, it has a worse poverty rate than the US (17% compared to 13.1%).
Now, guess one. You joined because a friend told you, and you have no life of your own. Hell, I don't even know if you work. I can't assume anything, remember? So you decided to get on here. Am I right?

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/uk.html#Econ
While you'll find the UK is an OCED member, it has a worse poverty rate than the US (17% compared to 13.1%).
Now, guess one. You joined because a friend told you, and you have no life of your own. Hell, I don't even know if you work. I can't assume anything, remember? So you decided to get on here. Am I right?
USA is 17th, UK is 15th

http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/cty/cty_f_GBR.html

I was cruising the net and I came across NS and being a lifetime lover of games, I thought I would join. I haven't played the game at all and once I found the Forums that was it. I have been a history buff since I was a young kid. My Dad used to tell me about war stories. He was stationed in England during WW2. His 3 brothers all fought on french soil and Italian soil and they all came back!!

nice! Two different opinions on here! Who to believe who to believe!

*flips a coin* Heads its CH tails its PE!

aww crap it landed edge on! Alwell back to my book!

Well Bremer is gone so that is accomplished, The troops will leave as soon the Iraqis can defend themselves, and France nearly blew that. They do have guns now. They are doing more of the patrols and doing their civic duty to defend the citizens. Iraqi Cops have died in firefights as have Iraqi guards.
Bremer may be gone but his orders live on. The current governing body was picked by Bremer. The complete rape of the Iraqi economy by the US and others is a disgusting shame!! Iraqi businesses can be 100% foreign owned and controlled, including banks!!

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/after/2004/0120ambitions.htm

Do so do some homework and learn a little history before you say what is factual, when it truly is fictional. I think you have heard this argument before from some other veteran posters?

USA is 17th, UK is 15th

http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/cty/cty_f_GBR.html

I was cruising the net and I came across NS and being a lifetime lover of games, I thought I would join. I haven't played the game at all and once I found the Forums that was it. I have been a history buff since I was a young kid. My Dad used to tell me about war stories. He was stationed in England during WW2. His 3 brothers all fought on french soil and Italian soil and they all came back!!
How nice. A socialist history buff. I'm glad your uncles came back, though. Italy was a hellhole.

Sorry CH! I don't believe that for one NY Minute.

The Prime Minister was choosen by the Iraqis. They wanted Allawi. Bremer and the UN wanted someone else. When he refused, only then did they appoint Allawi. Thus the iraqis got who they wanted to have as PM! I guess you forgot that tidbit!

How nice. A socialist history buff. I'm glad your uncles came back, though. Italy was a hellhole.
Well my country isn't exactly a socialist country, although we do have socialized health care. Canada is technically a constitutional monarchy, although the Queen no longer has any veto powers in Canada. The Queen's representative (Governor General) in Canada is chosen by the Prime Minister.

Well my country isn't exactly a socialist country, although we do have socialized health care. Canada is technically a constitutional monarchy, although the Queen no longer has any veto powers in Canada. The Queen's representative (Governor General) in Canada is chosen by the Prime Minister.
Yes, but you do describe yourself as a socialist.

Sorry CH! I don't believe that for one NY Minute.

The Prime Minister was choosen by the Iraqis. They wanted Allawi. Bremer and the UN wanted someone else. When he refused, only then did they appoint Allawi. Thus the iraqis got who they wanted to have as PM! I guess you forgot that tidbit!

Allawi still had to be endorsed by Bremer:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62691-2004May28.html

The council's selection of Allawi, a physician who left Iraq in 1971, was quickly endorsed by L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. civilian administrator of Iraq, and later by Lakhdar Brahimi, the U.N. representative who is leading efforts to form an interim Iraqi government, council members said.

Perhaps it will take more than a NY minute to grasp that?

China did as did Pakistan! They abstained instead of Voting no which would have killed the resolution!

Yes, I know. The thing is, that once Sudan ignores the direction by the UN to disarm the miltia in 30 days another resolution will need to be passed in order for action to be taken whether they be sanctions or military intervention. This is where France, Russia and China will either be shown as hypocrits or tacit supporters of Human Rights abuses in Iraq and Sudan. Time will tell.

I don't see beauty in continual invasions into foreign countries. I didn't in Iraq and I wouldn't in Sudan. Sanctions should be applied first.

Yes, because we all know that sanctions were so effective with Saddam and Iraq.

Yes, I know. The thing is, that once Sudan ignores the direction by the UN to disarm the miltia in 30 days another resolution will need to be passed in order for action to be taken whether they be sanctions or military intervention. This is where France, Russia and China will either be shown as hypocrits or tacit supporters of Human Rights abuses in Iraq and Sudan. Time will tell.
Don't you worry. France/Russia/China will have no reason to veto a limited military intervention in Darfur -- unless, of course, the "non-hypocrit" US/UK choose to advertise it as necessary to rid the world of "imminent danger from Sudanese weapons of mass destruction".

I'll just step outside CanuckHeaven's utopian world and run through some background on the interim government in Iraq and why the way it has been applied was the best decision for all.

Firstly, Iraq is/was a warzone. Infrastructure and security was almost obliterated during the war and is being rebuilt despite the problems caused by terrorist attacks. Saddam was deposed and the coalition worked to maintain security against the odds of terrorism attacks.

People complained that it was an occupation by the US despite the planned hand-over to the interim government consisting of members of different Iraqi factions. The Coalition supported a candidate to be the interim President but the interim government preferred Allawi. The coalition endorsed Allawi after their preferreed candidate withdrew.

An interim government was necessary to allow Iraqis to move back to self rule and democracy. With infrastructure and security still problems the interim government asked coalition troops to remain until the interim government felt the Iraqi police and military had the resources and training to maintain order on their own.

An election at this time for a truly democratic government was not an option due to security and infrastructure problems I have already mentioned. What better target for a terrorist than a group of Iraqi civilians lining up to vote in a democratic election that would inevitably spell the end for the terrorists in Iraq and possibly the Middle East?

Security is the top priority right now in Iraq and the Iraqi police and military are being trained and are gradually taking over patrols around the country under the guidance of coalition forces. When the interim government feels the time is right for the coalition troops to leave then thats what will happen, probably gradually to prevent a vacuum of security in the region from a mass move out.

Once the security is at an acceptable level then Iraq will have full democratic elections. They are scheduled for January 2005.

People who expected Iraq to go from warzone to democratic utopia in 12 months need to remember that it took decades to rebuild Germany after WWII and as such it will take time to rebuild Iraq.

Don't you worry. France/Russia/China will have no reason to veto a limited military intervention in Darfur -- unless, of course, the "non-hypocrit" US/UK choose to advertise it as necessary to rid the world of "imminent danger from Sudanese weapons of mass destruction".

If France, Russia or China do not veto Sudan on the basis it is a Human Rights issue then why were they happy to veto intervention in Iraq for Human Rights issues?

If France, Russia or China do not veto Sudan on the basis it is a Human Rights issue then why were they happy to veto intervention in Iraq for Human Rights issues?
Because Iraq is far more strategically important than Sudan and because Messrs Bush and Blair didn make it a "human rights" issue. -- Instead, they talked about the yellowcake that Saddam was supposedly buying in Niger, about the aluminium tubes "for the centrifuges" (in fact, for MRLS munitions), about CBW weapons supposedly positioned around Baghdad and ready fire in 45 minutes, about "mobile CBW labs" (see Mr Powell waving pictures before the Security Council). Mr Bush had every opportunity to rally the world around a Crusade for Human Rights in Iraq (and Iran, and NKorea, and Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, and Zimbabwe, &c.). But he chose otherwise.

Yes, because we all know that sanctions were so effective with Saddam and Iraq.
So your reasoning would be that since it doesn't work with Iraq than conversely it would not work with Sudan?

There has to be a starting point? Diplomacy should be the first plan of attack always, unless of course you are under attack, in which case the defensive machinations should be employed.

Or do you prefer the "shoot first, ask questions later" scenario?

Because Iraq is far more strategically important than Sudan and because Messrs Bush and Blair didn make it a "human rights" issue. -- Instead, they talked about the yellowcake that Saddam was supposedly buying in Niger, about the aluminium tubes "for the centrifuges" (in fact, for MRLS munitions), about CBW weapons supposedly positioned around Baghdad and ready fire in 45 minutes, about "mobile CBW labs" (see Mr Powell waving pictures before the Security Council). Mr Bush had every opportunity to rally the world around a Crusade for Human Rights in Iraq (and Iran, and NKorea, and Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, and Zimbabwe, &c.). But he chose otherwise.

By strategically more important I assume you mean the France and Russia were helping themselves to Food for Oil money.
So, let me get this straight. Because the US and other allies did not raise the Human Rights aspect in Iraq nations like France and Russia were incapable of seeing it as a Human Rights issue? So, in effect, France and Russia put their own political and economic concerns ahead of human rights in Iraq.

So your reasoning would be that since it doesn't work with Iraq than conversely it would not work with Sudan?

There has to be a starting point? Diplomacy should be the first plan of attack always, unless of course you are under attack, in which case the defensive machinations should be employed.

Or do you prefer the "shoot first, ask questions later" scenario?

Sanctions do not hurt the tyrants, they hurt the civilians the sanctions are supposed to be protecting. I do not prefer shoot first ask questions later scenarios but you have to be realistic. Sanctions do not work. How many more people will be massacred while we give the sanctions a couple of years to see if they work?

By strategically more important I assume you mean the France and Russia were helping themselves to Food for Oil money.
So, let me get this straight. Because the US and other allies did not raise the Human Rights aspect in Iraq nations like France and Russia were incapable of seeing it as a Human Rights issue? So, in effect, France and Russia put their own political and economic concerns ahead of human rights in Iraq.
Sincerely caring about "human rights" is the province of pipsquack Scandinavian countries. Serious nations care about power and influence, security and supply of strategic commodities. Such nations remember about "human rights" outside their borders only when the slaughter becomes too embarrassingly widespread (Rwanda, Darfur) or to close to home (ex-Yugoslavia) or when a politician wants to burnish a tarnished image (hence, Blair's pushing for the Darfur Resolution).

U.S. invasion of Iraq was not about Saddam's battered WMD development programme or the "human rights" (Saddamites' gassing of Kurds and Iranians in the 1980s certainly did not prevent Mr Rumsfeld from travelling to Baghdad at the time and getting all chummy with man -- so long as he was fighting Iran). The real goal of neocon policy in the Middle East (and of the Iraq War) is to replace current Arab nationalist or Islamist/feudal regimes with secular, pro-American, pro-Israel governments -- by military means, if necessary. Dismantlement of WMD programmes and, hopefully, an improvement in human rights record, would then be just be an additional benefit of such a profound shift.

Obviously, China, France and Russia cannot countenance that neo-con wet dream because 1) if it succeeds, it would make the Middle East completely subservient to the U.S., and 2) because coarse neocon methods (bayonet and/or flashlight up the natives' patooties) are dangerously destabilising: by wrecking existing ME regimes and everything else in sight the U.S. cause a popular backlash -- an opening for more dangerous organisations, such as al-Qaeda.

My feeling is that the U.S. would have secured Chinese/French/Russian cooperation (or at least acquiesence) to regime change in Baghdad under the banner of "protecting human rights", had the Americans done the following:
1) planned in advance for a representative Iraqi gov't to hand power to very soon after the fall of Saddam,
2) refrained from establishing an open-ended military occupation, with 8,000 people "embassy" and permanent military bases to linger afterwards,
3) did not attempt to muscle China/France/Russia out of post-Saddam oil exploration & reconstruction business in Iraq.

Messrs Cheney and Rumsfeld, of course, decided that they did not need to share, that they could have Iraq governed by their stooges (be they called Bremer, Chalabi or Allawi); that they could turn a deeply conservative, tribal society into some pro-American utopia; that they could have all the military bases and all the oil/reconstruction contracts for the U.S. alone.

Needless to say, such greed and conceit did not make a good impression neither of CH/FR/RUS, nor on the Iraqis themselves.

Allawi still had to be endorsed by Bremer:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62691-2004May28.html

The council's selection of Allawi, a physician who left Iraq in 1971, was quickly endorsed by L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. civilian administrator of Iraq, and later by Lakhdar Brahimi, the U.N. representative who is leading efforts to form an interim Iraqi government, council members said.

Perhaps it will take more than a NY minute to grasp that?

Still, the mere fact that the UN and the USA didn't get the guy they wanted and had to settle for what the Iraqis wanted still proves soveriegnty!

CH! Every news media outlet that I watch and listen too, and I do listen to some liberal programing, all STATE that Iraq is a Soveriegn nation. The UN recognizes it as a sovereign nation and the Arab League recognizes it as a sovereign nation.

Don't you worry. France/Russia/China will have no reason to veto a limited military intervention in Darfur -- unless, of course, the "non-hypocrit" US/UK choose to advertise it as necessary to rid the world of "imminent danger from Sudanese weapons of mass destruction".

Where did the weapons of mass destruction arguement come from? In this case, any case for action would be on Genocide. That has been documented and proven.

Still, the mere fact that the UN and the USA didn't get the guy they wanted and had to settle for what the Iraqis wanted still proves soveriegnty!

CH! Every news media outlet that I watch and listen too, and I do listen to some liberal programing, all STATE that Iraq is a Soveriegn nation. The UN recognizes it as a sovereign nation and the Arab League recognizes it as a sovereign nation.
I guess it would depend on your definition of sovereignity?

My dictionary defines sovereignity as:

1. independent: self-governing and not ruled by any other state

Iraq has to abide by Bremer's Orders, you can read more about them here:

http://www.rabble.ca/columnists_full.shtml?x=31173

The interim constitution, signed two weeks ago, states that, “The laws, regulations, orders, and directives issued by the Coalition Provisional Authority . . . shall remain in force.” The laws include Bremer's Order 39, which drastically changes Iraq's previous constitution to allow foreign companies to own 100 per cent of Iraqi assets (except in natural resources), and to take 100 per cent of their profits out of the country, paving the way for massive privatizations.

Defying Bremer's orders won't be an option after the “handover.” The interim constitution clearly states that the only way these laws can be changed is by a three-fourths vote by the Iraqi transitional government. According to the same constitution, that body won't exist until elections are held in early 2005.

In other words, on June 30, the occupation won't end, it will simply be outsourced to a group of hand-picked Iraqi politicians with no democratic mandate or sovereign power.

Or here:

http://www.envirosagainstwar.org/edit/index.php?op=view&itemid=1073

Bremer's Orders Foreshadow the New Colonialism
The first significant phase began on September 19, 2003 with the signing of four Orders by L. Paul Bremer, Administrator of the CPA.

These Orders include the full privatization of public enterprises, full ownership rights by foreign firms of Iraqi businesses, full repatriation of foreign profits, the Flat Tax (that darling of the American Right), the opening of Iraq's banks to foreign control, national treatment for foreign companies (which means, for example, the Iraq cannot require that local firms able to do reconstruction work should be hired instead of foreign ones), and (with an earlier Order) elimination of nearly all trade barriers.

Iraq's oil -- at least its extraction and initial processing -- was excluded from these Orders (presumably, the reconstruction of the oil economy is being discussed in less public fora).

There was at least one Hussein-era law that the US Administrator decided to keep, that which bars public sector workers and those employed by public enterprises from joining or being represented by unions.

Canada and the US are sovereign nations. Iraq is NOT a sovereign nation, nor will it be anytime soon.

The UN Recognizes its soveriegnty! IF the UN recognises it, that means that THEY ARE SOVEREIGN!

Even the Arab League said that they are sovereign! Do you really think they would be working with Allawi if they felt that he was being controlled by the US still? I dont think so!

The UN Recognizes its soveriegnty! IF the UN recognises it, that means that THEY ARE SOVEREIGN!

Even the Arab League said that they are sovereign! Do you really think they would be working with Allawi if they felt that he was being controlled by the US still? I dont think so!
There really is no point debating this any further with you. The US military is still in CONTROL of the country, hence there is no TRUE sovereignity.

There really is no point debating this any further with you. The US military is still in CONTROL of the country, hence there is no TRUE sovereignity.

HAHA!!! We are doing less patrols than we used to! The Iraqis are doing more of them. And the terrorists are hammering at the Iraqis more as each day goes by!

I guess someone forgot to tell the Terrorists that America is still incharge, though UN True.

Your right about one thing though, there really is no point arguing this with you because 1)you refuse to see that Two Major Organisations have recognised that Iraq is fully soveriegn and 2) has no bearing on this thread.

HAHA!!! We are doing less patrols than we used to! The Iraqis are doing more of them. And the terrorists are hammering at the Iraqis more as each day goes by!

I guess someone forgot to tell the Terrorists that America is still incharge, though UN True.

Your right about one thing though, there really is no point arguing this with you because 1)you refuse to see that Two Major Organisations have recognised that Iraq is fully soveriegn and 2) has no bearing on this thread.
That's partly true. The new US strategy being applied in both Afghanistan and Iraq is to have the US troops in a few garrisons across the country, establish a local intelligence network, and have the troops come out occasionally to make raids or guard convoys. I don't agree with it myself, as it allows insurgent groups to form without US pressure. The US shouldn't patrol like it did under the occupation, but rather, stick to the areas too hot for Iraqi security forces, like Sadr City, or Fallujah. That, and a few other areas, are the true heart of the insurgency, Fallujah especially.

HAHA!!! We are doing less patrols than we used to! The Iraqis are doing more of them. And the terrorists are hammering at the Iraqis more as each day goes by!

I guess someone forgot to tell the Terrorists that America is still incharge, though UN True.

Your right about one thing though, there really is no point arguing this with you because 1)you refuse to see that Two Major Organisations have recognised that Iraq is fully soveriegn and 2) has no bearing on this thread.
That's partly true. The new US strategy being applied in both Afghanistan and Iraq is to have the US troops in a few garrisons across the country, establish a local intelligence network, and have the troops come out occasionally to make raids or guard convoys. I don't agree with it myself, as it allows insurgent groups to form without US pressure. The US shouldn't patrol like it did under the occupation, but rather, stick to the areas too hot for Iraqi security forces, like Sadr City, or Fallujah. That, and a few other areas, are the true heart of the insurgency, Fallujah especially.

They're going to give them 30 days. Give me a break, this only proves further that the UN is completely and utterly useless. What kind of consequences are they gonna put on Sudan? Trade sanctions? They won't have any trade because millions of people will be dead and then even more will die. I really don't know about Sudan right now, whether the militias are government funded or not, so that will be my only opinion.

They're going to give them 30 days. Give me a break, this only proves further that the UN is completely and utterly useless. What kind of consequences are they gonna put on Sudan? Trade sanctions? They won't have any trade because millions of people will be dead and then even more will die. They should go in there and disarm themselves, forcefully if neccassary.

France won't approve that! They'll block that type of resolution unless Russia or China does first.

Yah, editted it out.

They're going to give them 30 days. Give me a break, this only proves further that the UN is completely and utterly useless. What kind of consequences are they gonna put on Sudan? Trade sanctions? They won't have any trade because millions of people will be dead and then even more will die. They should go in there and disarm themselves, forcefully if neccassary.
Agreed. Have sanctions ever worked? Especially in dictatorships. Dictators find a way to fund their armies or their palaces, but at the expense of their national economy. Only in countries that are poor anyway, like North Korea, have any sanctions worked. Even so, Sudan seems rich in resources so that they can maintain their military by domestic means. After all, isn't Sudan the country filled with the most slaves? There, money is literally not a problem.

Agreed. Have sanctions ever worked? Especially in dictatorships. Dictators find a way to fund their armies or their palaces, but at the expense of their national economy. Only in countries that are poor anyway, like North Korea, have any sanctions worked. Even so, Sudan seems rich in resources so that they can maintain their military by domestic means. After all, isn't Sudan the country filled with the most slaves? There, money is literally not a problem.

I agree with you PE.