NationStates Jolt Archive

Watching the news in Sudan and seeing their peoples used and abused makes me ill. So, I was wondering how much bloodshed does a nation need to get some serious aid?

How much oil does it have? ;)
Sorry, I know I should be serious...

You just might have been.

And it's generally not a factor of what's going on there, but either how much outcry there is at home to help them out, and/or how much popular favor the government can garner from helping out (obviously both of these will be useless to anything other than a representative form of government), and/or, as you said, what material benefit can be gained from helping out.

Theres never enough bloodshed, we as humans thrive on war. We will not stop killing until we have the entire world under one government. And then we will find something new to kill, like have a civil war or find some aliens to kill.

Theres never enough bloodshed, we as humans thrive on war. We will not stop killing until we have the entire world under one government. And then we will find something new to kill, like have a civil war or find some aliens to kill.

Generic and beside the point.

Generic and beside the point.

But depressingly true and remarkably accurate nonetheless. Lets face it. Humanity's equal oldest profession (mercenary) is one whereby people get paid to cause amoral (not necessarily immoral) destruction at the behest of the payer.

And, of course, if humanity had changed all that much, then I would be out of a job...

I'd say the line goes somewhere around a middle-sized river.

Everyone was damned terrified after Rwanda, and you could quote a lot of people with phrases containing the words "never again". Even though such things most people (i hope) feel pretty bad when they are reading about genocide, the feeling is only temporary. I bet I'm gonna forget about Sudan in five to ten minutes depending on how much work I do.

The main excuse for a problem at the moment is the United Nations. I'm for the UN in principle, but it just doesn't work. The Security Council can never make any resolutions, because there's always some nation (they take turns) using its veto. Then all the hypocritical European nations twiddle their thumbs and cry murder when the US or Britain has the guts to do what's right without having the "blessing" of the UN. It's only natural that the US is more anxious to act if it's own interests coincide with humanitarian goals. Everybody acts that way. I'm a lot more willing to help some old lady if I think it will make a favorable impression on someone who I want to impress.

You want America to give military aid to a nation in need, and get nothing on return?

Did you forget who's in office right now?

Well, does Sudan have any economic or strategic benifit to the U.S. or Europe? I don't really think so. That's probably why no one is in a rush to do anything.

Prolly...until they manage to do something to get our attention...something like 9/11. But not necesarilly on US soil.

Who in their right mind would interfere with something like that? It's tragic, but it's any good government's goal to stop things like that with their own people before anyone else.

No good government should economically or politically support an ineffective government like that, though..

Well .... hrmmm ....

In terms of blood, assuming 20 pints per human, with 6,000,000,000 or so people on the planet, that makes 120,000,000,000 pints of blood in the world (not counting stockpiles in blood banks) which converts to 357,142,857.14 barrels (in terms of oil) of blood.

So ... how much oil = 357,142,857.14 barrels of blood?

Then you'll get your answer.

I suggest asking Dick Cheney.

Well, does Sudan have any economic or strategic benifit to the U.S. or Europe? I don't really think so. That's probably why no one is in a rush to do anything.

Sudan does have oil. Why do you think they even bother to put it on the news.
Probably not fair, but this conflict has already been going on for months and only now is it in the news!

Ha i'd be interested to see whever the US or europe goes in!
It would be a no win situation politically. Do we fight arabs and again be seen as anti-muslim. Or do we fight blacks and be seen as racists and colonialists.
The African union needs to get of its ass. Probably with the leadership of south africa or nigeria.

You want America to give military aid to a nation in need, and get nothing on return?

Did you forget who's in office right now?
I don't see the UN doing anything with Sudan either. No, I take that back. Isn't Sudan on their Human Rights Commision?

The UN should go in with force and stop what's going on.

Unfortunately the UN is filled with pussy nations having no balls and opposing anything having to do with acting with force.

The UN philosophy: It is much easier to do nothing and let millions die, than to do something that causes thousands to die.

I don't think anyone should blame the US for doing nothing. Look what happens when they do something. With all this opposition, the US will of course do nothing unless it's also in strong self interest.

The UN should go in with force and stop what's going on.

Unfortunately the UN is filled with pussy nations having no balls and opposing anything having to do with acting with force.

The UN philosophy: It is much easier to do nothing and let millions die, than to do something that causes thousands to die.

I don't think anyone should blame the US for doing nothing. Look what happens when they do something. With all this opposition, the US will of course do nothing unless it's also in strong self interest.

But that's just it isn't it. If the US does something, its forcing itself on other. Americanisation, sel-interest blah blah blah.
If the US does nothing, they are irresponsible, self-ish. They are the most powerful country why are they not doing anything. Wealthy on the suffering of others, blah blah blah.
People will never be grateful. We're too selfish

Sudan does have oil. Why do you think they even bother to put it on the news.
Probably not fair, but this conflict has already been going on for months and only now is it in the news!


Actually years, Sudan has had something of a 20 year civil war still moving, its just now becoming internationally noticed.

Actually years, Sudan has had something of a 20 year civil war still moving, its just now becoming internationally noticed.

No that was a previously conflict with rebels in the south. They currently have a cease-fire with the government in Khartoun (not sure on spellin).
This conflict involves rebels in the west of the country who saw the deal the southerners got a want it themselves. Sorry bit simplified.

And now with have that lovely arab militia who ride on horseback (and sponsored by the government of sudan), going around killing, maiming and raping the black africans in the west.

No that was a previously conflict with rebels in the south. They currently have a cease-fire with the government in Khartoun (not sure on spellin).
This conflict involves rebels in the west of the country who saw the deal the southerners got a want it themselves. Sorry bit simplified.

Actually, reading this makes me wonder why the southern civil-war has lasted 20 years, if the janjaweed (that's a cool sounding name for a militia, by the way) are so effective in Darfur.

No that was a previously conflict with rebels in the south. They currently have a cease-fire with the government in Khartoun (not sure on spellin).
This conflict involves rebels in the west of the country who saw the deal the southerners got a want it themselves. Sorry bit simplified.


S'okay. Although even if it isn't the same group, its still a civil war. Sudan is just a general mess that really needs an international police force. I'm generally not much of one for aggressive action but this is one of those special cases. We need a multinational force to go in, patrol every street, and completely disarm the populace (or as much as humanly possible). Then we rebuild their entire infrastructure.

Yes, it sounds like another Iraq, but this time, the governments/UN would do the rebuilding instead of corporations. Maybe we could see some progress thats measurable like running water, electricity, decent living standard, food, etc. . .

I believe, but not sure, that the southerners were pretty well armed in relation to the government. The westerners are mostly villagers

I don't think anyone should blame the US for doing nothing. Look what happens when they do something. With all this opposition, the US will of course do nothing unless it's also in strong self interest.
The reason that there is all the opposition is because the US only acts when there are strong self interests.

Watching the news in Sudan and seeing their peoples used and abused makes me ill. So, I was wondering how much bloodshed does a nation need to get some serious aid?

Sorry but the last time America tryed to help a oppressed people the world said no no you cant do that.

I don't see the UN doing anything with Sudan either. No, I take that back. Isn't Sudan on their Human Rights Commision?

Yea Sudan is on the Human Rights Commission. LOL

The reason that there is all the opposition is because the US only acts when there are strong self interests.

ALL countries act out of self-interests. labeling the US as the ONLY country to do so is just assinine.

Yea Sudan is on the Human Rights Commission. LOL

Yes...another reason that the UN is useless...LOL A member of the UN Human Rights commission guilty of genocide. The UN is finished, and they did it to themselves...now, lets get them out of New York....maybe Khartoum might be a good place to put them...LOL

Yes...another reason that the UN is useless...LOL A member of the UN Human Rights commission guilty of genocide. The UN is finished, and they did it to themselves...now, lets get them out of New York....maybe Khartoum might be a good place to put them...LOL

Send them to Paris. That is what I say. Oh, and we need to pull out of the UN too.

Question. Wasn't China and "Iraq at one point" also on the UN Human Rights Commision?

Question. Wasn't China and "Iraq at one point" also on the UN Human Rights Commision?

I don't believe so...if true it just goes further to prove the UN is a joke.

I don't believe so...if true it just goes further to prove the UN is a joke.

Going back to 2001, China is on the human Rights commission as well as Sudan and they both still are.

Going back to 2001, China is on the human Rights commission as well as Sudan and they both still are.

Imagine that....two countries known for their human rights abuses on the human rights commission. Does anyone NOT find that ironic or indicative of an organization in trouble?

The UN should go in with force and stop what's going on.

Unfortunately the UN is filled with pussy nations having no balls and opposing anything having to do with acting with force.

The UN philosophy: It is much easier to do nothing and let millions die, than to do something that causes thousands to die.

I don't think anyone should blame the US for doing nothing. Look what happens when they do something. With all this opposition, the US will of course do nothing unless it's also in strong self interest.


You clearly have no flippin' clue about the UN.

The UN CANNOT "go in with force". It was specifically designed NOt have this capability and NOT to have a standing army. The UN philosophy? Kofi Anan has been trying to make the Sudan an issue within the Security Council for months now. Nobody seems to give two shits about it - including Powell who just a week ago was saying that sanctions were the way to go rather than military intervention.... THAT is the US line, and they have veto power.

The only way the UN is mandated to "go in with force" is AFTER the security council calls for such an action, at which point member nations donate troops to the cause.

... odd isn't it how the current mantra is "we went into Iraq to free the people from a brutal Dictator" when there was NO current genocide going on, but sanctions are the way to go where there IS active genocide underway?

You think people would object to intervention in the Sudan? Not a flippin' chance! People objected to the war in Iraq because we felt that the evidence was unsubstantiated, that it had nothing to do witht he War on Terror as Bush claimed, that it was taking the eye off the ball of al qaeda, and that a total invasion was unneccessary. Seems we might have been right too!

In this case there IS ongoing genocide, and it would be a peacekeeping mission rather than an all-out invasion. Consider the diferences between Kosovo and Iraq if you are confused as to this distinction.

Oh - and France already has troops in there protecting the aid workers, and the head of the British Military said he had 5000 troops availaible for such a deployment.

But the Security Council - INCLUDING the US - are being pussy's about it.

You see, according to the way the UN was designed - you can't call them pussies on an issue unless it votes against the US in a call to war. In this case it has been the US leading the charge NOT to intervene. Although I think they ALL should be ashamed of themselves for their inaction on this.

But feel free look in a mirror next time you toss that word around in this case.

You clearly have no flippin' clue about the UN.

The UN CANNOT "go in with force". It was specifically designed NOt have this capability and NOT to have a standing army. The UN philosophy? Kofi Anan has been trying to make the Sudan an issue within the Security Council for months now. Nobody seems to give two shits about it - including Powell who just a week ago was saying that sanctions were the way to go rather than military intervention.... THAT is the US line, and they have veto power.

The only way the UN is mandated to "go in with force" is AFTER the security council calls for such an action, at which point member nations donate troops to the cause.

... odd isn't it how the current mantra is "we went into Iraq to free the people from a brutal Dictator" when there was NO current genocide going on, but sanctions are the way to go where there IS active genocide underway?

You think people would object to intervention in the Sudan? Not a flippin' chance! People objected to the war in Iraq because we felt that the evidence was unsubstantiated, that it had nothing to do witht he War on Terror as Bush claimed, that it was taking the eye off the ball of al qaeda, and that a total invasion was unneccessary. Seems we might have been right too!

In this case there IS ongoing genocide, and it would be a peacekeeping mission rather than an all-out invasion. Consider the diferences between Kosovo and Iraq if you are confused as to this distinction.

Oh - and France already has troops in there protecting the aid workers, and the head of the British Military said he had 5000 troops availaible for such a deployment.

But the Security Council - INCLUDING the US - are being pussy's about it.

You see, according to the way the UN was designed - you can't call them pussies on an issue unless it votes against the US in a call to war. In this case it has been the US leading the charge NOT to intervene. Although I think they ALL should be ashamed of themselves for their inaction on this.

But feel free look in a mirror next time you toss that word around in this case.

But it would look bad to have to send in troops to save people in a country that is on the UN human rights commission. ;) Afterall, Sudan is supposed to be there to ensure that human rights are not being violated. Does noone see the irony of this? I have an idea....send in the Russians. Or ANYONE other than the US for a change...in the numbers needed.

its a tougher problem than you think, both politically and strategically. it makes my head spin to think about it.

remember the last time we went into africa? somalia? they were in dire need and prez bush 1 sent a force in to settle things down. we were not up to the task.

these days you have to have a plan to accomplish the job and get back out. (for the US, politically speaking) how would we go in? its in the western part of the country.. would the sudan invite us in? would it be air only? what bases would we have to deploy from and whose airspace would we have to cross? would THEY give us permission? how would we guarantee the safety of our troops? we cant just bomb the crap out of a people in order to save them.

how much willingness is there in the US to get us into yet another quagmire? we are stretched pretty thin as it is.

can we really talk the UN into it? and more importantly can it be done before its a moot point? the UN is slow to act and the killing is going fast.

and can it really be done effectively? can we FORCE peace on another people or would peacekeeper forces be there until the end of time?

i see a dire need for intervention in the sudan.

i think we are just going to let them die

Imagine that....two countries known for their human rights abuses on the human rights commission. Does anyone NOT find that ironic or indicative of an organization in trouble?

Unfortunately the only way marginal countries could be brought into the UN was to give rotating positions on various councils to give them some input. The trade off is that by bringing them into the UN they start to fall under various rules that - if they were enforced - would help bring them up in the world.

The problem is, the rules aren't enforced. Why? Because rich countries really don't care that much about the poor people 5000 miles away no matter how much lip service they give to it. It is just not really in their national interest to care. Poor people don't buy enough of our products....

The issues with enforcement are directly tied to the Security Council as it was supposed to be their job to do that. The long years of the Cold War put the damper on that though as the council became just a game of tit-for-tat votes between the Soviets and Nato. And, of course, nobody either wants or can afford to go and correct all of the worlds problems so they pick and choose where to go accordign only to pressing needs. But even then it only becomes "pressing" when the press starts talking about it and people start phoning their Congressmen (or member of parliament) and ask "Why the hell are we letting that happen?" When THAT happens - the Security Concil wakes up because their political leaders wake up.

If anything, the UN devolved into a place for arguing matches that solved nothing, for political grandstanding, but that occassionally does the right thing when the court of public opinion lets it know that there is a need.

And ALL of the members of the Security Council are responsible for letting it get that bad. Pointing fingers at everyone else is a bullshit thing to do because the culpability is pretty much universal.

But it would look bad to have to send in troops to save people in a country that is on the UN human rights commission. ;) Afterall, Sudan is supposed to be there to ensure that human rights are not being violated. Does noone see the irony of this? I have an idea....send in the Russians. Or ANYONE other than the US for a change...in the numbers needed.


It makes as much sense as Russia and the US pretending to work together in the Security Council for the whole Cold War.....

But I agree on some level. Calling for action on this, after all, does NOT have to imply taking direct action. Powell or the UN ambassador could very legitimately stand up in the security council and say "This is a problem. Obviously. Everyone knows we are stretched a bit right now. C'mon France, Germany, Russia etc. - your turn to step up and do something. Show that you really DO care for the Middle EAst. We'll donate <insert minimal help here to show good faith - e.g. protection of shipped supplies in the Persian gulf and air traffic control / CAP protection in the region - what the hell, the boats and planes and towers are already there doing pretty much that exact thing anyway>". Frankly, I think France and Germany especially could be talked into taking it on with a bit of PR that questions their commitment to the region. Shame 'em into it ;)

But as long as the official Washington position is to go with sanctions, nothing will get done through the UN.

But as long as the official Washington position is to go with sanctions, nothing will get done through the UN.

No isn't this also ironic? NOTHING is there to stop ANY other country from stepping in and helping out. Do you actually think the US would step in and say no? Of course that would not happen, but it is always easier to blame the US isn't it? ;)

No isn't this also ironic? NOTHING is there to stop ANY other country from stepping in and helping out. Do you actually think the US would step in and say no? Of course that would not happen, but it is always easier to blame the US isn't it? ;)


Except that other countries, I guess, actually feel bound by the treaties they signed.

If the US wanted to allow it, then it is easily done diplomatically. France (or whoever) bring the motion to the Security Council to send in the troops and offers to do the job, and the US just has to rubber-stamp it.

That is how it is supposed to work, but the US government has been very vocal that military action is not warranted, and indeed argued against it during the last Security Council meeting.

If the Us didn't care it is one thing. When the US is clearly an advocate of NOT helping it is a diferent situation entirely in the Security Council.

Except that other countries, I guess, actually feel bound by the treaties they signed.

If the US wanted to allow it, then it is easily done diplomatically. France (or whoever) bring the motion to the Security Council to send in the troops and offers to do the job, and the US just has to rubber-stamp it.

That is how it is supposed to work, but the US government has been very vocal that military action is not warranted, and indeed argued against it during the last Security Council meeting.

If the Us didn't care it is one thing. When the US is clearly an advocate of NOT helping it is a diferent situation entirely in the Security Council.

Oh come on...if France was to send in troops and put a stop to the nonsense there the US would do nothing about it. Or even Canada for that matter. To say that the US would step in and have our troops stop them is absurd. Even on the long shot that the US would submit a resolution that got passed...France could veto it.

Oh come on...if France was to send in troops and put a stop to the nonsense there the US would do nothing about it. Or even Canada for that matter. To say that the US would step in and have our troops stop them is absurd. Even on the long shot that the US would submit a resolution that got passed...France could veto it.


I'm NOT saying that the US would put a stop to it.

What I AM saying is that the US is actively putting up impediments within the UN Security Council to discourage others from stepping in.

And I am wondering why that is?

I mean, it is easy enough to say "hey - why doesn't the rest of the world step up to the plate?", but why ask that question and yet attempt to discourage it at the same time?

Makes no sense.

Morally - Yes I think somebody should step up and jump in. I wish Canada would, although we are in the midst of a rotation of troops in Afghanistan and still have a bunch on the ground in Haiti - so we've pretty much maxed out our limits right now. And yes - before you say it - I also think Canada needs a bigger military. No argument there.

All I'm suggesting is that while you ask why nobody else is stepping up that you also ask why your administration is discouraging them from doing so. I am NOT saying that this discouragement excuses others from forcefully proposing intervention, I am just making note of it as a fact.

Fair enough?

Here is a good chance for America to prove they are really about fighting for GOOD, as King George claims, instead of fighting for political and personal interest. Guess we really show our hand by what we do and won't do, rather than by our words.

Too many in this country are willing to judge the president by his words (or rather, what he is TRYING to say), while the world judges him by his actions. Big difference there.

Here is a good chance for America to prove they are really about fighting for GOOD, as King George claims, instead of fighting for political and personal interest. Guess we really show our hand by what we do and won't do, rather than by our words.

Too many in this country are willing to judge the president by his words (or rather, what he is TRYING to say), while the world judges him by his actions. Big difference there.

Ahhhhhhh.....we tried that in Somalia when people were starving there too. Did not work out so well. So someone else can go into Sudan and help out for a change. Everyone always looks to the US to pick up and go do these things.

Watching the news in Sudan and seeing their peoples used and abused makes me ill. So, I was wondering how much bloodshed does a nation need to get some serious aid?

I don't know, but I hope the U.S. doesn't get involved. I'm getting really sick of politicians trying to make us a damn globocop (starting with the Spanish-American War). :mad: Moreover, we should eliminate ALL types of foreign aid, to both friends and foes, completely, immediately, and permanently.

I hope the UN doesn't intervene...if it does, blood is guaranteed to spill...

Blood is already spilling at a huge rate... :(


I think the US and the rest of the world should intervene. Most of our troops are involved in Iraq in some way or another, so the other countries would need to pick up a bit of the slack...

Blood is already spilling at a huge rate... :(

I know, but whenever the UN embarks on a 'peace-keeping,' mission, they always end up going on a killing spree instead.

To which I say: :upyours:, UN!

I'm NOT saying that the US would put a stop to it.

What I AM saying is that the US is actively putting up impediments within the UN Security Council to discourage others from stepping in.

And I am wondering why that is?

I mean, it is easy enough to say "hey - why doesn't the rest of the world step up to the plate?", but why ask that question and yet attempt to discourage it at the same time?

Makes no sense.

Morally - Yes I think somebody should step up and jump in. I wish Canada would, although we are in the midst of a rotation of troops in Afghanistan and still have a bunch on the ground in Haiti - so we've pretty much maxed out our limits right now. And yes - before you say it - I also think Canada needs a bigger military. No argument there.

All I'm suggesting is that while you ask why nobody else is stepping up that you also ask why your administration is discouraging them from doing so. I am NOT saying that this discouragement excuses others from forcefully proposing intervention, I am just making note of it as a fact.

Fair enough?

Well, the US ALWAYS thinks that sanctions would work for some reason. Does Sudan even have an economy?

Miltary action is always put out as a last resort for some reason. Sometimes a good knock on the head is needed right away.

Personally...what is happening in Sudan is an internal issue. We meddle too much in the affairs of other countries and we need to STOP. Haiti? The ONLY reason we are there is to keep all those people from fleeing to the US. I can tell you some horror stories about Hatians here in Florida. We should get out of there and post the Coast Guard to prevent them fleeing to the US.

Well, the US ALWAYS thinks that sanctions would work for some reason. Does Sudan even have an economy?

Sudan is (literally) the poorest country in the world.

Sudan is (literally) the poorest country in the world.

aha.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/su/Economy

not even (literally) close.

aha.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/su/Economy

not even (literally) close.

What the hell? I thought it was the poorest! (That's what I read, anyway...) Then what nation is? :confused:

What the hell? I thought it was the poorest! (That's what I read, anyway...) Then what nation is? :confused:

Haiti maybe?

Maybe, but I read it was the Sudan...oh, well, guess not. :(

Watching the news in Sudan and seeing their peoples used and abused makes me ill. So, I was wondering how much bloodshed does a nation need to get some serious aid?

They are getting aid in the form of jobs here. I work with 75 people from Sudan in a hotel in Nashville Tennessee

What the hell? I thought it was the poorest! (That's what I read, anyway...) Then what nation is? :confused:

matter of taste... this list says Zambia, Chad and Haiti share the medals:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_pop_bel_pov_lin
But it's 'percentage of population below poverty line'.

the republicans need ot be very popular at the moment

or, to be blunt, some white people need to die, then the liberals will give their backing to the war

just look at yougoslavia

I agree with the sentiment of most of the Americans here.

We are damned if we do … damned if we don’t

We don’t go in and just go through with the un sanctions WE will be branded as heartless capitalists that care nothing for other people


We go in and we get branded as heartless capitalists that are trying to meddle in internal affairs of others


Seriously you don’t think that happens?
Why don’t other nations step up to the plate?
Why must it be our military people that take the risk?


Seriously someone step up to the plate we are tired of being the one that when we act we get shunned and when we don’t act people point at US and say that we are not doing anything! How many other nations on earth besides the United States is not acting at this moment