NationStates Jolt Archive

Looks like the killing is resuming, even though African Union "peacekeepers" and the UN are there.

Apparently, Oxfam can't even get to some of the refugee camps because the roads are made too dangerous by the very people who are attacking the refugees. So they are limited to using UN helicopters.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sudan/story/0,14658,1655985,00.html

Looks like the killing is resuming, even though African Union "peacekeepers" and the UN are there.

Apparently, Oxfam can't even get to some of the refugee camps because the roads are made too dangerous by the very people who are attacking the refugees. So they are limited to using UN helicopters.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sudan/story/0,14658,1655985,00.html

As you are fond of saying, old news - the killing never stopped.

As you are fond of saying, old news - the killing never stopped.
The pace slowed, and now it's picking up again.

Probably has less to do with the presence of peacekeepers, and more to do with the logistical limits on the operational tempo of the Sudanese government and its militias.

Oh well. We're not the world police. *shrugs*


[/sarcasm]

I don't understand why the US doesn't just destroy all of Sudan's helicopters and planes so they can't be used in support of the Janjaweed. Maybe a show of force like that would make Sudan rethink their policy.

Such a travesty...

Militiamen going into villages, raping women as a terror tactic, and killing based on a person's nose length.

Sickening...

I don't understand why the US doesn't just destroy all of Sudan's helicopters and planes so they can't be used in support of the Janjaweed. Maybe a show of force like that would make Sudan rethink their policy.


We've got our hands tied thanks to Iraq

We've got our hands tied thanks to Iraq
I'm not talking about deploying any troops, just bombing the shit out of their airforce bases. I mean if there's one thing our military is good at it's destroying an enemy's airpower. Why don't we put that talent to good use?

I'm not talking about deploying any troops, just bombing the shit out of their airforce bases. I mean if there's one thing our military is good at it's destroying an enemy's airpower. Why don't we put that talent to good use?

I say we use a few flights of B-2 bombers - it would probably be over in a day.

You could even put a few JDAM onto the main government buildings in Khartoum, at 10:30 AM local time.

for the main part of my argument see above....

for the main part of my argument see above....

They don't solve all problems, but they do get the point across.

That, and the US Air Force does have the capability of reducing an entire country's infrastructure to rubble inside of two weeks.

for the main part of my argument see above....
True, explosives are probably a bad choice to cure AIDS or feed the hungry, but they are pretty effective in destroying aircraft.

I don't understand why the US doesn't just destroy all of Sudan's helicopters and planes so they can't be used in support of the Janjaweed. Maybe a show of force like that would make Sudan rethink their policy.

Mainly because a short quick bombing campaign wouldn't really be effective in stoping horse or camel riding bandits.

Mainly because a short quick bombing campaign wouldn't really be effective in stoping horse or camel riding bandits.
But from interviews I've heard with victims and observers the Janjaweed attacks are preceeded and supported by Sudanese aircraft and helicopters. Without that air power the battle becomes rifleman vs. rifleman and the janjaweed wouldn't be able to kill their victims as easily.

Looks like the killing is resuming, even though African Union "peacekeepers" and the UN are there.

Apparently, Oxfam can't even get to some of the refugee camps because the roads are made too dangerous by the very people who are attacking the refugees. So they are limited to using UN helicopters.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sudan/story/0,14658,1655985,00.html

I prefer to call Darfur a "disasterbacle".

They don't solve all problems, but they do get the point across.

That, and the US Air Force does have the capability of reducing an entire country's infrastructure to rubble inside of two weeks.


Why does it have to be the U.S? Why can't it be France? or Germany? or China? they have the same capability?

Why does it have to be the U.S? Why can't it be France? or Germany? or China? they have the same capability?
Because I think France and China are buying Sudanese oil, so they won't do it and I don't think Germany wants to get involved in anything that it's NATO obligations don't compell it to get involved in.

Why does it have to be the U.S? Why can't it be France? or Germany? or China? they have the same capability?

They don't have long range bombers that can reach Sudan. And although they do have medium range bombers (well, Germany does not), they don't have the range to do a mission in Sudan. And no real capacity to do large scale aerial refuelling like the US. Add the fact that none of those countries has large stocks of GPS guided munitions like the US (which allow precision strikes in all weather at night), and none of them has a long range stealth aircraft, the whole prospect rapidly becomes logistically, and technically, infeasible.

And no one in those other countries has the balls to do something like that.

They don't have long range bombers that can reach Sudan. And although they do have medium range bombers (well, Germany does not), they don't have the range to do a mission in Sudan. And no real capacity to do large scale aerial refuelling like the US.



That is what things like aircraft carriers and cruise missiles are for.

And most nations can do in-flight refuelling.

But that isnt really necessary, blowing up the governments aircraft really isnt going to help the western world vis a vis PR is it?

A decent complement of UN peacekeepers would do the job without the need to give the first world's credibility yet another shafting.

That is what things like aircraft carriers and cruise missiles are for.

And most nations can do in-flight refuelling.

But that isnt really necessary, blowing up the governments aircraft really isnt going to help the western world vis a vis PR is it?

A decent complement of UN peacekeepers would do the job without the need to give the first world's credibility yet another shafting.
How does defending the lives and virtue of Muslim women in Darfur from the Janjaweed make the west look bad? If anything it should make us look bad to ignore the genocide. If people sympathize more with the Janjaweed than with the victims then we don't want them to like us, we want them to fear us. Either way, bombing Sudan would get the job done.

And no one in those other countries has the balls to do something like that.

Nobody in the world has the balls to do that. No one ever seems to care about Africa.

Nobody in the world has the balls to do that. No one ever seems to care about Africa.
Bono seems to care. Somebody should buy him a plane and some bombs.

People are forgetting a well known part of international law: It's not genocide if it's happening to black people.

Bono seems to care. Somebody should buy him a plane and some bombs.

Well he already has his own private plane.

People are forgetting a well known part of international law: It's not genocide if it's happening to black people.

Exactly.

Hey!?!!?

Wasn't the argument(replacement argument after no nukes) for Iraq was that Sadaam was a baaaaad man because he was torturing and KILLING his own people!!

People are forgetting a well known part of international law: It's not genocide if it's happening to black people.

Exactly! It's population control. Rawanda had too many people. I guess Dafur has too many people.....

Hey!?!!?

Wasn't the argument(replacement argument after no nukes) for Iraq was that Sadaam was a baaaaad man because he was torturing and KILLING his own people!!
but they arent black in Iraq.

as for why does it have to be America, and not France, or Germany, or anyone else...well, to be honest, it SHOULD be every nation in the world. Israel has one of the top airforces. If any nation should be standing up against genocide, it is them. No nation should stand by idle when it is so clear that a genocide is happening.

And enough with this bullshit "acts of genocide are occuring, but it isn't a genocide". There is no difference. The government should at the very least be speaking out against it.

the good news is the killing seems to be slowing down. The bad news is that is because they are running out of people to kill.

Remeber people, the Black people of Darfur (Western Sudan) are Muslims being killed by Arab Muslim fanatics (janjaweed). America don't give a damn, Janjaweed attacks a few villages in Southern Sudan (Christian Blacks), the US started threatening with sanctions and military intervention. Khartoum shits its pants, sends Janjaweed away from Black Christian South, back to Black Muslim West (Darfur). I mean what does it matter for the US as long as Christians aren't being killed, who cares if the Arab and Black Muslims kill eachother or play genocide, just keep your bloody hands off of em Christians and we let you continue *sarcasm*

We've got our hands tied thanks to Iraq
Actually, it's more along the lines of the fact that muslim countries, Fwance, and China would pitch a hissy fit if we did.

Actually, it's more along the lines of the fact that muslim countries, Fwance, and China would pitch a hissy fit if we did.

No, its because no one cares... no one.
If you're implying that the US admin. does care, then I expect to see military action any day now...

Where the hell is Britain in all this?! It was their colony to begin with, they should sort it out. America has no place in Africa, never really has. it has always been the playground of European Imperialists.

Actually, it's more along the lines of the fact that muslim countries, France, and China would pitch a hissy fit if we did.
Actually, the EU has been on the American's side on this from Day One, and the German Minister for Development and Human Rights has been one of the most active people in trying to drag this back to the SC every time.

The only thing that really stopped a serious action was an old idea (http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2005/03/17/stalemate_delays_sudan_peacekeeping_troops/)...

And Europe doesn't buy much Sudanese Oil...I wish people would inform themselves. :rolleyes:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/sudan.html
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/su.html

Nobody in the world has the balls to do that. No one ever seems to care about Africa.

We've already poured billions into Africa, and what has the result been? Nothing.

Thats a bit unfair- you rape someone then chuck them a fiver? :( Doesn't make up for the crime.

Thats a bit unfair- you rape someone then chuck them a fiver? :( Doesn't make up for the crime.

Sending aid to Africa is a waste. It doesn't help ordinary Africans. It only ends up in the pockets of corrupt dictators.

Sending aid to Africa is a waste. It doesn't help ordinary Africans. It only ends up in the pockets of corrupt dictators.

I think I had this discussion with you before....

REALLY too tired to get back into it- iLeave :p

I like the bombing idea. But we also need to take out the Janjaweed, and for that we need to be on the ground... or near it.

How about helicopters with machine guns and all the ammo you could want? Gun them down from the air!

Oh, and bomb their camps while we're at it.

US forces never need to touch the ground.

But we should start with the bombing. Locate an airbase in Darfur. Carpet bomb it until it looks like the surface of the moon.

All of those who are advocating a simple bombing campaign: it simply won't work.

Sure, the capacity for the government to help the Janjaweed via air power will be reduced.

There are two ways to end this situation permenantely: glass it all or address the base issues at hand.

But until a pressing personal need is seen, nobody is going to be willing to put in the effort (lots of boots on the ground, aid groups, $$$$$, time, effort, etc.) to address the base underlying issues.

And unless one side or another gets their hands on a nuke, nobody will be willing to glass the place.

Eventually, one or the other will take place, if the locals don't decide on their own to give it all up.


Putting aid $$$ into Africa does not need to be a waste. It's just that so far there hasn't been a real need to do so (or a willingness on the part of most African leaders.)