NationStates Jolt Archive

Annan: US Must Play Major Role in Sudan
Associated Press | February 10, 2006

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,87569,00.html

UNITED NATIONS - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Thursday he will ask President Bush for the United States to play a major role in a peacekeeping force in Sudan's Darfur region.

Annan said Darfur's plight is too severe for rich nations, including the United States, to simply fund the mission while third world nations contribute troops - a practice that is largely the norm for U.N. peacekeeping missions around the world.

"It is not going to be easy for the big and powerful countries with armies to delegate it to third world countries," Annan told reporters. "They will have to play a part if we are going to stop the carnage that we see in Darfur."

Annan said he planned to raise the issue with Bush during a White House meeting Monday. The United States currently pays about a quarter of the U.N. peacekeeping budget, which topped $5 billion in 2005, but provides a very small percentage of troops or police.

Annan said the Darfur mission will need a "completely different force." That means highly trained troops with solid logistical support, backed by air power, with the ability to move quickly.

On Thursday, the U.N. Security Council authorized planning for the United Nations to take over peacekeeping duties in Darfur from the African Union, whose 7,000 troops have been hampered by shoddy equipment, poor training and lack of funds.

The African Union troops have made a difference where they are stationed, but have been unable to bring lasting peace to Darfur, where an estimated 180,000 people have died in violence since 2003. The United States and several other nations have said genocide occurred in Sudan.

The U.N. mission must send a message to those responsible for the violence "that we have a force that is capable to respond, a force that is everywhere and a force that will be there on time to prevent them from intimidating and killing the innocent civilians," Annan said.

The United States has been reluctant to contribute troops since 18 U.S. Soldiers were killed in clashes with gunmen in 1993 during the peacekeeping mission in Somalia.

U.S. Mission spokesman Richard Grenell would not comment on whether the United States planned to contribute troops.

Anyone else just want to tell Annan to go f**k himself? For all the help of the UN in Iraq, let France or someone else head up the Sudan effort. They have more ties to Africa anyway (European colonial influence in Africa). We're busy.

No.

You were the ones demanding a U.N mission into Iraq. You lead it. Do something that is legal.

Also, the U.N was doing well in Iraq, even after the Oil-for-Food Scandal, the Iraqi people blamed America for the deaths because of Oil-for-food where hundreds of thousands died.

Then the U.N got blown up in Iraq because of America, and 24 people died. Especially the U.N Human Rights Commission.

No.

You were the ones demanding a U.N mission into Iraq. You lead it. Do something that is legal.

Also, the U.N was doing well in Iraq, even after the Oil-for-Food Scandal, the Iraqi people blamed America for the deaths because of Oil-for-food where hundreds of thousands died.

Then the U.N got blown up in Iraq because of America, and 24 people died. Especially the U.N Human Rights Commission.
Exactly what was the UN doing well in Iraq?

How do you blame the US for what insurgents and terrorists do to the UN?

The US should intervene in Sudan, but not under the orders and regulations of the UN. We should go in unilaterally. Stopping a genocide is the right thing to do, but I think the UN will only make the job more difficult.

Sorry, can't be bothered to blame the US for Oil for Food, especially since the corruption rose all the way to Annan.

UN Peacekeeping in areas where things remain violent are failures - and the UN policies make effective peacekeeping in unresolved violent situations impossible.

Sudan is NOT in a peaceful, resolved situation that would permit effective peacekeeping. In fact, it would probably turn out to be just as violent as Iraq if the US showed up.

Resolving the problem would require replacing the current government of Sudan, destroying its official military, and then fighting an insurgency of the janjaweed militia for God knows how long.

You up for that? Good, because we're sending you to infantry basic training, and we'll send you along, too.

I'm ready to go.

UN Peacekeeping in areas where things remain violent are failures - and the UN policies make effective peacekeeping in unresolved violent situations impossible.

Sudan is NOT in a peaceful, resolved situation that would permit effective peacekeeping. In fact, it would probably turn out to be just as violent as Iraq if the US showed up.


Thats the point of UN peacekeepers Deep Kimchi. They are only meant to keep the peace, not create it in the first place. They are only supposed to go in when some sort of stability has ensued.

They would be a neutral third party that both conflicting sides would see as having no ulterior motive for being there.

The problem is not that they fail- but that the troops are the wrong ones to be sent in there- the Cote d'Ivorians don't trust the French as its a former Colonial power- yet the Fijian battalion and the Irish battalions see no such hostility, neither the Norwegians.

Think of places like Cyprus, or the Lebanon. The battalions that were most successful in maintaining the peace were in fact those that were from far far away and not from former ruling powers.

I personally feel some states do peacekeeping better then fighting and vice versa. The British and Americans are better at fighting then keeping the peace. The French, Germans, Norwegians, Irish, Fijians and possibly the Canadians are much more adept at keeping peace.

Ya, because France and Germany have no history in Africa.

dubious...

First people want the US to not butt in. that we are taking over the UN and running Roughshod over everyone, butting in when it comes to protecting our people and interests...

but when push comes to shove.... when their back is to the wall... who do they call?

I'm inclined to let them handle it themselves.


but then that's why I don't run for office.

Sorry, can't be bothered to blame the US for Oil for Food, especially since the corruption rose all the way to Annan.
That's not what the Volcker report said. That may be what Republican politicians in the US said early on when Volcker was still doing his investigation, but the Volcker report did not implicate Annan. In fact, it seems the majority of the smuggled oil went to Turkey and Jordan, the UN and the US both knew about it, since they were sharing oversight, and they ignored it because Turkey and Jordan are friendly. There are plenty of things to complain about as far as Annan is concerned, but to make the claim that corruption in the oil-for-food program, which was not as widespread as many politicians have made it out to be, rose all the way to him personally, is false.

By the way, if you want to wade through the report, you can find it here. (http://www.iic-offp.org/documents/InterimReportFeb2005.pdf)

Ya, because France and Germany have no history in Africa.
Thats kinda the paradoxical point. Becuase Africa has never fallen into the sphere of influence of the United States, it has never have (and I doubt ever will) any interest in intervening there.

France and Britain especially should normally sort out a lot of the problems there- but given the past as colonial masters its a hard judgment call to make.

And anyway, my point was peacekeeping in general (not Africa specifically, look at Cyprus, Lebanon, Haiti, East Timor etc) in where some states are merely better suited to fighting whereas some are better at peacekeeping.

Exactly what was the UN doing well in Iraq?

How do you blame the US for what insurgents and terrorists do to the UN?

They allowed the people to survive even with corruption when the U.S governments wanted to kill them all with sanctions.

And what people hate to know, the security council knoew about the corruption, that means America.

Also, since, it appears that at least 100 million dollars have disappeared at least because of some kind of U.S corruption so they aren't clean this is one nation, while the U.N was many.

There was just a case in the U.S where a guy was sent to prison for still 100 million himself, so their is probably billions of dollars missing because of U.S corruption that no one wants to talk about.

The UN oil-for-food was a scam, but it was suppose to save people, while the U.S corruption is for themselves.

Finally, it is kind of funny with the bombing that the U.N was having a conference in that building when the terrorists hit it and their was not one single U.S reporter.

Also the U.N Human Rights commissioner, Sergio De Melo a very good man, who would not be bought by the U.S or China, Russia, Cuba or anyone else was killed in this attack. He wanted to end Guantanamo.

The US should intervene in Sudan, but not under the orders and regulations of the UN. We should go in unilaterally. Stopping a genocide is the right thing to do, but I think the UN will only make the job more difficult.
Somehow, DCD, some people don't understand that the UN has fucked up more peacekeeping and presided over more massacres since its inception than Stalin and Hitler.

Somehow, DCD, some people don't understand that the UN has fucked up more peacekeeping and presided over more massacres since its inception than Stalin and Hitler.

Blame its collective membership- (ie. every state is to blame)

You make it sound like the Unites States in exempt from this blame yet it is and always has been a member. I have never understood this mentality- "Them and us".

I agree with Kimchi. I mean everyone is always up against the US and when we need help, they turn their backs on us. However, when they want somethng, who do they come to first? I don't think right now we could handle putting troops anywhere else, unless we want to pull out of Iraq or afghanistan. And finally, if we were to set foot in another Muslim country, it would only further the resolve of Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

Ya, because France and Germany have no history in Africa.

A lot of West African states are French speakers and their currency is even called the Franc. Why else does the Ivory Coast call itself Cote D'Ivoire?

For all you people who hate the U.N most of its faults come from the Security Council and mostly America.

How?

Because in the Rwandan massacre, it was the U.S that didn't want to send forces in the save the people, and they were the ones that wanted to water down the UN deployment teams. Making it hard for them to do their job.

However, France should also be blamed because they took part in the slaughter in Southern Rwanda, they either allowed or participated in the deaths of 50,000 people.

So, any faults of the U.S will be blamed on the U.S and the Security council.

I agree with Kimichi. I mean everyone is always up against the US and when we need help, they turn their backs on us. However, when they want somethng, who do they come to first? I don't think right now we could handle putting troops anywhere else, unless we want to pull out of Iraq or afghanistan. And finally, if we were to set foot in another Muslim country, it would only further the resolve of Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

Ok, I really don't understand this.

The United States is part of the United Nations.

You blame the UN for failures- then you are also partly attributing blame to the United States.

Does no one else see this? :confused:

They allowed the people to survive even with corruption when the U.S governments wanted to kill them all with sanctions.

And what people hate to know, the security council knoew about the corruption, that means America.

Also, since, it appears that at least 100 million dollars have disappeared at least because of some kind of U.S corruption so they aren't clean this is one nation, while the U.N was many.

There was just a case in the U.S where a guy was sent to prison for still 100 million himself, so their is probably billions of dollars missing because of U.S corruption that no one wants to talk about.

The UN oil-for-food was a scam, but it was suppose to save people, while the U.S corruption is for themselves.

Finally, it is kind of funny with the bombing that the U.N was having a conference in that building when the terrorists hit it and their was not one single U.S reporter.

Also the U.N Human Rights commissioner, Sergio De Melo a very good man, who would not be bought by the U.S or China, Russia, Cuba or anyone else was killed in this attack. He wanted to end Guantanamo.
The US didn't want to "kill them all with sanctions". At least make your false accusations a bit realistic. Weren't food and medicine exempt from the sanctions? I don't know for sure, but having looked at the terms of sanctions imposed on other nations I would assume that it's standard to exempt food and medicine.

Got a source for the guy who stole 100 million? I haven't looked into it. Who caught him? Who conducted the investigation? If it was the US, then you could argue that we're actively seeking to eliminate corruption.

The original oil for food program was supposed to help people. The scam was funneling money directly to Saddam in violation of the oil for food regulations.

So you're claiming that the US arranged for the killing of a bunch of UN workers? Are you high? The US wanted the UN involved in Iraq reconstruction to give more international legitemacy to our effort. It was not in our interests to have the UN chased out of Iraq. I'm seriously getting sick of you conspiracy theorists.

Ok, I really don't understand this.

The United States is part of the United Nations.

You blame the UN for failures- then you are also partly attributing blame to the United States.

Does no one else see this? :confused:


A part..Not the whole damn thing. And when things go wrong it is automatically America's fault. And i am not saying that the US is perfect either, just that everyone has the double standards for the US. We get asked to help, and we do it, BUT when WE ask for help, everyone else criticizes us and so on. I would prefer the US to leave the UN and see how well they do without our funding.(wow i sounded like some conservatives....scary:eek: )

The US didn't want to "kill them all with sanctions". At least make your false accusations a bit realistic. Weren't food and medicine exempt from the sanctions? I don't know for sure, but having looked at the terms of sanctions imposed on other nations I would assume that it's standard to exempt food and medicine.

Got a source for the guy who stole 100 million? I haven't looked into it. Who caught him? Who conducted the investigation? If it was the US, then you could argue that we're actively seeking to eliminate corruption.

The original oil for food program was supposed to help people. The scam was funneling money directly to Saddam in violation of the oil for food regulations.

So you're claiming that the US arranged for the killing of a bunch of UN workers? Are you high? The US wanted the UN involved in Iraq reconstruction to give more international legitemacy to our effort. It was not in our interests to have the UN chased out of Iraq. I'm seriously getting sick of you conspiracy theorists.


I concur:p

A part..Not the whole damn thing.
Show me where someone (rationally) has blamed the United States for entirely all the UN's failures?

And when things go wrong it is automatically America's fault.
Example?

We get asked to help, and we do it, BUT when WE ask for help, everyone else criticizes us and so on.
Again, example of when the US asked the UN for help please?

I would prefer the US to leave the UN and see how well they do without our funding.(wow i sounded like some conservatives....scary:eek: )

1) It would in all likelyhood fall apart.
2) It would never happen- bad politics.

Normally I'd be tempted to tell the UN to stuff it, but the situation in Darfur is bad in ways most westerners simply cannot imagine. I think that the US needs to be there, if for no other reason than because our troops are the best at what they do and the Darfur region needs isn't going to be calmed down with peace talks; the militias that are causing the problems (and likely funded by the government) need to be killed.

Still, I'd attach a caveat. If the US is to provide troops then the US maintains command and control. Period. We do the planning, we give the orders, we kill what needs to be killed in the way we feel is least dangerous to our troops. Once the situation is calmed down, once the militias have been exterminated, then the US leaves and forces better suited to peace keeping take over.

If the US is to provide troops then the US maintains command and control. Period. We do the planning, we give the orders...
Really? :eek: :D
*Looks at planning for Iraq*

What nobody is mentioning in all this is that the US won't send troops for one very significant reason--we don't have the troops to send, at least not in the numbers required to do any significant peacekeeping.

Resolving the problem would require replacing the current government of Sudan, destroying its official military, and then fighting an insurgency of the janjaweed militia for God knows how long.

*Shrug* Lets face it, the Sudanese military and the militias aren't top of the line. Their experiance is mainily in the rape and murder of unarmed civilians, faced with a real force they'd crumble. Especially when you consider that in the Darfur region they won't have anywhere to go to ground. With good air support and an aggressive (yes folk, stopping genocide means collateral damage, deal with it) plan the US could cripple the main force in a few weeks. From there you can hand it off to Europe, they made the mess in the first place, they should have to be the ones to rebuild.

I personally feel some states do peacekeeping better then fighting and vice versa. The British and Americans are better at fighting then keeping the peace. The French, Germans, Norwegians, Irish, Fijians and possibly the Canadians are much more adept at keeping peace.
I thought that peacekeeping was traditionally Britain's 'boutique skill' because of all the training we got in Northern Ireland? I can see how our position as a former colonial power would mean that we weren't ideally suited for every situation, and the Iraq thing probably hasn't helped that.

Show me where someone (rationally) has blamed the United States for entirely all the UN's failures?
Example?
Again, example of when the US asked the UN for help please?
1) It would in all likelyhood fall apart.
2) It would never happen- bad politics.


Well rationally speaking, I guess probably no one. But the point is that the US always gets blamed for something, somehow. Personally I am tired of all the BS of the international community.

and btw..The US asked the UN for help in Iraq...and looks like the only ally we had in that was GB and the bomb diffusing monkeys from..morrocco(i think it was)

What nobody is mentioning in all this is that the US won't send troops for one very significant reason--we don't have the troops to send, at least not in the numbers required to do any significant peacekeeping.


ahem..I said that ;)

*Shrug* Lets face it, the Sudanese military and the militias aren't top of the line. Their experiance is mainily in the rape and murder of unarmed civilians, faced with a real force they'd crumble. Especially when you consider that in the Darfur region they won't have anywhere to go to ground. With good air support and an aggressive (yes folk, stopping genocide means collateral damage, deal with it) plan the US could cripple the main force in a few weeks. From there you can hand it off to Europe, they made the mess in the first place, they should have to be the ones to rebuild.


They might have a weak military now..But who's not to say once their military is down, maybe a regime change in hand, that the borders won't open up to muslim extremists from the middle east to come in and do the same thing that they are doing in Iraq?

For all you people who hate the U.N most of its faults come from the Security Council and mostly America.

<snip>

So, any faults of the U.S will be blamed on the U.S and the Security council.

Well then, perhaps the US should give up it's seat on the council. I mean, lets face it, the US gets nothing out of UN membership, theres no reason we shouldn't walk away entirely. Let the UN go off on it's own without the legitimacy, funding, or military power that America represents. I give it eighteen months before the begging begins.

I thought that peacekeeping was traditionally Britain's 'boutique skill' because of all the training we got in Northern Ireland? I can see how our position as a former colonial power would mean that we weren't ideally suited for every situation, and the Iraq thing probably hasn't helped that.

Yeah, the Britsh Army did a real good job in Northern Ireland. :rolleyes:

Personally I am tired of all the BS of the international community.

Well, honestly, you can kinda see why the international community might not be skippy-happy-happy-joy-joy with the US.

and btw..The US asked the UN for help in Iraq
Ah.. Iraq. Where the US and UK said "Fuck you" to the UN collectively. What. Do you expect the rest of the world to jump when the US/UK says so?

Not exactly an uncommon response- especially given the got their head guy and whole base of operations killed in a massive truck bomb.

Again, the blue helmets don't fight wars- they maintain peace. It wasn't the time for them to go in.

ahem..I said that ;)
Sorry. I must have been skimming too fast.;)

Let the UN go off on it's own without the legitimacy, funding, or military power that America represents. I give it eighteen months before the begging begins.
Sorry. How does the United States give the United Nations 'legitimacy' exactly?

I give it eighteen months until the United States begins to make moves to come back to the fold. Good politics. Better be the gang to influence it then outside it and have no say. I think Bush is gradually understanding this.

Again, the blue helmets don't fight wars- they maintain peace. It wasn't the time for them to go in.

Well, sometimes to maintain peace you have to kill off a few bad guys. Thats life.

Well, sometimes to maintain peace you have to kill off a few bad guys. Thats life.

I know and recently the UN peacekeepers have taken a much 'freer' hand in this area. See Haiti.

There is a difference- the US is very good at fighting wars- but has a poor track record at being able to handle the peace after. (which is where the peacekeepers come in)

Really? :eek: :D
*Looks at planning for Iraq*

We did the first half fine. Its the second half, the rebuilding and peacekeeping that we fucked up. Like I said, American soldiers are very good at what they do: killing things and blowing them up. That is what they are trained for, they're soldiers. The first half of the war was executed flawlessly, very few casualties and one of the swiftest invasions in history. We crippled Iraqui forces from the air and then sent in ground troups to mop up what was left. The second half of Iraq went badly because we asked our troops to do something they hadn't beent trained to do and our commanders to plan something outside of their experiance. That is why, in my opinion, we shouldn't have gone in alone. Other countries know how to do the rebuilding, other countries have troops trained for peacekeeping.

As I said in my original post, I think the US should be fully in charge of that first half. You can say what you want about the American military, but it is undeniable that it is the greatest force on earth for waging war. Europe should be in charge of (and fund) the cleanup and rebuilding, after all Europe is responsible for the state Africa is in today.

snip

Completely agree.

Yeah, the Britsh Army did a real good job in Northern Ireland. :rolleyes:

I'm not saying they necessarily did a good job in Northern Ireland, I'm saying that the Army learnt a lot of lessons there. Not only did it give the Army a lot of general experience, but also gave them good experience relating directly to peace keeping, for instance the British soldiers wearing soft hats in Iraq so as to be less intimidating. From which I was under the impression that while other countries had boutique skills like winter warfare etc. Britain's was peacekeeping.

We did the first half fine. Its the second half, the rebuilding and peacekeeping that we fucked up. Like I said, American soldiers are very good at what they do: killing things and blowing them up. That is what they are trained for, they're soldiers. The first half of the war was executed flawlessly, very few casualties and one of the swiftest invasions in history. We crippled Iraqui forces from the air and then sent in ground troups to mop up what was left. The second half of Iraq went badly because we asked our troops to do something they hadn't beent trained to do and our commanders to plan something outside of their experiance. That is why, in my opinion, we shouldn't have gone in alone. Other countries know how to do the rebuilding, other countries have troops trained for peacekeeping.

As I said in my original post, I think the US should be fully in charge of that first half. You can say what you want about the American military, but it is undeniable that it is the greatest force on earth for waging war. Europe should be in charge of (and fund) the cleanup and rebuilding, after all Europe is responsible for the state Africa is in today.now that is a great example....


of international cooperation. :D

I'm not saying they necessarily did a good job in Northern Ireland, I'm saying that the Army learnt a lot of lessons there. Not only did it give the Army a lot of general experience, but also gave them good experience relating directly to peace keeping, for instance the British soldiers wearing soft hats in Iraq so as to be less intimidating. From which I was under the impression that while other countries had boutique skills like winter warfare etc. Britain's was peacekeeping.
Well, I'd agree they learned what not to do in the future- i.e. Bloody Sunday, torture, internment etc.- Britain...is good at fighting 'certain' types of wars... but is increasingly becoming more and more 'Europeanised'... i.e pouring more efforts into peacekeeping then large offensive armies.

I'd personally say they are in transition.

They might have a weak military now..But who's not to say once their military is down, maybe a regime change in hand, that the borders won't open up to muslim extremists from the middle east to come in and do the same thing that they are doing in Iraq?

Won't be our problem. The US is good at killing. Once the Sudanese military and militias have been driven out of Darfur, then Europe and the rest of the UN gets to handle it however they want. If they won't agree, well, then I don;t really think we should go.

Sorry. How does the United States give the United Nations 'legitimacy' exactly?

I give it eighteen months until the United States begins to make moves to come back to the fold. Good politics. Better be the gang to influence it then outside it and have no say. I think Bush is gradually understanding this.

If the US decides not to play ball, I wouldn't be shocked if other large nations didn't decide to walk away, too. China, for one, might not be interested in sticking around, they're big enough that they don't need the UN. When it comes to legitimacy, whether you like the Us or not, it is the world's superpower. If it doesn't respect the UN, there are pleanty of other countries that might not be as interested in maintaining membership. If the US can walk away, why can't they?

Without the US the UN loses quite a bit of funding, and it's largest reliable military force. UN sanctions mean less without force behind them, as do resolution. UN programs die without money. The UN needs the US, weather it likes it or not.

Besides, the UN is a joke, have you taken a look at some of the countries that have sat on the Human Rights council in the last decade?

Europe should be in charge of (and fund) the cleanup and rebuilding, after all Europe is responsible for the state Africa is in today.

I state this as a question, so no one start going bat-crazy on me:

But wasn't the US as well involved in Africa? Certainly Latin American regimes and the whole Iran bit (to get an anti-USSR regime up) but I believe they were also involved with Africa, doing some on-the-side funding too make sure that Africa did not fall to the 'Red Menace'.

I am not blaming anyone. It's stupid to place blame when time would be better spent learning from the mistakes and implementing procedures so that stability can be maintained and prosper.

So, my thoughts on the matter is that a joint US-European force should be sent, consisting of the EU battleforces (The EU has created several battlegroups, combining different nation's militaries into a fast-response force) and a US task force, preferably something like Marines, Rangers, etc. Special Ops should be delegated with headhunting ringleaders, as usual, while the battlegroups duke it out with the militia. I think that the initial force should have several of the EU's more nordic/germanic forces (Dutch, German, etc.) to counterbalance the negative stigmata associated with US and UK forces.

It SHOULDN't be, as you suggest, Americans going in first and Europe following after. While American military excels offensively and Europe in the rebuilding process, mixing the two creates a better public image (desperately needed) as well as getting the respective armies experience from different styles of warfare. I do agree that operationally the first half should be commanded by US/UK commanders, whereas the second half be commanded by EU/Canadian commanders who know how to handle the peacekeeping process.

Well, I'd agree they learned what not to do in the future- i.e. Bloody Sunday, torture, internment etc.- Britain...is good at fighting 'certain' types of wars... but is increasingly becoming more and more 'Europeanised'... i.e pouring more efforts into peacekeeping then large offensive armies.

I'd personally say they are in transition.

I'd say that they're in a state between the two. They have shown their merit in an offensive situation, yet at the same time have a good record in peacekeeping (NOT perfect, as pointed out in Northern Ireland, but certainly better than US at the moment).

If the US decides not to play ball, I wouldn't be shocked if other large nations didn't decide to walk away, too. China, for one, might not be interested in sticking around, they're big enough that they don't need the UN. When it comes to legitimacy, whether you like the Us or not, it is the world's superpower. If it doesn't respect the UN, there are pleanty of other countries that might not be as interested in maintaining membership. If the US can walk away, why can't they?
Quite the contrary. If the US did walk away (which it won't) it would leave a lovely gap for say China, Russia et al to push through stuff that would benefit them will screwing over the US. What, you think that 'isolating' themselves from international cooperation would benefit the US in the long term. Like it or not, the US's time in the sun is setting...fast. It will need the UN in the future to ensure some semblance of power.

Without the US the UN loses quite a bit of funding, and it's largest reliable military force. UN sanctions mean less without force behind them, as do resolution. UN programs die without money. The UN needs the US, weather it likes it or not.
True. The United States is a key component of funding, I agree. But UN sanctions are bullshit anyway. They really need to be rethought. Resolutions would nto really change- there are enough states/blocs out there to make them work. (EU, OPEC, etc)


Besides, the UN is a joke, have you taken a look at some of the countries that have sat on the Human Rights council in the last decade?
The UN is a huge organisation. A lot of good things are done- and also a lot of idiotic fucked up things are done. An overhaul is overdue now that we are post Cold War.

Oh, and the US is no shining example of Human Rights neither in the past few years. "Glass houses.." and all.

I agree with Kimchi. I mean everyone is always up against the US and when we need help, they turn their backs on us.

Yep, like when the whole world was against the US in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when they made the US go into Afghanistan alone, and when no offer of support came after hurricane Kathrina... oh, wait!


However, when they want somethng, who do they come to first? I don't think right now we could handle putting troops anywhere else, unless we want to pull out of Iraq or afghanistan. And finally, if we were to set foot in another Muslim country, it would only further the resolve of Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

Now, the concern that the US might be too committed elsewhere is a good arguement.


and btw..The US asked the UN for help in Iraq...and looks like the only ally we had in that was GB and the bomb diffusing monkeys from..morrocco(i think it was)
Yep, it's strange that many countries wouldn't help in what they perceived to be an illegal war, isn't it? A war for reasons that later have been revealed to be incorrect, started before the UN weapons inspectors had finished their work on the ground even.

You shouldn't worry that the US don't have any friends in the world on the basis of their opposition to the Iraqi war - these countries are still friends of the US (unless the US now turns them away). They dared to speak up when they felt the US going in a wrong direction for the wrong reasons, so the only thing they have proven is that they are not just "yes-men" and puppets.

Oh, and turn your back on the Darfur-situation, and you don't really hurt anyone... except the 1.8 million people that has been displaced, and are being raped, starved or killed by the milita, or are dying of disease.

and btw..The US asked the UN for help in Iraq...and looks like the only ally we had in that was GB and the bomb diffusing monkeys from..morrocco(i think it was)

Italians, Spanish, even some JSSDF...sure, not all stayed on during the second phase, but it's silly to say that the US didn't have SOME support. Now, as for concrete support, that's just the UK.

Now, the concern that the US might be too committed elsewhere is a good arguement.

I disagree. The US has many military bases all over the world: Japan and Germany come to mind immediately. Troops can be rotated out into the joint EU/US force I had outlined previously.

Now, as for concrete support, that's just the UK.

From the government, anyway. The public was very opposed.

Isn't that a bad idea? US troops are better at death dealing than peace keeping. They should send German troops.

Oh, and the US is no shining example of Human Rights neither in the past few years. "Glass houses.." and all.

Don't have to tell me that. I'm a gun toting libertarian, I'm well aware of the violations my own government has been involved with.

I know and recently the UN peacekeepers have taken a much 'freer' hand in this area. See Haiti.

There is a difference- the US is very good at fighting wars- but has a poor track record at being able to handle the peace after. (which is where the peacekeepers come in)
I think that's what Annan is hinting at - he wants the US to resolve the problem in the Sudan so the "peacekeeping" can then begin.

Sorry, if I've heard it once, I've heard it a thousand times from every country outside the US - the US is not the world's police force.

If you want something done on the UN's behalf, like pacifying a genocidal regime, do it yourself. We'll be glad to send money, but no troops.

What nobody is mentioning in all this is that the US won't send troops for one very significant reason--we don't have the troops to send, at least not in the numbers required to do any significant peacekeeping.

I doubt they want a quarter million infantry. It sounds like they want 10-20,000 and modern air support and logistics to stiffen the peacekeeping force. Which the US could still easily do.

In fact, it could probably draw that from Europe.

I doubt they want a quarter million infantry. It sounds like they want 10-20,000 and modern air support and logistics to stiffen the peacekeeping force. Which the US could still easily do.

In fact, it could probably draw that from Europe.

Then perhaps Germany should do it.

Why wouldn't another UN/NATO country whos military is not full engaged at the moment cover this? There would be a certain cosmic justice to Germany stopping a genocide.

Then perhaps Germany should do it.

Why wouldn't another UN/NATO country whos military is not full engaged at the moment cover this? There would be a certain cosmic justice to Germany stopping a genocide.

Er.. 'cos they're broke, and their army's no good?

Anyway, I was just pointing out that the US could do it, and quite easily, despite all the rumors from the democrats that the US has no army left, and it is all broken &c.

Er.. 'cos they're broke, and their army's no good?

Anyway, I was just pointing out that the US could do it, and quite easily, despite all the rumors from the democrats that the US has no army left, and it is all broken &c.

I quite sure the US could do it - provided that the US and not the UN was in command.

I believe that Germany could probably front 20,000 soldiers and the logistical support and airpower necessary.

It would be an unusual position for Germany, because in order to begin "peacekeeping" they would have to kick the current government of Sudan into the dirt, and annihilate Sudan's military, before "peacekeeping" the janjaweed militias.

The problem would be more a matter of will than ability.

The US would, by attacking and defeating another Islamic government, further cement its anti-Islam reputation.

Maybe Annan figures that there's nothing to lose in such a case - every other nation has more to lose in that respect, and the US can be the "bad cop" to the UN's "good cop".

I quite sure the US could do it - provided that the US and not the UN was in command.

I believe that Germany could probably front 20,000 soldiers and the logistical support and airpower necessary.

It would be an unusual position for Germany, because in order to begin "peacekeeping" they would have to kick the current government of Sudan into the dirt, and annihilate Sudan's military, before "peacekeeping" the janjaweed militias.

The problem would be more a matter of will than ability.

The US would, by attacking and defeating another Islamic government, further cement its anti-Islam reputation.

Maybe Annan figures that there's nothing to lose in such a case - every other nation has more to lose in that respect, and the US can be the "bad cop" to the UN's "good cop".

I don't disagree that germany couldn't either really. But from what I understand they are still largely geared to defeat the USSR, and have no real ability to project power anywhere. Without US aid, it would be terrifically expensive for them, and given their recent cap in hand approach to the EU, I can't see them doing it.

As for the anti-islam sentiment. That ship's sailed. Extremists governments and clerics in the Middle east, subcontinent and far east, despise the US just for existing. Whether or not it is involved in their affairs or topples governments is irrelevant.

So I don't think it matters if we topple another government or not. If anything, as they won't ever respect us, we might as well try to make them fear us.

I am sick of us (the US) parading in and out of other countries' messes, and the expenses we incur from doing so. We've got too many issues we need to address at home to let this orgy of international interference continue.

I say we become contractors. :D

If the UN - or any other entity, for that matter - wants US help in a situation like this, I say it's their responsibility to put together a plan consisting of the following items:

* What, specifically, needs to be accomplished
* What would a successful conclusion be, in the UN's view
* A check or an IOU for anticipated expenses (in the case of the UN, the check would also include US funds)

Assuming our leadership is in favor of the enterprise, at that point it's a go.

"If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire the A-Team!"

"If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire the A-Team!"
NOT THE A-TEAM... those farts can fire off all the automatic weapons in a room full of terrorists and not hit a damned person. :D

I think that's what Annan is hinting at - he wants the US to resolve the problem in the Sudan so the "peacekeeping" can then begin.

Sorry, if I've heard it once, I've heard it a thousand times from every country outside the US - the US is not the world's police force.

If you want something done on the UN's behalf, like pacifying a genocidal regime, do it yourself. We'll be glad to send money, but no troops.
Then stop acting like the world's police force. The United States has a split personality on that issue- half of the country doesn't feel it should be and should only do stuff in its own interests (a la realpolitik) and the other half feels like acting like the world's policeman is in the interests of the state in the longer run.

You (the country as a whole) have to come to a final solution regarding your position in the world- and stop the 'one foot in, one foot out' approach.

Again, the United States is part of the United Nations. Stop acting like its a seperate entity or a competeing power- it would not be done 'on the UN's behalf'. The United States would not be doing the UN any favours.

The Sudan.. possibly more hopeless than the Middle East. I say screw 'em. When we help they call us Imperialists. When we don't, they call us Imperialists.

Resolving the problem would require replacing the current government of Sudan, destroying its official military, and then fighting an insurgency of the janjaweed militia for God knows how long.

You up for that? Good, because we're sending you to infantry basic training, and we'll send you along, too.
Why not? It was done in Iraq and you seem to want it to happen in Iran, so I don't see why you're opposing this.

The Sudan.. possibly more hopeless than the Middle East. I say screw 'em. When we help they call us Imperialists. When we don't, they call us Imperialists.
Who are "they"? I haven't heard the people of Sudan calling the US anything lately.

I personally feel some states do peacekeeping better then fighting and vice versa. The British and Americans are better at fighting then keeping the peace. The French, Germans, Norwegians, Irish, Fijians and possibly the Canadians are much more adept at keeping peace.
I don't know about putting the French in that second list. They seem to be "better" at increasing strife than keeping peace.

I'm inclined to let them handle it themselves.

You voted for Bush, right? Why on earth is this your attitude? You ought to be in favour of intervention left, right and centre.

Or are you one of these people who just voted for Bush to spit in the faces of European critics?

]
and btw..The US asked the UN for help in Iraq...and looks like the only ally we had in that was GB and the bomb diffusing monkeys from..morrocco(i think it was)
You forgot Poland! :D

Canada and France like e=to brag about their successes conduction peace keeping operations, let them prove that they are what they claim to be. The UN didn't feel obliged to cooperate with the US when we invaded Iraq, I see no reason why we shouldn't return the favor. Germany also claims to have a rather large, professional army, I think they can finally put it to use.

Italy and Spain have.... decent sized militaries.

Oh, how about we have the Muslim nations such as Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia help out a bit? They all have quite a bit of experience fighting wars since 1948, they lost them all but we will just ignore that.

Am I the only one that finds it humorous when the US is condemned for being an aggressor nation and then in the same breath is condemned for not taking a more active role in world affairs? Why is it that the genocide in Sudan is enough for the UN to intervene while the genocide in Iraq was not severe enough to warrant military action?

Or are you one of these people who just voted for Bush to spit in the faces of European critics?

I like Bush for telling Europe to F*ck off but would not have voted for him on that basis alone. I would have voted for Bush because at least we knew his stance, what was John Kerry's position on issues? Whatever the New York Times said the public was in favor of at the time. (Voted for Iraq then condemned the President.)

Canada and France like e=to brag about their successes conduction peace keeping operations, let them prove that they are what they claim to be. The UN didn't feel obliged to cooperate with the US when we invaded Iraq, I see no reason why we shouldn't return the favor. Germany also claims to have a rather large, professional army, I think they can finally put it to use.

Italy and Spain have.... decent sized militaries.

Oh, how about we have the Muslim nations such as Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia help out a bit? They all have quite a bit of experience fighting wars since 1948, they lost them all but we will just ignore that.

Am I the only one that finds it humorous when the US is condemned for being an aggressor nation and then in the same breath is condemned for not taking a more active role in world affairs? Why is it that the genocide in Sudan is enough for the UN to intervene while the genocide in Iraq was not severe enough to warrant military action?



I like Bush for telling Europe to F*ck off but would not have voted for him on that basis alone. I would have voted for Bush because at least we knew his stance, what was John Kerry's position on issues? Whatever the New York Times said the public was in favor of at the time. (Voted for Iraq then condemned the President.)

This is the attitude that confuses me. The UN doesn't 'owe' the United States anything. Neither does the United States 'owe' the UN anything. One is part of the other.

As for your point regarding the success of France and Canada's peacekeepers- the French were successful alongside others in Lebanon and also the Canadians were successful in Namibia alongside others.

Also, I believe the Middle Eastern states were your allies in the Coalition in the Second Gulf War, no?

Eat This, Sudan:
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f39/faceless39/bushfinger.jpg

As for your point regarding the success of France and Canada's peacekeepers- the French were successful alongside others in Lebanon and also the Canadians were successful in Namibia alongside others.

Canada has a long list of successful peacekeeping asctions, ask a Canadian and they will give you a link to a site containing all their peacekeeping operations. One thing you'll notice is that there are a lot of places that A.) You have likely never heard of and B.) A lot of small numbers, like sending a "force" of 18 people or even one operation, as they called it, where two people were sent.

Also, I believe the Middle Eastern states were your allies in the Coalition in the Second Gulf War, no?

Well, we used Kuwait as the point from which we launched the invasion, I believe the military's HQ for the middleeast theatre is in Qatar, or U.A.E., and we launched air attacks from Saudi Arabia. Other than that I don't think we were well received, Turkey denied our troops permission to cross their country, they then invaded Iraq from the North until the Army dropped some Airborne troops to stop them dead in their tracks. Syria harbored Saddam for some time and according to the second in command of the Iraqi Air Force what little WMD's Iraq had were smuggled into Syria in convertred civilian aircraft that were still painted with the paint scheme of an airliner. And the Mullah's in Iran still hate us because we are infidels who support the zionists.

Other than that yeah, we had a lot of support from the Middle East, some of them were so anxious to meet US soldiers they strapped bombs to their stomachs, walked up to the troops, and blew themselves up.

Maybe if you cowboys hadn't gone on Crusades all over the planet, you wouldn't be spread so thin you've got to co-opt your own National Guardsmen into fighting overseas.

Suck it up and do something for the UN, or surprise no-one at all and quit the organization altogether. Either way, stop bleating like pigs.

Canada has a long list of successful peacekeeping asctions, ask a Canadian and they will give you a link to a site containing all their peacekeeping operations. One thing you'll notice is that there are a lot of places that A.) You have likely never heard of and B.) A lot of small numbers, like sending a "force" of 18 people or even one operation, as they called it, where two people were sent.

Speak for yourself. I have an education.


Well, we used Kuwait as the point from which we launched the invasion, I believe the military's HQ for the middleeast theatre is in Qatar, or U.A.E., and we launched air attacks from Saudi Arabia. Other than that I don't think we were well received, Turkey denied our troops permission to cross their country, they then invaded Iraq from the North until the Army dropped some Airborne troops to stop them dead in their tracks. Syria harbored Saddam for some time and according to the second in command of the Iraqi Air Force what little WMD's Iraq had were smuggled into Syria in convertred civilian aircraft that were still painted with the paint scheme of an airliner. And the Mullah's in Iran still hate us because we are infidels who support the zionists.

Other than that yeah, we had a lot of support from the Middle East, some of them were so anxious to meet US soldiers they strapped bombs to their stomachs, walked up to the troops, and blew themselves up.

No, I said the Second Gulf War, not the Third.

Why not? It's not like you'd have to go alone.

Eat This, Sudan:

That's just what this thread needed: A screengrab of a man with no small sense of entitlement at the very apex of his personal eloquence. It's - uhhh, funny... I guess I'm supposed to think.

Ho hum.

No sale.

Speak for yourself. I have an education.

That's great, how many years ago? Odds are more than a few countries in Africa, especially the Congo (whichever one, you pick) has changed their name at least once.



No, I said the Second Gulf War, not the Third.

Ok then smartass, enlighten me, what is the first Gulf War? Let me guess, the Iran-Iraq War? Umm, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait? (Which is part of Desert Shield/Storm.) Or operation Desert Shield was the first Gulf War and Desert Storm was the second? Am I getting warmer? The Crusades collectively, in your mind, were the first Gulf War?

Ok then smartass, enlighten me, what is the first Gulf War? Let me guess, the Iran-Iraq War?
Got it right the first try! Very well done, kiddo. :rolleyes: