NationStates Jolt Archive

I was reading Al Jazeera and noticed one of those little polls that readers vote on. It was closed by then, so I couldn't vote. But here is what it said, and the final results:

Is Sudan's sovereignty under threat if UN forces deploy in Darfur without its consent?

Yes :
48%
No :
46%
Unsure :
6%

Number of pollers : 9325

This just seemed totally absurd to me. UN forces, essentially a token group, a threat to Sudan's sovereignty? Pffft. Does anyone else think that UN forces are a threat to Sudan's sovereignty?

it is a threat to a nation's sovereignty. The UN in geeral is a threat to sovereignty, we should have it.

and i do not use al jazeera, as it is centered on the arab world, where nothing happens except bushs wars.

I was reading Al Jazeera and noticed one of those little polls that readers vote on. It was closed by then, so I couldn't vote. But here is what it said, and the final results:

Is Sudan's sovereignty under threat if UN forces deploy in Darfur without its consent?

Yes :
48%
No :
46%
Unsure :
6%

Number of pollers : 9325

This just seemed totally absurd to me. UN forces, essentially a token group, a threat to Sudan's sovereignty? Pffft. Does anyone else think that UN forces are a threat to Sudan's sovereignty?

It seems absurd to me that you don't understand the legitimacy of this concern. Read the question.

Is Sudan's sovereignty under threat if UN forces deploy in Darfur without its consent?


I wonder if New York Times readers would think US sovereignty is under threat, if UN forces deploy in Wyoming.

In case you didn't know, Sovereignty is the exclusive right to exercise supreme political (e.g. legislative, judicial, and/or executive) authority over a geographic region, group of people, or oneself. Keyword: exclusive.

If someone else exercises political authority, without your consent, over your shit, it's not just a threat to your sovereignty, it's a violation.

So are you being sarcastic or just intentionally dim-witted?

The obvious lack of humanity from Sudan's government compells me to say they already lost their right to rule for humane reasons. Sending the UN there is only a clean-up. They can eliminate all the militia on Darfur, but I wouldn't be concerned for a moment for the lives of those bastards that fund these religious zealots. Hang 'em, one by one. And don't forget to draw and quarter them.

In case you didn't know, Sovereignty is the exclusive right to exercise supreme political (e.g. legislative, judicial, and/or executive) authority over a geographic region, group of people, or oneself. Keyword: exclusive.

If someone else exercises political authority, without your consent, over your shit, it's not just a threat to your sovereignty, it's a violation.

So are you being sarcastic or just intentionally dim-witted?

Since when does deploying humanitarian forces, which is all the UN has, something that will effect political authoroty? I guess the Red Cross and Doctors without Borders, also working in Sudan, are a threat to Sudan's soverignty?

Since when does deploying humanitarian forces, which is all the UN has, something that will effect political authoroty? I guess the Red Cross and Doctors without Borders, also working in Sudan, are a threat to Sudan's soverignty?
when it is done without the place's consent or ven knowledge.

The UN has not only humanitarian forces (is there anything called humanitarian forces anyways?) they have peacekeeping forces, which are armed soldiers put in an area to (try to) maintain peace and stability in that region.

The question is, is Sudan's sovereignty as it is now worth preserving? Is it worth preserving the military dictatorships, the autocratic governments, or would it be better to route all of that and instill a solid democratic government, or at least a benevolent dictatorship?

Of course, we tried that with Iraq. Didn't exactly work out too well.

when it is done without the place's consent or ven knowledge.

Really? Because the definition of sovereignty, when applied in the context of politics, is "supreme power over a politc body." UN forces deploying, with or without Sudan's consent, do not effect the power of its political body. Nor does the Red Cross or Doctors Without Borders entering the country, with or without consent, effect the power over a politic body of the state.

The UN has not only humanitarian forces (is there anything called humanitarian forces anyways?) they have peacekeeping forces, which are armed soldiers put in an area to (try to) maintain peace and stability in that region.

I think they actually call their peacekeepers "humanitarian." In any case, you're right. They stick forces in areas to keep the peace. They never effect the soverignty of states, even when someone really needs to. Like during the Hutu and Tutsi conflict. They just sat by and watched it occur, without ever doing anything to effect the political bodies.

Yes, it is a threat to their National Sovereignty.

Inasmuch as Sudan is a Scumbag State, it is right and fitting that Sudan's sovereignty be destroyed without delay.

Well Bushistas and anti-UN conservatives, how does it feel to be on the side of the Sudan and Al Jazeera?

Well Bushistas and anti-UN conservatives, how does it feel to be on the side of the Sudan and Al Jazeera?


*giggles*

( Well said! )

I was reading Al Jazeera and noticed one of those little polls that readers vote on. It was closed by then, so I couldn't vote. But here is what it said, and the final results:

Is Sudan's sovereignty under threat if UN forces deploy in Darfur without its consent?

Yes :
48%
No :
46%
Unsure :
6%

Number of pollers : 9325

This just seemed totally absurd to me. UN forces, essentially a token group, a threat to Sudan's sovereignty? Pffft. Does anyone else think that UN forces are a threat to Sudan's sovereignty?


You lose at life.

that it isn't a threat to the soverignty of all nations is of course what makes the u.n. a debating club rather then a world government. personaly i beleive it NEEDS to be a "threat" to any and all abuses of soverignty.

i'm not saying there's anything wrong with there being a debating club called the u.n.

i think the world is way better off to have one then it would be without it. but i also think, there really needs to be some real check against the abusiveness and excessess of ALL national soverignties, and i don't mean by the dominance of any one of them either.

=^^=
.../\...

There is no sovereignty in Sudan. It is a failed state.

You tell me who the Government is, then we'll decide whether sovereignty has been violated.

I don't believe that any State whose internal workings are not based on decision-making-by-majority [aka Democracy, representative Republic, etc] has the right to exist at all!

Non patieris vivere...

There is no sovereignty in Sudan. It is a failed state.

You tell me who the Government is, then we'll decide whether sovereignty has been violated.

Sudan pet, not Somalia

Omar Hasan Ahmad al-Bashir is President.

Considering a large chunk of the NRA and right wing America think that the UN is a threat to American sovereignty, my only conclusion is that people are very silly and misinformed indeed.

Is the UN a threat to National sovereignty?Since this is the Thread title..
I voted accordingly..

I dont know the situation in Sudan anyways.

Since when does deploying humanitarian forces, which is all the UN has, something that will effect political authoroty? I guess the Red Cross and Doctors without Borders, also working in Sudan, are a threat to Sudan's soverignty?the Red Cross and Doctors without Borders do ask for the local Gov aproval.

To the original question:

Technically yes.
Morally no.

Well Bushistas and anti-UN conservatives, how does it feel to be on the side of the Sudan and Al Jazeera?

pwnage :D :D :p :D

I was reading Al Jazeera and noticed one of those little polls that readers vote on. It was closed by then, so I couldn't vote. But here is what it said, and the final results:

Is Sudan's sovereignty under threat if UN forces deploy in Darfur without its consent?

Yes :
48%
No :
46%
Unsure :
6%

Number of pollers : 9325

This just seemed totally absurd to me. UN forces, essentially a token group, a threat to Sudan's sovereignty? Pffft. Does anyone else think that UN forces are a threat to Sudan's sovereignty?
once again... an apparently right-wing zealot and paranoid OP consciously chooses to make voters names public, on a politically charged poll...

once again... an apparently right-wing zealot and paranoid OP consciously chooses to make voters names public, on a politically charged poll...

Probably just to see who hates Israel/is a closeted Nazi/eats babies and the like.

Since when does deploying humanitarian forces, which is all the UN has, something that will effect political authoroty? I guess the Red Cross and Doctors without Borders, also working in Sudan, are a threat to Sudan's soverignty?
You'd be surprised to know that those fighting in Korea were officialy UN forces.

The UN doesn't actually have any forces at all. Rather it requests forces from the members to fulfill whatever action they agreed on. It may be more or less powerful depending on the mission and on whose troops get to go.

Does anyone else think that UN forces are a threat to Sudan's sovereignty?If they go there without Sudan's consent, then they are in fact not respecting it's sovereignty. However, I doubt the UN will do it, so likely they're not a threat. (Whether they should be is another matter)
Maybe the african union can intervene; Sudan mostly seems to object to westernerns coming in, so african peace troops might be allowed.

Al Jazeera readers believe UN a threat to national sovereignty

Its ironic that a large ammount of Americans have always thought the same thing.


But why anyone in any African country would even want them is beyond me...look how well they did in Sierra Leone and Angola ...and Somalia and etc.

The UN visiting is a death sentence now days . They cant even protect themselves never mind others .


Africa
Dates of operation Name of Operation Location Conflict Website
1960–1964 United Nations Operation in the Congo (ONUC) Congo Congo Crisis [1]
1988–1991 United Nations Angola Verification Mission I (UNAVEM I) Angola Angolan War of Independence [2]
1989–1990 United Nations Transition Assistance Group (UNTAG) Namibia Namibian War of Independence [3]
1991–1995 United Nations Angola Verification Mission II (UNAVEM II) Angola Angolan Civil War [4]
1992–1994 United Nations Operation in Mozambique (ONUMOZ) Mozambique Liberian Civil War [5]
1992–1993 United Nations Operation in Somalia I (UNOSOM I) Somalia Somali Civil War [6]
1993–1997 United Nations Observer Mission in Liberia (UNOMIL) Liberia Liberian Civil War [7]
1993–1994 United Nations Observer Mission Uganda-Rwanda (UNOMUR) Rwanda Rwandan genocide [8]
Uganda
1993–1996 United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR) Rwanda Rwandan genocide [9]
1993–1995 United Nations Operation in Somalia II (UNOSOM II) Somalia Somali Civil War [10]
1994 United Nations Aouzou Strip Observer Group (UNASOG) Chad Aouzou Strip dispute [11]
Libya
1995–1997 United Nations Angola Verification Mission III (UNAVEM III) Angola Angolan Civil War [12]
1997–1999 United Nations Observer Mission in Angola (MONUA) Angola Angolan Civil War [13]
1998–1999 United Nations Observer Mission in Sierra Leone (UNOMSIL) Sierra Leone Sierra Leone civil war [14]
1998–2000 United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic (MINURCA) Central African Republic Central African Republic mutinies [15]
1999–2005 United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL) Sierra Leone Sierra Leone civil war [16]
[edit]
Americas


Now take the time to google the results and history of UN involvement in these countries...when they where not getting kidnapped or shot ...or standing around watching people be butchered...and were not out rapping and robbing..what did they acomplish ?

If you lived in Africa would you want them ?

Not to mention thier record durring the Yugolavian civil war and Bosnia and Kosovo...

PEACE KEEPERS my ass..

Fresh meat for the wolves and a waste of time .


The UN can spin it ant way they want but they took a major success by Executive outcomes in BOTH Angola and Sierra Leone and transformed it into a renewed civil war that lasted for years...three to six hundred special forces defeated a rebel Army numbered in the tens of thousands...then the UN moved in they got themselves jidnapped and the rebel factiuns kicked ass.

Executive Outcomes could be considered the progenitor of the modern private military company. They operated in Africa through out the 1990's and closed shop in 1999.

They were started by Luther Eeben Barlow, a member of the South African Defence Force, in 1989. Barlow, who had extensive experience in SA's wars in neighboring countries in the 70's and 80's, headed the European Section of the Orwellian named Civil Co-operation Bureau.

It is alleged EO's beginnings were as a front company for the CCB to circumnavigate arms embargos against South Africa. As the CCB began to break under investigations, many members made their way over to EO.

EO's first contract that led them to becoming the role model for copy-cat companies was with DeBeers and Branch Heritage Group via the goverment of Angola. Branch's oil site in Soyo, Angola had been captured and retained by UNITA forces. Through contacts with Simon Mann, Barlow met Branch CEO Anthony Buckingham and the idea of how to recapture control of the site led to a deal with the Angolan government (backed by DeBeers), EO and Branch.

The success EO had in Angola instigated a flood of PMCs in Africa, many of them formed by ex-EO officers. EO was also a part of a corporate maze created, in part at least, by accountant and CEO of Plaza 107, Michael Grunberg, and designed to obscure the relationships between soldiering companies, mineral and oil extraction companies, and key people in government positions.

EO and EO related companies along with Branch Oil and other mineral related companies worked all through out Africa in 1990s. Some of the hotspots were Angola, Sierra Leone, Burundi, and the Congo. When the criticisms began to get heavy, many of EO's work went to side-formed Sandline International headed by Lt.-Col Tim Spicer, which operated with the system already in place.

Subsidiaries like air support firm Ibis Air were owned by Barlow's umbrella company, Strategic Resources Corporation, the same company whose directors managed EO profits. Ibis provided air support for all of EO's operations and subsequently for Sandline International. The operator of Ibis, Crause Steyl, was recently the operator of Air Ambulance Africa which provided air logistical support for the 2004 failed coup attempt in Equatorial Guinea.

This is the nature of the legacy of Executive Outcomes. Among the companies formed by ex-officers are


http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Executive_Outcomes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Outcomes

Private armys ...because of their amazing success at removing butchers from the face of the earth..something the UN cant or wont do ..where feared so much durring the time of their maajor success that the UN put pressure on the countries that hired them and steped in to take their place...10,000 or more peace keepers couldnt do ONE tenth of the job a few hundred proffessionals did.

All they did was screw everything up and then six YEARS later declared a success.

The UN blows chunks .

Pshah, the UN is a threat to nothing, let alone anyone's sovereignty.

Pshah, the UN is a threat to nothing, let alone anyone's sovereignty.


Well they are a threat to themselves and to peace and stability..if you judge them by their record .

Unless they are giving out food and on humanitarian missions and have some troops with balls around to protect them .

Nice try Captain Racist, but a lot of Americans think that as well.

Sure, placing peacekeepers within Sudan's territory without consent is a violation of Sudanese sovereignty, but the sovereignty of genocidal regimes should never be respected.

Since when does deploying humanitarian forces, which is all the UN has, something that will effect political authoroty? I guess the Red Cross and Doctors without Borders, also working in Sudan, are a threat to Sudan's soverignty?

If the government of Sudan does not wish it without first being asked, then hell yes it is a violation of their sovereignty. Granted, it is somewhat stupid of them to refuse it, but it should be left to individual states to make that decision for themselves. What the intent of the U.N. forces happens to be has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. Moreover, it sets a VERY, VERY dangerous precedent. If that is allowed to come to pass, what will eventually happen is that some Third World nations will decide that U.N. troops will need to be sent in to some nation's hot spot, without that nation's consent, becoming, in effect, an occupying force. Would you want a bunch of Third World nations outvoting you en masse and dictating to you what your internal policies will or will not be because they simply don't like what you guys are up to?

And before you get into it, the war in Iraq is a completely different situation, and not at all contradictory to this concept. The international community had previously condemned Saddam Hussein's regime, it's inhumane treatment of it's citizens, and had deplored it's use of WMD's to control same (Kurdistan). World opinion was too fragmented, however, to do anything but pass a few ineffectual resolutions, leaving it up to a very few nations to go clean up the world's mess. This also had the happy coincidence of virtually destroying Al-Qaeda's ability to effectively plan things like the World Trade Center attacks, the London subway bombings, and the proposed Sears Tower attack. But I digress.

The point is that this was not a U.N. sponsored action. Sudan is.

If the government of Sudan does not wish it without first being asked, then hell yes it is a violation of their sovereignty.
The only time when the UN can send troops to another country without being called is to stop genocide. Of course, the Security Council first has to agree that there's a genocide taking place and then who sends how many troops.

The only time when the UN can send troops to another country without being called is to stop genocide. Of course, the Security Council first has to agree that there's a genocide taking place and then who sends how many troops.
I think the US should abstain from the vote, as China does, and let other countries fight an endless insurgency alone in some godforsaken militant Islamic shithole.

As an Anti-UN Libertarian, I find siding with Sudan a very awkward thing to have to do. What price consistency, I guess.

This also had the happy coincidence of virtually destroying Al-Qaeda's ability to effectively plan things like the World Trade Center attacks, the London subway bombings, and the proposed Sears Tower attack. But I digress.

Are you trying to link pre-invasion Iraq with Al-Qaeda?

I think the US should abstain from the vote, as China does, and let other countries fight an endless insurgency alone in some godforsaken militant Islamic shithole.
Well, the African Union has been there for some time now, but they don't have enough people or the right equipment to actually fix something. At least the situation has not gotten as bas as it was feared it would.

What's at issue right now is how to step this up. I agree the US should not send troops, things being as they are, but European countries should, or maybe Turkey.

Well, the African Union has been there for some time now, but they don't have enough people or the right equipment to actually fix something. At least the situation has not gotten as bas as it was feared it would.

What's at issue right now is how to step this up. I agree the US should not send troops, things being as they are, but European countries should, or maybe Turkey.

Send every country that saw fit not to go to Iraq. Send their children to the militant Islamic shithole of Sudan for the next 10 years or so.

Are you trying to link pre-invasion Iraq with Al-Qaeda?

Not trying. Pointing out an already existant link. Is the entire world in denial here, or what?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq27.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/27/ixnewstop.html

Well UN troops have always been peacekeepers with few exceptions (Korean War for one). If UN troops can keep the Islamic Militias from slaughtering the peoples of western Sudan then many would be in favour of a UN deployment.

But I think the real question is does sovereignty belong to the leaders of a country, or its people?

The UN is no threat to Sudan's sovereignty, because Sudan can't exercise sovergeignty anyways - regardless of the "government" in power, the whole country is in a state of de facto anarchy.

But hey, it's not like the UN would act to save the country anyway. Remember, they don't consider it genocide if it's against black people. :mad:

Send every country that saw fit not to go to Iraq. Send their children to the militant Islamic shithole of Sudan for the next 10 years or so.
Hey, it's not like the UN sent the US to Iraq. And every country? That's like 140 or so of them. A bit too much if you ask me. Besides, the UN can't make them go if they don't want to. There's some policy for that too.

The UN is no threat to Sudan's sovereignty, because Sudan can't exercise sovergeignty anyways - regardless of the "government" in power, the whole country is in a state of de facto anarchy.
That's Somalia.

But hey, it's not like the UN would act to save the country anyway. Remember, they don't consider it genocide if it's against black people. :mad:
That's the Security Council. Which is why a definition of genocide is being worked on that would trigger a UN response automatically without having to go through the SC to be vetoed there. If it the definition itself doesn't get vetoed, of course.

The UN won't do jacksquat....

And if they DO send SOME guys, it's not going to be enough, and in the end everyone fighting will start to take pot shots at the Smurfs.

Glad the Americans aren't going to be involved with this.

Since when does deploying humanitarian forces, which is all the UN has, something that will effect political authoroty? I guess the Red Cross and Doctors without Borders, also working in Sudan, are a threat to Sudan's soverignty?

Then the question is misleading since it implies, well, uh, "forces," not humanitarian aid workers.

And yet even the presence of "humanitarian" forces is a violation of sovereignty if it is not with the consent of the nation involved. Violation, not just threat.

The UN won't do jacksquat....

And if they DO send SOME guys, it's not going to be enough, and in the end everyone fighting will start to take pot shots at the Smurfs.

Glad the Americans aren't going to be involved with this.

Again: Well Bushistas and anti-UN conservatives, how does it feel to be on the side of the Sudan and Al Jazeera?

Again: Well Bushistas and anti-UN conservatives, how does it feel to be on the side of the Sudan and Al Jazeera?

What's the deal? We both despise the UN and it's oppressing influence. Hey, the arabs are right for once :p

What's going on in Sudan that's so important?

The only time when the UN can send troops to another country without being called is to stop genocide. Of course, the Security Council first has to agree that there's a genocide taking place and then who sends how many troops.
Actually, the only time they can send troops without being called is if there is a situation that is found to be a threat to international peace and security. Genocide does not trigger an automatic response.
What's going on in Sudan that's so important?
...

Have you ever watched the news or read a newspaper in your entire life? Seriously?

What's going on in Sudan that's so important?
Genocide in Darfur?

Actually, the only time they can send troops without being called is if there is a situation that is found to be a threat to international peace and security. Genocide does not trigger an automatic response.
Not automatic, but doesn't need permission from the country where they'll be intervening. Of course, threats to international peace don't requiere permission from the country either but requiere one of the members to call for action, and the response isn't automatic.

Genocide is the only case of an internal matter that can prompt UN action (by action meaning it will be deliberated in the Security Council and then delayed by one of the powers or vetoed).

Genocide in Darfur?

Info?

From what I've heard it's the arabic/muslim Janjaweed militia from the north going down and terrorizing the Christian tribes to the south.

Actually, the only time they can send troops without being called is if there is a situation that is found to be a threat to international peace and security. Genocide does not trigger an automatic response.

...

Have you ever watched the news or read a newspaper in your entire life? Seriously?

I don't ever watch the news, except for maybe once or twice a week at night when I get back from landscaping. However, anything that goes on Iraq/.Mil related gets shot directly to my inbox.

Not automatic, but doesn't need permission from the country where they'll be intervening. Of course, threats to international peace don't requiere permission from the country either but requiere one of the members to call for action, and the response isn't automatic.

Genocide is the only case of an internal matter that can prompt UN action (by action meaning it will be deliberated in the Security Council and then delayed by one of the powers or vetoed).

The UN has a long tradition of screwing up "peacekeeping" and standing idly by while people are massacred.

What's the deal? We both despise the UN and it's oppressing influence. Hey, the arabs are right for once :p

What's going on in Sudan that's so important?
Genocide, mass rape, slavery, no, nothing important there.

This just seemed totally absurd to me. UN forces, essentially a token group, a threat to Sudan's sovereignty? Pffft. Does anyone else think that UN forces are a threat to Sudan's sovereignty?
UN forces should be a threat to Sudan's sovereignty. That government protests their "sovereign right" to commit genocide.

Info?

From what I've heard it's the arabic/muslim Janjaweed militia from the north going down and terrorizing the Christian tribes to the south.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict

That's basically it, though the militias are allegedly backed by the Arab government as a way to drive the non-Arab people from the oil rich south, not just terrorizing, but totally removing them from the area. The displacement and activities of the Janjaweed have already caused conflict with Chad and Central African Republic.

Info?

From what I've heard it's the arabic/muslim Janjaweed militia from the north going down and terrorizing the Christian tribes to the south.



I don't ever watch the news, except for maybe once or twice a week at night when I get back from landscaping. However, anything that goes on Iraq/.Mil related gets shot directly to my inbox.
The Christian and Animist tribes in the south have a peace treaty and semi-autonomy from the Sudanese regime. Lately the regime has used it's helicopters and aircraft to assist the Janjaweed in destroying villages in Darfur. The government encourages the Janjaweed to go into those villages, kill the men and boys and rape the women. Hundreds of thousands have died. It's Sudan's second attempt at genocide and only the African Union has done anything to try to stop it.

The UN has a long tradition of screwing up "peacekeeping" and standing idly by while people are massacred.
Big powers don't like to get involved in small peanuts stuff, therefore they veto.

Big powers don't like to get involved in small peanuts stuff, therefore they veto.

To me, and to many people in the Third World, "UN Peacekeeper" is an oxymoron - when the blue hats show up, if you were on the receiving end of genocide before, the UN is only here to watch you get slaughtered.

I think the US should abstain from the vote, as China does, and let other countries fight an endless insurgency alone in some godforsaken militant Islamic shithole.
You don't think that genocide should be stopped? You don't see the link between it and Islamist terrorism?

I think they actually call their peacekeepers "humanitarian." In any case, you're right. They stick forces in areas to keep the peace. They never effect the soverignty of states, even when someone really needs to. Like during the Hutu and Tutsi conflict. They just sat by and watched it occur, without ever doing anything to effect the political bodies.
Stop pointing fingers. The American government also denied that it was a genocide back then.

What's going on in Sudan that's so important?
How can someone be so uninformed?

To me, and to many people in the Third World, "UN Peacekeeper" is an oxymoron - when the blue hats show up, if you were on the receiving end of genocide before, the UN is only here to watch you get slaughtered.
That's why the UN reforms contemplate wider intervention powers and automatic response from the UN in certain cases. That will mean that the Secretary General would have power to send troops to an area in conflict without each case having to be deliberated and its limits carefully set before sending anyone in, which is what happens now. After the Security Council finishes deliberating and the proposals have been vetoed twice, they agree late to send a handful of troops with a mandate so limited as to be useless.

Of course, the reforms are going to be vetoed.

Not automatic, but doesn't need permission from the country where they'll be intervening. Of course, threats to international peace don't requiere permission from the country either but requiere one of the members to call for action, and the response isn't automatic.

Genocide is the only case of an internal matter that can prompt UN action (by action meaning it will be deliberated in the Security Council and then delayed by one of the powers or vetoed).
According to the United Nations Charter any internal situation that can be defined by the UNSC as a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression can be deliberated in the Security Council - and even (internal) genocide has to fulfill these requirements before the UNSC can act on it.

I don't ever watch the news, except for maybe once or twice a week at night when I get back from landscaping. However, anything that goes on Iraq/.Mil related gets shot directly to my inbox.
That explains so much...

You don't think that genocide should be stopped? You don't see the link between it and Islamist terrorism?

Hey, liberals keep saying we shouldn't shoot Islamist militants. We should pat them on the back, and apologize for being Americans and Christians.

No wonder the Sudanese are killing their Christians! Look how objectionable Christianity is in the eyes of our liberals!

Hey, liberals keep saying we shouldn't shoot Islamist militants. We should pat them on the back, and apologize for being Americans and Christians.

No wonder the Sudanese are killing their Christians! Look how objectionable Christianity is in the eyes of our liberals!

Oh to true. I think we should drop some Green berets down there along with some arms and train the Christians to fight for themselves, maybe give them some air support. It would be more effective than peacekeepers.

According to the United Nations Charter any internal situation that can be defined by the UNSC as a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression can be deliberated in the Security Council - and even (internal) genocide has to fulfill these requirements before the UNSC can act on it.

That explains so much...

I work everyday for a living. Got today off so I could go pickup my new AR15 :D

I work everyday for a living. Got today off so I could go pickup my new AR15 :D
You took a whole day off just to pick it up? Is the store that far away? Can't they send it?

Oh to true. I think we should drop some Green berets down there along with some arms and train the Christians to fight for themselves, maybe give them some air support. It would be more effective than peacekeepers.
No, it wouldn't. You need a hell of a lot more then "some Green berets" and some arms.

I work everyday for a living. Got today off so I could go pickup my new AR15 :D
So do I, yet I try to stay informed. You should try it sometime.

You took a whole day off just to pick it up? Is the store that far away? Can't they send it?
You have to sign for it, and fill out a Form 4473. Provide identification. Wait for your instant background check.

You took a whole day off just to pick it up? Is the store that far away? Can't they send it?

Can't ship an AR directly to my door. Illegal. Had to go get a background check and stuff....took 10 minutes to fill out the one page paper stating I wasn't a felon, a foreigner, person who was under an RO, etc. Background check took less time than the paperwork.

The store is 20 minutes away. The Officer didn't commit to a set time for the sale so I told my boss after it was done I'd come in and finish up landscaping a yard.

The gun was a police officer's patrol rifle.

:D

You have to sign for it, and fill out a Form 4473. Provide identification. Wait for your instant background check.
Does it take too long? Of course, you could just do that and then enjoy your day off, going to the shooting range, for example.

No, it wouldn't. You need a hell of a lot more then "some Green berets" and some arms.

So do I, yet I try to stay informed. You should try it sometime.

Look at what the Green berets did for the hmong in Vietnam. LOTS of good.

Unfortunately once things got dicey we dumped them.

Look at what the Green berets did for the hmong in Vietnam. LOTS of good.

Unfortunately once things got dicey we dumped them.
It won't solve this situation - the two million displaced people alone need more protection then some Green berets can provide for them.