NationStates Jolt Archive

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1153AP_US_Sudan.html

WASHINGTON -- Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a Democratic presidential candidate, called Wednesday for the use of military force to end the suffering in Darfur.

"I would use American force now," Biden said at a hearing before his committee. "I think it's not only time not to take force off the table. I think it's time to put force on the table and use it."

In advocating use of military force, Biden said senior U.S. military officials in Europe told him that 2,500 U.S. troops could "radically change the situation on the ground now."

Only 2500? If the Sudanese government resists? If the Janjaweed resort to the type of tactics we're being screwed with in Iraq?

Oh, 2500 might make some of the camps safe - but it won't change a thing.

Overthrow the Sudanese government? Want to do the Iraq Warp Again?

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1153AP_US_Sudan.html



Only 2500? If the Sudanese government resists? If the Janjaweed resort to the type of tactics we're being screwed with in Iraq?

Oh, 2500 might make some of the camps safe - but it won't change a thing.

Overthrow the Sudanese government? Want to do the Iraq Warp Again?

Why not? According to Dick Cheney, everything in Eye-rack is hunky-dory; sunshine and flowers and all that other fluffy, sappy pretentious jazz.

Why not? According to Dick Cheney, everything in Eye-rack is hunky-dory; sunshine and flowers and all that other fluffy, sappy pretentious jazz.

This is the same bullshit that got us into Iraq:

"We can solve this problem by invading their ass..."

Sorry - that idea only works when you have a big enough dick, and Cheney's just wasn't up to it.

why does it have to be US troops? we are kinda busy with our current adventures.

how about one of those nice civilized european countries step up and take the lead on this one? surely they have a few thousand troops they could spare in order to save a few hundred thousand lives in the sudan.

why does it have to be US troops? we are kinda busy with our current adventures.

how about one of those nice civilized european countries step up and take the lead on this one? surely they have a few thousand troops they could spare in order to save a few hundred thousand lives in the sudan.

They're busy guarding piles of dirt in Afghanistan and pretending to be NATO members with balls.

Not like this shit hasn't been going on for god knows how long anyway, asshole picked a PERFECT time to try and use military force to help them...

why does it have to be US troops? we are kinda busy with our current adventures.

how about one of those nice civilized european countries step up and take the lead on this one? surely they have a few thousand troops they could spare in order to save a few hundred thousand lives in the sudan.

No handy aircraft carriers (or very few) - none of which are nuclear and can stay on station indefinitely.

No air forces as large or as long range as the US Air Force.

Much smaller military transport capability - in terms of air, sea, and other transport.

Countries like Canada and the UK are running out of workable helicopters for regular missions in Iraq and Afghanistan - and there weren't that many total helicopters to begin with.

Europeans just don't have large, long range military forces. They rely on US logistics to get there, and rely on US logistics to stay afield.

What, are we going to send people from Luxembourg?

No handy aircraft carriers (or very few) - none of which are nuclear and can stay on station indefinitely.

No air forces as large or as long range as the US Air Force.

Much smaller military transport capability - in terms of air, sea, and other transport.

Countries like Canada and the UK are running out of workable helicopters for regular missions in Iraq and Afghanistan - and there weren't that many total helicopters to begin with.

Europeans just don't have large, long range military forces. They rely on US logistics to get there, and rely on US logistics to stay afield.

What, are we going to send people from Luxembourg?

why would it require an aircraft carrier?

perhaps we could provide some logistical support at sea while they provide the manpower.

they all have armies. they all decry the troubles in the sudan. why should peacekeeping be OUR job and not theirs? if its important, they can work it out. we're only talking 2500 troops plus support. i think they have that kind of capability.

why would it require an aircraft carrier?

perhaps we could provide some logistical support at sea while they provide the manpower.

they all have armies. they all decry the troubles in the sudan. why should peacekeeping be OUR job and not theirs? if its important, they can work it out. we're only talking 2500 troops plus support. i think they have that kind of capability.

I'm talking about the US not going at all.

It would involve taking down the Sudanese government.

Which would end up being just like Iraq.

The Sudanese government would not be able to resist, neither would the Janjaweed. The reason they pick on defenceless civilians is because they are weak.

It would not take a lot to cripple the genocidal cowards in Sudan. After that there's no need for a prolonged occupation, and even if there was an occupation, any insurgency would not be as successfulas Iraq's. Darfur simply doesn't have urban base.

Ain't our problem. The US has no duty or right to intervene.

The Sudanese government would not be able to resist, neither would the Janjaweed. The reason they pick on defenceless civilians is because they are weak.

It would not take a lot to cripple the genocidal cowards in Sudan. After that there's no need for a prolonged occupation, and even if there was an occupation, any insurgency would not be as successfulas Iraq's. Darfur simply doesn't have urban base.

Sorry, not buying it. Afghanistan isn't terribly populated either, and there are still IEDs and attacks and NATO casualties.

Sorry.

why would it require an aircraft carrier?

perhaps we could provide some logistical support at sea while they provide the manpower.

they all have armies. they all decry the troubles in the sudan. why should peacekeeping be OUR job and not theirs? if its important, they can work it out. we're only talking 2500 troops plus support. i think they have that kind of capability.

Because they
a) are busy peacekeeping elsewhere
b) are helping in Afghanistan
c) are in Iraq (in the case of the UK, anyway
d) don't have the military capability

Mostly.

I'm talking about the US not going at all.

It would involve taking down the Sudanese government.

Which would end up being just like Iraq.

i dont think we can go. we dont have the manpower to spare. the brass just announced that all tours in iraq are extended to 15months.

and yeah, we cant go in without sudanese govt approval and they wont approve. without approval, its an invasion and a disaster.

if however, someone (bill richardson) can convince the sudanese govt to accept "help" then it should be the europeans who do it, not the US.

Under U.N.-backed agreements approved last fall, a hybrid force of 22,000 African Union and U.N. peacekeepers are to be deployed in Darfur to protect and provide relief for 2.5 million Darfurians who have been forced from their homes and are now confined to camps.

"We must set a hard deadline for Khartoum to accept a hybrid U.N.-AU force," Biden said.

I'm not clear from the article where Biden's 2,500 fit in that scheme. Is it 2,500 in addition to the 22,000? Is it 2,500 with a different mission than the 22,000? Do the 2500 pave the way for the 22,000?

I'm for supporting the African Union in containing the, well it's hard not to use a loaded word here, but I think it is important not only for Darfur and for a more lasting peace, but important for Africa itself and the African Union to be the lead on this. I don't like to imply that a body establishes relivancy by aggressive acts or that it has to use military might to be legitimate, but in a 'own backyard' case like this whatever is done, if the AU is just a passenger that will effect their influence and perception over all and could crumble thier support and legitimacy from within. Suggest, advise, assist, but the AU has to take the lead if stability is to be hoped for.

And we can't make them.

Sorry, not buying it. Afghanistan isn't terribly populated either, and there are still IEDs and attacks and NATO casualties.

Sorry.

Afghanistan has the terrain. And indigenous support for the Taleban. Nobody in Darfur is going to support the people who are trying to slaughter their families.

Besides, a long-term occupation wouldn't be necessary or advisable.

Why doesn't the US start respecting international organizations like the AU and UN. Let them take care of it.

Why doesn't the US start respecting international organizations like the AU and UN. Let them take care of it.

Because that would require deferring power to those socialist bastards.

why does it have to be US troops? we are kinda busy with our current adventures.

how about one of those nice civilized european countries step up and take the lead on this one? surely they have a few thousand troops they could spare in order to save a few hundred thousand lives in the sudan.

It's only the US that thinks invading would be a good idea.

The US shouldn't bring itself into this conflict militarily. It will only ruin our image, or what's left of it, even further, and make us look like imperialistic tricky bastards who think they own the world.

Economic aid is certainly helpful - if anything, we should simply increase our fundraising efforts here, since economic aid will be very good.

But as for the military situation, it's time that France, Spain, Germany, etc. get off their asses and fucking do something. I respect the UK, and some other countries in Europe (like Poland) that are involved in the Iraqi conflict. I am not fond of the countries that pulled out however. They are in their own little European world, and the way they think is in itself a logical inconsistency.

They (France especially) isn't exactly on friendly terms with America. In fact, they despise us, for what we've done with Afghanistan, Iraq, and in numerous other places on the globe, they dislike us for being number one, for being the only superpower in the world, for being top dogs. And yet, by being top dogs, and getting involved in those things, it spares them from having to send in armies and forces to peacekeep in areas around the globe. Well, it's time that they realize that America is not going to be there for all their needs. In Medieval Times, western Europe considred the Byzantine Empire as simply there. In fact, they were more of a nuisance - a slightly different Christianity, basically the top dog in trade, and simply there. But when the Turks come in and start to slowly push back the Byzantine Empire, being economic giants due to their positioning as profitable go-between's between Europe and Asia in trade, the Byzantine's called for help. And so the Crusades started. During the Fourth one, Western Europe made a mistake - they looted Constantieople and sacked Zara, forever creating a barrier between the Western and Eastern Churches, and weakening Byzantine greatly. But when the Eastern Roman Empire finally fell, the western Europeans suddenly realized that Byzantine had been a wall. They had defended all of Europe from the Turks that only just lost to western Europe in France, who were the most technologically advanced nation in the world at that time, and was using that for a reason. Byzantine had been fighting the Huns/Mongols from Asia, who were completely ruthless in their conquests, and were certainly capable of going into Europe due to their horses. There were the Persians, there were pirates in the seas, there were small rival kingdoms around Constantine - all these threats that Constantine through diplomacy and careful defense managed to ward off for a thousand years. But when they too finally fell, due to in a lot by Western Europe, there was no more wall to protect Europe from these threats. As the Crusades had shown, the tactics and military of all these threats coming in from Asia, the Middle East, and so on had overwhelmed European forces before.

So, America in this case is like Byzantine, and Europe needs to get the fact that we can't do everything, and that they need to get up from their asses and fucking do something. So what if their militaries aren't as big and powerful as America's is - so fucking what? You've still got way more powerful militaries then anything Darfur's genocidal armies can handle.

And about Afghanistan - when we went in there, they followed. When we left, it was a stablized region - the Taliban were pretty much reduced, democracy (in some form) had come back, and although it wasn't perfect, Afghanistan was coming back. NATO and the U.N. had about, what....3 years? 3 years to do something about Afghanistan, 3 years of purely wasted "effort" on their part. And, look what's happening now. the Taliban are regaining forces, the people are uneasy, and it looks like another bigger conflict is in wait. Afghanistan in this instance will not be America's fault, as least not mostly. If it gets bad there again, it is purely NATO and U.N. fucking up, and they got 3 years to try to make it better. So what did they do? They claimed to be "peacekeeping" in Afghanistan, and a shitload of a job they did at that. The only reason I would ever oppose them going into Darfur, is that I'm afraid they'll fuck Darfur up even more, and then, as is usual for them, ask for the USA to help. Well, fuck them. Let them do something on their own for once.

snip.

The reason that France etc didn't go into Iraq was they thought invasion was a really bad idea (as did a large proportion of the UK population but we got dragged in by Blair et al).

Given the current situation in Iraq it appears that they were right on the money.

Given that do you really think that invading Sudan is a good idea?

It's not that America is a wall protecting Europe from having to do something. It's America going and doing unnecessary things, fucking them up, and then whining when the parts of Europe that said it was a bad idea saying "we told you so".

Europeans, particularly, British, French, Dutch and others are experienced at fucking the world up. We've been doing it for centuries and have done it to most of the world. So we're pretty experienced at spotting a potential fuck up situation and are starting to avoid them.

Whereas the Bush administration seems to be aiming to dive into every single on they can find. Which we find annoying, and is the main reason why the USA is becoming "hated". Just try diplomacy and not invading for once. You never know, it might work.

The reason that France etc didn't go into Iraq was they thought invasion was a really bad idea (as did a large proportion of the UK population but we got dragged in by Blair et al).

Given the current situation in Iraq it appears that they were right on the money.

Given that do you really think that invading Sudan is a good idea?

It's not that America is a wall protecting Europe from having to do something. It's America going and doing unnecessary things, fucking them up, and then whining when the parts of Europe that said it was a bad idea saying "we told you so".

Europeans, particularly, British, French, Dutch and others are experienced at fucking the world up. We've been doing it for centuries and have done it to most of the world. So we're pretty experienced at spotting a potential fuck up situation and are starting to avoid them.

Whereas the Bush administration seems to be aiming to dive into every single on they can find. Which we find annoying, and is the main reason why the USA is becoming "hated". Just try diplomacy and not invading for once. You never know, it might work.

That's why I advocated that the US not send military aid in case the UN or NATO get in, etc. but offer economic aid. Unless you consider providing money a way of getting involved and "fucking things up" I'm sure it would be a good idea.

And diplomacy hasn't worked so far, has it? And do you really think it ever will? These people have killed, raped, tortured thousands upon thousands. How do you negotiate with a people that are killing the citizens of their own country because their government is paying them to do so...

I don't support getting into Iraq in the first place. Or at least, going in after about a year of careful planning.

As for America being the wall: Who do Muslim extremist terrorists hate? We hear of them shouting "Death to Jews, Death to America" in protests. If America falls, Israel doesn't stand a chance. So there goes the two main targets of the terrorists. Hmm....fanatics with no one to fight with? There is a possibility that some will settle down once conflicts in the Middle East, or at least with America and Israel. But most will now strike out at Europe with full force. They have already done so on more than one occassion, only now you won't have America occuping 3/4 of them in Iraq, you won't have Israel there to keep them busy in the Middle East. Now they'll be coming for more. Some people never forget the hurts that a religion and people inflicted upon them, be it 50 or 1000 years ago.

Not that I'm threating you or anybody in Europe - I want to see this world rid of terrorism and peace in the Middle East -but diplomacy is something that has been tried before, and it hasn't worked. Not just in very recent times, but even 30,20,10 years ago, diplomacy was a word for fail when dealing with Muslim extremist terrorists. Some people just don't negotiate.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1153AP_US_Sudan.html



Only 2500? If the Sudanese government resists? If the Janjaweed resort to the type of tactics we're being screwed with in Iraq?

Oh, 2500 might make some of the camps safe - but it won't change a thing.

Overthrow the Sudanese government? Want to do the Iraq Warp Again?

I say they should protect the camps mainly with air power with comanche patrols and such and some heavy infantry and light armor and long range weaponry to destroy any seige or AA nearby. The Sudanese should be dealt with by the use of rush warfare where air units destroy all their industrial centers and government buildings along with the politician's houses and al military bases, camps and installation. If this is done swiftly darfur maybe safe. However more troops are needed ,troops in Iraq jump like flies yet Sudan is bigger and thus the fronts are larger. Either that or troops should be trained the way they were a few decades ago, back then one marine pwned 200 terrorists each while now 1 terrorist pwns 20 marines judging from the Iraq war mortality rate for the US.

That's why I advocated that the US not send military aid in case the UN or NATO get in, etc. but offer economic aid. Unless you consider providing money a way of getting involved and "fucking things up" I'm sure it would be a good idea.

And diplomacy hasn't worked so far, has it? And do you really think it ever will? These people have killed, raped, tortured thousands upon thousands. How do you negotiate with a people that are killing the citizens of their own country because their government is paying them to do so...

I don't support getting into Iraq in the first place. Or at least, going in after about a year of careful planning.

As for America being the wall: Who do Muslim extremist terrorists hate? We hear of them shouting "Death to Jews, Death to America" in protests. If America falls, Israel doesn't stand a chance. So there goes the two main targets of the terrorists. Hmm....fanatics with no one to fight with? There is a possibility that some will settle down once conflicts in the Middle East, or at least with America and Israel. But most will now strike out at Europe with full force. They have already done so on more than one occassion, only now you won't have America occuping 3/4 of them in Iraq, you won't have Israel there to keep them busy in the Middle East. Now they'll be coming for more. Some people never forget the hurts that a religion and people inflicted upon them, be it 50 or 1000 years ago.

Not that I'm threating you or anybody in Europe - I want to see this world rid of terrorism and peace in the Middle East -but diplomacy is something that has been tried before, and it hasn't worked. Not just in very recent times, but even 30,20,10 years ago, diplomacy was a word for fail when dealing with Muslim extremist terrorists. Some people just don't negotiate.

Seconded, Europe should syndicate and blockade the middle east and prevent them from acquiring any nuclear arms so that they can't nuke and can't send out armies against anyone else in the world without suffering large numbers of casualties.

They're busy guarding piles of dirt in Afghanistan and pretending to be NATO members with balls.aww

nice reply.. like a well placed kick on the family jewels :D

What, are we going to send people from Luxembourg?Nope, they shall come from Manco, San Marino, and Andorra.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1153AP_US_Sudan.html



Only 2500? If the Sudanese government resists? If the Janjaweed resort to the type of tactics we're being screwed with in Iraq?

Oh, 2500 might make some of the camps safe - but it won't change a thing.

Overthrow the Sudanese government? Want to do the Iraq Warp Again?

Why do we have to fix their problems? If they can't keep their own shite together tough luck. Let the UN handle something for once (not that they could anyway).

Pull our troops out of iraq and send them to FUCK SHIT UP in darfur sudan.

That's why I advocated that the US not send military aid in case the UN or NATO get in, etc. but offer economic aid. Unless you consider providing money a way of getting involved and "fucking things up" I'm sure it would be a good idea.

And diplomacy hasn't worked so far, has it? And do you really think it ever will? These people have killed, raped, tortured thousands upon thousands. How do you negotiate with a people that are killing the citizens of their own country because their government is paying them to do so...

I don't support getting into Iraq in the first place. Or at least, going in after about a year of careful planning.

As for America being the wall: Who do Muslim extremist terrorists hate? We hear of them shouting "Death to Jews, Death to America" in protests. If America falls, Israel doesn't stand a chance. So there goes the two main targets of the terrorists. Hmm....fanatics with no one to fight with? There is a possibility that some will settle down once conflicts in the Middle East, or at least with America and Israel. But most will now strike out at Europe with full force. They have already done so on more than one occassion, only now you won't have America occuping 3/4 of them in Iraq, you won't have Israel there to keep them busy in the Middle East. Now they'll be coming for more. Some people never forget the hurts that a religion and people inflicted upon them, be it 50 or 1000 years ago.

Not that I'm threating you or anybody in Europe - I want to see this world rid of terrorism and peace in the Middle East -but diplomacy is something that has been tried before, and it hasn't worked. Not just in very recent times, but even 30,20,10 years ago, diplomacy was a word for fail when dealing with Muslim extremist terrorists. Some people just don't negotiate.

When has diplomacy honestly been tried. The West have been muscling around with gunboat diplomacy in the middle east for who knows how long. Most of the problems there now are of our own making. The West created Israel which has become the root of most of the middle east conflicts. Britain and America overthrew democracy in Iran and so on and so on.

IF Iran is developing nuclear weapons, then a major reason for them doing so would be to stop themselves getting invaded. And given a near neighbour of theirs just did get invaded and the USA is making loud noises about Iran it's hardly the most unreasonable assumption. Diplomacy at gunpoint isn't true diplomacy, nor is it effective any more.

I wonder if Israel is as reliant as you think. Often in the Israel threads its supporters claim it isn't as reliant on America as is supposed. Give it ten minutes and another one will start and I'll ask someone.

America is more the person leading the charge than the wall. And it's an unnecessary charge in my view. If there's one thing the war in Iraq and other acts of aggression have done it's create more insurgents and more terrorrists.

As I see it, a major factor in the ME is respect. The reason Ahmadinejad, Hamas, etc are often popular is that they're seen as strong figures who restore national pride by not bowing down and being servants to the West/Israel etc. What they will not react well to is demands that they do as the US et al want. Particularly not in areas where everyone knows the West is being hypocritical (nuclear capabilities etc). They are not and will never react well to gunboat diplomacy, which is all that's been tried.

War breeds war not peace. You can't impose peace on the middle east by blowing up bits of it you don't like. Same for the world. The world will never be free of terrorrism. It's been going on for ever and a day and will always go on. All you can do is minimise it. Armed force just creates more unhappy people, and more terrorrists/insurgents.

"Let us resist the evil invaders of our country" is a lot easier to sell than "let us go and attack this far away country". Military action in the ME is causing more problems than it solves. Invade Sudan and you'll not only piss off much of Africa (and the Rest of the World) but you'll give the terrorrist recruiters another stick to beat up support "we could be next, attack before we are attacked". Also given the situation in Iraq how is Sudan going to materialise into anything any better. It's tempting to try and sort out all the world's problems ASAP but if you want long lasting solutions you can't do it that simply.

For Sudan, let diplomacy and the African Union sort it out. It might not be the quickest method, but solutions from it last longer than the troops departure date.

We should do it. Sudan has oil. I'm sure we would be greeted as liberators. Sudan has oil. It's a humanitarian neccessity. Sudan has oil.

They're busy guarding piles of dirt in Afghanistan and pretending to be NATO members with balls.

And yet, they're there cleaning up the shit the American forces started? British soldiers die there nearly every day, and i'm pretty sure the same could be said for many other countries too, so an American solider doesn't have to.

With it's huge defense budget, the American armed forces are generally leaps and bounds ahead (you guys won the cold war after all) of other countries, in terms of mobility and size-european counrties are much smaller, and don't have the budget for that kind of defense spending. Lets face it, like someone said, the armies of Eauropean countries are hardly incredible most of the time.

Britain relies on small amounts of highly trained and well equiped soldiers to get things done, rather than occupation to get things done, and after Iraq and Afhgahnistan, the public doesn't (and didn't) want to commit anymore troops and wants to bring home the ones we have out there. Britain doesn't want to be involved in another brawl that's gone the way of Iraq.

And to say that it won't is wishful thinking.

And Nato memebers with balls? Christ, you're not the only armed force pulling it's weight in the world.