NationStates Jolt Archive

I have heard a lot about what is happening in Darfur, but little about why its happening and if we( The United States) can do anything about it.

From looking into it, it seems that its Arabs VS non-Arabs

Arabs: Sudanese military and Janjaweed

non-Arabs: non-Arab Baggara, Sudan liberation Movement

It seems to me that the media says that the Arabs are the bad guys here. It seems to me that the non-Arabs started a war against a more powerful foe and are now getting their asses kicked. Sure all the suffering of the kids and women is bad, but their parents caused this conflict, now their kids get to pay for it.

I belive this is a horrid situation for the US or any other countries to do anything. Let the war finish, when they don't to fight anymore, then we can do something there. But right now, all that a UN or US force would do is make all the crazy Muslims think that we are trying to take that country over and make it like the US.

For all the anti-Iraq people who say we need to get out because its a civil war. Then why the fuck would we want to get into the middle of another one, between Muslims.

Atleast we caused the one in Iraq, we need to stablize that country before we even think about starting another front. Being a member of the USMC, I would hate to go and fight and die in Sudan. We have no business there. Its their civil war, we faught ours, let them fight their own.

So are you saying that the Genocide Convention should be ignored?

Wait... you're over 18?

So much for the whole "never again" thing when it comes to genocide. Civil war or not, Darfur is still mass murder; nice to know that you can ignore it.

Something definitely needs to be done about Darfur - but now is not the time. There are already wars being fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we (and I'm talking here about both the US and UK and any other countries involved) should finish the job there first, or we will stand no chance of improving the situation in any of these countries.
Also, it is imperative that any peacekeepers form part of a UN and / or African Union force.

So are you saying that the Genocide Convention should be ignored?

Did you expect anything else? It was a "feel-good" convention nobody ever had any intention of allowing to affect business as usual.

Did you expect anything else? It was a "feel-good" convention nobody ever had any intention of allowing to affect business as usual.

I wish I was the President in this country. I would have invoked that convention at a UN Speech and forced them to do something.

I wish I was the President in this country. I would have invoked that convention at a UN Speech and forced them to do something.

I wish you were president. You couldn't do worse than the current incumbent. (Or any of his probable replacements.)

Unfortunately, we also have the logistical problem that no one is in a position to do anything about Darfur. The US is stretched thin; Europe is gutless; most of the African states couldn't find their ass with both hands, and those that could are locked up in interventions in places like Congo or Sierra Leone (which is cool, and I applaud the responsible African states for taking the opportunities to clean up their own backyards, but it leaves Darfur swinging in the breeze).

The Sudan is the largest country in Africa is the first thing you need to know. Secondly only the Northern part of the Sudan is Arab, the Southern part is made up of Christian, some tribal religions and a very small percentage of Arabs. The problems currently getting the worlds attention have been going on for over 20 years now and nothing new has taken place.

Darfur is not new only the headlines are, the war in the South and on it's Western and Eastern borders has been going on for a very, very long time. Religon plays a large part but there is also tribal and ethnic differences entering into it. The South is part of Africa! The North is Arab! The oil is in the South as well as other minerals, you do the math on that one and figure out what is going on.

The war started over twenty years ago due to lots of already mentioned differences but one of the biggest being a huge oil discovery in the South by Chevron and a few other big producers.

A deal was made between the North and South at the time that the oil profits would be split 50/50 between North and South. The only profitable way they could get the oil out was via the Northern port of Port Sudan on the Red Sea, enter the the problem. Very little of the oil money made it's way South.

John Garang and his followers began the fighting the war as African against Arab. In 1986 China saw the potential oil and political vacum starting with a rising Islamic feelings in the North and a soon to be void once the US was seen as a threat in the region.

China saw its future oil needs being partially met in the Sudan and a chance to start filling the void that would be left by the US and other Western nations. The Government of China established a huge embassy in Khartoum, became involved in providing large scale aid projects, building roads etc. China was not seen as a threat due to the growing Islamic government and no threat to the Government of the Sudan.

When the Mahadi and his Islamic followers took control and the US closed it's embassy (for about the third time) the Government of China began pouring in huge numbers of it's folks to again fill the void left by the Americans.

Once again the Whiz kids at DOS didn't do a very good job at reading the streets and figuring out the coming events. From 1983-1991 the rise of the Islamic movement was all over the place, the pro Western government of Namari was toppled in a bloodless coup, the Mahadi took over, started Shari law, Religious courts, banned just about everything, every terrorist group you can think of had offices and training camp in the Sudan (most right outide of Khartoum). Clinton tried to send a signal to the terrorist that he was coming after them and bombed a asprin plant killing a few Sudanese in the process and generally making us look pretty lame.

Fast forward to 2007, The Chinese are in the Sudan now in very large numbers performing projects that we started and providing support to just about every ministry in the Sudanese Government.

The US is trying to reestablish good relations with Khartoum having sent numerous delegations to Khartoum but once again we are behind the eight ball.

The African Union is made up of countries that have been present in every war or conflict in Africa. Like the UN most of what they do is purely show. There are a few good African military units there but for the most part they are corrupt, ill trained, pooly lead and in some cases as responsible for crimes against the local tribes as the waring faction in the Sudan.

It's very simple then - if we invade Sudan, we'll piss off Muslims because we're helping Christians. And if we invade Sudan, we're there for oil. And if we invade Sudan, we'll be fighting the same kind of insurgency we're fighting in Iraq. And if we invade Sudan, we'll be up to our necks in nationbuilding - which we suck at (was just reading how we fucked up China from the days of Stilwell to Dean Acheson).

Any of the reasons that are popular now for not being in Iraq apply just as much for not being in Sudan. Period.

If America stood by in the Rwandan genocide incident, what makes you think that America would step in and do something about Darfur? America has a policy not to interfere a third world nation facing a civil war (after Somalia). That's why American forces never came back to Africa after the failed Somali intervention. Sudan was included in the list of countries that support terror along with Iraq and several other Muslim nations after 9/11 attacks and the Darfur case is the pretext to punishing the Sudanese government.

America has a policy not to interfere a third world nation facing a civil war (after Somalia).

See Iraq.

There's no oil there aye? Not worth saving then.

There is oil there - read my post further back in the thread.

Also on Iraq. When we leave and the Sunni Muslims start getting wiped out by the Iranian backed Shia, will we need to go in because it a Genocide?

So much for the whole "never again" thing when it comes to genocide. Civil war or not, Darfur is still mass murder; nice to know that you can ignore it.

I never said "never again" YOU might have, I didn't.
One side is losing, both sides are killing civilians. How in the hell can we go there with a military force and do anything.

For any of you who say we should go there, what will our strategy.
What are the goals? Both long and short?

Also something you all seem to for get is that Sudan is "Islamic soil" Which means we can look forward to the people we are fighting in Iraq there.

So wait...

When Saddam kills the Kurds, that's okay, the US shouldn't get involved. When people in Darfur are killed, they have more value than Iraqis.

I don't support involvement in either instance. It's not our place. Send aid, fine. The UN wants to get involved, fine. It's not the US's place to get involved, and really, this is the sort of hypocrisy that annoys me about the left of the US.

Honestly, what can anybody expect? People fight wars to end killing. They start bearuecracies to rapidly deal with a problem. They undermine one form of justice for another. Lup truly has one of the greatest sigs on NS, and the most accurate.

God may be Humanity's Co-pilot, but Humanity hired the Devil to be it's Bombardier.

We're one great hypocrisy after another.

-The Cynicist Manifesto

Also on Iraq. When we leave and the Sunni Muslims start getting wiped out by the Iranian backed Shia, will we need to go in because it a Genocide?

So says the Genocide Convention.

So says the Genocide Convention.

And what tripe it is. Actually, what utter tripe the UN is. Little more than self-mportant moralisers who deem themselves terribly important for rubber stamping the decisions made by NATO and the USA.

And what tripe it is. Actually, what utter tripe the UN is. Little more than self-mportant moralisers who deem themselves terribly important for rubber stamping the decisions made by NATO and the USA.

Actually, I thought the purpose of the UN was to endorse genocides, placate warlords, advocate for dhimmitude, and organize prostitution rings.

Actually, I thought the purpose of the UN was to endorse genocides, placate warlords, advocate for dhimmitude, and organize prostitution rings.

No. It doesn't do anything; thats the whole point.

No. It doesn't do anything; thats the whole point.

Indeed. ANd people complain that the US is in violation of the charter when in fact, the United Nations itself is violating its own charter.

Indeed. ANd people complain that the US is in violation of the charter when in fact, the United Nations itself is violating its own charter.

Meh. People complain all the time; it hardly achieves an awful lot, apart from making a few pseudo-intellectual Guardian readers feel a little better as they weep at Darfur over their morning cup of green tea.