NationStates Jolt Archive

I think most people can agree the genocide in Darfur is horrible. And I believe the groups and celebrities who are loudly speaking out against it are sincere; they're not just talking through their hats.

That being said...what exactly can the rest of the world do? The UN could declare sanctions, but somehow I doubt they would work. The current Sudanese regime could be deposed, quite easily in fact, but then what? What about Sudan makes rebuilding the country any easier than rebuilding a democratic Iraq? Another possibility is to cut off relations with countries that support Sudan, but that would be both difficult and unhelpful.

So, is there anything that can be done? Or will the rest of the world just have to wait and pray it ends soon?

Nothing, the Russians and Chinese have kept western peacekeepers out of the Sudan in the UNSC, and only permitted a token force of African Union peacekeepers, who are underarmed and far too small of a force to have any real impact.

Nothing, the Russians and Chinese have kept western peacekeepers out of the Sudan in the UNSC, and only permitted a token force of African Union peacekeepers, who are underarmed and far too small of a force to have any real impact.
Link please? I find that hard to believe.

the consensus seems to be that we will weep for them and do nothing else.

Link please? I find that hard to believe.

It's true I'm afraid. They've both voted against a UN force, and I think China's vetoed it. I don't have a link but I can vouch for his claim.

Yeah, China even supplies the militias with weaponry, breaching the current UN weapons sanctions.

the consensus seems to be that we will weep for them and do nothing else.
I think that means we pretend to weep for them. If we actually cared we'd do something about it.
I think most people can agree the genocide in Darfur is horrible.
That's just it. Our actions suggest that we really don't care. We don't think it's horrible. We're indifferent.

And if you really do care, what are you doing about it? If you're not doing anything, how can you claim to care?

I have a solution, but it violates international law and will be down right disturbing as well.

I have a solution, but it violates international law and will be down right disturbing as well.

It involves what Welsh people do to sheep...doesn't it.

doing anything will be politically incorrect. Look what happened in Iraq and Vietnam.
It dosnt matter what crimes are being committed.

Words get ignored. Its cheap but nothing changes. Thus it is wrong
The African nations in the UN vote in a block to protect one another. Thus according to the UN assembly (not individuals) they are doing nothing wrong
Sanctions punishes the food supply for the poor, therefore that is wrong.
Military intervention is expensive, kills people (despite people all reading being selectively killed) and takes a long time, therefore there is a public backlash and that is wrong

Nothing is acceptable. So the governments turn a blind eye and say its not their fault. The electorate will look at other issues and despite the fact that they could actually do something the people in power will claim the moral high ground.

So, is there anything that can be done?

Hastle the PRC. Its primarily their protection thats the problem. When Russia cool down, maybe them too.

I think most people can agree the genocide in Darfur is horrible. And I believe the groups and celebrities who are loudly speaking out against it are sincere; they're not just talking through their hats.

That being said...what exactly can the rest of the world do? The UN could declare sanctions, but somehow I doubt they would work. The current Sudanese regime could be deposed, quite easily in fact, but then what? What about Sudan makes rebuilding the country any easier than rebuilding a democratic Iraq? Another possibility is to cut off relations with countries that support Sudan, but that would be both difficult and unhelpful.

So, is there anything that can be done? Or will the rest of the world just have to wait and pray it ends soon?

The most important thing is that Sudan's borders are respected and we go with the judgement of the international community. Tyrants have the right to rule their populations as they wish. Rwanda was an excellent example of the power of the international "community".

Look at what happened in Iraq. Saddam was deposed and the Iraqis voted in their own government and negotiated the removal of Coalition troops. Who in their right mind would want such a thing to happen to Sudan?

NATO should just fail to care totally about any UN resolutions and go bomb-bomb-bomb Sudan! Bomb-bomb-bomb Sudan! I mean, they did so in Yugoslavia, they can do so in Sudan.

Long live the independent and free Republic of Darfur \o/

I think most people can agree the genocide in Darfur is horrible. And I believe the groups and celebrities who are loudly speaking out against it are sincere; they're not just talking through their hats.

That being said...what exactly can the rest of the world do? The UN could declare sanctions, but somehow I doubt they would work. The current Sudanese regime could be deposed, quite easily in fact, but then what? What about Sudan makes rebuilding the country any easier than rebuilding a democratic Iraq? Another possibility is to cut off relations with countries that support Sudan, but that would be both difficult and unhelpful.

So, is there anything that can be done? Or will the rest of the world just have to wait and pray it ends soon?

Nothing. All the arguments you have heard on this forum for NOT going into Iraq apply double to Sudan.

If you really, really feel like doing something, take all of those celebrities who are clamoring for action, put them on a plane, give them a parachute and a rifle with some ammunition, and airdrop them into Sudan.

Gee, I was wondering how long before the people that supported the useless, genocidal war in Iraq would claim that the options for Sudan are only that and not doing anything. Because offering support, including military and peacekeeping one, isn't an option? Or you're just using Darfur as a prop to try and cover for the undeniable fact that the war in Iraq was not justified?

Justification is irrelevant. The only question is: will anything we can do have a positive effect? In this case, the answer is no.

Justification is irrelevant. The only question is: will anything we can do have a positive effect? In this case, the answer is no.

Same for the Iraq war, didn't keep Bush from trying his hand...

in a word where it is illegal to go into a country with out a UN mandate there is nothing that can be done. however if the world is willing to tolerate the US being above the need for a UN mandate then many millions could be saved from slavery and death.

in a word where it is illegal to go into a country with out a UN mandate there is nothing that can be done. however if the world is willing to tolerate the US being above the need for a UN mandate then many millions could be saved from slavery and death.

The US neither has, nor should have, any more right to be above an UN mandate than any other country, lest it (as any other country with a militaristic bent would if not for the UN) begins its own tyranny. That's an undeniable truth. Magister dixit.

What does darfur have to do with Iraq, nothing, it has nothing to do with Iraq. Also I really dont agree that anything in Iraq could be considered a genocide.

Also, rule of thumb when dealing with the UN, expect nothing to happen, or if something does happen expect it to be an inadaquite response.
I disagree with you Heik, the UN has no right to govern what nations do, it is in effect removing a nations sovernty. Plus the UN is so good at keeping the peace that no one gets any. I personally I think the UN should be abolished, it is a cumbersome organization that has proven time after time that it really cant do anything. Look at all the sanctions it put in Iraq leading up to the war, not a single one was followed, and the UN could do nothing about it. Look at rawanda, the UN withdrew its peace keeping force after it suffered very small losses. And the genocide continued. If people want something done about darfur dont turn to the UN, go to nations that can do something about it like the US, the UK, France, Germany, etc. I will admit the when it comes to humanitarian issues the UN can be very effective but when it comes to a crisis well.... not so much.

What does darfur have to do with Iraq, nothing, it has nothing to do with Iraq. Also I really dont agree that anything in Iraq could be considered a genocide.

Also, rule of thumb when dealing with the UN, expect nothing to happen, or if something does happen expect it to be an inadaquite response.
I disagree with you Heik, the UN has no right to govern what nations do, it is in effect removing a nations sovernty. Plus the UN is so good at keeping the peace that no one gets any. I personally I think the UN should be abolished, it is a cumbersome organization that has proven time after time that it really cant do anything. Look at all the sanctions it put in Iraq leading up to the war, not a single one was followed, and the UN could do nothing about it. Look at rawanda, the UN withdrew its peace keeping force after it suffered very small losses. And the genocide continued. If people want something done about darfur dont turn to the UN, go to nations that can do something about it like the US, the UK, France, Germany, etc. I will admit the when it comes to humanitarian issues the UN can be very effective but when it comes to a crisis well.... not so much.

Then replace it with another international organ. The US has no more right to do stuff than any other nation. Period.

Then replace it with another international organ. The US has no more right to do stuff than any other nation. Period.

Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but, what element of the international framework gives the individual states rights? Or, beyond that, what is the legal framework, and the enforcement authority, that exists within the international framework to actually make something "illegal".

Don't get me wrong, I don't think states should have free reign to do whatever they want, and I would actually rather desire an international legal structure with genuine self-enforcement capabilities, but I feel like the system is still too anarchic to call near anything truly "illegal" in the international arena.

I think most people can agree the genocide in Darfur is horrible. ...The UN could declare sanctions, but...So, is there anything that can be done? Or will the rest of the world just have to wait

The UN has done nothing about this for years and they have no intentions of doing anything except talk, talk, talk... Sanctions won't do any good unless they are enforced and if they were enacted would not be enforced. (See Iran) So, what is the rest of the world doing about it? Where does the EU and the African Union stand on this? Where are and what are the "peace keepers doing about it?" :(

Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but, what element of the international framework gives the individual states rights? Or, beyond that, what is the legal framework, and the enforcement authority, that exists within the international framework to actually make something "illegal".

Don't get me wrong, I don't think states should have free reign to do whatever they want, and I would actually rather desire an international legal structure with genuine self-enforcement capabilities, but I feel like the system is still too anarchic to call near anything truly "illegal" in the international arena.

Then make it ethical right. The problem is that some Americans' gripe with the UN is not that the UN doesn't enforce their on decisions, it's that the UN doesn't let the US do whatever the hell it wants.

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 warring faction in the Sudan.

If we do get sucked in, the military needs to rethink it's war fighting tactics and get ready to fight a war that is dirty, no rules and pretty much like it was when General Gordon fought the Sudanese at Omdurman in the 1800's

So, we would be accused of "going there for the oil". Which, by all accounts, was considered "bad" for us going into Iraq. So, if it's bad for going into Iraq, it's equally bad for going into Sudan.

The north/south split is even more pronounced than any split between groups in Iraq - so if you say going in and doing regime change to pacify the region is a bad idea for Iraq it's doubly bad for Sudan.

Should we topple a corrupt government? The answer we hear from Heikoku is no for Iraq, so it's got to be no for Sudan. A government that kills hundreds of thousands of its own people? Well, Heikoku would gladly say no for Iraq, so it's no for Sudan.

Lets not forget the horrible job the Sudanese government has job doing...everything. They harboured OBL and other terrorists during the mid 80s and late 90s. Their economy has been in ruin for god knows how long, they have had horrible ties with US intel services and its just place run by a bunch of bandits.

CIA couldnt get them to work, the DoD couldnt....jesus that place is a mess....needs to be the African glass parking lot for all I care. This situation has arisen from radical islamic teaching (completely off base with the Quran, but whatever, uneducated fucks like the african hajis will listen to anything that involves killing, virgins and eternal bliss...)

The situation in Sudan was like that of the Taliban rise, general lack in care of the situation, and underscoring the importance of keeping the reins on 3rd world countries that could be potentially used as safe havens for terrorists. Global politics also took a toll, USSR falling, Pakistani funds, CIA funds, Saudi Arabia trying to look good for the Muslims while retaining the crowd, it all flooded into those bastard countries.

Sudan is fucked, simple as that.

The key to Africa is to remember what we forgot or never learned in Iraq, TRIBAL power rules, forget about being a democratic society.

I think most people can agree the genocide in Darfur is horrible. And I believe the groups and celebrities who are loudly speaking out against it are sincere; they're not just talking through their hats.

That being said...what exactly can the rest of the world do? The UN could declare sanctions, but somehow I doubt they would work. The current Sudanese regime could be deposed, quite easily in fact, but then what? What about Sudan makes rebuilding the country any easier than rebuilding a democratic Iraq?

Other options:

3) A large, reasonably-well-armed, internationally sanctioned peacekeeping force in Darfur, deterring attacks on civilians until everyone settles down, probably years from now.

4) A full-scale invasion followed by a rebuilding that doesn't attempt to keep Sudan together, but splits it along ethnic boundaries. (Which would be, what, 3 countries at least?)

Of course neither of these things are going to happen, because genocide is really perfectly all right with most people. Still, effective sanctions, serious divestment, or outright invasion aren't going to happen either, so as long as we're not limiting the discussion to what's feasible, it's worth thinking about what solutions might work. (My definition of "work" is "people are no longer massacring each other."

Should we topple a corrupt government? The answer we hear from Heikoku is no for Iraq, so it's got to be no for Sudan. A government that kills hundreds of thousands of its own people? Well, Heikoku would gladly say no for Iraq, so it's no for Sudan.

Ah, DK, your ability to ignore the things inconvenient to you never ceases to amaze me.

You could topple both governments by offering support for actual people from the country who were trying to topple it.

But surely the only response for Sudan would be to invade the nation incompetently on trumped-up charges, create a terrorist haven in the process, killing upwards of 4,000 of your own troops and 600,000 civilians in the process, right? Because America should have every right to dickwave.

The war in Iraq was wrong, and one in Sudan would be as well. If Bush had any interest besides war, he'd be helping insider militias from within the countries.

Ah, DK, your ability to ignore the things inconvenient to you never ceases to amaze me.

You could topple both governments by offering support for actual people from the country who were trying to topple it.

But surely the only response for Sudan would be to invade the nation incompetently on trumped-up charges, create a terrorist haven in the process, killing upwards of 4,000 of your own troops and 600,000 civilians in the process, right? Because America should have every right to dickwave.

The war in Iraq was wrong, and one in Sudan would be as well. If Bush had any interest besides war, he'd be helping insider militias from within the countries.

Helping militias by sending them weapons is also war, and would probably result in far more civilian casualties than an outright invasion by modern forces.

I'm just answering those who say we should invade and clean it up - sorry, it's not our problem if they want to kill each other.

Oh, and there's no proof that 600,000 Iraqis have been killed, because the Lancet's figures have been completely discredited. But I bet that handing weapons to militias in Sudan would get that many killed.

Helping militias by sending them weapons is also war, and would probably result in far more civilian casualties than an outright invasion by modern forces.

I'm just answering those who say we should invade and clean it up - sorry, it's not our problem if they want to kill each other.

Oh, and there's no proof that 600,000 Iraqis have been killed, because the Lancet's figures have been completely discredited. But I bet that handing weapons to militias in Sudan would get that many killed.

Oh, goodie, a theory we cannot test!

Oh, goodie, a theory we cannot test!

You can ask yourself the question that Bush never asked himself.

What if you're wrong?

If you're wrong, we ship the rotting corpses to your backyard.

You can ask yourself the question that Bush never asked himself.

What if you're wrong?

If you're wrong, we ship the rotting corpses to your backyard.

Why, are there any dead Iraqis in Bush's backyard? No? Then, if Bush gets to murder thousands upon thousands of people on a whim without consequences, why not Russia in Georgia or the Sudanese government in Darfur?

Why not me or you?

Why, are there any dead Iraqis in Bush's backyard? No? Then, if Bush gets to murder thousands upon thousands of people on a whim without consequences, why not Russia in Georgia or the Sudanese government in Darfur?

Why not me or you?

You're supposed to be the one with standards. If you're going to say it's ok now, I'll go back to shooting again.

You're supposed to be the one with standards. If you're going to say it's ok now, I'll go back to shooting again.

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

The key to Africa is to remember what we forgot or never learned in Iraq, TRIBAL power rules, forget about being a democratic society.
Only is the boundaries are immutable. Why don't we partition it?

In fact, why don't we partition Iraq?

Only is the boundaries are immutable. Why don't we partition it?

In fact, why don't we partition Iraq?

Oil is in the North and South.
North is Kurd, South is Shia.

Sunnis are on the center, with Baghdad.

Partition Irak, get a global civil war involving directly Saoudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey and Iran.

About Darfour.

The situation is tense and get past long years before, true.

I think that the true problem is that Western nations don't agree about it.

Why ?
Geopolitic.

Just left of Sudan, there's Tchad.
Tchad is an old ally of France, we call it our " aircraft carrier of the desert ".
We fought a war against Lybia in the 1980's for the sake of Tchad: Opération Epervier.

We also provided support, special forces, intel and supplies every time a Sudanese-backed force of " Tchadian rebels " tried to take the capital of Tchad.

So, when France proposed to the European Union to send a force there in order of oritecting the civilians of Darfur, UK and Germany look at us like if we wanted to kick the ass of the regim in Sudan in order to establish the rule of our " dear friend ".
They were certainly partialy right.

So, finally, an European force get in the Tchadian zone of Darfur, but without even the ability to help civilians who haven't crossed the border.

But there is 4000 EU soldiers there, 3/4 of them being Frenchs.

And since we are here, attacks on the refugees camp in Tchad have been crushed and deterred.

So, I think the situation is slowly evolving.

And by the way, Sudan is NOT Irak, stop making this, it's unerving.

Gee, I was wondering how long before the people that supported the useless, genocidal war in Iraq would claim that the options for Sudan are only that and not doing anything. Because offering support, including military and peacekeeping one, isn't an option? Or you're just using Darfur as a prop to try and cover for the undeniable fact that the war in Iraq was not justified?

Get with the times H2. Iraq has elected a government, has increasing oil supplies, and has negotiated a withdrawl of Coalition troops. How is this genocide? Are you just having a hard time adjusting to the fact that you were totally wrong about Iraq?

I doubt you understand the definition of genocide.

Ah, DK, your ability to ignore the things inconvenient to you never ceases to amaze me.

You could topple both governments by offering support for actual people from the country who were trying to topple it.

But surely the only response for Sudan would be to invade the nation incompetently on trumped-up charges, create a terrorist haven in the process, killing upwards of 4,000 of your own troops and 600,000 civilians in the process, right? Because America should have every right to dickwave.

The war in Iraq was wrong, and one in Sudan would be as well. If Bush had any interest besides war, he'd be helping insider militias from within the countries.

So your "solution" is to introduce even more weapons into Darfur and hope that solves the problem?

We've tried your dumbass idea before, it was called "Vietnamization" then and its failed miserably. The rebels in Darfur are not some noble oppressed minority, they're every bit as bloodthirsty and pissed as the Janjaweed. What makes you think that arming them won't send them on a quest for payback for the decades of suffering they've experienced?

Get with the times H2. Iraq has elected a government, has increasing oil supplies, and has negotiated a withdrawl of Coalition troops. How is this genocide? Are you just having a hard time adjusting to the fact that you were totally wrong about Iraq?

I doubt you understand the definition of genocide.

How about a million dead people, for starters?

I was NEVER wrong about Iraq, YOU were wrong. Where are the WMDs?

So your "solution" is to introduce even more weapons into Darfur and hope that solves the problem?

We've tried your dumbass idea before, it was called "Vietnamization" then and its failed miserably. The rebels in Darfur are not some noble oppressed minority, they're every bit as bloodthirsty and pissed as the Janjaweed. What makes you think that arming them won't send them on a quest for payback for the decades of suffering they've experienced?

Very well, then. Do you have another solution that isn't the Iraqization of Sudan?

Very well, then. Do you have another solution that isn't the Iraqization of Sudan?

Given the instability in the region there is no course of action that doesn't include a serious risk of making things worse. Obviously invading Sudan is a bad idea, likewise for air strikes, arming the locals isn't much better, imposing sanctions will be nothing since China and Russia will abide by them, and doing nothing (what we're doing now) is also bad. Such is life.

Given the instability in the region there is no course of action that doesn't include a serious risk of making things worse. Obviously invading Sudan is a bad idea, likewise for air strikes, arming the locals isn't much better, imposing sanctions will be nothing since China and Russia will abide by them, and doing nothing (what we're doing now) is also bad. Such is life.

Good. Because all I was saying was that invading Sudan would be a bad idea for about the same reasons that make invading Iraq one.

Oil is in the North and South.
North is Kurd, South is Shia.

Sunnis are on the center, with Baghdad.

Partition Irak, get a global civil war involving directly Saoudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey and Iran.
But if we get the UN to agree that Iraq should be three countries, then anyone who invades or interferes with those countries becomes the bad guy and we can deal with them.

Or we just let them all kill each other and stop worrying about it. If the Arabs and the Turks and the Persians want to fight a war, why should we care?

Or we just let them all kill each other and stop worrying about it. If the Arabs and the Turks and the Persians want to fight a war, why should we care?

Since it would have been YOU that created the problem, yes.

Good. Because all I was saying was that invading Sudan would be a bad idea for about the same reasons that make invading Iraq one.

Actually invading Sudan could work IF it was done properly. However, no nation in world (including the US) has the military capability or political will to do that right now. The brutal truth is that most nations don't care about what happens in other countries as along as they're not affected. In fact China and Russia have vested interests in keeping Bashier and his cronies in power.

Actually invading Sudan could work IF it was done properly. However, no nation in world (including the US) has the military capability or political will to do that right now. The brutal truth is that most nations don't care about what happens in other countries as along as they're not affected. In fact China and Russia have vested interests in keeping Bashier and his cronies in power.

Agreed. A half assed invasion to establish democracy is horrible. This is evident by the fact that the Iraq invasion began at a half assed pace. There were 2 significant troop increases. The US was more concerned about a budget then getting it over and done with.

You should also consider other nations which will be happy for the current scene to go on. They will object to the troop increase and contribute in no way at all. This means that the governments that actually want to help the people rather then help themself to the moral high ground will have to pay more.

Darfur will not be saved from its dictator for a long long time. There is no spark of a revolution as well as no interest in rescuing the country as thoes tha would are already stretched. So Europe can sit by with all its troops in reserves and just say "hey its not my problem"

Since it would have been YOU that created the problem, yes.The problem is already there.

Gee, I was wondering how long before the people that supported the useless, genocidal war in Iraq would claim that the options for Sudan are only that and not doing anything.
You're still waiting, then, as I do not and have never supported the war in Iraq. Perhaps this revelation will allow you to consider the question in more depth, without dismissing it as that of a Bush Administration apologist.
Because offering support, including military and peacekeeping one, isn't an option?
I don't know, that was my question. I don't think military support ("peacekeeping" is basically the same thing) would be effective not because it couldn't stop the genocide, but because it opens a whole new can of worms. Perhaps a better question would have been more general, "What's to be done to prevent the lives of the people of Darfur from being an unimaginable nightmare?"
Or you're just using Darfur as a prop to try and cover for the undeniable fact that the war in Iraq was not justified?
Not really, no. But Iraq is an excellent example of what could happen in Sudan, which is why I was asking if there were alternatives (or at least better ways of attacking.)

Not really, no. But Iraq is an excellent example of what could happen in Sudan, which is why I was asking if there were alternatives (or at least better ways of attacking.)

Iraq would be a step up for Sudan.

You're still waiting, then, as I do not and have never supported the war in Iraq. Perhaps this revelation will allow you to consider the question in more depth, without dismissing it as that of a Bush Administration apologist.

I don't know, that was my question. I don't think military support ("peacekeeping" is basically the same thing) would be effective not because it couldn't stop the genocide, but because it opens a whole new can of worms. Perhaps a better question would have been more general, "What's to be done to prevent the lives of the people of Darfur from being an unimaginable nightmare?"

Not really, no. But Iraq is an excellent example of what could happen in Sudan, which is why I was asking if there were alternatives (or at least better ways of attacking.)

You do, of course, realize that I was answering Hotwife and TSF, and not you?

The problem is already there.

The problem was effectively capped, because like him or not Iraq had a ruler strong/mreciless enough to get the disparate groups to work for him. When we took Hussein and the Ba'ath party out of the picture we opened the fight to control Iraq.

Anjd as far as partitioning Iraq. If we do, perpare for the Turks to almost automatically step up attacks into the PKK, and probably invade Kurdish Iraq. Not to mention, basically partitioning Iraq removes the only strong country keeping Saudi Arabia and Iran from possibly getting at each other's throat to determine who gets to set policy in the islamic world.

You do, of course, realize that I was answering Hotwife and TSF, and not you?

My apologies, I thought you were quoting me but now I see that's the post above you.

Still, I think it's unfair to assume these posters are using it as a prop for supporting the war in Iraq. I think they would be more likely to support getting involved in Sudan if that was their reasoning.

My apologies, I thought you were quoting me but now I see that's the post above you.

Still, I think it's unfair to assume these posters are using it as a prop for supporting the war in Iraq. I think they would be more likely to support getting involved in Sudan if that was their reasoning.

Hotwife maybe not, but check TSF's first post...

Not to mention, basically partitioning Iraq removes the only strong country keeping Saudi Arabia and Iran from possibly getting at each other's throat to determine who gets to set policy in the islamic world.

you say that like it is a bad thing? Iraq and Iran were at war in the 80's and oil prices went down from the 70's. so Saudi Arabia and Iran butt heads they will be so desperate to make money immediately we will get every last drop of oil at rock bottom prices.

and a proxy war is a lot better then the current situation.

you say that like it is a bad thing? Iraq and Iran were at war in the 80's and oil prices went down from the 70's. so Saudi Arabia and Iran butt heads they will be so desperate to make money immediately we will get every last drop of oil at rock bottom prices.

and a proxy war is a lot better then the current situation.

Aaaaaand WELCOME TO YET ANOTHER EDITION ooooof...

"TROLLING, JOKING, OR INSAAAAAAAAAANE!"

The rules are simple! The contestants have to make the call if the quoted poster is trolling, joking or insane, based on his remarks!

Now look at GaD! Isn't he cute, claiming it's good if people die so he can have cheaper gas? Yes he is! Now the question is:

IS HE TROLLING?

IS HE JOKING?

IS HE INSANE?

Tonight the contestants are everyone! The prize is the same as always! Let's begin!

Aaaaaand WELCOME TO YET ANOTHER EDITION ooooof...

"TROLLING, JOKING, OR INSAAAAAAAAAANE!"

The rules are simple! The contestants have to make the call if the quoted poster is trolling, joking or insane, based on his remarks!

Now look at GaD! Isn't he cute, claiming it's good if people die so he can have cheaper gas? Yes he is! Now the question is:

IS HE TROLLING?

IS HE JOKING?

IS HE INSANE?

Tonight the contestants are everyone! The prize is the same as always! Let's begin!
*voice from the dark back row*

I'll take trolling for G&D, Alex.

We could always nuke it from orbit.

What's to be done about Darfur?

Probably ignoring it, like has been done for how many years now?

What can be done? Refugees can be taken in by first world countries, educated, given the same opportunities for growth and success as we have and then their children or children's children can reclaim their ethnic heritage by rebuilding the shattered landscape.

Unfortunately, they're far too brown for rational solutions.

What can be done? Refugees can be taken in by first world countries, educated, given the same opportunities for growth and success as we have and then their children or children's children can reclaim their ethnic heritage by rebuilding the shattered landscape.

Unfortunately, they're far too brown for rational solutions.

*Plays rugby naked*

Aaaaaand WELCOME TO YET ANOTHER EDITION ooooof...

"TROLLING, JOKING, OR INSAAAAAAAAAANE!"

The rules are simple! The contestants have to make the call if the quoted poster is trolling, joking or insane, based on his remarks!

Now look at GaD! Isn't he cute, claiming it's good if people die so he can have cheaper gas? Yes he is! Now the question is:

IS HE TROLLING?

IS HE JOKING?

IS HE INSANE?

Tonight the contestants are everyone! The prize is the same as always! Let's begin!

try realist. oil is what people seem to be fighting and dieing over this century. It will not stop I just would prefer other people do it for us.

try realist. oil is what people seem to be fighting and dieing over this century. It will not stop I just would prefer other people do it for us.

Oh, so it's okay for me to wish for your death if it benefits me in the least? Because you're annoying, and I need some peace of mind.

Oh, so it's okay for me to wish for your death if it benefits me in the least? Because you're annoying, and I need some peace of mind.

if you ever think you can manipulate Canada to invade the US have at your fantasies. though I think I will have better luck getting Colombia and Argentina to invade Brazil.

if you ever think you can manipulate Canada to invade the US have at your fantasies. though I think I will have better luck getting Colombia and Argentina to invade Brazil.

I didn't say Americans, I said YOU.

Regardless, you're wrong. Please post things that are worthy of my attention from now on.

What can be done? Refugees can be taken in by first world countries, educated, given the same opportunities for growth and success as we have and then their children or children's children can reclaim their ethnic heritage by rebuilding the shattered landscape.

Unfortunately, they're far too brown for rational solutions.

Ok, who the hell is going to pay for all that?

What can be done? Refugees can be taken in by first world countries, educated, given the same opportunities for growth and success as we have and then their children or children's children can reclaim their ethnic heritage by rebuilding the shattered landscape.

Unfortunately, they're far too brown for rational solutions.
Ditto.

Let's not put too fine a point on things here. There are plenty of things that could be done about Darfur. Some plans might be better than others. But none will even be tried, because what is there to motivate Americans and Europeans to give a shit about some homeless Africans?

Aaaaaand WELCOME TO YET ANOTHER EDITION ooooof...

"TROLLING, JOKING, OR INSAAAAAAAAAANE!"

The rules are simple! The contestants have to make the call if the quoted poster is trolling, joking or insane, based on his remarks!

Now look at GaD! Isn't he cute, claiming it's good if people die so he can have cheaper gas? Yes he is! Now the question is:

IS HE TROLLING?

IS HE JOKING?

IS HE INSANE?

Tonight the contestants are everyone! The prize is the same as always! Let's begin!
His point can't be that easily dismissed. I'm not a fan of either country, and the deep racial divide there will prevent either from really controlling the other's region, so why not let them fight each other? Better than us doing it.

Oh, so it's okay for me to wish for your death if it benefits me in the least? Because you're annoying, and I need some peace of mind.
As long as I'm not the one killing you, sure.

His point can't be that easily dismissed. I'm not a fan of either country, and the deep racial divide there will prevent either from really controlling the other's region, so why not let them fight each other? Better than us doing it.

Yes it can, because they'd be fighting due to conditions YOU created.

Wow. Llewdor personally went down and arranged that?

Props to that man. Anyone who can single-handedly arrange a genocide deserves a cookie.

Wow. Llewdor personally went down and arranged that?

Props to that man. Anyone who can single-handedly arrange a genocide deserves a cookie.

You got what I meant.

Did I? Your statement clearly says that Llewdor somehow played a part in creating the situation that brought about the genocide.

And also implies you, Heikoku 2, are completely faultless and blameless in the matter, as well.

Did I? Your statement clearly says that Llewdor somehow played a part in creating the situation that brought about the genocide.

And also implies you, Heikoku 2, are completely faultless and blameless in the matter, as well.

Oy. He was talking about the Iran-Iraq war. The US propped Saddam in it, did it not? The problem would be, then, created by the US, yes.

And since I'm Brazilian, I am completely faultless and blameless in the matter, as well. Thanks for asking.

Did I? Your statement clearly says that Llewdor somehow played a part in creating the situation that brought about the genocide.

And also implies you, Heikoku 2, are completely faultless and blameless in the matter, as well.
Well, let's see...

1) Heikoku is in Brazil and I think is actually Brazilian, so I'm guessing he probably did have very little to do with it.

2) Maybe I'm just not as literal-minded as you, but I read the "you" in H's original statement as the rhetorical "you" and as referring to the United States, on the assumption that Llewdor is an US citizen (and thus, for rhetorical purposes, a representative of the US). In that sense, H's statement would be inaccurate if Llewdor is not actualy associated with the US, which H probably should have checked first, but still...I was not led to think he was blaming Llewdor personally.

Well, let's see...

1) Heikoku is in Brazil and I think is actually Brazilian, so I'm guessing he probably did have very little to do with it.

2) Maybe I'm just not as literal-minded as you, but I read the "you" in H's original statement as the rhetorical "you" and as referring to the United States, on the assumption that Llewdor is an US citizen (and thus, for rhetorical purposes, a representative of the US). In that sense, H's statement would be inaccurate if Llewdor is not actualy associated with the US, which H probably should have checked first, but still...I was not led to think he was blaming Llewdor personally.

Thank you!