Welcome to the internet's top destination for the civil discussion of politics. This is a forum for discussion and debate of the issues, and not for personal remarks aimed at other discussants.
This forum has no political affiliation and welcomes your perspective on the issues. Membership is free. If you would like to join the discussions and debates please REGISTER HERE.
All new members should review the forum rules. The "Today's Posts" button automatically adjusts itself to fit your screen on its first use for Firefox and on its second use, for Internet Explorer. Have a pleasant day. (This is a spam free board.)
I found this article interesting, and a bit confronting maybe that is not the right word but I have had a hard time thinking about what was should do in Darfur. I wanted a way to take strong action but I also did not want to put U.S soldiers in a nation I did not see a threat.
This type of action in this article is something we should think about. I believe strongly that the USA must fight evil in the world but I also believe in and know that we cannot help everyone and that at end of the day the USA has to do what all other nations and people do and that’s like out for its own interests.
However, I do believe that the USA has a morel responsibility to stop genocide, now again I do understand that the U.S cannot help everyone and sadly cannot stop every mass killing however, this seamed like a very reasonable answer to solve a horrible problem
Quote:
DESPITE almost 1.5 million bombing sorties flown against Germany during the Second World War, the United States and Britain failed for lack of trying to destroy the system of transport that fed the gas chambers and crematoria. Thirty-five years later, America did not, despite its unquestioned naval supremacy, protect the Vietnamese boat people. That we and our two allies capable of projecting power, France and Britain, are now distracted and divided by the wars in the Middle East is terribly unfortunate for the people of Darfur.
The genocide there is thus an unattended stepchild left to well-meaning groups and individuals who further sap the possibility of decisive action by directing attention to delicate measures of relief and equally fragile diplomacy. Blankets are necessary, but they will not stop the razing of villages. As Sudan brazenly defies, if not the world’s will, then, its wishes, and the death toll closes upon half a million, the pity is that the people of Darfur can in fact be saved. In concert with our allies or entirely alone, we have the military potential to accomplish this.
The multinational troops in Darfur have neither the training nor the mobility to defend the population adequately. Seventy-eight countries, each with its own rules of engagement, are represented in what is less a rescue mission than a camping trip to the Tower of Babel. A possibly influential force is developing in Chad, where the European Union, soon to be supplemented by Russian helicopters, will deploy weakly to defend a line drawn across largely empty desert. But why not cross that line? Violating sovereignty is a matter of immense consequence and gravity. Then again, so is genocide.
Although Darfur is part of Sudan, it is physically distant from the country’s heartland and sources of military power. Every inch of the 600 miles of barren territory between Khartoum and the killing grounds is an opportunity for a reprieve commanded by American air power — with not a boot on the ground. The Sudanese military in Darfur can be trapped there without sustenance, to wither or retreat as the bulk of Sudanese forces are kept out. And the janjaweed can be denied tangible support merely by severing the few extenuated routes of supply.
The first requirement of a cordon sanitaire, however, would be to cut all air links, which would require carrier-based air strikes to destroy the Sudanese air force’s 51 combat aircraft, 25 transports, and 44 helicopters (all figures from the International Institute for Strategic Studies); its fuel, munitions and maintenance facilities; and the few runways capable of supporting heavy transports and fighters. Were Chad to approve a small expeditionary force of America’s A-10 tactical-air-support planes, which it probably would, just a few of these could closely suppress remnant Sudanese armor and check any force of the janjaweed militia sufficiently concentrated to overcome local means of self-defense.
Moreover, none of this would prove necessary were the United States willing to go further and threaten or accomplish the destruction of the Sudanese regime’s means to power over a country that has been pulled apart centrifugally by multiple secessions. One needn’t be squeamish about such a proposition. It pertains to a government that has long massacred hundreds of thousands of its “own” people in its South and West, supported international terrorism and menaced most of its neighbors.
The precise targeting of a substantial portion of its 1,200 armored vehicles and 1,100 artillery pieces; its telecommunications exchanges and microwave towers; its dozen small naval vessels; its aircraft, runways, munitions, military headquarters, logistical stores, security ministries and presidential residences would be only a few days’ work for long-range bombers dispatched from remote bases, and the planes of two carrier task forces hastened to the Red Sea.
Which would the regime in Sudan prefer? To be annihilated, or to discontinue its campaign of mass murder in Darfur? Given Sudan’s record, very few nations would be willing to come to its aid with other than a pro forma whimper, and given the geography and the air and naval balance, no nation could. Though many a repressive dictatorship would protest, and Sudan’s patron, China, might determine to speed up the formation of the blue-water navy it is already building, little else would change except for the better.
This is especially so because only in the worst case would a military strike actually be necessary. One of the chief attractions of such an initiative is that, if properly directed, it could, one way or another, military strike or not, accomplish its aims. These are, first, to stop the mass killings and dislocations; and, second, to pressure Sudan into negotiating settlements in good faith (which it need not do as long as it retains its habitual option of simply murdering the populations it finds troublesome).
The threat itself would likely be enough. If not, then to carry it out in the present circumstances would be honorable, right and overdue. For these are human lives that in Darfur are senselessly extinguished. There is no soul anywhere more valuable than any of theirs, no child more worth saving than any of theirs. We are able to do so, as we can stand our carriers and pilots at the ready. And why would we not? A whole people, no matter how wretched or obscure, must certainly be worth three days of ammunition
__________________
Tim-"I assume you have a long list of benevolent nations and peoples who circle the globe, bestowing gifts on the human race from the purest of motives - in contrast with those terrible Americans, whose motives and behavior are always suspect"? :rolleyes
that plan sounds good an all but bombing sudan in the manner suggested in that article would be a clear act of war. so not only would that piss off the sudanesse government but also more muslims, and we dont need any more muslims shouting death to america. and i wouldnt be surprised if all that instability spilled over into other unstable african countries like zimbabuwe or somalia.
Has anyone ever proposed simply having the People of Darfur stop their revolt against the Sudanese government?
Wait
I always thought you were a big supporter of the people right to revolt against the government if they thought their rights were being violated.
In addition, FL yeah theses are reasonable questions to ask. However, I am less worried that we might make a few radials mad at us do to the fact that every time we do or do not do something it seams to make some radials mad
__________________
Tim-"I assume you have a long list of benevolent nations and peoples who circle the globe, bestowing gifts on the human race from the purest of motives - in contrast with those terrible Americans, whose motives and behavior are always suspect"? :rolleyes
Has anyone ever proposed simply having the People of Darfur stop their revolt against the Sudanese government?
What are you talking about? Innocent civilians in Darfur and the border regions of Chad are being killed by government-funded Janjaweed militiamen. Nothing, other than belonging to a different tribe and being of a different ethnic background, has been done to provoke the perpetrators.
This is not about 'Human Rights' This is about oil, and countries like Chad, Sudan and Libya competing for oil within Darfur. When there's oil, someone will fund groups like the Janjaweed to make human rights as an excuse for to take oil from another country.
Now some new Darfur rebel group wants to kick out Chinese and put in Western companies to get the oil.
I was always under the impression it was a racist push by Arabian Sudan against African Sudan?
Kind of, but there's really very little racial difference between the black Sudanese of the south and the "Afro-Arabs" of the north. It isn't a religious conflict either, despite the religious split. It's mostly tribal from what I understand.
The way I look at it, race has nothing to do with it. Its the government wanting a group of people off of a certain piece of land in order to drill and transport oil much easier to line their pockets. They are simply using Arab Africans as the bad guys, ie, the Janjaweed. They are simply using the conflicts between the Agrarian Africans and the Nomadic Africans that have been taking care of their own conflicts for centuries.
This is not about 'Human Rights' This is about oil, and countries like Chad, Sudan and Libya competing for oil within Darfur. When there's oil, someone will fund groups like the Janjaweed to make human rights as an excuse for to take oil from another country.
If this is about oil, then China is the main corporate. Of course you left this out.
No one funds the Janjaweed except the Sudanese government. Don't tell me you actually believe their denial of funds? THE JINJAWEEDS ARE SUPPORTED BY SUDANESE AIRCRAFTS FOR CRYING OUTLOUD.
Quote:
Now some new Darfur rebel group wants to kick out Chinese and put in Western companies to get the oil.
Darfurians only wanted part of the oil revenue to go towards their area. The Sudanese government has failed them, the Chinese government has failed them and the UN has failed them (largely thanks to Chinese vetoes). I would call for a different clientel too if I was them. Does that mean it's the cause of the conflict? Not in the least. Sudan is responsible for it starting and China is responsible for it continuing.
Linear Mode
