Darfur, and what can be done.

Well, you're all aware of Darfur, Sudan and the killings equaling estimates of upwards of 400,000 Sudanese. This event has been going on for ages, but has recently gained more attention between 2003 and now. The history behind the whole event is very intricate, so I'd suggest reading this if you don't know.

The possibility of a mass genocide is on the rise, and my question to you is how we can stop this? With the war in Iraq keeping busy the USA, and the UN, EU, NATO, and some of the USA and other large countries left to deal with the issue, what can we do to stop this? Do you think it is possible? Is Darfur left to suffer, or are their solutions, how can we solve this?

It is my personal belief that these events are a form of natural selection. I believe that countries who have risen above the level of such atrocities should completely isolate themselves from countries that cannot seem to get it together. In every way, any country involved in the UN should withdraw any form of contact with countries that can't seem to shape up and ignore anything that happens in them.

This is the reason I have strongly opposed any form of intervention in Iraq despite Saddam being a mass murderer, and its the same reason I oppose any intervention in Darfur. I don't believe it is any country's responsibility to act as the World Police.

Nothing can be. You talk about this event Viktor, but in truth, there are many just like it happening all around the earth. Its not these spots that are the problems, its humanity.

It is my personal belief that these events are a form of natural selection. I believe that countries who have risen above the level of such atrocities should completely isolate themselves from countries that cannot seem to get it together. In every way, any country involved in the UN should withdraw any form of contact with countries that can't seem to shape up and ignore anything that happens in them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is the reason I have strongly opposed any form of intervention in Iraq despite Saddam being a mass murderer, and its the same reason I oppose any intervention in Darfur. I don't believe it is any country's responsibility to act as the World Police.

Yes, but they pose threats to the US and other major countries. Large Sunni and Shiite extremists want power. This is why we have to intervene. The problem is, it's not as easy as it looks, as in Iraq, we've dug ourselves into a deep hole, and I doubt the Iraqi goverment will ever be able to control and guard itself correctly.

Nothing can be. You talk about this event Viktor, but in truth, there are many just like it happening all around the earth. Its not these spots that are the problems, its humanity.

Exactly. People only care about Darfur because a few rich celebreties have latched onto it to gain personal publicity for themselves. People like George Clooney who oppose removing Saddam from power (a mass murderer) but support sending our troops to die in Darfur to stop mass murder. What a hypocrite. Our troops should not leave our borders unless it is to defend countries who have allied with us.

Yes, but they pose threats to the US and other major countries. Large Sunni and Shiite extremists want power. This is why we have to intervene. The problem is, it's not as easy as it looks, as in Iraq, we've dug ourselves into a deep hole, and I doubt the Iraq goverment wil ever eb able to control and guard itself correctly.

My assumption is that you are in the same group of people who support the war in Iraq then. Ridiculous. No one poses a threat to our country as long as we're protecting it. Invading other countries like Iraq and Darfur only sends our army away from the Heartland, making an attack at home easier for the enemy.

 

Nothing can be. You talk about this event Viktor, but in truth, there are many just like it happening all around the earth. Its not these spots that are the problems, its humanity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly. People only care about Darfur because a few rich celebreties have latched onto it to gain personal publicity for themselves. People like George Clooney who oppose removing Saddam from power (a mass murderer) but support sending our troops to die in Darfur to stop mass murder. What a hypocrite. Our troops should not leave our borders unless it is to defend countries who have allied with us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, but they pose threats to the US and other major countries. Large Sunni and Shiite extremists want power. This is why we have to intervene. The problem is, it's not as easy as it looks, as in Iraq, we've dug ourselves into a deep hole, and I doubt the Iraq goverment wil ever eb able to control and guard itself correctly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My assumption is that you are in the same group of people who support the war in Iraq then. Ridiculous. No one poses a threat to our country as long as we're protecting it. Invading other countries like Iraq and Darfur only sends our army away from the Heartland, making an attack at home easier for the enemy.

I wouldn't be so sure we just leave this to work itself out. I don't think it will work itself out, and I think something is going to happen beyond are capability to control, possibly with Iran, and Darfur is going to become a harbor for extremists as a safe spot.

Locke, explain 9/11 then. I'm not against, but not for the war in Iraq. I think we've gotten into it too far, and that the Iraqi goverment thinks this is an open ended agreement.

Viktor, if the "Good" countries are always out crusading for "The right way" aren't we almost doing the exact same thing? Sure these spots are a safe haven for terrorists and what not, but if we defend our countries at the border, where we are most powerful, it should be a piece of cake. Not to mention with so many soldiers away, corruption is always left to root back home...

Edit: and dont get me wrong, i wish the world to be all good, and to have peace everywhere, but violence will only spring up more violence. The only way for things to end is for mass understanding...

Viktor, if the "Good" countries are always out crusading for "The right way" aren't we almost doing the exact same thing? Sure these spots are a safe haven for terrorists and what not, but if we defend our countries at the border, where we are most powerful, it should be a piece of cake. Not to mention with so many soldiers away, corruption is always left to root back home...

True, but if we let them harbor too long, they will evoke ingenious ideas, they will surpass even the highest guarding, they will find ways to get us. In my opinion, you have to take them out, but I don't find that one bit plausible.

*Edit* My idea would be small scale, unknown searches for terrorists, without any of the world knowing. If we could sneak up on them, then we have the advantage.

Locke, explain 9/11 then. I'm not against, but not for the war in Iraq. I think we've gotten into it too far, and that the Iraqi goverment thinks this is an open ended agreement.

9/11 is the result of having a weak President like Clinton who does not respond properly when attacked by terrorists, and does not take the proper measurements to ensure the safety of the United States until it's too late.

 

Locke, explain 9/11 then. I'm not against, but not for the war in Iraq. I think we've gotten into it too far, and that the Iraqi goverment thinks this is an open ended agreement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9/11 is the result of having a weak President like Clinton who does not respond properly when attacked by terrorists, and does not take the proper measurements to ensure the safety of the United States until it's too late.

That I %100 agree on. But Clinton didn't go out as much like Bush did and attack terrorists, and see we suffered as a result of it. So either way, we're pretty much screwed, I can't find any ground in which we aren't screwed. :XD:

 

 

Locke, explain 9/11 then. I'm not against, but not for the war in Iraq. I think we've gotten into it too far, and that the Iraqi goverment thinks this is an open ended agreement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9/11 is the result of having a weak President like Clinton who does not respond properly when attacked by terrorists, and does not take the proper measurements to ensure the safety of the United States until it's too late.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That I %100 agree on. But Clinton didn't go out as much like Bush did and attack terrorists, and see we suffered as a result of it. So either way, we're pretty much screwed, I can't find any ground in which we aren't screwed. :XD:

There is no such thing as compleat good or light. There will always be that dark to balance things.

*Edit* My idea would be small scale, unknown searches for terrorists, without any of the world knowing. If we could sneak up on them, then we have the advantage.

----

What advantages would this exactly bring? I'm sure that the terrorists will be extremely careful, with or without them knowing that we are searching for them.

And also- Clinton did attack terrorists, I don't know if you remember this, but Clintoned bombed several terrorist training camps.

That I %100 agree on. But Clinton didn't go out as much like Bush did and attack terrorists, and see we suffered as a result of it. So either way, we're pretty much screwed, I can't find any ground in which we aren't screwed. :XD:

Clinton should have retaliated when we were attacked under his Administration, which he did not. Bush retaliated towards the Taliban when we were attacked and have thus assured us safety. Clinton let terrorists attack us without any retaliation..

 

That I %100 agree on. But Clinton didn't go out as much like Bush did and attack terrorists, and see we suffered as a result of it. So either way, we're pretty much screwed, I can't find any ground in which we aren't screwed. :XD:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clinton should have retaliated when we were attacked under his Administration, which he did not. Bush retaliated towards the Taliban when we were attacked and have thus assured us safety. Clinton let terrorists attack us without any retaliation..

You were saying earlier we shouldn't attack them as well, but now your criticizing someone else for not doing so?

 

 

That I %100 agree on. But Clinton didn't go out as much like Bush did and attack terrorists, and see we suffered as a result of it. So either way, we're pretty much screwed, I can't find any ground in which we aren't screwed. :XD:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clinton should have retaliated when we were attacked under his Administration, which he did not. Bush retaliated towards the Taliban when we were attacked and have thus assured us safety. Clinton let terrorists attack us without any retaliation..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You were saying earlier we shouldn't attack them as well, but now your criticizing someone else for not doing so?

Maybe I phrased it incorrectly. We should not attack just because wrong doing is happening in the country if it is not affecting us. An attack in retaliation or defense is acceptable, but only to slaughter the enemy.

Maybe I phrased it incorrectly. We should not attack just because wrong doing is happening in the country if it is not affecting us. An attack in retaliation or defense is acceptable, but only to slaughter the enemy.

That's what we did with Afghanistan, but then we got pulled into Iraq, or rather, pulled ourselves into Iraq. And now we're facing crisis with Iran. I swear it will never stop, it's just one big chain of reactions.

 

Maybe I phrased it incorrectly. We should not attack just because wrong doing is happening in the country if it is not affecting us. An attack in retaliation or defense is acceptable, but only to slaughter the enemy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's what we did with Afghanistan, but then we got pulled into Iraq, or rather, pulled ourselves into Iraq. And now we're facing crisis with Iran. I swear it will never stop, it's just one big chain of reactions.

That's exactly my point. We retaliated against the Taliban to assure safety. What we did in Iraq is not related to the Taliban, and interfering was a mistake just like it would be a mistake to interfere in Darfur. They have not attacked us.

Well, you're all aware of Darfur, Sudan and the killings equaling estimates of upwards of 400,000 Sudanese. This event has been going on for ages, but has recently gained more attention between 2003 and now. The history behind the whole event is very intricate, so I'd suggest reading this if you don't know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The possibility of a mass genocide is on the rise, and my question to you is how we can stop this? With the war in Iraq keeping busy the USA, and the UN, EU, NATO, and some of the USA and other large countries left to deal with the issue, what can we do to stop this? Do you think it is possible? Is Darfur left to suffer, or are their solutions, how can we solve this?

It's a tough situation, no doubt and i'm pretty sure Australia has been accepting lots of Sudanese migrants of late. Don't take my word for it though. Africa is a really screwed up place in terms of civil wars, corruption, tryants and the like and unfortunately I don't see that changing any time soon.

I love how the UN will come and complain about humanitarianism in Iraq, but when thousands of people are actively being eradicated, they don't do anything.

It just shows how powerless the UN has become. Twenty years ago we would have had blue-helmets all over Darfur with G-36 Peacemakers. Bosnia was the UN's last foray into active peacekeeping. Makes you wonder where all that money we give them goes to. Certainly not into troop training and weapons. Or even aid packages, for that matter.

This is funny(well not really)

its just random...alot of my debater friends are debating this in...debate :P

I was just thinking about them when i saw this post

That's exactly my point. We retaliated against the Taliban to assure safety. What we did in Iraq is not related to the Taliban, and interfering was a mistake just like it would be a mistake to interfere in Darfur. They have not attacked us.

I agree with you on many of the things you have said Locke although I have to disagree with you on this. I believe the US was completely justified in going into Iraq and deposing Saddam. I just think Bush screwed up in how he went about it and what to do after the dictator was overthrown.

I am like you in that I believe the US should not be involved in anything that doesn't have anything to do with their national security. Iraq did have ramifications on the security of the US. Earlier you made the point that weakness invites further aggression on a country and that a country has to retaliate or face further attacks. I completely agree with this statement. To me Iraq falls into this category.

Why? The first Gulf War by my understanding never officially ended. A cease fire treaty was signed under terms of surrender for Iraq to comply by so that the war could stop. Iraq broke the terms of the cease fire treaty repeatedly which gave the US the right and the obligation to demand the terms be complied with even if it meant forcing them to at the end of a cannon. Failure to force Iraq to maintain the peace treaty showed weakness. Again this was Clinton not backing up US policy and making the Arab World think of us as having no backbone which invited things like 9/11, the US embassy bombings, the USS Cole being attacked, etc.

If I was a country that had the US declare war on me I would sign a peace treaty in a heartbeat with them and then wait for them to take their army home... wait a few years and then break the treaty if they aren't going to retaliate. If Iraq could get away with it why couldn't I? This directly undermines the security of the US and the world as a whole.

Bush should have gone into Iraq to depose Saddam for breaking the peace treaty and used his reasons like possible WMD's and other things that he used as his primary reason instead as side topics that would just be a bonus if it really was found Saddam had developed WMD's. Doing this would guaranteed there wouldn't have been any political embarrassment when no major WMD's were found. (Who knows... maybe they are there and Saddam had them hidden away amazingly well and had the people burying them shot to keep the secrecy... we may never know the full truth... If he hadn't had any WMD's I don't see why he would kick the UN weapon's inspectors out of the country. Either way it wouldn't have mattered in this scenario.)

This way US peace treaties would be assured of being complied with in the future. The US doesn't appear weak willed. Legally the US has every right to invade. The US could have appealed to it's allies from the first Gulf War explaining how this wasn't a new war but merely a continuation of the first Gulf War because the terms of cease fire had been broken. Politically the US would have had the upper hand and been right to act this way.

To sum it up the war in Iraq is the right war for the wrong reasons in my opinion.

 

That's exactly my point. We retaliated against the Taliban to assure safety. What we did in Iraq is not related to the Taliban, and interfering was a mistake just like it would be a mistake to interfere in Darfur. They have not attacked us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree with you on many of the things you have said Locke although I have to disagree with you on this. I believe the US was completely justified in going into Iraq and deposing Saddam. I just think Bush screwed up in how he went about it and what to do after the dictator was overthrown.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am like you in that I believe the US should not be involved in anything that doesn't have anything to do with their national security. Iraq did have ramifications on the security of the US. Earlier you made the point that weakness invites further aggression on a country and that a country has to retaliate or face further attacks. I completely agree with this statement. To me Iraq falls into this category.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why? The first Gulf War by my understanding never officially ended. A cease fire treaty was signed under terms of surrender for Iraq to comply by so that the war could stop. Iraq broke the terms of the cease fire treaty repeatedly which gave the US the right and the obligation to demand the terms be complied with even if it meant forcing them to at the end of a cannon. Failure to force Iraq to maintain the peace treaty showed weakness. Again this was Clinton not backing up US policy and making the Arab World think of us as having no backbone which invited things like 9/11, the US embassy bombings, the USS Cole being attacked, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If I was a country that had the US declare war on me I would sign a peace treaty in a heartbeat with them and then wait for them to take their army home... wait a few years and then break the treaty if they aren't going to retaliate. If Iraq could get away with it why couldn't I? This directly undermines the security of the US and the world as a whole.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bush should have gone into Iraq to depose Saddam for breaking the peace treaty and used his reasons like possible WMD's and other things that he used as his primary reason instead as side topics that would just be a bonus if it really was found Saddam had developed WMD's. Doing this would guaranteed there wouldn't have been any political embarrassment when no major WMD's were found. (Who knows... maybe they are there and Saddam had them hidden away amazingly well and had the people burying them shot to keep the secrecy... we may never know the full truth... If he hadn't had any WMD's I don't see why he would kick the UN weapon's inspectors out of the country. Either way it wouldn't have mattered in this scenario.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This way US peace treaties would be assured of being complied with in the future. The US doesn't appear weak willed. Legally the US has every right to invade. The US could have appealed to it's allies from the first Gulf War explaining how this wasn't a new war but merely a continuation of the first Gulf War because the terms of cease fire had been broken. Politically the US would have had the upper hand and been right to act this way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To sum it up the war in Iraq is the right war for the wrong reasons in my opinion.

This seems to be turning away form the situation in Darfur, but I would like to comment further on this.

I was indeed at the Stop The War Coalition march in Hyde Park, London, March 2003. In my opinion, I don't see how the Americans can justify the reasons that they have given thus far for the war in Iraq. It's turned that Britain has a guilty part to play in this as well, with the accusations of the "sexed up dosier" on WMD in Iraq and the 45 minute claim. To be frank, you have to dread into what the American and British actions after the war were. Of course, Bush (or rather the US Army) has mishandled the situation engrossingly. I don't blame G. Bush 100% for this, the Americans seem to have a history of not knowing how to fight wars properly, and especially what to do after. The European countries have a much grater knowledge on war-time mobilisation, simply because we've been around about 1,500 years longer than the USA.

To look at why they went to war, you have to look at what happened after the war was over, behind closed doors. Oil rigs are running fine, as are pipelines, yet Baghdad suffers constantly from Electricity shortages, which the US Administration admits is nothing to do with "insurgent" (off-topic: I like this name, considering they were there before the US/UK coaltion turned up! lol) activity. This beckons the question, in a world plagued by fossil fuel shortages, where is the oil going?

Anyways, tI've not been studying the Sudanese Civil War in any great detail, so I can't really comment. However, for both Iraq and Sudan, we should look at Russia and the Bolsheviks for understanding of what needs to happen for true peace to be restored. On March 3rd, 1917, Tsar Nicholas II was overthrown in a popular movement. Revolution had sparked off. The Provisional Committee formed to make the Provisional Government of Russia, and because it was mainly made up of middle-class liberals, was afraid of the growing threat of the workers' revolution. It tried to stop it, much in the same way that the US Army is trying to quell unrest in Iraq, however, it was ultimetely unable to satisfy the needs of the starving war-time workers. In these conditions, the Bolsheviks became more popular and seized power. The whole point of this story is that a popular revolution cannot be stopped via suppresion. The US army cannot to the sectarian violence in Iraq through combat, the will of the people is just too strong, and it's gone beyond a battle of "winning hearts and minds".

Iraq, and I would use this philosophy for Darfur as well, HAS to undergo a revolution; and if during that revolution, the country has to split in three, so be it! Iraq's just lost an autocrat, there's a massive vacuum of power in Iraq, and a full-scale overhaul of the government is needed to restore a parliament that can deal with the violence. Likewise, the Sudanese Government seems incapable of dealing with the vilence by itself, or with the UN Security Council's backing, thus unless help comes soon, it will have to start making concessions.

What can we do? Well I'm sorry to say, but there's physically not a lot we can do. The obvious one is to question the condidates running for elections in your local area via, and see what they would propose to deal with the situation in Darfur.

As for the US, I can understand why it would need a base of power (ie. Iraq) to monitor terrorist activity in the Middle-East, and to bascially do their dirty work for them. However, there are other way to do this than to attack every country with a terrorist cell... mnearly every country in the world would have to have war declared upon them in order of this philosophy. The way to do this is to invest in countries... picking wars will only make the US more unpopular and thus more susceptable to attack. Investing will make the population of a country see more favourably upon them.

I have a post like this also. :

I know you do, that's how I found this post :

[quote name="Ginger_Warrior

I was indeed at the Stop The War Coalition march in Hyde Park' date=' London, March 2003. In my opinion, I don't see how the Americans can justify the reasons that they have given thus far for the war in Iraq. It's turned that Britain has a guilty part to play in this as well, with the accusations of the "sexed up dosier" on WMD in Iraq and the 45 minute claim. To be frank, you have to dread into what the American and British actions after the war were. Of course, Bush (or rather the US Army) has mishandled the situation engrossingly. I don't blame G. Bush 100% for this, the Americans seem to have a history of not knowing how to fight wars properly, and especially what to do after. The European countries have a much grater knowledge on war-time mobilisation, simply because we've been around about 1,500 years longer than the USA. [/quote]

lol, not to turn this into a flame war but, WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT WAR! this war in iraq is screwed, yes, but not due to g bush or the US army. this war getting out of hand because the liberals keep telling the army, navy, marine corps, and air force how to fight this war from the comfort of our capitel. ill put up a post telling how the average front line soldier feels about iraq.

anyway, victor, good post, but the only way africa will be helped is if we kill (did i say that! #-o ) all the UN leaders and find some guys who will take charge and get things done in th UN.