Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Am I the only one who get flashbacks from Monthy Python's life of brian seeing how the crisis in Sudan has been tackeled? I considder it rather horrific that such crimes can be left to go on for a quite relevant period of time directly under the eyes of an observing world without any form of interference. Despite of teh fact that it is obvious the local government has no interest in stopping the slaughter, we insist on using diplomatic measures only. Is not the intention of diplomacy to achieve something through peaceful means? Here it was obvious diplomacy would not be effective, yet several months were wasted on it merely as a formality. I do beleive diplomatic means should be exhausted before one interferes with peacekeeping troops, but if you have a policy of always waiting 3 months before you take action, this means in practice that any villians or war criminals know that they have 3 months of "diplomatic imunity" during which they can do whatever they want. Failure to interfere in time will in the long run result in crimes against humanity being carried out as quickly and brutally as possible in order to "get finished" before the traditional diplomatic paralysis time has passed. Surely, the purpose of diplomacy should be to give governments an incentive to solve things peacefully rather than to give those who carry out these crimes a head start.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    what is happeining in Dafur is more than a humanity crisis, it is in my opinion Genocide and cultural imperialism, which the Arabs have been doing in Africa for ages. The world won't respond because they are either suffering from "Africa fatigue" or just don't see africans worth it sad but in some cases true. Did you know that blacks live in bondage and indentured slavery in Sudan and Mauritania yet even though it is published in newsweek no one still seem to give a crap. yet you hear about every bomb thrown in the Israel-Arab conflict
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    realpotik for you
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Am I the only one who get flashbacks from Monthy Python's life of brian seeing how the crisis in Sudan has been tackeled? I considder it rather horrific that such crimes can be left to go on for a quite relevant period of time directly under the eyes of an observing world without any form of interference. Despite of teh fact that it is obvious the local government has no interest in stopping the slaughter, we insist on using diplomatic measures only. Is not the intention of diplomacy to achieve something through peaceful means? Here it was obvious diplomacy would not be effective, yet several months were wasted on it merely as a formality. I do beleive diplomatic means should be exhausted before one interferes with peacekeeping troops, but if you have a policy of always waiting 3 months before you take action, this means in practice that any villians or war criminals know that they have 3 months of "diplomatic imunity" during which they can do whatever they want. Failure to interfere in time will in the long run result in crimes against humanity being carried out as quickly and brutally as possible in order to "get finished" before the traditional diplomatic paralysis time has passed. Surely, the purpose of diplomacy should be to give governments an incentive to solve things peacefully rather than to give those who carry out these crimes a head start.
    They have no oil.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I was told that the arabs may have found oil were the Blacks are, again not fact just a theory
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dajo123)
    They have no oil.
    I think this is abut more than Oil. Peopel are very quick to explain all US foreign policy in terms of Oil, but I think it has more to do with political comfortability. Everyone knows that France will try to claim that any US action in Dafur shows that teh Us is a war mongering Imperialist state, similarily the US will accuse France of double standards if they interfere in Dafur after being so against interfeance in Iraq. I think it should be rather self evident that sending peace keepers to Dafur is necessary, and Im really bothered that wolrd politicians considder it more important to play their cards right with regard to their allies rather than doing something about the horrible situation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    I think this is abut more than Oil. Peopel are very quick to explain all US foreign policy in terms of Oil, but I think it has more to do with political comfortability. Everyone knows that France will try to claim that any US action in Dafur shows that teh Us is a war mongering Imperialist state, similarily the US will accuse France of double standards if they interfere in Dafur after being so against interfeance in Iraq. I think it should be rather self evident that sending peace keepers to Dafur is necessary, and Im really bothered that wolrd politicians considder it more important to play their cards right with regard to their allies rather than doing something about the horrible situation.
    I disagree, the US didn’t do sh*t to stop genocide in Rwanda (nearly 1 million dead), why? no oil.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dajo123)
    I disagree, the US didn’t do sh*t to stop genocide in Rwanda (nearly 1 million dead), why? no oil.
    Cmon, you cant blaim the US for Rwanda when the whole of Europe didnt do anything either. By this reasoning Norway did not interfere because Rwanda had no Oil. Ever since the gulf war every US decision on foreign policy has been assumed to be about Oil by every hippie on earth. Surely that is why the US support Israel and not Iran, because Israel has such a huge Oil supply...... not. Please realise that international politics is about more than simply making the US a scapegoat for every European failure and scream that they only think about Oil. That the US didnt interfere in Rwanda does not excuse teh fact that Europe has simply been sitting on its big fat but without doing **** about the situation in Sudan. If you assume that it is up to teh US to take care of every problem there is, then you cant complain when they do not do things the way Europe wants them to.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    I think this is abut more than Oil. Peopel are very quick to explain all US foreign policy in terms of Oil, but I think it has more to do with political comfortability. Everyone knows that France will try to claim that any US action in Dafur shows that teh Us is a war mongering Imperialist state, similarily the US will accuse France of double standards if they interfere in Dafur after being so against interfeance in Iraq. I think it should be rather self evident that sending peace keepers to Dafur is necessary, and Im really bothered that wolrd politicians considder it more important to play their cards right with regard to their allies rather than doing something about the horrible situation.
    Go sign up for the duty and we`ll gladly see you off mate. If you not willing to do it yourself then maybe you should not be so damning.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Cmon, you cant blaim the US for Rwanda when the whole of Europe didnt do anything either. By this reasoning Norway did not interfere because Rwanda had no Oil. Ever since the gulf war every US decision on foreign policy has been assumed to be about Oil by every hippie on earth. Surely that is why the US support Israel and not Iran, because Israel has such a huge Oil supply...... not. Please realise that international politics is about more than simply making the US a scapegoat for every European failure and scream that they only think about Oil. That the US didnt interfere in Rwanda does not excuse teh fact that Europe has simply been sitting on its big fat but without doing **** about the situation in Sudan. If you assume that it is up to teh US to take care of every problem there is, then you cant complain when they do not do things the way Europe wants them to.

    I am not a hippy

    I do not believe the US should solve every problem

    I agree that Europe does f*ck all

    Unfortunately Sudan is part of a very long list of countries in crisis, Zimbabwe, Tibet, The Democratic Republic of the Congo and Sierra Leone (to name a few) are all equally in need of help, but it seems the west will not solve the worlds problems, unless it benefits them in some way.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AntiLiberal)
    Go sign up for the duty and we`ll gladly see you off mate. If you not willing to do it yourself then maybe you should not be so damning.
    Do you seriously beleive that that is teh reason why the US would not interfere? because they worry about their troops? Take a look at Iraq, its a total mess and they invaded on teh basis of very shakey inteligence information. One would beleive that if it is necessary to nvade a country with the military power as Iraq on these grounds, then sending peace keeping troops to an undeveloped african country in order to put an end to an ongoing genocide should be a formality. Im quite certain most of the forces now desperately trying to controll the streets of Baghdad would much rather be sent to Dafur.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dajo123)
    I am not a hippy

    I do not believe the US should solve every problem

    I agree that Europe does f*ck all

    Unfortunately Sudan is part of a very long list of countries in crisis, Zimbabwe, Tibet, The Democratic Republic of the Congo and Sierra Leone (to name a few) are all equally in need of help, but it seems the west will not solve the worlds problems, unless it benefits them in some way.
    Put in that general form I agree with you.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think people are missing the bigger picture. Nubia (Sudan/ethiopia) is the worlds first civilization pre-dating that of Egypt, which the egyptians managed to conquer and spread their islamic culture. This is what is happening present day and it needs to be stopped. People think Blacks suffering started in the trans atlantic slave trade, it was the trans-saharan and the arabs. You may think i'm another extremist, but this is true. It's the wiping out of race pushing them further south, if things don't change i'm sure in thousands of years we will be talking about Blacks in the same breath as arawaks of america.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    There has been starvation and civil wars in Sudan- indeed, all over Africa- for many years. Dafur is another. The causes are simple- the usual ones: shortage of land, greed for power, race, religion. There is no reason to think that intervention from outside would do much good unfortunately. Europeans intervened in- invaded- Africa before and it did little good for the Africans. There is no reason to suppose that idealism will be better than greed as a reason for intervening.
    I was there nearly thirty years ago, and no doubt young and optimistic peole would be willing to go now. They may do a little good, but not much. If the peoples of Africa are willing to be ruled by the kind of people who rule them now, this is what will happen. Given the problems of Africa- land shortage, AIDS and other diseases, poor communications, rapidly increasing population, drought and floods- even honest and competent governments would have problems. Add tribalism, religious prejudices, kleptocrats and there is an almost insoluble set of problems. Any answer must be produced by Africans.
    Certainly "immediate discussion" is damn all use.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    I think this is abut more than Oil. Peopel are very quick to explain all US foreign policy in terms of Oil, but I think it has more to do with political comfortability. Everyone knows that France will try to claim that any US action in Dafur shows that teh Us is a war mongering Imperialist state, similarily the US will accuse France of double standards if they interfere in Dafur after being so against interfeance in Iraq. I think it should be rather self evident that sending peace keepers to Dafur is necessary, and Im really bothered that wolrd politicians considder it more important to play their cards right with regard to their allies rather than doing something about the horrible situation.
    I was about to disagree until I re-read. France is actually pushing for action (hence won't accuse the US of anything). The yanks are dragging their feet (when it comes to Africa all they can think of is Black Hawk Down). I think it's true to say that UK and especially France are alot more pro-active when it comes to Africa, possibly because they feel a responsibility due to the colonial history. The Americans however tend to resort to diplomatic action (which they never deem entirely suitable in the middle east).
    I think the only country the yanks would ever get involved in would be Nigeria - again following the oil.

    However the thing which truly, truly pisses me off more than anything, is that if the american reeled in some of their blatant extravagance (has anyone ever seen the size of an average american car?) then they wouldn't need as much oil in the first place.

    Back to the topic in hand though, I think Sudan needs serious action, but the problem once more is that it is against arabs, and arab states tend to see only in colour not black and white. They should realise that this isn't a muslim vs Christian thing (well it is to a point) but an arab vs black thing. So interference by the west is not some sort of Christian crusade.
    J
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by AntiLiberal)
    Go sign up for the duty and we`ll gladly see you off mate. If you not willing to do it yourself then maybe you should not be so damning.
    AS a country we pay for our armed forces of professional soldiers. Hence if we as a country want to sort someting, we order them in. If they don't like, they can f*ck off onto the dole.
    You schizzle?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dajo123)
    Unfortunately Sudan is part of a very long list of countries in crisis, Zimbabwe,
    crisis?

    Tibet, The Democratic Republic of the Congo and Sierra Leone (to name a few) are all equally in need of help, but it seems the west will not solve the worlds problems, unless it benefits them in some way.
    you have to justify sending men and resources into countries that have absolutely no interest in helping themselves. its all very well to suggest humanitarian missions when youre calling the shots from your armchair.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    you have to justify sending men and resources into countries that have absolutely no interest in helping themselves. its all very well to suggest humanitarian missions when youre calling the shots from your armchair.
    Agreed, if some people had there way Western countries would be pouring aid and troops into every country that is having a little bit of difficulty.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by foolfarian)
    I was about to disagree until I re-read. France is actually pushing for action (hence won't accuse the US of anything). The yanks are dragging their feet (when it comes to Africa all they can think of is Black Hawk Down). I think it's true to say that UK and especially France are alot more pro-active when it comes to Africa, possibly because they feel a responsibility due to the colonial history. The Americans however tend to resort to diplomatic action (which they never deem entirely suitable in the middle east).
    I think the only country the yanks would ever get involved in would be Nigeria - again following the oil.
    True up to a point, certainly the US appears to have no stomach for military intervention just yet (hence the time limit given to Sudan in the resolution supported by the US and most of the rest of the world). That said the USA have been very pro-active in recent years in Africa (cynics say due to oil which I will address in a minute), virtually solely American pressure ended Sudans long running civil war in the south. The USA carried out the traditional carrot/sticks negotiating technique with great effectiveness, they told Khartoum that if they went to the negotiating table, US contractors would be allowed to invest in the oil fields, Sudan would get some special trading privileges for a period of years etc etc, in contrast if they failed to negotiate and continued the cleansing of blacks in the south, they were told that the USA would backroll the SPLA (the southern black separatist force) and isolate the Khartoum government politically and economically. Cynics obviously argue the USA had a vested interest in ending the civil war because then the oil fields could be used, although this is somewhat unfair, the US government was genuinely concerned by human rights groups and crucially both the Christian lobby and black lobby supported strong action against Sudan for obvious reasons. To say that the USA is obsessed with the Somalia problem is unfair, US troops went to Liberia recently didn't they? There is by the way no oil there (i've noticed your one of those who points to oil to easily without consideration of other factors).

    (Original post by foolfarian)
    However the thing which truly, truly pisses me off more than anything, is that if the american reeled in some of their blatant extravagance (has anyone ever seen the size of an average american car?) then they wouldn't need as much oil in the first place.
    Absolutely spot on, the Americans huge dependence on foreign oil is largely self-inflicted and thus the fact that oil comes into consideration (along with other factors I hasten to add) is much of their own making.

    (Original post by foolfarian)
    Back to the topic in hand though, I think Sudan needs serious action, but the problem once more is that it is against arabs, and arab states tend to see only in colour not black and white. They should realise that this isn't a muslim vs Christian thing (well it is to a point) but an arab vs black thing. So interference by the west is not some sort of Christian crusade.
    J
    No it isn't, get your facts right! The war in the south was Arab Muslim againt Black non-muslim (mostly christian) the sad thing is the blacks in Darfur are overwhelmingly muslim.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by foolfarian)
    AS a country we pay for our armed forces of professional soldiers. Hence if we as a country want to sort someting, we order them in. If they don't like, they can f*ck off onto the dole.
    You schizzle?

    Spoken like a true liberal coward.
 
 
 
Poll
Were you ever put in isolation at school?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.