Unilateral or Mutlilateral Intervention in Sudan ?

[syzygy]

the sudanese gov't should not survive their latest genocidal campaign unscathed. for too long,
they have waged a campaign to rid the state of animist and christian peoples. through mass
murder, forced conversions, forced relocations, military and paramilitary campaigns against
civilian targets, their onslaught has been merciless and unremitting.

 

[arsbanned]

Nahh, no oil there. I would think another ME country would be next on Bush's list.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Nahh, no oil there. I would think another ME country would be next on Bush's list.

Perhaps this explains why the U.N. has turned a blind-eye toward the atrocities taking place...no oil to trade food for in Sudan.

 

[Bumrush99]

The UN only gets involved when the Israelis kill a couple of terrorists and when the US protects its own interests. When Muslims slaughter people it is ok.

 

[f95toli]

If the security councel passes a resolution I think it will be mostly EU countries this time (with political support from RUssia and US), several EU countries have had forces (small so far) in Tchad for some time now (mainly France).

And just to clarify someting: There is no formal way for EU as an organization to get involved in a conflict, it might be possible in the future but so far they are just talking about it.
I don't think it is likely to happen any time soon; in part because the US is trying to stop it (competition with NATO)

 

[Kibbo]

It should be taken by whatever body or institution can do it first. Time is the biggest factor.

And the EU has alot of negotiations going on regarding unifying their foreign policy. They've been trying to do it for years. The division over the Iraq war has been a bit of a road block recently. When they finally get it, it will be a force to be reckoned with. There are institutioanal bodies within the EU that could implement a united foreign policy, but the member countries have been resistant towards giving them teeth. And the lack infrastructure right now (military command sytems, diplomatic corps etc)

 

[maddogchen]

Nothings going to happen except a lot of talk and a whole lot of killings. Oh wait maybe some sanctions. But thats just sanctioning the killings. "look we slapped them on the wrist, so what if the killings continue, we 'punished' them"

 

[JackStorm]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Nahh, no oil there. I would think another ME country would be next on Bush's list.

Perhaps this explains why the U.N. has turned a blind-eye toward the atrocities taking place...no oil to trade food for in Sudan.

I hate to point out the obvious (Actually, I don't, so I'll do it anyway) But you know what? You're both right. Neither the US or the U.N are doing anything (other than perhaps 'debating' the issue)because there's nothing to be gained. Anyone who thinks either the US or the U.N cares about this situation is deluding themselves. Nothing will happen untill someone has something to gain from helping there, be it for money, power or just to gain good PR.

 

[Zephyr106]

Originally posted by: Bumrush99
The UN only gets involved when the Israelis kill a couple of terrorists and when the US protects its own interests. When Muslims slaughter people it is ok.

LOL we have another expert here.

Zephyr

 

[Moonbeam]

Only a touchy feely democrat would send troops and only if it didn't get him unelected.

What the world needs is a volunteer army funded by private citizens of the world that is willing and able to act on behalf of such economically worthless people. Perhaps they could put a bounty of the heads of the Sudanese government. Opportunistic killing usually drops off when the price is the life of the killer.

 

[LunarRay]

"I looked, and there before me was a pale horse! Its rider was named Death, and Hades was following close behind him. They were given power over a fourth of the earth to kill by sword, famine and plague, and by the wild beasts of the earth."

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Nahh, no oil there. I would think another ME country would be next on Bush's list.

There is oil there.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: f95toli
If the security councel passes a resolution I think it will be mostly EU countries this time (with political support from RUssia and US), several EU countries have had forces (small so far) in Tchad for some time now (mainly France).

And just to clarify someting: There is no formal way for EU as an organization to get involved in a conflict, it might be possible in the future but so far they are just talking about it.
I don't think it is likely to happen any time soon; in part because the US is trying to stop it (competition with NATO)

The EU has declared that it's not even a genocide.

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: f95toli
If the security councel passes a resolution I think it will be mostly EU countries this time (with political support from RUssia and US), several EU countries have had forces (small so far) in Tchad for some time now (mainly France).

And just to clarify someting: There is no formal way for EU as an organization to get involved in a conflict, it might be possible in the future but so far they are just talking about it.
I don't think it is likely to happen any time soon; in part because the US is trying to stop it (competition with NATO)

The EU has declared that it's not even a genocide.

So whats the EU declared upon number that makes something a genocide?

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: maddogchen

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: f95toli
If the security councel passes a resolution I think it will be mostly EU countries this time (with political support from RUssia and US), several EU countries have had forces (small so far) in Tchad for some time now (mainly France).

And just to clarify someting: There is no formal way for EU as an organization to get involved in a conflict, it might be possible in the future but so far they are just talking about it.
I don't think it is likely to happen any time soon; in part because the US is trying to stop it (competition with NATO)

The EU has declared that it's not even a genocide.

So whats the EU declared upon number that makes something a genocide?

No clue. They sent a team there and they stated that they found no evidence of a genocide. But then they say there is widespread violence there with little government effor to stop it.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: maddogchen

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: f95toli
If the security councel passes a resolution I think it will be mostly EU countries this time (with political support from RUssia and US), several EU countries have had forces (small so far) in Tchad for some time now (mainly France).

And just to clarify someting: There is no formal way for EU as an organization to get involved in a conflict, it might be possible in the future but so far they are just talking about it.
I don't think it is likely to happen any time soon; in part because the US is trying to stop it (competition with NATO)

The EU has declared that it's not even a genocide.

So whats the EU declared upon number that makes something a genocide?

6 million.

 

[Martin]

let's be realistic: no one gives a crap about people killing people in africa, so no one will do anything.

 

[Hossenfeffer]

Ugh, my mother-in-law works in Sudan. Wish she'd pack up and come back to the States.

 

[imported_Aelius]

There has been more people killed in Africa in the past 20-30 years than in every major war ever waged.

The Nazis are not even a drop in the bucket compared to this mess.

As a whole the #s gota be appraoching 100million in the last 50 years. If not way more.

AIDS alone probably accounts for 30 million.

I'm only throwing broad numbers around because quite honestly no one has done a major report on this subject. You can make a somewhat educated guess based on the millions that die each year due to war, famine, disese etc.

100 million is probably a very conservative number.

Why is there no report?

Anyone care?

You already know the answer to that.

 

[arsbanned]

There is oil there.

Yeah and there's oil here under my azz, but we're not relying on that are we? Seriously, the African oil "infrastucture" (I use the term loosly) does not compare to the ME. Or do you have links to school me on how the African oil industry is a contender in the World market? Please share. If it's true then yes, I would wonder why we're not getting more involved there.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

There is oil there.

Yeah and there's oil here under my azz, but we're not relying on that are we? Seriously, the African oil "infrastucture" (I use the term loosly) does not compare to the ME. Or do you have links to school me on how the African oil industry is a contender in the World market? Please share. If it's true then yes, I would wonder why we're not getting more involved there.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/sudan.html

As of January 2004, Sudan's estimated proven reserves of crude oil stood at 563 million barrels, more than twice the 262 million barrels estimated in 2001. As of June 2004, crude oil production was averaging about 345,000 barrels per day (bbl/d), up from 270,000 bbl/d during 2003. Crude oil production has been rising steadily since the completion of a major export pipeline in July 1999 and is expected by Energy Minister Awad al-Jaz to surpass 500,000 bbl/d by the end of 2005. It is possible that Sudanese production could reach 750,000 bbl/d by the end of 2006 if planned production increases at new and existing fields progress as planned. In August 2001, in recognition of Sudan's growing significance as an oil exporter, OPEC granted the country observer status at OPEC meetings.

Oil accounts for about 70% of their total exports.

Last I heard, France and China had significant oil interests there.