How 'bout it. We never get touchy-feely on an effective level unless there’s something in it for us. Between *Hotel Rwanda * and Sometimes In April, I’ve lost faith in the humanitarian aspect of American intervention. The fact is there’s not much there we give a shit about, and our participation in a solution will be nothing close to what we COULD do to stop the inhumanity.
And I understand we can’t be everything to everyone on the planet. I’d just like to hear some honesty from the politicians. “The price is too high for the level of payoff we’d receive, so we’ll toss 'em a box of band aids and get back to the business of the Middle East.”
I think most of the assistance they receive will come from humanitarian groups who are independent of the U.S. Government. And it won’t be enough.
OK, so you have one website quoting one of their own sources about sighting a few Eastern bloc 1950’s tanks and artillery that may be Chinese, Russian, Pakistani, Egyptian or from any number of Eastern Bloc countries that produce them in the millions, and where in there does it say anything about Chinese troops in Sudan?
Just to clarify: I don’t doubt that there are substantial amounts of Chinese weapons in Sudan, just like there are in most African countries, but Russia is the main supplier of the big ticket items, and your implication that the Sudanese military is some kind of Chinese armed and funded proxy army is entirely incorrect.
To me darfur is Somalia times 100. It presents the same problems and ambiguities as Somalia. people forget that originally, the US military role in Somalia was gaurding food shipments and aid workers. Only later (did Adm. moorer0 decide to indulge in “nation building”. Basically, we had a choice in Somalia:
-either acknowledge the most successful warlord (Aideed) as ruler, and work with him
-(or) decide to move him out and replace him with somebody judged friendlier
Given the disaster in Somalia, i would say that sending US troops is not a good option. Why can’t the AU forces keep the peace? in any case, my prediction is; within 3 days of landing in Darfur, the US troops would be 'the enemy".
If you are so sure the Chinese are not a driving factor in this, why not just provide some cites and be on your way? We all know the media doesn’t always get things 100% right, and Spartydog’s story seems pretty believable to me. Since I don’t know much about it, I can’t really argue one way or another. But you do seem to know much about it- at least, enough to claim Spartydog is wrong- and in the spirit of this messege board you should share that knowledge so we can all learn, not just rail about how impossible it is for China to be involved without any sort of proof.
I don’t understand this meme that Somalia was a “disaster”. The US lose 18 troops and a few helicopters in one ill-planned and ill-executed mission, in which they still managed to achieve their objectives. That’s not a “disaster”, That’s like a bad week of traffic in a major American city, or a bad week in Iraq. The movie might have made it seem like a disaster but in the big scheme of things it was hardly a blip. This is the reason why Bin Laden thinks he will one day defeat the US. Dhafur certainly is “doable”, and the US military is vastly better trained and equiped to deal with this kind of war than it was in 1993, but it would be unrealistic to expect anything less than a hundred or so casualties and still make a difference. Does the United States collectively have the intestinal fortitude to do the right thing?
We’re having a similar sort of debate in Canada about whether we should send troops there. It’s a pipe dream for us since we don’t have any troops or equipment available to send, but there seems to be a stupid meme going around that Sudan will be “traditional peacekeeping”, and thus more amiable to Canadian public opinion. The FACT that even UN peacekeepers have to mount offensive operations and be extremely aggressive and heavily armed (look at recent UN sanctioned Pakistani operations in the Congo, the British operation in Sierra Leone and French in Cote d 'Ivoire for examples of why this is true, and the Balkans for an example of why anything less will not work) in order to make a difference is happily lost.
So why are you asking me for a cite? Would you like me to provide proof that Iraq didn’t have WMDs as well?
I suppose if he meant the second part literally, then I can’t argue with that. Killings in the US and Canada go on with Chinese rifles too, but we don’t seem to be to worried about that.
It looks like you didn’t even read the article that I cited. If you will look at it carefully you will get a sense of the number of Chinese that have been located in Sudan for various purposes having to do with their oil interests. If you read further down you will see that all of the information in the article is very well sourced. Human Rights Watch is a very reputable organization.
Antecdotally, I have been told the same or similar information from representatives of other NGO’s that work in Sudan.
You choose to just blow it off with no supporting documentation. Fine, you are going to believe what you will anyway. Don’t let any facts get in the way.
Leaving aside for the moment the accuracy of your source - it mostly seems to rely on isolated and anecdotal evidence, POINT OUT to me where, in the report, it is stated that Oil Wells in Sudan are guarded by Chinese soldiers and I will gladly eat crow. In fact it seems to say exactly the opposite:
kawaiitentaclebeast, before you start using the term “rubbish” do your homework. It’s time you learned to do your own research instead of sitting on your lazy opinion.
Google - china sudan oil - read the long list of articles.
Then come back and tell us how the oil reserves and the Chinese interest in the Sudan oil industry have nothing to do with the problems there.
It’s a lame techinique to question the validity of my sources when you provide none of your own.
Well then, moving right along…
The right wing are having a field day dancing over the inconsistencies of the left, vis a vis opposition to Iraq and support for the Dhafur mission. I’m a liberal but I am forced to conclude the conservatives have a better grasp of the military realities involved than Clooney et al. The direct comparison is somewhat of a simplification, but that is what the US public always stops at anyway: Simplifications. The average American doesn’t like going into specific details that only ivory tower liberal eggheads are concerned about, I think this piece does more to discredit the liberal hive mind than help it.
.Who can see the suffering of the innocent people in Dhafur and not be move to tears. I watch a film on BBC news that showed their conditions a couple of years ago. These people were in the desert no shade etc. The soldiers came through with horses and Jeeps and tore and burned the Blankets and sheets they were using for shade. The people who were in theses camps were not bothering anyone hust trying to live,some of the children were sick and dying!
I just heard Mr. Putin of Russia saying one of the problems of Russia was lack of population;perhaps he could take in a lot of those refugees at least untill they had some peace in their country. It would help Russia’s population problem and help the Sudanese at the same time.
As I understand it the problem in Dhafur is one of politics,and not an easy solution, in the mean time there are too many unecessary deaths of the innocent.
