Nato to help effort in Darfur?

[Jersey Devil]

Indeed. Heard about this on BBC world news. Seems that African Union is asking for logistical help from NATO and NATO is considering it. Will be interesting to see how this turns out and if something will actually be done about this genocide.

What is sad is that the African Union really can't do anything in Darfur as it is. They can't even protect the people, they only have a mandate to protect themselves and observe the situation. Anyway, can NATO do this? They were created for the sole purpose of protecting Western Europe from the Soviet Union, can they really now intervene in African affairs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4490551.stm

Nato ponders Darfur support role

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40121000/jpg/_40121262_water-ap203.jpg
More than two million Darfur residents have been driven from their homes

Nato says it will consider a request by the African Union (AU) for support in Sudan's Darfur region, in what could be the alliance's first mission in Africa.
Nato said the AU - whose troops monitor a fragile truce between Darfur rebels, government forces and pro-government militias - is seeking logistical help.

Nato ambassadors agreed "exploratory talks" should begin, a spokesman said.

About 180,000 people have been killed in the two-year-old conflict in Western Sudan, according to the UN.

Another two million have been driven from their homes.

The Sudanese authorities and Darfur's pro-government Arab militias are accused of war crimes against the region's black African population.

The conflict began in early 2003 after a rebel group began attacking government targets.

The government says it is reining in the militias and abiding by the terms of last year's ceasefire - which is being monitored by 2,200 AU troops and observers.

The African Union is due discuss a significant expansion of its restricted mandate in Sudan when it meets in Addis Ababa on Thursday.

The Khartoum government has said it is opposed to the presence of any forces other than those from the AU.

[Severian]

Sudan: U.S. ally in the "war on terrorism" (http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/latimes611.html) (LA Times)

The Darfur rebels, on the other hand, reportedly include supporters of former regime official Hassan al-Turabi (now in jail). It was Turabi who invited Osama bin Laden to Sudan......

Just to be clear, I'm not calling for military intervention....just pointing out one reason why it hasn't happened.

[bed_of_nails]

I still believe that Darfur deserves help. When you are facing genocide every day, you will turn to anyone who can stop it. If the people you turn to first will not send military aid, you will turn to terrorism.

[t_wolves_fan]

Proof that the UN is useless, unless you need to sell some oil to stay in power a few months longer.

[bed_of_nails]

And yet the United States of Assholia has not helped at all.

Give me your poor, your starving, your huddled masses. But only if you are white.

[Jersey Devil]

Shut up, seriously, I don't want to see my thread be taken down to another flamefest.


Proof that the UN is useless, unless you need to sell some oil to stay in power a few months longer.

Let's be honest here, the UN can only intervene with the will of the Security Council and veto power makes it nearly impossible for anything to be done.

[Wolnosc-Solidarnosc]

While the UN is certainly in desparate need of reform I have yet to hear a viable alternative.

[Severian]

" Proof that the UN is useless, unless you need to sell some oil to stay in power a few months longer."

I'm always amused by people who think the UN and US are somehow opposed. In reality, the UN Security Council is a US tool...or nothing.

Anyway, there is one interest the U.S. might have in intervening: to further establish the precedent for intervention under humanitarian pretenses. Already pretty well accepted in the imperialist countries.

And to improve their image as people who really, truly care about "humanitarian crises". To prepare more interventions, basically.

But right now that's outweighed by the fact the Sudan regime is being helpful to Washington, and the fact U.S. forces are already overstretched.

[Wolnosc-Solidarnosc]

Right but if powerful states choose not to intervene you might end up with something like Rwanda. Here I'm speaking of intervention in general, not the Darfur case specifically.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Jersey [email protected] 2 2005, 02:26 AM
Shut up, seriously, I don't want to see my thread be taken down to another flamefest.


Proof that the UN is useless, unless you need to sell some oil to stay in power a few months longer.

Let's be honest here, the UN can only intervene with the will of the Security Council and veto power makes it nearly impossible for anything to be done.
Which security council nations are fighting against action in Darfur?

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/feb2005/sudn-f28.shtml

"An earlier US-backed resolution proposing sanctions was blocked in the Security Council by China, France and Russia. Subsequently, the US suggested military intervention into the region through a larger African Union (AU) force that would be paid for and controlled by the West—a proposal that had been backed by Britain and Australia."

I love this article, because it shows that the whacko left will whine and ***** for us to do something in Darfur and then the moment we do, they'll whine and ***** that we're only there for imperialistic reasons.

It'd be funny if it weren't true.

And yet, I'm sure that somehow this is still all the United States' fault.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Wolnosc-[email protected] 2 2005, 04:30 AM
Right but if powerful states choose not to intervene you might end up with something like Rwanda. Here I'm speaking of intervention in general, not the Darfur case specifically.
Yep, in which case we get chastised for doing nothing.


Perhaps the Whacko Left should introduce a new slogan:

"Hey United States: You can't do anything right, so just stop trying: we're going to protest anyway."

:D

[bed_of_nails]

So you wish to use our protests about Iraq against us? Why dont you go over and check out the thread that states Tony Blair was already talking about a regime change. Iraq was planned out basically. 9-11 just gave them a reason.

Lets look at the Bush plan of how things were supposed to be:

1: They had Weapons of Mass Destruction (Fuck Hanse Blix. What does he know?!)

2: They had links to (Insert Terrorist Organization here). (We just havent found them yet because they are hiding really really deep! Like sub-terrainian Nazi's deep).

3: We are there to liberate the people.

To me it seems that whenever Bush can't find a reason to invade Iraq, he makes one up!

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 02:01 PM
So you wish to use our protests about Iraq against us? Why dont you go over and check out the thread that states Tony Blair was already talking about a regime change. Iraq was planned out basically. 9-11 just gave them a reason.

Lets look at the Bush plan of how things were supposed to be:

1: They had Weapons of Mass Destruction (Fuck Hanse Blix. What does he know?!)

2: They had links to (Insert Terrorist Organization here). (We just havent found them yet because they are hiding really really deep! Like sub-terrainian Nazi's deep).

3: We are there to liberate the people.

To me it seems that whenever Bush can't find a reason to invade Iraq, he makes one up!
You're changing the subject. This thread isn't about Iraq, it's about Darfur.

But that's ok. I'll use your protests against you.

We've got the the thread's author saying we need to do something in Darfur to help people. Well, we had people saying we needed to do something in Iraq to help people too.

We did it, now you're in the streets.

If we went into Sudan, you'd be in the streets.

Immediately after whining and *****ing that the U.S. needs to "do something" in Sudan.

Are you people ever actually for anything, or just against everything (i.e. against our not doing anything in Sudan).

Interestingly enough, we went to the U.N. for approval to do something in Darfur, and they turned us down. When it came to Iraq, you told the U.S. to abide by the U.N.

Now you're upset that the U.S. is abiding by the U.N.

Which is it?

It's been official U.S. policy to change regimes in Iraq since 1998. Look up U.S. Public Law 105-338.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 06:30 AM
Yep, in which case we get chastised for doing nothing.

On the contrary. As I said in my first post, I'm not saying the U.S. should do anything. Just a bit of analysis. Is there any problem with the facts or reasoning of that analysis? You haven't even attempted to point to any.

It may be that Paris and others also oppose intervention...but that's never stopped Washington before.

Seems to me it's you who's whining. Everybody's so mean and unfair to poor little Uncle Sam.

Or perhaps you perceive inconsistency in the fact that some people favor intervention, but others don't? All critics of U.S. policy must agree, or it's just too confusing for you? Too hard to lump everybody together in an Axis of Evil?

[Severian]

Originally posted by Wolnosc-[email protected] 1 2005, 10:30 PM
Right but if powerful states choose not to intervene you might end up with something like Rwanda. Here I'm speaking of intervention in general, not the Darfur case specifically.
In fact, imperialist states did intervene in Rwanda. There was a UN force there, which did little. There was a French force, which did more....to slow the advance of the Rwandan Patriotic Front rebels, thereby prolonging the genocide.

Then we come to indirect intervention (military aid and so forth): France backed the old government, the U.S. backed the rebels. So the genocide was fueled not only by tribal antagonisms, but by the competition between two imperialist countries over spheres of influence.

Paris helped train the militias which carried out the genocide (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/04/22/news/rwanda.php)

French documentary filmmakers: Paris should admit its role in genocide. (http://allafrica.com/stories/200504290034.html)

[Jersey Devil]

Give me a break, the war between the Hutus and Tutsis dates back the the catagorization of race by the Belgians and Germans. Yes, the French supported the government and the U.S tried to negociate a peace deal between the Rwandan Patriotic Front and the government. How is that relevant, it has nothing to do with why the war started and either way, the Rwandan Patriotic Front ultimately did end the genocide. You can't blame everything on the U.S, especially when there is no factual basis for your assertion.

[Severian]

Shouldn't you be accusing me of blaming everything on France? I did provide a certain factual basis for that assertion, and I'm far from the only one who's made it.

As for relevance, it was implied that there was no intervention in Rwanda; clearly that's not the case.

Maybe you should clarify exactly which assertions you're disputing, that'd save me time in looking for sources.

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+May 2 2005, 02:12 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ May 2 2005, 02:12 PM)
[email protected] 2 2005, 02:01 PM
So you wish to use our protests about Iraq against us? Why dont you go over and check out the thread that states Tony Blair was already talking about a regime change. Iraq was planned out basically. 9-11 just gave them a reason.

Lets look at the Bush plan of how things were supposed to be:

1: They had Weapons of Mass Destruction (Fuck Hanse Blix. What does he know?!)

2: They had links to (Insert Terrorist Organization here). (We just havent found them yet because they are hiding really really deep! Like sub-terrainian Nazi's deep).

3: We are there to liberate the people.

To me it seems that whenever Bush can't find a reason to invade Iraq, he makes one up!
You're changing the subject. This thread isn't about Iraq, it's about Darfur.

But that's ok. I'll use your protests against you.

We've got the the thread's author saying we need to do something in Darfur to help people. Well, we had people saying we needed to do something in Iraq to help people too.

We did it, now you're in the streets.

If we went into Sudan, you'd be in the streets.

Immediately after whining and *****ing that the U.S. needs to "do something" in Sudan.

Are you people ever actually for anything, or just against everything (i.e. against our not doing anything in Sudan).

Interestingly enough, we went to the U.N. for approval to do something in Darfur, and they turned us down. When it came to Iraq, you told the U.S. to abide by the U.N.

Now you're upset that the U.S. is abiding by the U.N.

Which is it?

It's been official U.S. policy to change regimes in Iraq since 1998. Look up U.S. Public Law 105-338. [/b]
I personally have never supported going to war with Iraq. To assume I did is like saying all Cappies love taking welfare away from poor people.

Second, I want you to find and post me several links to pre-war pro-war threads on Iraq. I personally doubt they exist.

You claim I have changed the topic, but it is merely a diversionary technique to try and make you look superior. You were bringing up war protesters arguing because we werent in war, and then we were. I am just giving you reasons either A: People thought war was needed, and now realize Bush is a complete idiot
B: People never advocated going to war, seeing as how you assume we knew it was a war for liberation all along.

[Wolnosc-Solidarnosc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 10:43 PM
Shouldn't you be accusing me of blaming everything on France? I did provide a certain factual basis for that assertion, and I'm far from the only one who's made it.

As for relevance, it was implied that there was no intervention in Rwanda; clearly that's not the case.

Maybe you should clarify exactly which assertions you're disputing, that'd save me time in looking for sources.
Well, there are different degrees of intervention. What I meant to say was that in the Rwanda case, foreign powers did not go far enough. In other words, the degree of intervention was not high enough to handle the problem. As you said, there was UN force but it didn't much.

The problem is, the higher the degree of intervention the greater the anti-intervention reaction at home, as TWF pointed out. To determine the proper degree of intervention is as difficult job. You don't want to do too little, but you don't want to go too far. In any case of intervention, the state's motives are extremely difficult to determine. There is no doubt that there is always some sort of personal advantage involved, even if it's solely prestige as a defender of humanitarian rights. That's a natural (rational) feature of state behaviour. Still, I think to not intervene at all is a greater risk than to intervene, but that is obviously open to debate.

[Guerrilla22]

There definitely needs to be some kida intervention in the Sudan, however since the country's oild deposits aren't that immense, I wouldn't count on any relief any time soon. NATO isn't an answer either, since NATO actually ends up killing more civillians than they protect, due to the fact that NATO's idea of peace keeping is launching massive bombing campaigns.

[Jersey Devil]

There definitely needs to be some kida intervention in the Sudan, however since the country's oild deposits aren't that immense, I wouldn't count on any relief any time soon. NATO isn't an answer either, since NATO actually ends up killing more civillians than they protect, due to the fact that NATO's idea of peace keeping is launching massive bombing campaigns.


What don't you understand about "logistical aid"?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Severian+May 2 2005, 08:27 PM--> (Severian @ May 2 2005, 08:27 PM)
[email protected] 2 2005, 06:30 AM
Yep, in which case we get chastised for doing nothing.

On the contrary. As I said in my first post, I'm not saying the U.S. should do anything. Just a bit of analysis. Is there any problem with the facts or reasoning of that analysis? You haven't even attempted to point to any.

It may be that Paris and others also oppose intervention...but that's never stopped Washington before.

Seems to me it's you who's whining. Everybody's so mean and unfair to poor little Uncle Sam.

Or perhaps you perceive inconsistency in the fact that some people favor intervention, but others don't? All critics of U.S. policy must agree, or it's just too confusing for you? Too hard to lump everybody together in an Axis of Evil? [/b]
I wasn't speaking about you in particular, I was generalizing.

I remember back in college there were calls for the U.S. to stop the genocide in Albania, and the whacko leftists were claiming it'd never happen because the people being persecuted were Muslim.

Once NATO intervened, the very same people were complaining that we were doing something.

You may not be guilty of it, but there are plenty of people who will simply always complain no matter what the U.S. does or does not do.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Wolnosc-[email protected] 2 2005, 09:06 PM

Well, there are different degrees of intervention. What I meant to say was that in the Rwanda case, foreign powers did not go far enough. In other words, the degree of intervention was not high enough to handle the problem. As you said, there was UN force but it didn't much.
The intervention that occurred actually fueled the genocide, with the U.S. and France supporting different sides of the conflict. So why the solution would be more intervention, then.....is not immediately apparent.

[Severian]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+May 3 2005, 05:51 AM--> (t_wolves_fan @ May 3 2005, 05:51 AM)
[email protected] 2 2005, 08:27 PM
Or perhaps you perceive inconsistency in the fact that some people favor intervention, but others don't? All critics of U.S. policy must agree, or it's just too confusing for you? Too hard to lump everybody together in an Axis of Evil?
I wasn't speaking about you in particular, I was generalizing.

I remember back in college there were calls for the U.S. to stop the genocide in Albania, and the whacko leftists were claiming it'd never happen because the people being persecuted were Muslim.

Once NATO intervened, the very same people were complaining that we were doing something. [/b]
Was it the same people? Or was it different people supporting and opposing intervention?

I'd guess the latter...you seem too confused to be even clear on what country was involved....it was the former Yugoslavia (Bosnia and Kosova specifically), not Albania, let alone who was advocating what.

See above, re whining about different people have different criticisms of the U.S. governmeent.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by Jersey [email protected] 3 2005, 05:15 AM

There definitely needs to be some kida intervention in the Sudan, however since the country's oild deposits aren't that immense, I wouldn't count on any relief any time soon. NATO isn't an answer either, since NATO actually ends up killing more civillians than they protect, due to the fact that NATO's idea of peace keeping is launching massive bombing campaigns.


What don't you understand about "logistical aid"?
:lol: To whom is this "logistical aid" going to go to? The small band of rebels in the region? Even if they had more weapons it wouldn't make a difference because there are only a handful of them fighting against a national army and armed militias. Besides throwing weapons into the region isn't the answer. Intervention and humanatarian relief is the answer.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Severian+May 3 2005, 06:33 PM--> (Severian @ May 3 2005, 06:33 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 05:51 AM

[email protected] 2 2005, 08:27 PM
Or perhaps you perceive inconsistency in the fact that some people favor intervention, but others don't? All critics of U.S. policy must agree, or it's just too confusing for you? Too hard to lump everybody together in an Axis of Evil?
I wasn't speaking about you in particular, I was generalizing.

I remember back in college there were calls for the U.S. to stop the genocide in Albania, and the whacko leftists were claiming it'd never happen because the people being persecuted were Muslim.

Once NATO intervened, the very same people were complaining that we were doing something.
Was it the same people? Or was it different people supporting and opposing intervention?

I'd guess the latter...you seem too confused to be even clear on what country was involved....it was the former Yugoslavia (Bosnia and Kosova specifically), not Albania, let alone who was advocating what.

See above, re whining about different people have different criticisms of the U.S. governmeent. [/b]
It was the same people, trust me.

[Jersey Devil]

Originally posted by Guerrilla22+May 3 2005, 06:36 PM--> (Guerrilla22 @ May 3 2005, 06:36 PM)
Jersey [email protected] 3 2005, 05:15 AM

There definitely needs to be some kida intervention in the Sudan, however since the country's oild deposits aren't that immense, I wouldn't count on any relief any time soon. NATO isn't an answer either, since NATO actually ends up killing more civillians than they protect, due to the fact that NATO's idea of peace keeping is launching massive bombing campaigns.


What don't you understand about "logistical aid"?
:lol: To whom is this "logistical aid" going to go to? The small band of rebels in the region? Even if they had more weapons it wouldn't make a difference because there are only a handful of them fighting against a national army and armed militias. Besides throwing weapons into the region isn't the answer. Intervention and humanatarian relief is the answer. [/b]
To the African Union. Furthermore, logistical aid doesn't mean giving arms it means helping the AU get resources that they need into the region. Something that the AU has been needing help in since this crisis began.