Should the U.S. go into Sudan?
 

I know this is a topic in national congress, and I think that we should stay out. We have too many problems with Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea to be turning our attention to Sudan

Any more ideas? :confused:

Perhaps the French will help out :D

Send the French in to show the Sudanese how to surrender.

No, we shouldn't go into the Sudan. If we went in, the far left would claim it was just another imperialist adventure.

If it were Christians killing muslims maybe the world would care.
The U.N. hasnt even batted an eyelash at this crisis

Geez, can you actually add something to a discussion?



I think it depends if we (as "the world") can achieve something there, it is one thing to invade and to bomb everything to shreds but what then? can we build up a nation there that works? Do we have a plan what to do there? And most important, are we willing to spend the necessary manpower/money etc. ?
If not chances are that we just kill a few guys and don't really change anything or even make think even worse

Personally, I don't think we can do much. Iraq shows how complicated nation building can be, and the situation in Sudan is more chaotic than it was in Iraq.

Leave it alone and let it rot itself out. A strategy of apathy & surrender. Seems to be how the rest of the world feels about the situation as well.

On one hand, it is astounding to me how only 10 years after THE EXACT SAME THING HAPPENED IN RWANDA, the rest of the world is letting it happen again right before it eyes. On the other, it is a case study of how geo-politics work in the real world, as opposed to the theory, morality, ideology that is preached about in popular culture and academia. If anyone cared to put in the slightest effort, I would imagine the problem could be solved in a matter of weeks.

It worked so well with Afghanistan in the 90s :rolleyes:

Should we go into the Sudan? No, absolutely not. Our credibility with the Muslim world is rock bottom right now, and it would be asking for another debacle. Even if we had an administration who belived in planning how to win the whole war instead of the first battle, it would be remarkably bad idea.

That said, someone should go into Sudan. It's a damn shame we can't.

Best answer so far. As long as the majority of people don't care, either through apathy or just not knowing what is going on (which I think is more the case) things will continue as such.

The U.S wouldn't go there because they have nothing to gain. It would be even more fruitless than going into Iraq with much of the same consequences or worse.

And the problem with the Sudan is that it isn't mainstream enough unlike for example the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Maybe 40 more years of hatred and killings will spawn some action, but for now their conflict is still rather minor league compared to the big boys conflicts, at least in the media eyes and for those who think some lives, or lives lost , are more important than others..

Might not be 40 years, but 14 years of persecution and genocide by Muslims in the North of the Christians/pagan "africans" in the south is pretty bad. 2 million people dead plus one of the world's most active slave trades.

Reading up on this, one points to the power of Arab oil. People are horrified by a Palestinian death and it warrants an emergency UN meeting. 50 people can at the same time be murdered, gang raped, and abducted by Arab militia's and you might see something about it.

While I don't agree with the sarcastic tone, I do agree that Africa has the potential to be the middle east of the 21st century, with its vast resources funding fundamentalist Islamic governments who, in turn, fund terrorist organisations.

Those who say we should MYOB (including myself at times), forget that these things DO have a tendency to come around again.

I also believe that the UN is showing its serious bias by not addressing the slaughter that is going on in the Sudan, including a bias against Christianity.

No, Im all for an invention if the chances are good that the invention will be successful. you have to answer a couple of questions before going into war. If you don't you end up with a shitload of people killed, pissed "homefront" and no real success.

so since you seem to be so much in favour of a invention what would you do? what are your plans?

...let me guess, it involves some major bombing, right?

BTW: UN not adressing Sudan? in which world do you live?

In what reality do you live Pacifier? The conflict is 14 years old, there were problems way before the UN fell asleep with Rwanda.

As the head of the UN (ahem), I would have armed, international peacekeepers & armored personnel carriers in the region in a week. I imagine it would take less than 50 well-armed men guarding each village to prevent the bandits (on horseback!) coming in and slaughtering everyone. Not 1 bomb necessary. Get the politicians in there, stamp out an agreement, enforce it with troops. Problem solved - killing stopped, at least short term.

Africa, the forgotten land. SO much land, so little development. In a way, I hope it stays that way, for the sake of the magnificent indigenous wildlife. But I agree Lebell: one day, the $hit is going to hit the fan over there in a big way.

Its quite serious. If Europe doesn't want us to be the worlds police, then they can do something usefull. I'm sick of damn leftists blaming us for doing something and then blaming us for not doing the same thing.

there was a UN peacekeeping force in Rwanda in 1994 when the genocide started, mostly belgian and french troops. this force was reinforced to rescue western civillians (450 french, 450 belgians + 500 in kenia, 250 US Ranger in Burundi) . On 12th april the belgians withdraw their forces when 10 soldiers where killed.

Eventually, on 17 May 1994, the UN security council adopted a resolution that would deliver nearly 5,500 troops and much needed personnel carriers and other equipment to UNAMIR. Unfortunately, the member states refused to gather troops or send supplies for approximately six months, well after the formal end of the genocide.

At the End of June the was a attempt to reinforce the UN troops again French forces landed in Goma, Zaire, on a humanitarian mission. They deployed throughout southwest Rwanda in an area they called "Zone Turquoise"

So was it a failure of the UN or the member states who voted for troops but failed to actually send troops?

more on this:
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB...B53/index.html
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB...B119/index.htm

Regarding Sudan - Let the EU maintain its impotency and draft another resolution like this (LINKY)

I mean, these are the people that we are trying to make happy with, right?

You mean like the UN mission to Rwanda? when this was voted for but the member failed to send troops? when the french secured "Zone Turquoise" alone at the end?

Empower the African Union by sending them money and logistical training.

The posts on this board represent the simplistic black white group think that exacerbates situations like this. It's about land, folks, it always has been, always will (because there's oil underneath- both sides know this). The slaughter in Rwanda? Both sides engaged in it. So what's the point of blaming one side when both are equally at fault?

Who is blaming the US?

The question asked if "we" (which I presume meant American troops) should enter.

Mr Mephisto

Let me tie this into this thread.

What good is the U.N.?

Forget Iraq part I , forget Iraq part II.
Forget Somalia, Forget Kosovo- Forget all major conflicts post Cold War where the US has had to take responsibility and be world Police.


They are failing to act now- and why?????


What good is an organization who puts SUDAN on the head of the human rights council? The same country that is funding the muslim milita that is killing Christians is the head of the human rights wing of the U.N.? You have got to be kidding me.

So what good is it ?

I will admit up front that I am far from expert on this topic, but how is it about land?

From my vantage point, it seems like, yet again, a religious war. Please correct me if I am in error, but this statement didn't make any sense to me.

Also, does anyone else see the irony in this post? Accusations of simplicity followed by a simplistic solution (i.e. it is only about land).

Yeah I agree

Land? wtf is there in Sudan? Am i missing something???


again its about militant muslims imposing their beliefs on others in a non-passive manner

What good is the UN?

Firstly, consensus.

Without the UN providing all countries with a voice, actions taken by the US, NATO or the EU (for example) smack of unilateralism.

Secondly, legality.

Like it or not, the US is a signatory of international and UN treaties. It is the UN that decides what is legal or illegal with regards to international law (often by interpreting Geneva Conventions for example).

Thirdly, morality.

Believe it or not, UN actions are often the right thing to do. The UN funds and manages hundreds of international organisations, international tribunals and committees that try to improve social, economic, health and cultural issues throughout the world. The UNHCR, UNESCO, UNDP, ECA, ECE, ELAC, ESCAP, ESCWA, ICJ, E-MINE, UNOB, UNOCI, UNMIL, MONUC, UMEE, UNAMSIL, MINURSO, MINUSTAH, UNMISET, UNMOGIP, UNFICYP, UNOMIG, UNMIK, UNDOF, UNIFIL, UNTSO, UNIFEM, UNCTAD, ITC, UNDCP, UNEP, UNIFEM, UNV, UNCDF, UNFPA, UNICRI, UNITAR, UNRISD, UNIDIR, INSTRAW, UNOPS, UNU, UNSSC, UNAIDS, PfII, WTO, IAEA, CTBTO PREP.COM, OPCW, ILO, FAO, WHO, IBRD, IDA, IFC, MIGA, ICSID, IMF, ICAO, IMO, ITU, UPU, WMO, WIPO, IFAD, UNIDO, OSG, OIOS, OLA, DPA, DDA, KPKO, OCHA, DESA, DGACM, DIP, DM, OHRLLS, UNSECOORD, UNODC, UNOG, UNOV, UNON and so on.

If you think the UN is just the Security Council, then you are sorely mistaken. If you think the UN does no good, then you are deluded.


Because there are politics involved. Because often the search for consensus means that actions and declarations are watered down.

Because, GASP the UN is not perfect. Not like the United States, eh? Yeah, right...


Every country gets to head the Security Council at some stage. From the United States all the way down to Lichtenstein. Imagine that! An organization that trys to be inclusive and offer all nations the opportunity to be part of decision making and direction.

Again, sometimes this is not perfect, but it's a lot better than one nation going around stomping on everyone.

Yes, it's really not great, is it? Good job they will lose their seat within six months at the longest. Or do you think the US should decide who sits where, for how long and why?

No. No I'm not. And neither is the majority of the world. And, for that matter, the United States government.


It does more good that you think, or seem to know.

Is it perfect? No.
Does it need reforming? Yes.
Would it benefit if the US actually paid their dues? Absolutely.

Should it be disbanded? Categorically not.


Yes, there have been problems, but they should be resolved. Making stupid statements like "What is the UN good for?" do nothing to improve things.

I could easily say "What good is the United States for?" and list a litany of travesties and disasters in which America was involved. But that also would be stupid. The United States is undoubtedly the most powerful nation on the Earth. And, for the vast majority of issues, is a force for good. It would server the world community better if it handled its power responsibly and partnered with its neighbours and the world community, rather than take the current arrogant, unilateral stance it seems to be at the moment.

With regards to the United Nations, there is always room for improvement. As there is in what Australia does, what Ireland does, what the US does, what the Post Office does, what your local TV station does... See the pattern?

You probably don't have all the answers in the world. Everything can be improved. It takes a "better" man (or nation) to help improve things rather than stand around bleating about how things are no good and are not worth the effort.

Hopefully you and the rest of the anti-UN cabal can see that.



Mr Mephisto

Erm... no. Not it's not.

What is there in Sudan? Do you even know where it is?! My God...

It's the size of France. It's HUGE. There is living space for millions of people. I could easily say, "What the fuck is there in America?" The ignorance of that comment is remarkable.

With regards to the Muslim militia, they are NOT trying to impose their beliefs. They are engaged in a war of genocide and ethnic cleansing. Much much worse.


Mr Mephisto

Usually when people invade other countries its for natural resources. For land? its a vast wasteland ( from the pictures ive seen) its a third world country. No infastructure.


its a holy war in my opinion

Well, first of all no one is invading another country. Once again, you should check your facts or at least learn the rudiments of the issue at hand before making sweeping, and erroneous, comments.

Secondly, I've see pictures of the US that show nothing but vast sandy desert. That means you all live in holes in the sand, right? Good grief...

You said it was a wasteland. Well, obviously it is NOT, otherwise hundreds of thousands of people would not have been there in the first place, such that the Janjaweed persecuted them. Also, I think you implied it had no natural resources. Again wrong. Additionally, you said it had no infrastructure. Well guess what? It doesn't have to have a McDonalds, strip club, Starbucks and 6 lane highway to be someone's home, and somewhere people want to live.

Open your mind. Educate yourself.

Finally, you said it was an attempt by militant muslims to impose their beliefs on others, when it is not. It's ethnic cleansing and genocide, plain and simple.


Mr Mephisto

Jeez- It's the dark ages all over again on this board. First, Sudan is the largest country in Africa. Second, the war is a civil one, waged for the past 19 years; religion just makes it easier for Westerners to digest and comprehend. Third, there is lots of oil in the South, controlled by the Rebels (Christian + Animists) but desired by the North. Fourth, the Dafur crisis is an inter-Islamic struggle. The African Farmers (also Muslim) would like to declare independence from the Arabs; the latter have not taken kindly to this, to say the least. They have employed a systemic response of genocide and starvation to destroy the will for independence.

“ALL this because of oil,” laments Steven Mangong. Once a farmer in a small village in the heart of southern Sudan’s oil region, Mr Mangong is now living destitute in a refugee camp at Rumbek, 300km (185 miles) away.

OT

Inaccurate. The French military presence in Rwanda led to *more* killing and slaughter, not less. They provided military support to (and sympathized with) the ruling, French-speaking majority in this French colony, the Hutu Power regime, who were killing the Tutsi minority by the thousands. Operation Turquoise was a farce, and implicitly allowed the killing of the Tutsis to continue instead of stopping it. Once it became apparent that the operation was ineffectual, the French began evacuating anyone with white skin, turning away black Tutsi Rwandans. I saw video of this myself.

The only country that was really committed to help was Belgium, and they evacuated their remaining troops after 10 of them were killed in one day by the Hutus. I also have a lot of sympathy and respect for General Dallaire, a Canadian, who foresaw the coming genocide, begged the UN for additional troops, and was turned down.

You asked me a hypothetical question: What would I have done? I told you what I would have done, and my theoretical answer to Darfur would have worked in Rwanda too if the foreign troops hadn't turned and ran away.
/OT

An overview of the situation in Darfur. Note that since this article was printed, US Secretary of State Colin Powell has in fact labeled the conflict in Darfur genocide.

article

First off it IS A religius conflict



Backed by Muslim clerics, the National Islamic Front regime in the Arab and Muslim north declared a jihad, or holy war, on the south in 1989. Since 1983, an estimated 2 million people have died from war and related famine. About 4.5 million have become refugees.

Sudan's holy war against the south was reaffirmed in October by First Vice President Ali Osman Taha.

"The jihad is our way, and we will not abandon it and will keep its banner high," he said to a brigade of mujahedin fighters heading for the war front, according to Sudan's official SUNA news agency. "We will never sell out our faith and will never betray the oath to our martyrs.


n 1986, Musba entered the Uduk tribal capital of Chali and declared to its Christians: "You are all going to convert from Christianity to Islam today, because here is what's going to happen to you if you don't."

Musba then killed five church leaders in front of the gathered villagers. When they refused to convert, he began killing unarmed men, women and children. Some were herded at gunpoint into a hut then run over by a 50-ton, Soviet-made tank.

He also herded groups of about a dozen people into a hut, where he asked the first person "Do you renounce Jesus Christ?" Anyone who refused was killed by a three-inch nail driven into the top of the head.


They are making women CONVERT or else they get gang-raped

The North is Islamic, the south is generally not.

Thats A religous war


Forced conversions to Islam is a part of government policy.

http://www.persecution.org/Countries/sudan.html


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=26672









During the civil war- the South viewed itself as being seperate from the north- thus to them the North invaded the confederacy.


It stems from the Suden Liberation army wanting to be Free from tthe north
"

For an interim period of six years, Sudan is to remain one country, with Omar al-Bashir, the current president, remaining in office, and with Mr Garang, the rebel leader, as his deputy. Then there is to be a referendum in which southerners will be offered the choice of staying or seceding.
"


So yes to them, they are invaded.



Then the janjaweed—an Arab militia that kills for the Sudanese government—rode up to finish the job.



Dont give me that crap about open your mind. Apparently it is YOU that doesn't have a firm grasp on the facts. As for what is there- its NOT a war over land. Its a holy war as I have just pointed out. There is NO reason the Arab militia men are fighting the Rebels in the south other than because of the "jihad" as the president himself put it


http://www.vitrade.com/who_is_who/ba...e_achieved.htm


AGAIN stated by the PResident- this is a HOLY WAR- that is the definiation of a JIHAD


And it is a wasteland- villages burned,

"Human rights groups say that since violence flared in Darfur last year around 30,000 people have been killed, and more than 1 million non-Arabic-speaking locals have fled their villages, turning the sparsely populated province into a true wasteland."



So when villages are being burned, people killed, and everyone is fleeing- it isnt a Wasteland???

Its already a desert- people lived there. When they are gone- yes its a wasteland. That region- was wasnt refering to the country- I was refering to the region


What would you call it? I suppose a warzone might be better fitting- but essentially its the same thing

I never said it wasn't a religious conflict. I disputed your assertion that they are trying to impose their religious beliefs on others as the implied primary reason for the conflict. I put it to you that they are not seeking converts, but are simply engaging in genocide and ethnic cleansing, and that they are using religious differences as an excuse.

Do you honestly believe that if the hundreds of thousand of displaced persons had

a) all been given the chance to convert
and
b) had done so

...that the janjaweed would have simply packed their bags and ridden off?

No, I don't think they would. The killing would have continued.

Feel free to check the report by the internationally recognized and respected organization Human Rights Watch at http://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/sudan0504/

It's title alone should give you an idea. DARFUR DESTROYED - Ethnic Cleansing by Government and Militia Forces in Western Sudan

Allow me to go further by quoting a particular sentence from the summary. "The Janjaweed militias, Muslim like the African groups they attack, have destroyed mosques, killed Muslim religious leaders, and desecrated Qorans belonging to their enemies." In other words, it's more to do with the government trying to put down and destroy a rebellious province than it is to do with creating muslim converts.

Of course, it's always possible that HRW is wrong and you are right.

The facts remain that the conflict is within one sovereign nation. No other nation was invaded. Again, I only pointed out the contradiction in your original statement. Whether you feel yourself entitled to speak for all the hundreds of thousands of people affected has no relevance. This is a "domestic affair" (unpleasant as that phrase is), up and until the affect it is having on neighbouring countries due to the refugee crisis.

No "invasions" occurred.

Touchy, touchy. First of all I didn't curse at you, so I ask the same respect from you. Perhaps in vain, but that won't stop me asking.

Secondly, I never said I had an open mind (though I like to think I do - certainly I don't curse at strangers on the internet). The comment was made because you simply said, and I quote, "[What The Fuck] is there in Sudan?" and "its a vast wasteland ( from the pictures ive seen) its a third world country. No infastructure.".

In other words, open your mind to the fact that the lack of infrastructure has nothing to do with the value people place upon living there. And that, "the pictures you see" of it may not show the entire area in question. I've seen pictures of the terrible refugee camps in Darfur, but also the very fertile and quite picturesque areas from which many of the people were displaced. The point is, a few pictures on TV or in magazines don't tell the whole story.

That's what I meant by opening your mind.

Let me quote you again. " its a vast wasteland ( from the pictures ive seen) its a third world country. No infastructure.".

It doesn't sound like you're referring to the region at all. Indeed, you specifically say "its [sic] a third world country."

Yes. Perhaps warzone would have been more appropriate.


Mr Mephisto

When the Preisdent of Sudan says its a Jihad- maybe it is ....

"Finally, you said it was an attempt by militant muslims to impose their beliefs on others, when it is not. It's ethnic cleansing and genocide, plain and simple."

Ohh okay Jihad isnt trying to convert others... backing milita men who kill and rape in the name of Allah, or say convert or die... yeah that isnt imposing their beliefs on thers.



Its Ethnic cleansing and Genoice plain and simple... yet it IS an attempt by militant muslims to impose thier beliefs on others, the president of that country has said so- the FACTS indicate that it is. It might ALSO be a genocide- but IT IS A JIHAD - HOLY WAR- IMPOSING MUSLIM BELIEFS ON OTHERS.





Second off you said
" Every country gets to head the Security Council at some stage. From the United States all the way down to Lichtenstein. Imagine that! An organization that trys to be inclusive and offer all nations the opportunity to be part of decision making and direction.Again, sometimes this is not perfect, but it's a lot better than one nation going around stomping on everyone."


I didnt say why is Sudan on the Security Council, i said why are they the head of the human rights body- so you skirted the issue.

http://www.derechos.org/news/archives/000661.html



WASTELAND

Main Entry: waste·land
Pronunciation: 'wAst-"land also -l&nd
Function: noun
1 : barren or uncultivated land <a desert wasteland>
2 : an ugly often devastated or barely inhabitable place or area




Barren land- hmm that it is.
Devistated and barely inhabitable place or area- Well gee the center of a civil war- that fits the bill clearly- Even If i was not refering to THAT region the whole country has been up in civil war in recent years


Main Entry: in·vade
Pronunciation: in-'vAd
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): in·vad·ed; in·vad·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin invadere, from in- + vadere to go -- more at WADE
1 : to enter for conquest or plunder
2 : to encroach upon : INFRINGE
3 a : to spread over or into as if invading : PERMEATE



Hmm arent the janjaweed CONQUESTING OR PLUNDERING THE REGION OF DAFUR?????? They did Enter the region...)


Point is your nitpicking to avoid the real issue- militant muslims are *GASP* causing problems again!

indeed, he tried the best he could with the limited resources he had.
But like I said you plan for Sudan is identical to the original UN plan for Rwanda, but the members of the UN failed to send the troops the voted for to send.
The same could happen to your plan. But which fault is it? Is it the fault of the UN? not only, the whole western world failed there.
And before to go to Sudan you have to check and make sure you have the necessary support and will to do it.

The U.N. drafts resolutions and then when Sudan doesnt act they draft more.

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?...&id=1095762004

The UN reminds me of a comic bit (Think it was Robbin Williams) talking about how the British cops don't have firearms.

"Stop, or I shall say stop again!"

That sums up the UN.

Ustwo and Kalibah:

The UN is toothless largely because the nations with armies aren't willing to supply troops. It hardly seems fair to criticize their inaction unless you are willing to back them with troops.

The UN has its own peacekeeper force...
If they are unwilling to use them- then what good are these resolutions?


And the U.S. seems to have always backed the U.N. with troops.

Somalia
Kosovo ( i think?)
Iraq Part I

Correct me if I'm wrong, but those "peacekeepers" are composed of troops donated from other nations. The actions that you name were instances when the US did lend troops, but we don't give troops every time there is a crisis. I'm not saying that we should do that but let's not be too harsh on the UN for sudan unless we are willing to do something about it. We outspend the rest of the world combined when it comes to military expenditures.

Okay let me put it this way

When Spain backed out of Iraq after the Madrid train Bombings- to the Terrorists- is it not concievable that they viewed it as backing down? Cause enough damage and they will pull out?

I view the U.N. the same way, but being inactive on these issues, for WHATEVER reason, it gives countries a reason to doubt them. Iraq Part 1 was by and large a U.S. opperation, but I' am not saying we didn't have support- simply we ( and the Brits) were the one with the 'boots' on. When an organization is inactive after resolutions - again for whatever reason, they loose any crediability

An interesting Article

http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3453


Some 47 member nations are dictatorships and the UN roster includes six terrorist states.



My opinion- do away with the Security council. The U.N. is, for reasons you stated, worthless. They have no military power- they have no force to backup resolutions, and they have little credibility. Sudan figures they can get by with 10 - odd years of resolutions like Saddam while they murder their own people. I'll admit, it is a huge undertaking to police the world, but that doesnt change the fact that they are largely inactive. I think they should stick to Humaniatrain Efforts ( like they are NOW doing in *SOME* of Sudans refugee camps).


They are best suited as another International Red Cross.

Hell even the pope has more soldiers than the U.N.

The US would never agree to do away with the security council...we do have a permanent seat and veto on it.

As I said before, the UN is largely inactive due to the unwillingness of member nations to get their troops involved. We have to blame ourselves for the slaughter in Sudan as much as we blame the UN.

When criticising the UN, I think it's helpful to keep in mind that the US is by far the largest vetoer of it's resolutions, so it's lack of effectiveness as a global body can, in part, be traced back to the frequent undermining of it's authority at American hands. Until all countries recognise that UN authority supercedes the authority of the nation state, I doubt we'll see much of an improvement.

In answer to the original question: a firm no. What the country needs is African troops to take up peacekeeping duties and help look after all those thousands of refugees who, at present, have to choose between a slow death by starvation inside their camps, or a quick one at the hands of the Janjaweed. US troops are far too distancing for the job, in my opinion, because of their unwillingness to accept casualties on their own side, their "shoot first, ask question later" engagement policy, and their insistance on wearing helmets and reflective goggles all the time. It might seem like an odd point to make but, as the British have found in Basra, wearing the far less aggressive beret and being able to look people in the eye actually makes a big difference when you're trying to win the trust of people who see you as unwelcome. It's for a similar reason that I think the troops should be African; troops native to the continent are far likelier to strike a chord with people than foreign (white) soldiers.

I'm not necessarily criticising American military tactics, I just don't think they're suitable in this instance.

I know- I didnt say the U.S. should do away with it - I said the U.N. should.

Stick to Humanitarian Efforts.

Complete distortion of reality. The overwhelming majority of US vetoes of UN resolutions are on behalf of the continued existence of Israel, not humanitarian, social or resource issues. Time and again the UN seeks ever more insidious ways in which to bind the hand of Israel in its efforts to protect its people from waves of suicide bombers. The US won't allow the UN to emasculate Israel, however hard it tries.

Can't wait till Isreal does us the favor in Iran like they did in Iraq :D

Nukes in the hands of islamic fundamentalists, especially in the M.E., is a timebomb waiting to go off. It seems the rest of the world's major powers (except Russia, who helped build the damn reactors) agree with this and are trying to persuade the mad mullahs to reverse course, which I guess is a good sign so far.

About Darfur and the UN. It seems that this is the absolute perfect opportunity for the UN to prove itself of value here. If they went in, without the US, and re-established law and order and stopped the killing in Darfur, it would seem to me to be an overwhelmingly positive thing for everyone involved, instead of wasting time pouting, throwing tantrums and lamenting their long-gone days of doing business with Saddam Hussein.

It worked so well with N. Korea, what could possibly go wrong?

Psshh we just sold Bunkerbusters to Israelis

Apart from "helping" us take care of Iran- what do you think they would be using these for?

Most of the terrorists in Israel - however hidden- dont require bunker busters to root out.

BS, the UN has to ask everytime they want troops!
That would be one of the much needed reforms, give the UN an owwn army the only understands UN command.

That wasn't even my main point, but ok, I'll explain myself.

It doesn't matter on what issues the veto was used, it's the fact that's it's used so regularly by a country that sees no need to abide by International law that hurts the credibility of the UN. To say that the UN seeks to 'bind the hand of Israel' is to accuse every member state of actively working against Israel in the face of a terrorist onslaught, and we both know that's not true. What's more true is that UN resolutions too often contrast with US foreign policy or propose methods to achieve progress which it doesn't agree with. For example, the unlawful use of force in Nicaragua during the Bush administration of the eighties (and the first 'war on terror') saw worldwide condemnation that was ignored, and a subsequent security council resolution calling on all member states to abide by international law was vetoed by the US.

To me at least, it seems as though it's Washingtons way or no way at all on many issues that affect more states than theirs.

Once you started quoting from dictionaries to make your point, you lost me in a sea of pointless pedanticism.

I can see where you are coming from, but I think you're over simplifying things.

The difference between you and I seems to be that I can admit your argument has some merits and I respect what you say. You on the other hand "skirt the issue" (to quote yourself) and just insult other members of this board.

As I said in another thread, I don't know why it does, but every time irrational Bush-lackeys lash out I still honestly am left surprised.


Mr Mephisto

The US should not go into any place that does not attack it first. Defensive military only. Pre-emptive strike is not justifiable in my opinion. You do not know that someone will attack you, you can only have evidence that points to teh likelyhood. Besides, Kant devised pre-emptive strike and he never left his home town.

While tempting, this hasn't been a seriously viable alternative for us since the 19th century.

With our tropps spread as thinly as they already are, and with the immense expense of wagin war on the other side of the earth, NO, we should not go into Sudan or anywhere else right now. :|