Pressure is mounting for the US to intervene in Darfur.

Question for the Debate


1. Given the poor support the US got from the UN with Iraq (pre war) should we bail the UN out here and take the lead? Why or Why not.

2. If yes should we expect US help in Iraq as a precondition? ie UN forces?

3. Is there any “vital interest” here that would justify an already busy US military to take on this mission?

4. Why does it take the US to make this happen in the UN? Why has the UN stood by again and watched 200,000 people die? Is this another Rwanda?

Your questions are a tad loaded so I'll just deal with the gist of them.

If we take the Left's view that the US is hated by everyone except a few psychotic neo-cons then NO. Let France and Germany do something about it. Let's just tell the UN, "Go for it. See what you can do. Oh and don't rape anybody this time OK?"

We certainly can go asking the world that hates us to suddenly pony up bodies for a war they all didn't want.

As for vital interest... there's none. Let's imagine for a second that there are no Darfurians left say, Thursday... what precisely changes in the US? Nothing.

Now of course all of those positions are completely INSANE.

The US needs to do something but, frankly, the rest of the world needs to step up and do some heavy lifting. We're busy.

1. Given the poor support the US got from the UN with Iraq (pre war) should we bail the UN out here and take the lead? Why or Why not.

Well, pretty loaded question- of course we got no support- because, you know, they were right about everything- while we were wrong about everything- and they tried to warn us, and we didn't listen. In fact now- aren't we having to go the UN hat in hand asking for help with IRaq?

2. If yes should we expect US help in Iraq as a precondition? ie UN forces?

Um, no, stupid question in fact- you got it entirely backwards- we are in no position to help anyone, and we, and everyone else, knows it- and we are going to have to ask the UN for help in Iraq anyway- because your guy screwed the pooch so badly.

3. Is there any “vital interest” here that would justify an already busy US military to take on this mission?

I am a firm believer that ALL our foriegn entanglments, even with the best of intentions, is inherently wrong and stupid and/or corrupt. We should only go into a country that has directly attacked us, period. Stop trying to solve the worlds ills through our military. Sure- we can and should deliver food or humanitarian aid- but militarily? No way. If some other country wants to jump into a genocidal civil war- bully for them.

The entire serbia/bosnia thing should have been a 100% Euro force- the practical reason for them to be there is to prevent the war spilling into greece and albania- somewhat like what happened in Sarevjo back before WW1- but it was not and should not have been our problem.

Afghanistan was legit- because they were hiding folks who attacked us, in effect, attacking us by proxy. Saudi Arabia should have been next- NOT Iraq, who never had worked with Al-Quaida, and never had any WMD, and never had invaded us.

4. Why does it take the US to make this happen in the UN? Why has the UN stood by again and watched 200,000 people die? Is this another Rwanda?

The UN has been the lapdog of the US for decades- because they became somewhat independent is what really torques the US off. I am not sure we should even belong to this orginization, much less give money to them- and they ask too much of us, as a nation.

If Darfar, Rwanda, Iraq, Bosnia etc etc wants to have civil wars and kill each other in the millions- it is thier bad. Horrible, but NOT the business of the 'world community" to handle. In order to be free, the locals have to fight for thier freedom. When it is handed to them, without sacrifice, it is not earned, and seemingly has no value to them. WE handed Iraq to the Iraqi poeple on a silver platter- at which time, they started killing each other and us. Why didn't they go all suicide when Saddam was there? They are willing to die in the hundreds of thousands to get the US out- but not when it involved getting rid of thier own evil dictator? Where were all these shi-ite suicide bombers and militias with Saddam?

Those populations neither deserve nor need our help- at some point- the locals will have to call "enough".

Loaded question - go back and read some of yours CR - you are the master of same!

No actually they were right and they were totally corrupted by the Saddam $$$ as is now coming out in lurid detail. There would have been no war if the UN had even the slightest backbone to enforce their own Resolutions. Remember CR – Inspectors booted in 1998, US planes getting shot at and what did the UN do – SQUAT.




Hey on this point we agree. No vital interest or security concern – let the EU do something for a change or how about Russia?

.

Didn’t I prove to you Iraq had WMD? Did you just forget???





We agree again. But not on the ‘lap dog” part. Other way round. We do the dirty work and when we really need them they are not there. Where were they in Bosnia? Why did we have to move alone? They seem to be waiting for us to do the same in Darfur and they will be waiting IMO for a hell of a long time.

No Ted- you have repeated some ultra-right wing talking points that even GW doesn't believe- but no, Iraq has not had WMDs since Gulf 1- the containment worked, and worked well. You can repeat otherwise as often as you want- but two facts remain- Iraq had no WMDs, and they were in no way colluding with Al-Quaida- until, of course AFTER we invaded.

Get over it man- even Cheney has at this point.

I do not favor one thin dime going to any country while we have problems of our own to solve.

Russia is in no position to help anyone. Everything you have ever been told about that country is probably a lie and wrong.

You have one serious blind spot there dude- you believe your own press.

American media isn't "conservative" or "liberal"- it is American. That means it harps on American stuff- stuff that American's want to watch. They are completely commercially driven. If it sells- then it is news- if folks turn the channel- then it is not. That is the way American press works. American press is no more good or bad than Al-Jazera- Al Jazera puts stuff out there that it's demagraph wants to see- if it does not, it fails- that simple- good ol' capitalism at work.

I have watched many news programs in many countries in my life, in thier native country- and it is always the same- it caters to the population watching it, nothing more, nothing less. Where goverment really stifles reporting- it doesn't look all that different than any other countries stuff- it is all formula anyway- for instance- I read alot of stuff,newspapers mostly- Pravda- while in Russia last time- my Babulya has newspapers from Stalin's times.

You know what strikes you first whenever you read pure, goverment controlled propaganda?

It is alll good news! They only report the good stuff, never the bad, unless it is good for the goverment to report that bad stuff.

That is the real difference between propaganda and news- News is about the bad things- propaganda is only good things.

So many Americans don't realize what they are asking for when they ask for when they complain about "not reporting good news"

Pure speculation. I posted all the facts with pictures of the plants and stats. If you believe that Saddam, who never complied with a single UN Resolution, just up and destroyed billions in WMD then you must believe in the tooth faire as well.
I never said they were colluding with AQ. What I do believe is that at some point in the future they may have – but we will never know will we.

In any case this is one job the UN needs to do without the US. Please don’t tell me that with all the powerful military countries as members (other than the US) that the UN cannot get a force together.

The problem is, as I have said before, the UN does not handle conflict well – and never will. I will never favor working with this crooked, useless organization – especially in Africa.

I'm not sure at all what this has to do with Darfur... seriously. This one has gone awry.

Darfur is a tragedy, particularly in that small amounts of US troops could've saved LARGE amounts of lives. What is a life worth? How much money? Seriously.

How many 'poor' people in the US have microwaves, cars, and cable tv? It's astounding, go look. Now- how about Africa? How many poor people in Africa can't buy nets to keep mosquitoes from killing their kids due to malaria? Really.

Darfur (along with Rwanda) are a function of western society, including America, not caring because these people are poor and black. It's ridiculous and saddens me to even discuss it.

As for your statement about not giving to other nations so long as our nation has problems... something you NEED to come to grips with is that as a people we DO have the means to fix our poverty and disease problems. The issue often becomes that people expect our government to fix it as opposed to it being civic action. This is the basic divider I'd suppose with Conservatives and Liberals. I assume that most of us on this board eat out some, maybe drive decent cars, and live in homes that contain more than we really "need". Want America to change? ? Gather some friends, family, and others to join hands and fix a local problem... then spread the effort to the next city, and so on.

Things as large as Darfur can't be done by your local Civic group. This is where the USMC comes in.

I strongly disagree. We spent billions in Iraq (1990-2002) and the UN did little if anything (after GW I ended). They had no inspectors there from 1998 until GWB put 50,000 US troops on the border in 2002. Now, because of UN inaction, we are in a war that will cost us maybe 400 billion and lots of lives and I for one have HAD IT with the UN.

This is clearly a UN issue and if the world wants to sit around and watch people die as they did in Rwanda when the UN had troops (Dutch) in the country who ASKED for permission to stop it and were refused, I say too bad. US Marines are busy dying elsewhere without help from the UN and IMO because of the UN.

1. Given the poor support the US got from the UN with Iraq (pre war) should we bail the UN out here and take the lead? Why or Why not.


We should not take the lead in Darfur nor could we if we wanted to. Its time for the international community to step up and put their money where their mouth is. The US is the hegemon and they expect us to be the policeman for both their countries and for the world. That's why they do not spend money on their military and why they are incabale of solving problems such as Darfur.

3. Is there any “vital interest” here that would justify an already busy US military to take on this mission?

Zero. If the US made another long term committment in a baron nation such as the Sudan, it would just create more problems, cost more lives and more money. Its a civil war that has been raging for years and sending in the Marines will not change that, it will just put more targets on the ground for the militias to shoot at. There is no strategy when it comes to these types of missions, hell we are still in Eastern Europe. I find it amazing how some people like to pick and choose which missions would be humanitarian and which are acts of imperialism. There is quite a divide between those who opposed the War with Iraq and support intervention in Darfur. Consistency needs to be shown. Furthermore, we have little to no intelligence in Darfur which makes a successful intervention enar impossible. It takes months to get good intelligence on the ground and even then we have seen failure. What's happening in Darfur is unfortunate, but it is the nature of the chaotic international order.

4. Why does it take the US to make this happen in the UN? Why has the UN stood by again and watched 200,000 people die? Is this another Rwanda?

The US is the only nation capable of performing the military operation. Other nations, particularly the European ones, do not have large forces, they do not need them, they have the US. The UN is allowing this genocide to occur and it will not end.

Actually there were many attempts to dethrone Saddam by Iraqi's. The major of which was directly after the gulf war were some estimates put the death toll at 100,000.

As far as the situation in Darfur, I tend to agree with lederuvdapac in that some consistency needs to be shown here. If the US was in a position to do something about it militarily, which we aren't, there would have to be a lot of intelligence gathering and careful planning. Perhaps we could help in some way but im not in a position to say how that would be.

No the US or the West should get involved, this an African and Islamic problem and they should sort it out.

If the West goes in then we will end up being blamed for the inevitable long term failure.

No, the US should not get involved. This is a German-Jewish problem they should sort it out. If we enter a second world war, we will just be blamed for creating the conditions that would lead to a third war-- just like last time.

Usually I resent any comparison of anything to Nazi Germany, but your one-liner kinda begged for it.


nicely put. for a very small price america could do a very large amount of good. My personal opinion, however, is that the US should not only take the UN into darfur. We should also fund an enlarged African Union peacekeeping mission -- with expanded responsibilities on behalf of the AU. In turn, they would give the AU a stronger foundation for dealing with the next crisis. In this way, African states could begin to enforce human rights within the continent, encouraging pan-african unity and discouraging hypocrisy on participating states with less than stellar human rights records to begin with.

Why? Why can't another wealthy nation do this? Why can't the EU do this?

So while we expend billions and thousands of lives in Iraq as the UN watches you want the US to bail out their sorry butts in Africa? You have to be joking. Why on earth would we do that – and be careful how you respond because we can substitute the word “Iraqi” (under Saddam) for every time you say “poor oppressed” in Africa. Tyrants all.

1. Given the poor support the US got from the UN with Iraq (pre war) should we bail the UN out here and take the lead? Why or Why not.
Initially, I thought we should get in there and help these people out. Then, with a suggestion from a friend, I gained a new perspective and now believe we should not assist militarily in this operation. Financially, yes, to the African Union. People seem to forget, or maybe they don't know, that there is an African Union. The lack of support we received from the U.N. should not determine whether or not we assist in stopping genocide. This may be a question of morals, but stopping the death of hundreds of thousands of people should not be contingent upon any favors, no matter what they are. Mass murder is wrong, and it doesn't matter if the French, Germans, Russians, and Chinese spit in the face of George W. Bush, helping stop genocide supersedes any slight from any nation.

2. If yes should we expect US help in Iraq as a precondition? ie UN forces?
No as I stated above.

3. Is there any “vital interest” here that would justify an already busy US military to take on this mission?
To some people, human life is a vital interest. But as I stated earlier, I do not believe the U.S. military should get involved because our leadership would find a way to turn a humanitarian mission into a regional catastrophe. Somalia is an excellent example. At first, we were there to bring food to a starving nation. We ended up leaving because a kidnapping attempt on Mogadishu's local warlord went disastrously. U.S. intervention in Darfur would take the same route. Somehow, someway, we would screw it up. We should fund the African Union and allow them to solve their own problem.

4. Why does it take the US to make this happen in the UN? Why has the UN stood by again and watched 200,000 people die? Is this another Rwanda?
It doesn't take the U.S. to make this happen, but when the African Union does not have the financial ability to fund an intervention they are unable to do anything about it. Why the UN has stood by is beyond me.

You may have forgotten that this was a failed UN mission that got us there – read the excellent book Blackhawk Down. We went in after a UN vehicle was ambushed and tried to bring some order and stop the “warlord” is was also taking UN food for his “army” and allowing the people to starve. Meanwhile the UN troops were nice and safe in their “compound”

Bill C decided to do something about it and did a half baked job by sending in Special Forces without all their equipment (as in AC-130 Gunship) – which resulted in disastrous results.

By the way the UN has lots of members who could save people in Darfur – French, Germans, Koreans, Russians – pick one – so my problem is why always us? And after the latest insult to us over Iraq!

I would like, like most people, to see the genocide stop - I object to the US having to do the job.

I read the book and it is an excellent read. The mission changed because Bush's mission failed. George H.W. Bush came on TV and made a plea to the nation to save the starving peoples of Somalia, which marked the beginning of Operation Provide Relief. That mission was a failure. Then the U.N. launched Operation Restore Hope, that's where the United States sent in the Marines. In 1993, Clinton came in and reduced our troop levels and handed over Command and Control to the United Nations, that ended with the First Battle of Mogadishu and Black Hawk Down. Bush failed at his mission. Clinton failed at his mission. They were both U.S. Presidents and couldn't provide relief to a starving nation.

As far as the AC-130s goes, the convoys the AC-130s would have been protecting weren't bringing food Ted. They were bringing bullets and handcuffs. How do you go from feeding the starving to nation building? Because people in charge screwed it up; Bush, Clinton, the U.N., everyone. The U.S./U.N. will screw up a humanitarian mission. We need to leave it up to the African Union. It's their continent, let them handle it. All we need to do is provide the funds. Heck, our citizens could assist in doing that.

I agree with you strongly on Darfur as I have said. Let the Africans or the UN (without the US) do any damn thing they want – just leave us out of it.


I agree Somalia was a mess from Bush one – the mistake Clinton made was his idea that if he took out the current “strong man” it would end the violence. In Blackhawk Down, if you remember, he sent our best in to do just that AND he did not include the AC-130, which is an integral part of the Special Forces equipment. Would we have “succeeded” if we had it there – no, but we would not have lost the men that we did. The AC-130 would have protected the crash sites.

Im a little confused by some of these posts. Does anyone realize that in order for the UN to send any military personnel to try and stop the genocide in Darfur, a member country has to volunteer its military? The reason that Rwanda went so badly was because no one wanted to offer up troops (which btw where mostly Belgian, not Dutch). The troops that were in Rwanda were poorly trained, and poorly equipped (btw, the equipment comes from the member country, not from the UN).

I am confused by some of the posts that call for the UN to figure the problem out itself. One, the UN can't do anything without some countries volunteering parts of their military. Two, whatever one thinks of the UN, the US is a member nation. And as a member nation, the US is morally obligated (but not legally) to offer up some of its troops. Does this mean that other nations aren't obligated? Of course not, but since we have no way to compel sovereign nations to offer up their military, what other nations do is really none of our concern. However, the US does have control over its own military (obviously), and if we were really concerned with the genocide in Darfur, we would have already done something to help out.

This is something that constantly frustrates me when I hear others complain about the UN being useless. Indeed, the UN is quite useless, but thats because no member nations are compelled to do anything. Everything is done on a volunteer basis; therefore, because the wealthier nations do not offer up their resources, the UN is seen as ineffective.

I've been doing some background research in the hope of getting some strong supporting evidence for this thread, but the various UN deployments (each with their own sub-website) only list total deployments, and countries with a presence, under each UN-controlled military operation around the world.

My hope was that if I could get number by country for each UN deployment, I could dispel the assumption, which seems common throughout this thread (and, it has to be said, throughout mainstream American opinion), that the USA does all the heavy lifting in UN deployments.

While I do not believe this to be the case, the little I could find on UN websites lists many deployments without mentioning US contingents, and many more countries (from, yes, the EU, and Africa) than you might expect send troops on UN missions.

1. Given the poor support the US got from the UN with Iraq (pre war) should we bail the UN out here and take the lead? Why or Why not.

This is not a tit-for-tat exercise where someone has to do you a favour before you'll let them play with your ball. Nor does past behaviour count towards a credit account where America is in surplus, since (as I've indicated, I suspect that), the USA does not send troops in as many, if not more UN deployments than those where it does.

And anyway, it's not the UN that needs to be bailed out here, it's the Darfurians who are being butchered by the Sudanese government and their (militant Islamic terrorist) stooges the Janjaweed militias. If it's right to try to help them, in however as small a way as ayone can spare, then they should be helped, regardless of who owes whom a favour at the UN. to my mind, that's the biggest failing of the UN, in that - without it's own dedicated troops - it can never do anythign unless member states stump them up.

The USA is not especially a villain in this piece - all I'm trying to get across in my preamble is that I don't think it's the lonely square-jawed hero, either. In fact, I think it's the Chinese that aren't pulling their weight in terms of UN deployments - they have a bigger army than anyone else, but hardly ever use it for any non-national purpose.

2. If yes should we expect US help in Iraq as a precondition? ie UN forces?

Not as a precondition, no, but (realistically) after the USA and UK have left Iraq there may well be a need to deploy UN troops.

Ideally this would have happened already (not ideally - the idealsituation would have been for the UK, USA & other not to have invaded in 2003 at all, but to postpone until after UN inspections, which had finally begun to work properly, had finished, but that's OOOOLD ground)

3. Is there any “vital interest” here that would justify an already busy US military to take on this mission?
Given current deployments, probably not, but that shouldn't stop the US arguing for a UN deployment staffed by other countries. At the moment the attitude seems to be that unless the US has boots on the ground it's all a waste of time. This may perhaps be true, but we'll never know until everyone stops sitting on their hands to spite someone else who is also sitting on their hands.

4. Why does it take the US to make this happen in the UN? Why has the UN stood by again and watched 200,000 people die? Is this another Rwanda?

The US has the most powerful military and makes the most noise about being on the side of right all the time. Because they're wiating for the big boys - the permanent security council members - to give a lead, and they're just squabbling among themselves. And yes, it's looking that way.

Well of course they need troops – does that mean it has to be the US??? How about all the other countries with big militaries?? That is what I mean.

And for your info I saw a documentary on Rwanda and they interview the Dutch general who was there when the trouble started with 1,200 trained men. He called Kaffi and asked if he could intervene. He felt he could have stopped it from starting – Kaffi told him to DO NOTHING and that continued as 800,000 died. This is why I say the UN is worthless in this situation and I am against the US doing the heavy lifting whenever there is a crisis.


So if you think the UN is not useless - just watch as people die in Darfur as they did in Rwanda, and Bosnia......






Yes and the UN should have gotten troops and done more a long time ago – instead we watch people die and it is so bad now that a liberal group and some Christian groups and running ads on TV asking Bush to intervene. IMO there are a lot of countries out there who could do the job. We have done out part for the UN and to think after the shafting they handed un in Iraq that we are going to jump into the mess in Darfur is ludicrous. Send the countries that had the colonies there in decades past – France, Netherlands etc.

Uh, are you kidding? The head of the UN Peacekeeping forces for UNAMIR was Canadian; however, the only country that sent any substancial amount of troops was Belgian, which was a huge issue because many Rwandans did not trust the Belgians (as they had been the predominant colonial power).

[url=Wiki on Rwanda Genocide]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide[/url]



And I dont know where you think the US is putting all their man power into the UN military forces. They hardly ever do. Rwanda being a prime example, as well as Darfur. Too many American cry and sob that the US is always the one to carry the rest of the world on their shoulders. However, if America had stepped up in Rwanda, then it wouldn't have happened. Once again, we can't compell other nations to volunteer their soldiers; however, we do have the ability to demand that our country do something. I dont understand why youre telling me to sit back and watch as more people die in Darfur, yet do not want the US to get involved to stop the genocide. I also dont understand how you could be upset about what happened at Rwanda (which was allowed to happen because of a lack of troops), yet do not want the US involved. This essentially ensures that all UN military engagements fail. How can the US be an example of fighting for good when massacres happen and it's own people sit back and say, "let some other country handle it."

Additionally, please go reread my post again, in fact, I did state that the UN was useless, precisely because no member nations are obligated to offer up their military personnel to stop international crises.

Ok here is the problem and here is the true divide between liberal and realist thought in foreign policy. Yes, it would be nice if we stopped the Rwandan genocide and if today we steppedup and put an end to Darfur. In theory, this sounds all nice and easy. We are the most powerful nation in the world and we have the ability to affect great change.

Here is where it gets muddy. When we went into Vietnam, we had approximately one soldier for every 40 citizens in that country. We dropped more ordinance (in tons) in Operation Rolling Thunder than was dropped in all of WW2. Yet we lost. We went into Somalia in the hopes of stopping the mass famine that was occurring and found that that was more difficult than we imagined. Today we are tangled in Afghanistan and Iraq...two countries that...we just flat out beat. Yet we are still in these nations and we are having ever growing problems controlling them. We are still in the Balkans.

Where am I getting with this?

Is it possible that military intervention could have stopped Rwanda and could stop Darfur today...yes...but at what cost? What if Rwanda turned into a quagmire much like Vietnam? Would you still support it? Same goes for Darfur. Its easy to say that we go in and stop the war...but then we have to protect the peace. There is the ideal, which has the US acting as the global hegemon with unlimited power to protect the innocent and then there is the real, which recognizes that the US has limited power and that good intentions could lead to unintended consequences.

All that I am saying is that if you support an interventionist policy, particularly in Darfur, then its time that you make some guidelines because I could make a perfectly good case that the situation in Iraq called for intervention on purely humanitarian grounds. There has to be some consistency.

Just to clarify, I never actually stated whether I was for or against intervention. Im really more just trying to find clarity with some of the arguments posted. It seems like people are saying "Its terrible whats happening...But let another country step up and deal with it." Does that sound rational at all (or any basis in fact?)? This isn't elementary school, we can't all whine "Why do I have to do it? Billy never does!" And in the realm of international politics, it doesnt really make a lot of sense. As I've stated before, we dont really have the right to tell other sovereign nations what we would like them to do with their army. So, if we're really upset about Darfur (which most of us are not, I would gather), then we should try to persuade our government to do something. It doesnt make sense to complain about how other governments arent doing what you think they should be doing.

Read 'Shake hands with the Devil', the book written by the Canadian chief of UN forces in Rwanda. It might help clear up a few errors of fact that are being repeated here. Certainly Rwanda was callously ignored, but that occurred before the massacres started. There were signs of what might be coming, the leaders on the ground warned the world, and they generally ignored it, and that is tragic. However, once the actual massacre had started, it took a week for news to filter out (there was exactly ONE foreign journalist in the entire country in an official capacity), and once word of the scale of the slaughter became known, there was no way for any nation to intervene with substantial troops in time. This is a landlocked country in the middle of the Jungle, and 90% of the killing happened in 2 weeks.

Even if the UN or Clinton had called it a genocide and deployed troops the moment the scale of the massacre became public, they could not have made a difference in time nor done anything to impede 98% of the killings. And thats not even considering how useless a foreign military force would be in such a situation even if they could get there...

Why would I be kidding? With all the strong countries in the world why is just Belgium in there? Why, after the UN shafted us on Iraq and sat and applauded Chavez’s rant would the US want to try to find troops for Africa?





How about Bosnia, and as liberals wine about 4 years in Iraq we have been in Bosnia twice as long – and if you remember WE (as in Bill Clinton) had to go in without UN sanction because the fools there would not move. You do remember who did the heavy lifting including lost lives in Gulf War I don’t you. I see NO reason to spend more American lives for the UN.

Here is a list of UN members – let’s find out why none of them except Belgium can send troops
http://www.un.org/members/list.shtml



I am upset about Rwanda because the UN failed to even ASK for troops as it developed and in fact refused to let the Dutch, who were there, stop it. If you feel all UN military missions, without the US will fail please tell me why that is?? Do you have the slightest clue of the strength of the German, Russian, French, Japanese, Spanish, Chinese (I can go on forever) militaries is??? Any of them could crush all the military forces in Africa in weeks. So please look it up before you commit Americans to die in Africa – and at the behest the corrupt idiots at UN.




Unless you mean the UN when you say the “world” ignored it I disagree. Again the Dutch general who was there heard the radio broadcasts inciting the genocide and watched as the machetes were delivered by the truckload. He had called Kaffi and was TOLD to DO NOTHING. This idiot at the UN deserves ALL the blame.

Ted.

Denmark is much like Belgium in that it is a small rich country with limited resources. Denmark would probably send troops to Darfur if it could but the fact of the matter is Denmarks meager military capabilities are already stretched to the limit supporting the USA in actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Denmark also has UN commitments in other parts of the world, including the Balkans, but these are not the drain that Afghanistan and Iraq are.

Most European nations are small and have inadequate logistical capabilities for sending troops into other parts of the world. France and Britain are essentially the only European nations with the ability to place large amount of troops into Darfur and Britain is like Denmark, over stretched in supporting the USA.

France could probably send some troops to Darfur but not enough to make a difference. France already has troops in various African nations and in Lebanon and may also be stretched. Like Britain its capacity for imposing its military will is limited.

What I don't understand is why the western nations don't help the African Union forces with training and air support but I suspect this has something to do with an unwillingness to lend real military aid to dubious leaders in Africa. Knowledge being power and all that.

Julian made the point some where that of all the countries with large military forces neglecting their responsibility China stands out the most. I agree though I'd add Russia to the corner of shame for not only is Russia not pulling its weight, its also arming a lot of really unpleasant people.

I hear what you are saying but this is not a major military engagement like Bosnia or Afghanistan. This is boots on the ground and guns which all the major industrial powers have plenty of esp. France, Germany and Russia. Where is Russia with their new found oil wealth and huge military? And France should be in Africa damit since they had numerous colonies there in the past.



I agree. Make them better and then trust them?? Not the best idea and their is no time now.




I agree. Countries like yours should not be expected to do this kind of work but China, Russia and others should “belly up to the bar”. IMO there may be “political” and economic reasons for not helping.
http://english.people.com.cn/200609/07/eng...907_300433.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4813078.stm


Could it be that Russia, France and others don’t want to oppose “Arabs” here and potentially anger their big Arab customers worldwide?

Your rant is getting more and more disconnected from reality. Also, if I may bo bold, a bit of history might help clear up your confusion. There were Belgians in Rwanda because until 1961 Rwanda was a Belgian colony, and the site of some of the worst colonial excesses of this century, they felt they had a duty to help. Since you haven't read 'Shake hands with the devil', you might try reading 'heart of darkness' by Joseph Conrad; or 'King Leopold's Ghosts' by Adam Hochschild.

The UN did not shaft the US on Iraq, quite the opposite, the US shafter the UN on Iraq. You have eveb agreed to that in other threads, why reverse your position now?

I love how you make the UN out to be an entity unto itself. "The UN sat and applauded Chavez's rant"... The UN did that did they? Who exactly? Which civil servants or functionaries applauded Chavez? Or did you mean the representatives from SOME SPECIFIC COUNTRIES applauded Chavez? How is that the fault of the UN?




This must be the sixth time I have reminded you, and yet each time you just cut-and-run, and don't respond, thus I am forced to remind you again. It is not the Liberals who are upset about Iraq, it is a large majority of the American people, including a significant percentage of Republicans, as well as the US Troops on the ground in Iraq.

And as for Bosnia, please, let us all know Ted. How many US troops have become casualties in Bosnia? How many hundreds of billions of dollars have been wasted there? Is Bosnia now in worse shape for the US being there, and worse every single year? No? Then don't make such obviously absurd comparatives.




Yes, so you keep asserting. Some TV show you can't remember told you some Dutch guy you can't remember told Kofi Annan about Rwanda and he specifically told them to do nothing. Riiiight.

Of course, the Dutch were not in charge of the UN mission to Rwanda, the Canadians were, and Kofi Annan was not secretary general of the UN at the time, Boutros Boutros-Ghali was (Annan was head of peacekeeping, but the decision was ultimately Ghali's), and the Dutch troops you claim could have stopped the genocide numbered only 800 men with small arms, and could not possibly have affected the nation-wide massacre of 800,000 people (other than get killed themselves, like the belgian peacekeepers who DID try and interfere: killed to a man)... but hey, Ted, why let facts get in the way of your 'unnamed TV show'.




I'm curious Ted, do you know the difference between military power and projectable power? Ignoring for a moment that Germany in 1994 was constitutionally prohibited from deploying its military outside Europe, and Japan is STILL constitutionally prohibited from deploying its military outside Japan: of the nations you listed only France has a reasonable rapidly projectable military power, Russia has little, China has none.

Pesky facts again, eh?

Facts? Come on Vermillion. This is a little bit far fetched...

I'm not sure what you read that told you that China couldn't reach past its borders for something of this nature. Frankly, it's not going to happen and we both can agree on that, but the fact is that they have the hardware (Naval ships and planes), manpower, and financial ability to do so. Externally projectable power. They may not have sophisticated weapons systems or trained troops to fight battles against nations of similar size or financial means, but they surely could put troops on the ground in Africa. It's culturally not something the Chinese have ever put stock in, but I'm very confident they could do it.

I'd say that Russia has too many financial issues to deploy an effective force, and probably won't either. That leaves the usual suspects... I'd venture to state that there's no good reason that Canada, the US, the UK, and France don't form a multinational force of the best/brightest soldiers and put them on the ground to help in Darfur. Quality over quantity. We could put Special Forces/Navy Seal type soldiers on the ground with a game plan led by someone who's had success in missions of these types, even in the face of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only impediment to this process presumably would be if things heat up in Iran...

Yes that what I meant. Representatives of countries that now duck when the UN needs troops and point to the US. That is exactly what I mean.

And the UN did shaft the US in Iraq. WE the US freed Kuwait and the UN “resolved” with Iraq to do certain things. And if you want to explain to me which of those “resolutions” was ever completed I am all ears. The UN got booted in 1998 and we got stuck marinating the “box” while your buddies in France push to have all sanctions dropped and the oil for food program pays off UN and countries alike to NOT vote to use force – leaving the US stuck with it. Ya we got shafted.




Ok…..so the Republicans are asking for a Sept 08 pull out??? How many??? Give me a break. And as I said before and will say for the last time IMO running a war or a country by surveys is STUPID – OK get it now.




Well maybe you will believe a Canadian General. Does itr matter – the UN failed miserably – any argument there??

Gen. Romeo Dallaire defied U.N. orders to withdraw from Rwanda. Without the authority, manpower, or equipment to stop the slaughter, he saved the lives he could but nearly lost his sanity.
***
In an indifferent world, Gen. Romeo Dallaire and a few thousand ill-equipped U.N. peacekeepers were all that stood between Rwandans and genocide. The Canadian commander did what he could-did more than anyone else-but he sees his mission as a terrible failure and counts himself among its casualties.
After a 100-day reign of terror, some 800,000 Rwandan civilians were dead, most killed by their machete-wielding neighbors. Dallaire had sounded the alarm. He'd begged. He'd bellowed. He'd even disobeyed orders. "l was ordered to withdraw...by [then-U.N. Sec. Gen. Boutros] Boutros Ghali about seven, eight days into it. .. and I said to him, 'I can't, I've got thousands' -by then we had over 20,000 people-'in areas under our control,"' Dallaire said in a recent interview with Amnesty Now. The general's hands, always moving, rose beside his face as if to block the memories. "The situation was going to sh....And, I said, 'No, I can't leave
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Heroes/G...o_Dallaire.html


Yes in fact I do and I know the Germans have very nice equipment and well trained troops, as does France, and Russia. And please don’t tell me the mighty Russian machine cannot take on anyone in Africa!!! You have to be joking! And how about the Chineses 2 million man army?

Russian army strength must be no less than 600,000 people

The lowest possible strength of the Russian army must not be less than 600,000 servicemen, Alexei Arbatov, Deputy State Duma Speaker for Defense said at a RIA Novosti press conference on Friday.

http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_rep...p;report_id=187

Now for those looking for a reason for us to deal with the Sudan forcefully – this might be it. I am still not in favor of any action there or anywhere in Africa.

NORFOLK, Va. — A federal judge said Wednesday that Sudan is responsible for the bombing of the USS Cole but he needs more time to determine damages for the families of the 17 sailors killed when terrorists bombed the ship in 2000.
"There is substantial evidence in this case presented by the expert testimony that the government of Sudan induced the particular bombing of the Cole by virtue of prior actions of the government of Sudan," U.S. District Judge Robert G. Doumar said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258734,00.html

I suspect that is exactly the case here, but I do not think this relates only to those three country's. The USA is itself beholden, for what ever reasons, to the Arabs also, most specifically the Saudi and oil rich Gulf region Arabs.




I don't think its unfair to place a collective responsibility on the majority of members of the UN for whilst the UN is not a seperate political entity, it is still the manifestation of a political will that has resisted the USA in recent years.

Whether or not that resistence is justified, or whether or not the USA has also resisted the UN is another matter, but to reply to the questions posed in this debate, I do not see it as unreasonable to identify the UN as being a major stumbling block towards peace in Darfur for no matter what the USA does these days there are plenty of nations whose representatives in the UN are unwilling to lend support in Darfur but more than willing to lend support against the USA and the applause for Hugo Chavez is the perfect example of that. And just who on Earth is Hugo Chavez anyway? How many nations has he liberated? What has this racist socialist ever done to garner support except fraternise with monsters (image, image) and oppose the USA?

Is he going to liberate Darfur?

And then there is the UN itself. Not its component members but its political leadership. That aspect of the UN which is a political entity, namely the office of the Secretary General, and specifically the former Sec Gen, Kofi Annan. Annan was a disaster. Plain and simple. His concillatory style of leadership was a joke and his unwillingness to confront the corruption which flourished under him, even within his own family, undermined everything the UN stands for.


Kofi seem to agree with Ted though of course he drags in the whole of the international community to share in his guilt:

Link.


But lets not take Kofi's word for it, the man is suspect at best: Here is an article which looks at his record as Sec Gen and provides the confirmation for Ted's claim:
Link.

Its also worth pointing out that the infamous massacre at Srebrenica, facilitated by Dutch UN troops also took place under the authority of Kofi Annan whose policy's not only left the Dutch powerless to prevent the mass murder but had them assist the Bosnian Serbs round up the victims.

Also when Danish troops disobeyed the UN in order to engage Bosnian Serbs in order to protect a Bosnian Muslim town, they were given a dressing down. Fortunately the deed was already done and the lesson learned in Copenhagen which has taken a harder stance ever since.


Yeah, lets just look at those 'facts' again shall we?

It didn't take Google more than 60 seconds to point me to this:
Link. There is a PDF of the original fax on theat page as well.

Reading the above tells me that the Belgians who died, did so as a direct result of Kofi Annan and Iqbal Riza's orders, in other words, as has been seen repeatedly, leading authorities within the UN facilitated massacres, not just by their inaction but also by their actions. The lesson to be learned is clear as crystal. The UN cannot be trusted because the UN has its own internal agenda's. Nothing happens in the UN unless a powerful member state takes the initiative and when that does actually happen, as we have seen in Iraq, all those little vested interests, those people like Chavez and Annan who have their own irons in the fire, start causing static.

The UN is a forum populated, amongst others, by rich international trolls where the moderators have given up and gone over to the trolls because thats much easier and far more lucrative than actually doing the job they were chosen to do.

God, no matter how many times this is crushed, it pops up again, like a chronic ailment. Yes, the UN resolutions were defied by iraq, which is why the UN was moving towards resolving the issue. We will never know what effect that would have had of course, as the process was deliberately and needlessly subverted by the Bush Jr administration. As for 'My friends in france' (nice, ted, very adult), you seem to have forgotten (again) that the nation that benefitted more than ALL others put together from the oil for Food scandal was the US, US oil companies took the majority of those illegal contracts, companies which have yet to be pursued in court (with one exception) and companies that donated heavily to Bus Jr, including funding his presidential library. Forgot that, did you?




Yes, so you often say as an attempt to dismiss or ignore polling data proving you wrong on fact. That does not stop you of course from quoting polling data frequently whenever the numbers suit you... That kind of intellectual flexibility must be helpful for you on these boards.




No, in fact thank you for posting a message that supports my original point flawlessly. The UN, and all its member nations, fell down regarding the warning signs before the massacre began. Once things started though, there was nothing anybody could have done to mitigate the slaughter to any degree.



OK, so thank you for proving that in fact No, you have no idea what the difference is between military power and projectable military power. Why did you claim that you did and then go on to prove with your own words that you don't?

No nation could deploy forces to Rwanda in time to make a difference once word of the slaughter began. Only two nations in the world have a decent sized, effective rapid action deployment force, the US and France, and even they could not have gotten there in number and time to make a difference once word of the massacre got out. Russia and China? Please, it is to laugh.



He didn't 'drag it in', it is quite obviously shared. Yes, in the months before the genocide began, the UN and all of its member nations fell down on the job, and failed to pay sufficient attention to the warnings that were emerging from the country.



With all respect, you need to read up on what actually happened. The belgian peacekeepers who died (their bodies were found by Dellaire and his unit of Canadians) were slaughtered because they tried to interfere, and were cut down by mobs with machetes. Dallaire speaks quite openly in his book of messages delivered to him by leaders of the mob saying the UN troops would not be harmed or targeted as long as they did not interfere, but interference would mean instant death. In the entire country there were fewer than 2000 peacekeepers, of which about a third were combat troops. I have HEARD Dellaire speak himself at the DND in Ottawa on the matter, he is brutally condemnatory towards every nation which ignored the warning signs before the event, but quite frank about the fact that on the ground, once it began, there was nothing that could be done. Its all in his book, I highly suggest you read it.



Actually, you have that completely backwards. Their technological sophistication is rapidly improving and very high, below the US and the prime NATO countries, but not by that far. As for lack of projectable power, where did I get that? I don't know, Jane's defence? Strategic Studies Institute? US White paper on China's national defense? Books? There is little to no debate on the issue of China's projectable power, if you disagree and think they have some, I'd love to see you justify that. Ships and planes? The sum-total of ALL China's military naval transport capacity is 60-70 ships, capable of moving maybe 12,000 men, and MOST of those are short range amphibious assault craft similar to old-style LST's. Aircraft? China's entire military transport wing can carry less than 5000 men, and nowhere near that far. Sure, China could eploy troops abroad, in peacetime, if you give them a few months minimum... thats it.



Here's a good reason: the US, the UK and Canada have no troops available in quantity, they are all occupied in Iraq and/or Afghanistan. France does of course, have a powerful, modern military, the best in Europe, and has significant projectable power, so you are correct there...

Ted, what this all comes down to is that I dont understand how you think you can personally (or even how the US can obligate) obligate all those other nations to use their military. If you can find a legal way to do it, fine. In that case, your arguments would make sense. As there is no way that I can think of to do that, I dont understand why youre whining so much. Sovereign nations are allowed to do what they please with their military. The only one you really have any say with is the US. If youre really upset about Darfur, then you should be willing to do whatever it takes to stop it. Otherwise, youre just as bad as the other countries that are ignoring the problem also.

Additionally, I agree with Vermillion...Read Shake Hands with the Devil. It was actually written by the general in charge of UNAMIR, and hes not just "some Canadian." General Dallaire is an accomplished member of the Canadian military, and its incredibly insulting that you just down played all the stress and terror he witnessed because you would prefer to stick with your unnamed Dutch general. The book is an incredibly informative read, and details minutely how Rwanda went wrong. While much of it has to do with the UN, a good portion of it also had to do with the fact that member nations did not offer up any troops. The Canadian troops were the only ones who were substancial throughout the whole mission...But where was the US? Thats right, pretending it wasnt a genocide. At that time, we could have easily offered troops or at the very least, military equipment, but we didn't do anything.

Odd, if you heard him speak then he must have mentioned that he warned the UN before the slaughter started and then it took 100 days to kill the 800,000 people. Total UN disaster from day one.

Now Darfur is very similar – the UN talks but cannot act and as the situation gets more desperate all eyes turn to the US to save the day. Why will France not move? Afraid to anger Arab customers?

Whatever the reasons Imo the US is ,as you say, very busy and the UN will actually have to solve this one without us. And I disagree with you on deployment and logistics. Who is to say that a group of nations could not share this? Just the view of ships loading with troops from ANY country IMO would sober the Sudanese government up quickly.




Is that right. Come on stop joking. I love how you rewrite history. What you meant to say is the UN was booted in 1998 and did SQUAT while the US flew over and got shot at. THEN in 2002 when GWB put troops on their border the UN got inspectors back in. I am sure you remember……..



So you are in favor of the war in Iraq? We are saving innocents from Saddam? I bet not. But you want the US to be the “world cop” because its “the right thing to do”. Sorry IMO we are not responsible for every person in the world and unless we have a strong self interest in an area we should stay out - unless we have lots of spare resources and it is “our turn”. Clearly neither is the case here and if the UN cannot do anything to move say the Russians or the French then I say – too bad.

The failure of the United Nations to act decisively and forcefully in Darfur speaks volumes as to how ineffective, impotent and useless the U.N. has become.

I believe strongly that this is an AFRICAN issue and African nations have to take the lead in resolving the situation. The United States can and should provide more financial and logistical support to the African Union, but this is not a situation where a military solution can be applied.

Shamefully, the murders, mutilations and rapes that have occurred and still are has not captured the world's attention. However, the world's only superpower cannot make everyone behave and play nice with each other. This is an extremely complex and complicated situation and there is a natural desire to END the slaughter in Sudan.

But simple answers and quick fixes will not save the day. Putting some backbone and teeth into the U.N. is a step in the right direction. This is where the U.S. can exert it's great powers of persuasion.

Vermillion (& Kimpossible)

Perhaps the reason why the international community 'fell down on the job' is because the institution designed to bring these things to our attention was busy ignoring them?

Kofi Annan was informed by Dellaire. They knew what was about to happen and Annan's response was to tell Dellaire to tell the President who's own people were the guilty party. Now I may be obtuse about this, but I'm having a hard time seeing how this falls into the lap of the international community. The international community relies on the UN to blow the whistle when faced with such things, it relies on people like Kofi Annan to be loud and vocal when the time is ripe, not to come creeping along later on and apologise for not doing enough at the time. Fat lot of good such an apology does to the massacred Rwandans and Bosnians! The only person served by that apology was Annan himself and was no doubt made so he and his Swedish socialist wife can maintain their social standing at cocktail parties.

If you think I'm being unfair on Kofi Annan then so be it. The man is an utter disgrace in my opinion. An appeaser of terrorists and a moral coward. In his place and told of an impending masssacre of civilians I'd have ranted to the media till I passed out. If needs be, I'd tender my resignation or throw paint at the delegates if thats what it took. Kofi Annan ended his decade in the lime light like a good, self serving diplomat though and all he had to offer to slip through the questions was a soft spoken apology and all the world's bastards could say "Thank you Kofi for not rocking the boat".

Thousands upon thousands are dying in Darfur and what does the UN do? Nothing. Ziltch. Without a strong member state acting to ensure its own interests are secure, the UN is nothing better than a debating society for sock puppets. When confronted with an ongoing Holocaust they have a strenuous meeting before heroically adjurning for lunch. Kofi and his diplomatic friends sleep well in their nice warm beds whilst the millions of poor they are supposed to be protecting lie in mass graves.

The United States has no obligation to help the people of Darfur. The UN does. It has an obligation to scream and shout bloody fire and hells teeth until the whole UN building crashes down if thats what it takes to provoke member states into action. But it didn't and still doesn't. Kofi's soft, sensual voice never betrayed so much as a tremble in the face of mass murder. He stood, quietly murmuring inane platitudes to the camera's and nothing happened to prevent genocide. Every one is complaining about GW Bush whilst Kofi oversaw Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur and no one bats an eye lid, after all, Annan is not an American conservative so... What a great leader!


You know what, I just did that and what I read didn't match the picture your painting. It seems to me that you've read this book and made up your mind accordingly...


...but perhaps I'll get around to reading this book one day, though probably not, in the mean time however I find there is a lot of information on the internet which doesn't require me to buy the books you recommend, nor confine me to one man's personal perspective, for regardless of how accurate he may be in his observations, Dellaire is still just one man. No doubt this is a good book, and no doubt its author is justified in his criticism of the international community, after all the international community sat back and did nothing for ten years whilst Kofi Annan gazed at his navel.

No matter what Dellaire says, as far as I am concerned, the reason why the UN was/is useless in the face of these atrocities stems from an unwillingness in the UN to risk upsetting member states. The UN leadership would rather maintain the well funded status quo than actually point the finger at a member state and accuse them of any thing so impolite as supporting genocide.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


The Danish parliment have debated Darfur several times and there has been a strong urge to send troops, but the reality is, we don't have any troops left to send. They are all tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe money and humanitarian aid is being sent instead but whether or not its actually reaching the people who need it is any one's guess. Danish aid to Africa has a traditional tendency to disapear once it reaches the destination.

I agree that this is an African issue. I think the best bet would be for the African nations to establish a multinational force regardless of the UN and then retroactively apply for UN backing and western air support. I can't see how else the problem is going to be solved.

Well, I agree and I don't.

1.) The UN should be helping us in Iraq or Afghanistan or both Poor salesmanship on Bush's part, anti-US sentiment within the EU take the credit. That's an error we all may have to accept one day. (Then again, why should the UN fight the US's war)

2.) At the same time I'm not convinced we are 'bailing out' anyone in Iraq. Sectarian violence is underway beneath our noses to the point where you have to wonder if our implicit support for the Shiite gov't is encouraging it.

3.) There's a difference between strategic nation building, with positive humanitarian consequences; and multi-lateral intervention into a genocide. The UN has cause to be skeptical towards the former, but not the latter.



I agree. The question was, 'should the US lead the UN' into Darfur. That includes all the nations of the EU. Of course if we want to debate the specifics -- who should pull the biggest share -- yeah, I think the EU is guilty of a certain unforgivable isolatonism; especially regarding their former colonys.



I agree and I don't. In principle, yes I strongly believe the US and/or the UN should give the AU the resources to build a stronger pan-african peacekeeping force both for the purpose of Africanizing human rights policing within Africa-- and because the UN has so often proven a less than effectient institution to deal with these issues.

However, to take it further, why is even an AFRICAN issue, as you capitalize. Why is it not a SUDANESE issue? Why should external African actors have anymore say within Sudan than the United Nations?

I strongly support an agenda of political and economic African unity -- and I think a better funded AU, less hampered by restrictions on what they can and cannot do as peacekeeper would further that cause and the cause of human rights throughout the continent. But I don't think that excuses the UN for inaction where the AU has clearly fallen short. Ideally, the United Nations would be as responsive to human rights abuses whatever continent they occur. And if the African Union wants to take the lead fine-- I believe they did that in Darfur. But if increased funding can't change the fact they are essentially legally bound to do nothing but witness the genocide -- the UN has a mandate to enter.

Moreover: Applied to a larger context, that kind of pan-african logic -- this is an AFRICAN problem -- assumes there are no inner-tensions within the African community itself. In a Kwame Nkrumah-inspired future, these tensions would be minute enough to be discarded in the face of wanton human rights abuses; more often than not however, conflicts within one state spill over and involve the nearby community of nations in complex, diplomatically impossible ways. (See Biafra War, The Congo, Somalia today). That's certainly not an issue specific to Africa; you may recall Kwame Nkrumah's last state visit was a voyage to mediate an end to the Vietnam war. Personally, I think African states could be as valid a mediator to conflicts outside of the continent as non-African mediators regarding conflicts within the continent.

All of this is just to say, responsibility for Darfur spills out on both sides of the Sahara. Ideally, the UN has a mandate both to end the genocide -- or help the AU end the genocide -- and to help the AU build itself into a force capable handling African sitatuations with much more expediency than the UN seems to be capable of.

thats a pretty muddled post. hope it translates.

US war? If I remember correctly it was the US who lead (and lost men) in Gulf War I for the UN and then all we asked was that they help us enforce UN resolutions. How impolite of us!.


The UN did and does squat. Rwanda, Iraq, Darfur, Bosnia. Total UN incompetence. They were responsible for Iraqi compliance from 1991 on and tell we what they did when Saddam kicked out the UN in 1998 ……… SQUAT.





The EU does not want to move on Arabs and Sudan is no friend of ours – see story on Cole attack. France, Germany, Russia etc could easily handle this crisis.

Check out moif post. He cover the UN total incompetence quite well here - http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...mp;#entry210156

Gee Ted, you are Right. You think maybe thats why I have stated clearly and openly TWICE on this very thread exactly that, that dallaire warned everybody before the slaughters started and was ignored? Not once, but twice, in posts directly responding to you. If you aren't going to read people's posts, whats the point exactly?



You can disagree with facts all you want, you do it fairly often in fact. That does not alter them.

Yes, I suppose nations could share amphibious transport capacity, lets see, who is going to loan China transport ships and aircraft? Well the only nations that have them in numbers are The US (in use) the UK (in use) and France (not using them at the moment, but doesn't have many). Again, this comes from your lack of understanding of the principle of projectable power.




Nice. I guess the fact that several times in other threads you have agreed with me, and directly contradicted your point here should not surprise me. Yes, the US was one of the nations responsible for getting the Inspectors back into Iraq, which is odd considering how utterly Bush jr subsequently ignored their findings and recommendations, but thats neither here nor there.


The reality is, you keep making up facts about other nations deploying in Darfur; listing nations incapable of deploying as if they were, listing nations constitutionally prohibited from deploying as if they were not, listing nations already fully deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan as if they were not... I do not mean to be crass here, but with all respect, perhaps if you actually learned a few facts about the strategic situations of nations you list blindly, it might make you less prone to constant errors of fact.

In the spirit of helpfulness, allow me to assist you. Apart from the US, there is exactly one nation on the planet with the available forces, sufficient forces, and the projectable deployment capacity to intervene in Darfur, and that is France, though not with a very big force. There are a few nations which have some limited capacity and could assist on their own, including Russia, South Africa, Italy, and (oddly) Singapore. (UK and Canada are currently fully engaged)

Its a pity you didn't read the background: Dallaire and the UN Rwanda mission, after the massacre, recognised and spoke at length about this exact failing and proposed a UN rapid deployment force specifically for these situations. The idea was VETO'd by the US (and France) who refused to consider their troops being placed under UN command.

What “findings” are you speaking of? That Saddam would not come up with the “destroyed WMD” proof. You like to be vague when wrong any saying nothing I notice…. But that’s neither here nor there – riiiiight.





Moif covered it quite well. The idiot kofi should have been screaming from the roof tops and demanding that nations change their damn laws if they have to. But you are a UN apologist so lets forget it. Darfur will go the way of Rwanda and then you can bet some stupid fool will try to blame Bush.





I did see this man speak – It was my error – he was the general I thought was Dutch. And quite frankly I agree with France and the US- who would want to under the control of UN idiots??? And then we would end up with all the dirty work anyway because of "logistics" and "power projevction".


This is a red herring and you know it. So what if it takes the Russians 3 weeks to get there or the Chinese 6 months. How long has this been going on? And do you really think the Sudanese can ignore say 30,000 troops heading in their direction? Come on – it’s called intimidation and every bit as effective as bullets.