• Civ7 is already available! Happy playing :).

Darfur (update)

JoeM

Imperator
Joined
Sep 5, 2001
Messages
2,612
Location
Centre of the maritime world
I'm sure we've had Darfur discussed many times before, but this comment in a BBC article today particularly irked me:

"...there had been no major attacks in the region since January and that there had also been a reduction in attacks on villages.

But US aid official Andrew Natsios said this was chiefly because there were no villages left to burn down. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4713751.stm

I haven't got a solution, but when is something going to be done?

After watching Storyville on the Srebreniza genocide, recaps of Rwanda, Auswitzch et al. when are we going to stop saying 'Never again' and actually DO something?

(Forget about oil incentives and Iraq if you can)
 
Human beings disapoint me. Why must they consistently under perform in every well intentioned objective? :sad:
 
UN is powerless in this current form.It needs a real army,not some crappy blue helmets.
 
The the U.S. has not failed, the UK has not failed, not even the world's greatest blunder (the UN) has not failed.

The Sudanese have failed. It is their responsibility to protect and build their nation, and they failed.
 
Cleric said:
UN is powerless in this current form.It needs a real army,not some crappy blue helmets.
Noisy children are bad enough by themselves, giving them matches is not a good way to pacify them.
 
rmsharpe said:
The Sudanese have failed. It is their responsibility to protect and build their nation, and they failed.

That much is already obvious. Quite frankly, none of the governments care.
 
JoeM said:
I haven't got a solution, but when is something going to be done?

I can't think of any appropriate action either. Perhaps that's why I don't advocate the US government taking any.
 
Just wait long enough, the problem will go away. It's already started to, no villages were burned down because there were none to burn down. The UN has been revealed to be the worthless, corrupt, and incompenent organization it always has been. The fact is, no one is willing to send their soldiers to intervene because one group of foreigners has decided to kill another group of foreigners. Armies are expensive things to move and maintain, and why should anyone risk their soldiers being killed in what is essentialy none of their business. If anyone is actually wants to help these people, send them weapons, it will be more helpfull than anything the UN can do. It sounds harsh, and it is harsh, but that is the way the world always has been and always will be.
 
Well, ignoring the fact that this would be a much bigger humanitarian catastrophy if there were lots of oil in Darfur, I think "Never again" will be correct when people in Darfur are able to vote in Europe and the US.
 
Cheetah said:
I think "Never again" will be correct when people in Darfur are able to vote in Europe and the US.

Could you clarify that statement? At the moment I am perplexed as to what you are trying to say. :confused:

thanks in advance.
 
I'll try.
It was just a thought that struck me while I watched the news about Darfur:
We hold the Sudanese government responsible for the people in Darfur, but they either can't or won't help them.
The EU and US is the only ones who are able to help the people in Darfur. The UN needs mandates, troops that is not form it's own country, and money. It doesn't have enough.
But neither Kofi Annan, George W. Bush or any European leader are responsible for the people in Darfur in the same way as they are responsible for the people in their own countries.

If the people of Darfur were voters, tax-payers and citisens of the US or some European country, it would be our leaders duty to help them. While now it is only a "moral" duty to help poor people in Africa.

Did I make more sense this time? I'm not sure myself. :undecide:
 
I've been banging on plenty all over the Colosseum about the genocide taking place in Darfur. I won't bang on here (just yet) but well done to Joe for starting it up! :goodjob:
 
I really don't understand why this genocide is being carried out. I saw a documentary about Sudan and the two ethnic groups that are fighting each other look the same to me. I have no idea how you can differentiate between the two. The same goes for Rwanda and the doctrine of German (“Aryan”) supremacy over Slavs during WWII.
 
Egypt is a modern, relatively powerful country neighboring Sudan. Why can't/won't they do anything? I'm afraid I know the answer.
 
Egypt probably didn't want to offend both American and European politicians that pretend like they both care about what happens in the Sudan and that they want to see a "peaceful resolution of conflict."
 
Okay, so realistically we're probably too late but hypothetically:

Why can't we put in 10,000 troops?

What I believe is needed is mobile infantry, perhaps chopper support too. I understand that the main issue is that they will carry out the attacks if they are not seen and do not fear retribution.

Worst case: Troops witness slaughter and engage the militia.
Sudanese gov gets upset, foreign troops are attacked en masse and are slaughtered by Sudanese Army.

Likelihood: Pretty low


Best case: Genocide stops, displaced families allowed to return protected by foreign forces

Likelihood: Pretty low

Best we can hope for: War crimes reduced, troops engage/capture some militias, displaced families affected by famine/malnutrition. International reputation affected by Imperialist accusations.

Likelihood: Most likely of the three.

What other options are there?
 
JoeM said:
Best we can hope for: War crimes reduced, troops engage/capture some militias, displaced families affected by famine/malnutrition. International reputation affected by Imperialist accusations.

Likelihood: Most likely of the three.
This is the most likely and the most doable. Imperial powers can act for the good of other nations (unfortuantely it's often with another motive) but if it can stop the genocide then this should be done! Surely the praise of such a noble act would completely outweigh any arguments against Imperial intentions. Depends how it is done but I see there being some really brownie points to be won here.

There should be the mechanisms within the UN to allow for this immediate decision making with a multinational force, and also to prevent imperial powers acting too much in their own interests.

But a superpower not acting on such atrocities and preaching liberation all over the world is just showing its hypocrisy, just like every other Imperial power there ever was.
 
Top Bottom