No TO INVASION of Sudan

by gargoyle Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:56

The US shouldn't do anything about sudan. It'll only make people hate them more. Unfortunately, the only course of action is to let those poor people be slaughtered by the arabs.

by ted Tue Jul 27, 2004 13:05

for a better insight follow the link ....

I just wonder why Sudan and Why now ? ( didn't 2 million people die in Sudan in 80's civil war ? )

by SaveSudan Tue Jul 27, 2004 13:45

"The US shouldn't do anything about sudan. It'll only make people hate them more. Unfortunately, the only course of action is to let those poor people be slaughtered by the arabs."

That has got to be the most idiotic, insensitive,disgracful comment I have rea in years.Oh let thousands of innocent people be slaughtered, wont that be great.
Your up in arms about the palestinian people being oppressed and how Israel should be stopped and how the arabs are being continually oppressed by America and yet, when arabs start killing innocent people you say , let it happen.
You are a disgrace and you give the peace movement a bad name. The only way for this to end is if the UN gets involved and sends troops.
You should be ashamed of yourself for posting such a sickening post.

by on-looker Tue Jul 27, 2004 14:00

And once the ethnic cleansing has been tackled, The Arab slave trading should also be brought to and once and for all.

by Lone Gunman Tue Jul 27, 2004 14:05

How are you going to save Sudan.You spout the usual leftist anti American crap,and then insist the UN send in troops??

Hmmm lets see the brilliant peace keeping missions in Africa done by the UN?
Angola ,Liberia,Sierra Leone,Congo,Rwanda,etc etc.The UN was involved and fucked up big time every time.

Fact for you the evil US has the only logistic capability in aircraft,ships etc of getting the mass of food,medicines etc to Sudan,and quickly.Involve the UN in it and it becomes a logistical berucratic disaster.

If you want the UN in there fine.You will have another genocide on your hands within weeks. If you want the problem sorted logistically and effectively,send in the US to deliver the food supplies,and the French Foregin Leigon to police and control the rebels.They make anything the US does/did look like really nice guys[which they are :] ].

Of course this will be the most logical thing to do ,so of course it wont be done at all.
So you can sit back and howl and whine that noone especially the evil USA did nothing and that the UN was effective.
Maybe nothing should be done at all,let the Arabs slaughter them.they proably have some "right" to do so under the Koran anyway.

by rooster Tue Jul 27, 2004 14:43

I think in these circumstances the west will be villified if they invade and of course will take the blame for sitting idly by and doing nothing!

Damned if you do and damned if you don't!

by leah Tue Jul 27, 2004 15:25

Why does everybody presume that the west should intervene in such cases? It is not the guardian of the world.
We should let nations fight their own battles and develop in their own way.
In the meantime we should open up our borders by way of helping fleeing refugees worldwide and enhancing our own countries (economically, as there is a demand for labour in the west as our populations are declining, and creatively, as different people bring new ideas and insights).

by merrovinginvanjan Tue Jul 27, 2004 16:39

No one has given any information on the current state of the Sudanese crises have they?
nope. not a screed. Just the usual yankee imperialism and then my pals the french get accused of being worse. Well the Irish government as President of the EU laid lots of groundwork on political assistance to thsi region, and the Nederlander presidency is continuing diplomatic efforts aimed at achieving an end to the humanitarian disaster and in support of same the French ministry of the exterior sent Michel Barnier on a fact finding mission 26-29July to the Sudan and then on to the member states of the African Union which include Chad, Senegal and South Africa.
So it would appear that all the usual "knee jerk reaction" badguys are doing their best to avoid a military engagement which would probably make things worse in the short term.

I'm get very tired of people writing (none has here yet but I feel it coming) "Oh you lefties/anarchists/commies/etc., have lots to say about Saddam / Israel but nothing about Sudan etc". And I think any reader perhaps new to indymedia ireland now searches the archives for our coverage of past African conflicts they will find that contrary to prejudice we have provided good coverage of these mostly forgotten wars in the past.

Maybe if someone wrote a good article with less "foaming at the mouth" we could seriously discuss why the West ought intervene and why the West ought not interevene in the Sudanese crises.
Meanwhile I leave the 23rd of July statement of Quai d'Orsay at the link.

by Fergal Tue Jul 27, 2004 16:44

"We should let nations fight their own battles and develop in their own way."

This is a fairly cynical, right-wing view of the world that even the UK Tories don't subscribe to any more (or at least not out loud). What it's doing on this site I don't know, although it does illustrate the ideological knots that people tie themselves in just to avoid saying anything good about "the west".

If you really think the west has no moral authority, let a lone duty, to intervene in such cases, that's fine, but you'd better stick to your half of the deal and never bother me with a petition or protest ever again.

by mike Tue Jul 27, 2004 16:47 mch1 at hotmail dot com

The correct course of action would be to send troops to kill the janjaweed terrorists thereby letting the people of Darfur return to their villages. However that won't happen because we'd have thousands of leftwing, sandal-wearing fuckwits on the streets of our major cities screaming about Bush being a warmonger and Blair being a liar.

by rod Tue Jul 27, 2004 16:51

good to see two great minds coming together on this issue - the Rooster and the lonely Gunman. We in the West should of course invade Sudan ,and then the Chinese should send their army over to northern Ireland to stop all the bloodshed between the Catholcs and Protestants.How come nobody ever thought of it before ?

by LeaveIsraelalone Tue Jul 27, 2004 18:51

Fine, since we`ve all decided that we are not the guardians of the world and that sudan should be left alone, lets shut up about Israel killing palestinians and george bush invading iraq.
Finally people on this site have realised that its none of their damn business to interfere wioth other countries affairs.

by David C. Tue Jul 27, 2004 20:00

...that we don't know if this is a real or a manufactured problem. We don't know if an intervention would be a decent, humane thing or if it would be another dispicable, cynicaly manipulative power grab. We don't know if this is about protecting human lives or if its about controling resources on behalf of hyper-greedy Americans. We don't know if an intervention would cause more suffering or if it would reduce suffering.

We just don't know...

The world is rightly suspicious of the US/UK...

by what'supdoc Tue Jul 27, 2004 21:10

'"We should let nations fight their own battles and develop in their own way."

This is a fairly cynical, right-wing view of the world that even the UK Tories don't subscribe to any more (or at least not out loud). What it's doing on this site I don't know, although it does illustrate the ideological knots that people tie themselves in just to avoid saying anything good about "the west".'

How about we have a look at history and see where Leah is coming from. The developmental process of European states was through war. The cemented their borders and centralised their states. Of course this process included a healthy dose of 'ethnic cleansing', the uprooting of populations, and lots and lots of refugees. This was all necessary to build the successful, mono-cultural, nation state that we see in the West (particularly the classic example of France). In order to have political control and to stop rebel armies appearing on your soil this is always a good move.

Possibly there is a humanitarian case for intervention but certainly not a nation building case, civil war almost always brings more cohesion in the long run and allows a state to flourish. Without it you are left with an uncontrollable mess. We should allow the other nations of the world the same possibilities the western European states had in building their nations. Of course there was colonialism which fudges the picture a little but that is for another day.

by Hopalong Tue Jul 27, 2004 22:34

'I think in these circumstances the west will be vilified if they invade and of course will take the blame for sitting idly by and doing nothing!

Damned if you do and damned if you don't!'


Muppet, it's about the type of intervention. Nobody who's sane thinks Saddam was a good guy but they object to Yankee unilateral intervention that benefits only those who intervene. However if they went in and set up a true people's democracy I think they'd be supported on this site. This is never going to happen so people react to the actualities; it's quite a grey area, no hard and fast rules. Of course the only grey area you are accustomed to dealing with is the one between your ears.

by righteous pragmatist Wed Jul 28, 2004 11:39

The ONLY thing that will SAVE the people of Darfur is MIGHT.

Who are these Islamic militia anyway?
A few hundred or thousand nomad herdsmen on camels and horses armed with AK-47 rifles and machetes and their dicks so they can shoot, butcher and rape?

If even a battalion of heavily armed Irish UN soldiers were sent Darfur they would WIPE them out.

The US, UK, China, Russia, Germany, France, Italy, Spain and many other countries in Europe and across the world spend $billions on military spending creating the finest military machines in human history yet their politicians and their populations are TOO to do anything in Darfur.

A week! ONE WEEK and the genocide in Darfur would be over if only a strong military force were sent to Darfur to stop these prehistoric savages.

WHAT THE ?

No wonder a like Ossama Bin Laden can use just 19 men armed with boxcutters to kill 3000 people.
All it takes is for 200 people to die in bombs in Madrid for a whole nation of millions to bend the knee to a few thousand Muslim fanatics.

The Sudanese militias know that the West is too to do ANYTHING.

The DEATH OF THE WEST will be because we seem to think PEACE will come about without the WILL TO FIGHT.

Metallica are RIGHT.

-DON'T THREAD ON ME!
TO SECURE THE PEACE IS TO PREPARE FOR WAR!

by Ellen Wed Jul 28, 2004 11:55

Re your comments to Leah, non-violent action such as petitions are important for awareness raising. To insinuate that being involved in this type of action, but not getting involved violently in another country's battle makes you some kind of hypocrite is mental.

There is nothing cynical about Leah's view unlike your own, even if it is a little idealistic.
I think the point Leah was trying to make is that Western countries very often send 'peacekeepers' that terrorise inhabitants rather than help them.

It costs alot of money to send troops on missions so whats in it for them? I don't mean to be a conspiracy theorist, but doesn't Sudan have a largish oil reserve....?

by mike Wed Jul 28, 2004 12:28

Can you name any occasion when western peacekeepers terrorised inhabitants?

by Lower Wack Wed Jul 28, 2004 12:46

The Falls curfew, West Belfast 1970.

by on-looker Wed Jul 28, 2004 13:06

Unlike the Arab militia in black African villages, the men of The Falls were not all killed and the women raped.

by L W Wed Jul 28, 2004 13:12

Mike's question was about being terrorised. Are you trying to say these 'peacekeepers' didn't terrorise the populance?

by - - PLEASE GET THIS IN TO YOUR HEADS. Wed Jul 28, 2004 14:29

196 people died 11th March 2004 in Madrid.
of these 145 were Spanish citizens and the rest were migrants mostly proceeding from South America.
The Spanish people did not bend their knee to a few thousand fanatics they rather showed the world how to respond with dignity, serenity, tact and opted for collective defence rather than offence the results of which in the last four months may be seen to have included-
The withdrawl of Spanish troops from Iraq and their subsequent redeployment in Haiti and Afghanistan.
The disarticulation of several cells of Al Qaeda and associated terrorist groupings which were planning similar actions in other european states. It must be noted especially by those who support the Bush way of doing things, that within 4 months only three M11 suspects (who did not die) are still free, which compares quite favourably with 911 for which not a single arrest has been made but two countries bombed and invaded.

The closer co-operation on anti-islamic fundamentalist terrorism as demonstrated between Spain France and Morocco.

3/11 proved in any proof were needed that the popular American reaction to 9/11 was mistaken, foolish, imprudent and one of anger. Four months on Spain's place on the short list of liberal democracies is more guaranteed than ever, whereas four months after 9/11 U.S. liberal democracy had begun to enter what is arguably the worst days for it's constitution.

It's like I've experienced both 911 and 311 "up close" and it hacks me off when trolls like you make such distorted statements which betray your trust in rampant militarism over co-operation and sense.

I've often wondered how would the Irish go were they to experience an "eleven event" of their own. They're not that easy to call you know.

by on-looker Wed Jul 28, 2004 14:49

If you want to know more about what the Sudan governement get up to, check out the sorry history of the Nuba people. Their culture and traditions (e.g. nudity) have effectively been destroyed by the governments repressive & islamist policies. Thankfully anthropologists from "the West" were able to document some of this before it was lost forever.

by Fergal Wed Jul 28, 2004 16:54

"Western countries very often send 'peacekeepers' that terrorise inhabitants rather than help them."

How often, precisely? Facts please...

by righteous pragmatist Thu Jul 29, 2004 13:22

Sure the United States only had to send Mulder and Scully, Kojak, Ironside, Sherlock Holmes and Riggs and Murtagh to Afghanistan after 9/11?
We'll just wave our badges.
Ossama come out of that cave with your hands up and face the International Criminal court. Of course your innocent till proven guilty and if your found innocent we can let you go and you can nuke Manhatten next time if you want?

Let's get back to what we are REALLY talkingabout here which is the people of Sudan
- How can the genocide be halted RIGHT NOW?
Let's hand the Islamic militia's a letter of condemnation from the UN and prissy Kofi Annan.

What WILL they say?

"Im SOOOOOO scared" they'll say. "I'mm SHAAAKEN!" they'll gibber.

Or we can KILL every last one of the slimsuckers and stop them from commiting genocide.

by anon Thu Jul 29, 2004 17:44

If the genocide in Sudan continues then clearly something should be done about it. For everyone to watch on TV and just say how terrible it is is morally indefensible. Sending in peacekeepers does not automatically mean sending in 'the West'. Most peacekeeping in Africa is now undertaken by African troops, although their record is very far from perfect either. If Western troops are sent, then it should be from small, neutral countries with no ex-colonial links or business interests in Sudan. Their role could be restricted to guarding refugee camps (i.e. peacekeeping) rather than hunting down the Janjaweed (peace enforcement). Controlling the Janjaweed could be more effectively done by the Sudanese government with its local knowledge. Of course this requires a complete change of attitude from the government which has been supporting the Janjaweed. The only way to achieve this is through international pressure, as their response to domestic pressure has historically been prolonged civil war and massacres of civilians. The UN could impose sanctions targetted at the Sudanese government. So far they have only imposed sanctions on the Janjaweed, which is a bit of a farce as horseriding militia are unlikely to be taking international flights or buying shares any time soon. Foreign investment which involves the government as a beneficiary could also be withdrawn. Regime change would be desirable, given the awfulness of the government, but , as the diastrous invasion of Iraq proves, should not be enforced by an outside power, especially one with ulterior motives. The situation is further complicated by the peace process underway about the decades-long Civil war in the South, which must not be forgotten either. The rebellion in Darfur (which the Janjaweed were 'putting down') arose because the people there felt left out of the spoils of the Southern peace process (particularly the division of oil wealth), so redressing this grievance will obviously have consequences for that as well, with issues needing to be renegotiated. This could restart the Southern war. The whole situation is extremely complicated, and to simply say 'kill the janjaweed' or 'never intervene' is to pretend there are easy solutions, which there aren't. Everyone in the world has a moral responsibility to try to stop innocent people from being murdered or needlessly dying from hunger and disease. Otherwise the news reports from Darfur are just voyeurism.

by Cautious Idealist Fri Jul 30, 2004 16:54

I think the last comment by Anon sums up the situation the best, and is a welcome change from the likes of the Self-righteous Pragmatist's gung-ho Rambo fantasies.

Indymedia Ireland could do with alot more contributions like this, and less of the childish venting that we see so often.

by Lone Gunman Sat Jul 31, 2004 00:31

About the UN gaurding refugee camps;
SREBRENICA [sic]
Sanctions.Can we say IRAQ 1991 /2004 boys and girls?
As usual everyone thinks the UN is the great saviour.Get real [and to the twat who I said should get a life.GROW UP]and read some history of the UNs total incompetance,and maybe come up with a suggestion of how to get food to Sudan minus the US forces lifting capability,and stop engaging in paranoid fantasies that the US wants to invade every hunk of useless desert backwater.
Let other nations in Africa sort it out?Who exactly?Most armies in Africa are as brutal,ill disiplined,ill equipped, bodering on rabble as the rebels they fight.Hardly a unit worth considering for a peace keeping /enforcing role.
Ahh Hell let it become another fundamentalist Islamic state.So it has to be invaded again by the US and the UK,giving the anti Americans somthing else to piss and moan and feel smug about.Give the worlds media somthing to report on,and the aid agencies somthing to do.And the Islamists somthing more to feel put upon
Good deal for everyone.

by jeff Sat Jul 31, 2004 15:01

If there is one good thing that nations can do collectivly, it is intervention against ethnic cleansing. That is why I more or less supported intervention in Kosovo. Third world despots should not have a free hand to engage in genocide.

I am not surprised that the run of the mill idealogue leftist argument in this situation is to do nothing if it involves America. Just because I support intervention does not mean I like the use of depleted uranium and daisy cutters.The West must stop the use of such. This does not mean they should completly leave the militia to rape and murder.

by me too "-ish" - (i'm a stickler for _not_ knee jerk reacting) ... [as well] Sat Jul 31, 2004 23:11

Let's be honest the U.S. can serve a humanitarian purpose and has done, what gest our back up is, that they use this ability to sell us the unacceptable idea, that everytime they intervene militarily in other states, they do so, for the benefit of "humanitarian purposes".
I am happy to see the UN re-assert it's humanitarian function, and if that can only be acheived by using "US lifting food and dropping it power" than so be it but I dont think that is the case. I would be more unhappy to see the suffering continue, the UN remain ignored and devalued (which it is unarguably after the Iraq war) and to see the US become a solely selfish imperialist force just because we dont like the idea of US soldiers in africa. And I know that will get up loads of peoples noses, coz it runs against our prejudices. But at the moment millions of people do need assistance the delivery of which can only be achieved by a military machine.

by dube Sat Jul 31, 2004 23:20

the un aid or pressure seems the only course of action but one can't be seem out on the streets shouting un please save them!

by James Whelan Sun Aug 01, 2004 02:46

US/UK out of Sudan!!!

Bush-Cheney! Get your filthy Halliburton hands away from Sudam!!!

by lone Gunman Sun Aug 01, 2004 14:31

You are going to be the first to drive a aid truck down from ireland then.Or are you just going to mouth off dumb slogans??

by jeff Sun Aug 01, 2004 17:53

amen

by Anony Mouse Sun Aug 01, 2004 19:37

Well why dont you get off your ass and start a march yourself, eh? You might find it takes a bit more time, organization and effort than it does to whinge on Indymedia.

by David C, UCD Sun Aug 01, 2004 19:58

Urging the west to 'intervene' in Sudan is a knee-jerk reaction to a complex problem. The reason there are not people out on the streets protesting is, in part, because the situation has no obvious solution and as always, the costs resulting from the use of force may or may not outwheigh the costs of restraint. In any case, there may be better, less violent ways of saving lives in the Sudan.

How can you be sure that outside 'intervention' wouldn't spur on even more violence? That's what happened in Kosovo -the large scale ethnic cleansing began AFTER NATO started bombing.


And how can you be sure that dropping bombs and sending troops over to kill the militias is the best way to help the victims? Violence almost always leads to more violence, and if the janjaweed start getting attacked who do you think they'll retaliate against? NATO HQ? US aircraft carriers out at sea? Or the refugees...


And who should 'intervene'? The US? France? Syria? Libya? South Africa? Does ANY state have a clean record with this sort of thing? Is any state trustworthy? Certainly not the western powers, and not many states in the region either. This is why if any outside intervention is to happen in the Sudan it should be UN-mandated and controlled.

Not because the UN is perfect, but because it is he closest thing in the world to a legitimate arbitrator, and because a UN command will minimize the likelihood of intervention being used by some state as a cover for pursuing its own interests.


In any case, because of the tremendous risks involved, outside intervention should be a last resort and we should pay very close attention to what respected human rights groups are saying on the matter. So far, I haven't heard any of them call for the use of force.

by Ted Mon Aug 02, 2004 12:07

The mask of altruism disguising a colonial war

- The more I read about this so called human catastrophe, the bigger the stench i smell-

see related link

by Lone gunman Mon Aug 02, 2004 13:50

And see what happens;
A lengthy debate in the UN about sending aid to Sudan.

A army of burrocrats go to Sudan to see athe situation and report back to the UN.

Further lengthy debate ensues in the UN.With no doubt some third world dictatorship blocking progress. The army of burrocrats return to the Sudan with reenforcements of numerous NGOs.
The Burrocrats and NGOs establish base camps with all the trappings of western civilisation and are promptly beseiged by hungry and poor refugees and Sudanese ,who promptly take anything and everything by force.
Burrocrats and NGOs promptly bleat and beat a hasty retreat to UN to complain about the horrific conditions.
The UN debates sending "peacekeepers".
UN sends down a multi national peacekeeping force,which is deliverd courtsey of the US airlift[which has payed off its UN debt BTW under the evil GWB and is really not at the UNs beck and call].

Leftists,anti Americans and Liberals whine and moan about US imperialism,etc etc.
[UN still debates and pushes some paper around]

Conviently forgetting that some of these "warplanes" will now be coming thru the "Shannon warport" on their way to bring supplies to Sudan[mostly USAID wheat& rice]


UN multiforce commanders are confronted with usual UN burrocrat orders of "do not intervene, we havent coverd our asses properly"leadership.

Thussly a good chance of another bit of genocide along Sebrenica or Rwanda.
UN troops are orderd to stand idly by while rebels massacre Sudanese.
World reacts with horror and wails"why isnt anyone doing somthing".UN states "its hands are tied" and goes into debate on the Sudan crisis.Local UN commander gets it in the neck because he did nothing to prevent a massacare.His /her only defence is "I was only following orders".
Thus he/she is villified by the world for evermore. UN debates the command structure of it's multi national peace force.

I really got to laugh how everyoneof the liberal one worlder slant puts so much trust in the Worlds biggest incompetant beauraccy the UN. It is UN accountable,UN reliable,UN realistic,UN sociable ,UN ecnomic and UN efficent.
Just perfect to look after the worlds problems.

by Critic Tue Aug 03, 2004 22:47

...This just belongs together nowadays. It actually is a significant hallmark of people who believe they bring salvation upon this miserable world by campaingning against the justified existence of the state of Israel and spreading their unjustified belief in an all vicious East-coast-american-jewish-world-imperialistic-bla-bla-conspiracy.They are pro-palestine and in a significantly leftish way anti-semitic.
So it doesn't astonish me that the stupidity goes as far as that. The slaughtering of non-muslim black Africans by muslim, mostly Arab Africans in Sudan passed almost unnoticed for years. Now they just have to have their unsound pro-Arab fundamentalistic say again. Having no clue and wanting to save the world...

by AnyonebutShrub - MoveON.org Wed Aug 04, 2004 18:43

While I opposed the war on Iraq I support a UN led war on the Sudanese genodical maniacs. All of you who stand by doing nothing are complicit.
Compare what Usrealis do to the Palestinians to what the Arabs in Sudan do to the Africans.
Both are bad, but one is far worse. And yet you don't say boo.

Where is the outrage from the Arab people about what their brothers are doing to my brothers and sisters?!!

Shame on you.

by Ruairi Thu Aug 05, 2004 16:31

"Let's hope that the Muslim fighters kill enough British and Americans to create a another Iraq like quagmire."

That's what this genius Jim posts, how can people say that. How can anyone actually want British or american troops to be slaughtered by islamic, nutcase scumbags in Sudan. Why do you want soldiers to be slaughtered, it's really quite disturbing.

The cold facts are that the UN are the international organ we have and they decide to send in troops, the Yanks have the best resources to do it. And the EU if they ever get their own military force together, which hopefully they will, and hopefully Ireland will be a part of it.

As for Liberia, I think you'll find that it's in a lot bettre condition since the troops went in, due in no small part to another excellent job being doen by the Irish Defence Forces. I know you hate hearing it, but military intervention and military power will always be necessary

by - Fri Aug 06, 2004 21:41

I'ts been less than ten days since the story broke here, and debate has focussed mostly on the pros and cons of US involvement, the minister of defence for France, Mdme Michèle Alliot-Marie has today visited refugee camps in the area and promised all military assistance "to do the heavy lifting" as long "as is necessary".

It is important to remember that the USA and it's junior partner the UK are not the only ones who are capable of launching large scale military/humanitarian aid projects.

In order of amounts of food/people transported the other states that have proved their worth in this field are-
France, Russia, Israel.

by Lone Gunman Sun Aug 08, 2004 00:03

that the French are going to the Sudan. No great risk for them and it gives them some sort of elan for looking like they are doing somthing.
Still and all fair dues to them.Their Leigon de estrange know how to deal with Africans.Kick arse,and break heads when required and hand out food and aid properly and where needed.Shoot anyone who gets in the way.
Vive la Legion

by EndMoslemOppression Sun Sep 26, 2004 01:43

How are you going to save Sudan.You spout the usual leftist anti American crap,and then insist the UN send in troops??

Oh, by UN troops, you of course mean US troops right, since none of the other snivelling bastards do anything but take American money! Save Sudan and Israel from the Moslem Jihad!