Darfur

ChaosMage · 10-05-2004, 05:52 PM

Given the problems going on in Darfur, someone needs to do something but unfortunately no one is committing the troops. The US might've gone were we not in Iraq/Afghanistan, but we're overextended and Colin Powell has said so. My questions are this:

1) What should be done given the current world situation, with no one willing or able to commit military forces to stop the violence?

2) If the United States were to have a call for volunteers to go to Darfur as military forces to establish the peace, would you volunteer?

3) If the US were to have a draft for the same purpose, would you try and draft dodge if a) forces were split 50:50, with Iraq and Darfur each being half draftees and half volunteers and b) If Darfur were all draftees and Iraq all volunteers?

adamark · 10-10-2004, 07:21 PM

I'm glad I saw this topic, I was just about to create a Darfur topic. I just saw a CBS 60 Minutes story on Darfur and I have to admit that it had me in tears.

50,000 dead.
1.5 - 2 million at severe risk
400 of the 600 Darfur villages have been reduced to rubble
Everyone is fleeing to Chad, barely enough time to bury the dead
6,000 people are killed there per month (World Health Organization estimate)

It is an black mark on the world's record that nothing is being done. I would go to Darfur as a military operator to fight for these people. I would even allow for an emergency tax hike to pay for an expedition to immediately go there NOW and help. Seeing the bodies filled me with anger.

And it's just an example like this that makes me think FUCK the U.N., they have done nothing to stop this. They're a bunch a bureacratic fools and the United States should NEVER trust its safety to such an INCOMPETANT organization. If I were president I would send a division of Marines over there to kick ass. Who cares if we're "unpopular" for it, the people of Sudan would be grateful, and ALIVE. bah....

Feuermachtspass · 10-10-2004, 08:46 PM

Basically, the UN's sole purpose (as far as america is concerned) is for us to appear to care about what the world thinks.

As much as I would like the US to do something about the situation, its just not conceivable for us to do so. The concept of reinstituting the draft is foolish. Today's wars are not faught by masses of troops. We no longer need lots of people to catch bullets like we did in WWI. Todays wars are faught with trained professionals. Inserting non-volunteers would only serve to lower morale and get in the way of the people who know what they're doing.

Perhaps if we were to get a bunch of volunteers to go to Darfur, they wouldn't get in the way of the pros, but we don't really have the manpower to train them, and they would be sent to their deaths.

I would not volunteer for any such thing, both because I am too young, and I don't think that such a group could accomplish anything.

I think that the only way this problem can be solved is to let the AU take care of it. We can't do it, and most of the other nations are quite frankly to wussy to do it.

Archbio · 10-10-2004, 09:07 PM

Quote:

And it's just an example like this that makes me think FUCK the U.N., they have done nothing to stop this. They're a bunch a bureacratic fools and the United States should NEVER trust its safety to such an INCOMPETANT organization.

The logic escapes me... No one has done anything to stop this, as far as I can tell. Including the USA. And is the UN what's keeping the USA from acting? It would be extremely disingenuous to argue it is: we just have to look a little while back to see how little the US government cares for the UN's stance on anything.

The note about US safety is very telling, as an attempt to kill two birds with an unrelated stone.

ChaosMage · 10-11-2004, 12:15 AM

Heres my problem with whats going on in Darfur: People are dying, their government is killing them and no one gives a flying fuck.

Robot Jesus · 10-11-2004, 03:47 AM

You have just described half the world.

adamark · 10-11-2004, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archbio

The logic escapes me... No one has done anything to stop this, as far as I can tell. Including the USA. And is the UN what's keeping the USA from acting? It would be extremely disingenuous to argue it is: we just have to look a little while back to see how little the US government cares for the UN's stance on anything.

The note about US safety is very telling, as an attempt to kill two birds with an unrelated stone.

we're knee deep in two wars already, which very few countries are contributing much towards. they have the resources and ethical imperative to stop Darfur, and they do not. The USA could but we're already fighting TWO WARS.

Archbio · 10-11-2004, 09:19 PM

Quote:

we're knee deep in two wars already, which very few countries are contributing much towards. they have the resources and ethical imperative to stop Darfur, and they do not. The USA could but we're already fighting TWO WARS.

Situations not unlike Darfur have been going on during the Iraq "march to war", and I do not doubt before that. These two wars have been chosen over these possible humanisticinterventions (I'm not sure how long Darfur's thing has been going on), which, I think, can amount to much the same thing depending on how much ethical value you place on these two wars.

Since the rationale for the Iraq war has now been fully retconned into purely "humanistic" reasons, and that Iraq, in that sense, was in less dramatic mayhem that, lets say, Congo (was it Congo? Maybe I'm just being unfair on the poor nation) at the time, this just brings up how interventions (and transgressing of the whole "sovereignty of nation" stuff) have been handpicked by criteras other than ethical ones. I'm not saying they could in their present state, but I doubt they've done much to be able to, or have made any steps in that direction when they could.

In short: I don't think the "we're too busy already" really lessens the impression that what I'm witnessing is about the same as the old comic routine where some people are holding another, who flails and kicks like they wanted to go kick some other person's ass, and the only thing keeping them from doing it are the others, but when those let go... well, suffice it to say the illusion usually breaks down.

Edit: I'm in no way excusing any of the others that might be able to do something, but aren't doing anything. Also, another clarification note: this post hinges on my perception of the Iraq invasion as being a "frivolous war" of some sort. I won't pretend it extends beyond that (altough I do think that's pretty obvious).

Sesshoumaru · 10-11-2004, 10:48 PM

Techniquely it's three wars if you the worldwide prevalence of terrorism. Although it can be argued (somewhat succesfully imo) that it's actually just one, multi-fronted war.

PS
http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/docs00/bartlett.htm
check that article out (I knows it's off the main topic, but a couple people of mentioned the UN/US thing already).

TheZeroMan · 10-12-2004, 05:48 AM

ACtually I think the proper name for the Congo is:

The Democratic People's Republic of Zaire's Belgiumese Congo or "Congo Congo who's got the Congo?" Just wait a week and there will be a new name.

Sorry that was bad but I had to do it. It think its really unfair to soleblame the UN for not doing anything, the European Union hasn't done shit either.

Anyway... the problem with blaming or even just the UN in general is its only as powerful as we, a strong state, want it to be. If you look at all the resolutions passed by the UN the world would be some sort of perfect place, however no one really gives a shit. And when the UN tries to flew whatever muscle it has everyone slightly to the right in the US starts talking about black helicopters.

The UN has voted to end the embargo on Cuba every year for the past decade or so and we just say "Whatever".

The UN has no troops to send to the Sudan unless countries give them troops, and who really wants to go into that hell-hole? The secertary general before Kofi had the unmitigated gale to suggest the possible creation of a permant peacekeeping force under the Control of the UN and well that got him out of office.

The shit in Sudan has been going on for a while now, I read an article about in National Geographic I believe like a year ago or something. I'm happy its finally getting some sort of attention, I was suprised Collin had the balls to speak out, too bad he'll be the next Bush advisor to get the ax or quit. Ideally if we weren't occupying Iraq because Saddam tried to kill W's daddy we could put troops on the ground in Sudan because thats probably the only thing that would work. However what would stop it from becoming another Somolia? Probably nothing.

It is a double edged sword if we don't do something we get yelled at if we do do something its just neo imperialism.

Though I do remember all the allied powers getting together and making the claim to "never let this happen again" when it came to genocide.

Let's go back to being Isolationists.

10-05-2004, 05:52 PM	#1
ChaosMage Evil Makes Me Smile Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Where Spyware Comes to Die Posts: 904	Darfur Given the problems going on in Darfur, someone needs to do something but unfortunately no one is committing the troops. The US might've gone were we not in Iraq/Afghanistan, but we're overextended and Colin Powell has said so. My questions are this: 1) What should be done given the current world situation, with no one willing or able to commit military forces to stop the violence? 2) If the United States were to have a call for volunteers to go to Darfur as military forces to establish the peace, would you volunteer? 3) If the US were to have a draft for the same purpose, would you try and draft dodge if a) forces were split 50:50, with Iraq and Darfur each being half draftees and half volunteers and b) If Darfur were all draftees and Iraq all volunteers?

10-10-2004, 08:46 PM	#3
Feuermachtspass Troopa Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: South Texas Posts: 53	Basically, the UN's sole purpose (as far as america is concerned) is for us to appear to care about what the world thinks. As much as I would like the US to do something about the situation, its just not conceivable for us to do so. The concept of reinstituting the draft is foolish. Today's wars are not faught by masses of troops. We no longer need lots of people to catch bullets like we did in WWI. Todays wars are faught with trained professionals. Inserting non-volunteers would only serve to lower morale and get in the way of the people who know what they're doing. Perhaps if we were to get a bunch of volunteers to go to Darfur, they wouldn't get in the way of the pros, but we don't really have the manpower to train them, and they would be sent to their deaths. I would not volunteer for any such thing, both because I am too young, and I don't think that such a group could accomplish anything. I think that the only way this problem can be solved is to let the AU take care of it. We can't do it, and most of the other nations are quite frankly to wussy to do it. __________________ There is nothing quite like the joy of flying on the wings of your dreams...except perhaps the joy of watching a dreamer who has no place to land except in the ocean of reality. :bmage: Last edited by Feuermachtspass; 10-10-2004 at 08:49 PM.

10-11-2004, 03:47 AM	#6
Robot Jesus Libertarian Socialist Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 377	You have just described half the world. __________________ We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. ---Richard Dawkins there was only one true Christian, and he died on the cross. ---Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche These are rumors spread by the liberal, elite media. Much like civil rights and Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion.

10-12-2004, 05:48 AM	#10
TheZeroMan The man is at the window. Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: The Lane Posts: 408	ACtually I think the proper name for the Congo is: The Democratic People's Republic of Zaire's Belgiumese Congo or "Congo Congo who's got the Congo?" Just wait a week and there will be a new name. Sorry that was bad but I had to do it. It think its really unfair to soleblame the UN for not doing anything, the European Union hasn't done shit either. Anyway... the problem with blaming or even just the UN in general is its only as powerful as we, a strong state, want it to be. If you look at all the resolutions passed by the UN the world would be some sort of perfect place, however no one really gives a shit. And when the UN tries to flew whatever muscle it has everyone slightly to the right in the US starts talking about black helicopters. The UN has voted to end the embargo on Cuba every year for the past decade or so and we just say "Whatever". The UN has no troops to send to the Sudan unless countries give them troops, and who really wants to go into that hell-hole? The secertary general before Kofi had the unmitigated gale to suggest the possible creation of a permant peacekeeping force under the Control of the UN and well that got him out of office. The shit in Sudan has been going on for a while now, I read an article about in National Geographic I believe like a year ago or something. I'm happy its finally getting some sort of attention, I was suprised Collin had the balls to speak out, too bad he'll be the next Bush advisor to get the ax or quit. Ideally if we weren't occupying Iraq because Saddam tried to kill W's daddy we could put troops on the ground in Sudan because thats probably the only thing that would work. However what would stop it from becoming another Somolia? Probably nothing. It is a double edged sword if we don't do something we get yelled at if we do do something its just neo imperialism. Though I do remember all the allied powers getting together and making the claim to "never let this happen again" when it came to genocide. Let's go back to being Isolationists. __________________ "Gentlemen you can't fight in here! This is the War room!" FNORD

10-11-2004, 12:15 AM	#5
ChaosMage Evil Makes Me Smile Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Where Spyware Comes to Die Posts: 904	Heres my problem with whats going on in Darfur: People are dying, their government is killing them and no one gives a flying fuck.

10-11-2004, 10:48 PM	#9
Sesshoumaru Tyrannus Rex Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 616	Techniquely it's three wars if you the worldwide prevalence of terrorism. Although it can be argued (somewhat succesfully imo) that it's actually just one, multi-fronted war. PS http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/docs00/bartlett.htm check that article out (I knows it's off the main topic, but a couple people of mentioned the UN/US thing already).