Article

2004-07-09 Africa: Horn

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anonymous5089 2004-07-09 8:45:17 AM|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [11126 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 China has 'em too :-(

"In Darfur, it would be better to help the Sudanese get over the crisis so their country is pacified rather than sanctions which would push them back to their misdeeds of old"

No -- you help them get over the crisis, with sanctions as an incentive, and if they go back to their misdeeds of old, you END THEM as a nation!!1

Posted by Edward Yee 2004-07-09 9:40:43 AM|| [http://edwardyee.fanworks.net] 2004-07-09 9:40:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 France has supported the Islamofascist Bashir/Turabi government of the Sudan ever since the military seized power in June 1989. It has provided weapons, aerial photography to pinpoint the location of rebel SPLA units, and has consistently supported the government's aims in UN forums. In return it was allowed to use Sudan to overthrow the government of Chad, has a stranglehold on the gum arabic trade, has a gold mining concession, opened a French bank, and has been granted a few other measly concessions. And the French have ignored the genocide of two million southerners, and the depradations of a government that now plans to destroy the Berti, Fur, Messalit and Zaghawa of Darfur.

Posted by Tancred 2004-07-09 9:52:22 AM|| 2004-07-09 9:52:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Reuters says as of last night, that France and other Euros are supporting us on this in UNSC. Opposition from Russia, China, Algeria, Pakistan, and Brazil.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-07-09 11:49:00 AM|| 2004-07-09 11:49:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Reuters says as of last night, that France and other Euros are supporting us on this in UNSC.

We'll see if what they say matches what they do-their reputation for good faith has plummeted in this neck of the woods. Watch for pledge and duck behavior as was the case with confronting Iraq.

Opposition from Russia, China, Algeria, Pakistan, and Brazil.

And that would be because...?

Posted by jules 187 2004-07-09 12:27:23 PM|| 2004-07-09 12:27:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Do i have to remind anybody that french oil company TOTAL is currently awarded the LARGEST oil concession in Sudan?
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/sudan1103/5.htm#_Toc54492543
I cannot wait to see France vote FOR sanction againdt Israel s barrier....
Sometimes it's dificult to be French

Posted by frenchfregoli 2004-07-09 12:27:35 PM|| 2004-07-09 12:27:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 sanctions! oh yeah THAT will do something.
pffft.
only thing it will do is harm the french, so of course they are against it, I don't blame them.

only reason you guys are jumping on this is cuz it involves them nasty smelling cheese eating surrender monkeys

no one really cares, just grand stand for a while and hope they all get killed off before we talk ourselves into a corner and actually have to do something

notice the support for a military force comes from africans and only africans, granted it's still more grand standing since a force of 300 is itsybitsy but it's a step towards using troops to stop what needs to be stopped so of course there is no urging from non-african leaders.

after all it's not our backyard

so what do we care?

Posted by Dcreeper 2004-07-09 12:55:37 PM|| 2004-07-09 12:55:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Opposition from Russia, China, Algeria, Pakistan, and Brazil.

And that would be because...?

General priniciple that ethnic cleansing is the internal affair of a sovereign state. Russia (thinking Chechnya) and China (thinking Tibet) took that stand on Kosovo. Algeria, inter-arab solidarity. Pakistan - hmm - deference to anti-US nasties in the MMA? Bilateral ties to Sudan? keeping in good graces with China? Ask Dan Darling or Paul Maloney. Im unhappy about it though. Brazil - Lula, whos not following lefty domestic policies, trying to keep lefty support by tweaking the US. And, a raising great power, identifying with Russia and China in the "absolute sovereignty" league.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-07-09 1:05:39 PM|| 2004-07-09 1:05:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 I'm with Dcreeper. Sanctions are counterproductive. The kleptocrats just steal more. The people that suffer are the middle class and the poor.

Posted by 11A5S 2004-07-09 1:28:47 PM|| 2004-07-09 1:28:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 sanctions got Libya to turn over the lockerbie hijackers, and played a role in change in South Africa. Sudan isnt Iraq. If Sudan decides losing western investment is more important than what they can gain in Darfur, they'll deal. In any case realistically you cant get UNSC support for force without trying sanctions first (BTW, at this point the sanctions on the table are aimed at the militias only, not the govt)

Theoretically the West and the Africans could go in without UNSC support, if Russia and China veto - precedent of Kosovo.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-07-09 1:58:52 PM|| 2004-07-09 1:58:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Theoretically?
that's like saying theoretically I can live without this zit on my butt. Cuz, ye know, theoretically it's pretty accurate, but the cold hard reality is that I'm a lot better off if there was no zit at all..
UNSC is really the CSEBPAWBA
(Council for the Support and Encouragement of Bad People Around the World and Back Again)
but I guess CSEBPAWBA is a little unwieldy so unsc will have to do..

kosovo supports my argument more than yours..
(foot dragging until cornered (damn!) and then actually having to do something, even then we kept our soldiers out of it (screw the crying peasants, they canât vote for me!) and just used our bombers)

Libya is a unique place, if Sudan had gone to past us enemies and asked about how we treat them then made attempts at gaining our friendship then I would say you point is valid and on target. But sudan did not do that.. in actuality it's run by some nasty folks who just don't give a damn about our âmoralâ opinion or our pathetic economic threats, they have christans to torture/slaughter.

and we DONâT CARE!
Not even a little.

Posted by Dcreeper 2004-07-09 2:13:59 PM|| 2004-07-09 2:13:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 DC - are you aware that Sudan DID cut a deal with the Christians in South Sudan - the victims in Darfur are MUSLIMS (but blacks, not arabs)

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-07-09 2:15:23 PM|| 2004-07-09 2:15:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 France is trying to set up an identical situation to the one they had going with Saddam and again, major oil contracts are involved.
Sanctions, as we've now learned, don't do much to deter a rogue regime from pursuing terror and we end up with a corrupt situation like the Oil-for-Palaces mess in Iraq.
But, as Lh said, it's a starting point.
I doubt what's-his-face (the IslamoNazi scum who rules Sudan and who was Osama's former host--Don't forget!) will care.
Darfur needs the business end of a few M-16s, wielded by some select Special Forces, SEALs and Marines.

Posted by Jen 2004-07-09 2:17:55 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-07-09 2:17:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Wow. Just so I understand this-the general principle is that if it happens within a country's borders, they should deal/not deal with it how they choose; if not, none of our business? Ethnic cleansing?!?! Sorry, rubber-stamping racial extermination in the 21st century is not the stand I want to take, no matter whose government gets offended.

Was this principle in play during WWII, for Jews, Poles, and Romanii (I realize "home country" is more problematic with Romanii)? So, which countries avoided action in WWII (or any war since) using this principle?
How does that old saying go-First they came for the Jews and I said nothing...Then they came for...

Posted by jules 187 2004-07-09 2:22:00 PM|| 2004-07-09 2:22:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Dcreeper-I am just one person with little power to change things, and perhaps it makes no difference, but I do care whether people are being killed in Darfur.

Posted by jules 187 2004-07-09 2:28:02 PM|| 2004-07-09 2:28:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 As was the case in Iraq, France also has significant oil interests in Sudan.

'Nuff said. Methinks France has outlived its usefulness.

Posted by Zenster 2004-07-09 3:59:02 PM|| 2004-07-09 3:59:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 jules - NO country entered WW2 for the Jews, Romani, etc. UK and France entered for Poland - but that was because Poland, a sovereign state was invaded. USSR went to war only when they were invaded by Germany. US went to war when Peal Harbor was attacked. Germany declared war on US - FDR might have managed a DOW on Germany anyway, but it would have been based on violation of neutral rights, not genocide.

In the last couple of decades the notion that genocide is a casus belli, when genocide is actively occuring and an intervention could stop it, has been floating around. Didnt apply directly in Somalia, where there was no real state to oppose intervention. Nor in Bosnia, where Bosnia asked for intervention. Might have applied in Rwanda, except nothing was done.

The first real application of the doctrine was Kosovo. But recall, intervention in Kosovo was vetoed by Russia and China. NATO went ahead ANYWAY.

Sudan would be the second case of this principle.
The US,UK and Germany have been the principle advocates, Russia and China the principle opponents, and France is in between, IIUC (they did NOT veto NATO action in Kosovo, but were drawn along reluctantly)

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-07-09 4:11:25 PM|| 2004-07-09 4:11:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Thanks, LH, for the thoughtful and info-rich response.

I would insist that times are changing and that we have a human obligation to stop genocide everywhere if I had any reason to believe that we wouldn't be the only country in the world doing so. How depressing.

Posted by jules 187 2004-07-09 4:22:16 PM|| 2004-07-09 4:22:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 As with WWII, so the causus belli is the same for all wars, which is that masses of innocents are being slaughtered by a murdering horde.
We got into WWII against both Germany and Japan because they were killing thousands...of Americans, of Chinese, of Polish, of Dutch, of Sudetendeutsch, etc,etc.etc.
It's only with our recent Western obsession with "multinational" Tranzi diplospeak that we've become enamored of throwing around the term "ethnic cleansing" and genocide and Leftists like Clinton have made us comfortable with it.
This civil war in Sudan has been going on for 20 years (IIRC) and yes, it's waged by the Islamist government--Bin Laden's old pal--against Christians and animists in the south of the country.
The UN has brokered "definitive" peace agreements with Sudan before and yet the war continues.
Even calling it "ethnic cleansing" doesn't sway the French (as it didn't in Kosovo's case either) because they're in the exact situation they were in with Saddam's Iraq: Sudan is their client state and they sell them all their weapons in exchange for Sudan and Chad providing TotalFinaElf with all the best oil contracts.
When are we gonna get the Frogs off of the UNSC???

Posted by Jen 2004-07-09 4:32:00 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-07-09 4:32:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 IIRC, this war is between the Arab Muslims and Black Muslims in the south (as LH mentioned)? I say we stay out and make the UN do their f*cking job for a change. We don't need to send anymore of my bro's anywhere except to keep Iraq & Afghanistan on course. I know some people are going to think that's cold - I don't care. The UN and the African nations can step up to the plate for this one.

Posted by Jarhead 2004-07-09 4:54:59 PM|| 2004-07-09 4:54:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 The UN and the African nations can step up to the plate for this one.

Jarhead, they won't. Mixed in with the Black Muslims in the south are just far too many animists and Christians. The UN sure wouldn't want to offend the Arab Muslims by keeping those kind from being killed. See story at this link.

I think every country that harbors or promote Islamofascism needs to be dismantled. Unless that is done, the roots will bring us right back to where we are now. This WOT is going to be a long, hard slog.

Posted by cingold 2004-07-09 5:23:52 PM|| 2004-07-09 5:23:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Christians are commonly discriminated against in the workplace and rarely receive promotions.

Coming soon to a culture near you, if we don't insist on adoption of our cultural norms and laws by immigrants.

Posted by jules 187 2004-07-09 5:32:20 PM|| 2004-07-09 5:32:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 "Jarhead, they won't."

-then that's life in the big city bro'. The WoT for us Marines involves whooping the dog sh*t out of those countries who promote or harbor terrorists that threaten the U.S. If this is a Sudanese/muslim clusterf*ck that does not involve planning or staging attacks on Americans - then f*ck'em, we don't need to get involved. That's the cold hard truth of my feelings. Of course the CnC can send us wherever he wants to do meals on wheels or peace enforcing if deems fit - I don't see this one as being a good one for us to do at this time. Our country & especially its military have bigger fish to fry and already enough on our plate - i.e. Iraq, Afghanland, Iran, Nkor etc.

Posted by Jarhead 2004-07-09 5:36:37 PM|| 2004-07-09 5:36:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Jar, I hate like hell that you guys have to go anywhere to sort out these awful messes and I'm not saying that we need to send Marines to Darfur yet, but...
this is linked with AlQ's worldwide jihad, I'm convinced and OBL's made Sudan his HQ before.
The problem is with the Sudanese government which is the sponsor of all this jihadi mayhem.
We don't have Clinton as Prez anymore (Praise Jesus!) who would send you to sort out a "humanitarian problem" and not deal with the real trouble, which are the Islamist terrorist instigators and sponsors in Khartoum, same as in Mogadishu.
We need to send the message out around the world that jihadi murder won't be tolerated anywhere but I'm perfectly willing to let the African forces and the UN sort it out first, if they can.
Given Jacques's opposition as a member of the UNSC, though, how likely is it that the UN will intervene and how much can the blue helmets accomplish?
I'm not optimistic.

Posted by Jen 2004-07-09 6:04:13 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-07-09 6:04:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 The WoT for us Marines involves whooping the dog sh*t out of those countries who promote or harbor terrorists that threaten the U.S.

Amen, and thank you. I trust Bush to not send you out under the baby blue helmets of the UN -- but not Kerry. Still, I fear that there are a bunch more countries out there (not just Afghanistan, Iraq, ect.) that promote or harbor terrorists and threaten the U.S.

Posted by cingold 2004-07-09 7:20:57 PM|| 2004-07-09 7:20:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Jen> I'm sure you're right that there AlQ training going on in Sudan to a degree & I'm not against sending in CIA operatives & black ops guys for that mission. We should also be doing human intel collection and selective elimination of any local sudanese sh*theads we deem need exterminating. Heck, we should be diong that imo (if we're not already) in Pakistan, Iran, NKor, and Syria as well. I just don't want any more boots on the ground anywhere else but where we're at right now. Let's finish the Iraq/Afghan thing the right way then we can shift the "eye of mordor" on other douchebag countries. BTW- If I was Prez I'd push to repeal the ban on targeting foreign leaders for assassination (think about the message that would send) - but that's a whole other debate.

Cingold> you're right, there are plenty of countries that need a big can of ass whoop let open on them as per my above statement. My strategy is doing it in increments and in a 100% thorough anal retentive style. I.E.- let's whack the alligators that are closest to the boat that we have the troop strength for, no need to rush headfirst with a regiment of Marines yet into Darfur - though I'm sure clipping rag heads on camel back from 300 yards out would put a smile on most 19 yr old jarheads.

Posted by Jarhead 2004-07-09 8:48:41 PM|| 2004-07-09 8:48:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Jarhead in 2008 ! I like your plans . . . : )

Posted by cingold 2004-07-09 8:51:27 PM|| 2004-07-09 8:51:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 thanks Cingold, I actually do plan on going into politics, but that won't be until 2017, when I'm retired and bored of hunting (deer not ragheads) :)

Posted by Jarhead 2004-07-09 9:02:22 PM|| 2004-07-09 9:02:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 "As was the case in Iraq, France also has significant oil interests in Sudan"

Does anything else need to be said in relation to Chirac's neo-Islamic Republic of France?

Posted by Mark Espinola 2004-07-09 10:43:21 PM|| 2004-07-09 10:43:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 How can anybody be surprised at the depths France stoops to. They've always been the turd of international relations, nothings changed.

Agree with Jen and Jarhead: black ops is needed yes!!!! and probably already being sent where they are most needed without our knowledge.

Posted by Anon1 2004-07-10 12:34:40 AM|| 2004-07-10 12:34:40 AM|| Front Page Top

11:49 Antiwar
11:45 Antiwar
16:37 Faisal
16:37 Faisal
14:57 Liberalhawk
14:57 Liberalhawk
14:52 11A5S
14:52 11A5S
14:44 Liberalhawk
14:44 Liberalhawk
14:13 Liberalhawk
14:13 Liberalhawk
13:39 Faisal
13:39 Faisal
13:32 Faisal
13:32 Faisal
13:15 Faisal
13:15 Faisal
11:47 therien
11:47 therien
11:45 therien
11:45 therien
11:40 Antiwar
11:31 Antiwar
Merry-Go-Blog