Politics, News & Issues >
Politics in Africa
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould the US take greater action in regards to Darfur?
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| No | 38% | 113 votes | Total: 294 votes | |
| Yes | 62% | 181 votes |
No
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesShould the US take greater action in regards to Darfur? Why is it that those that want us out of Iraq, want us in Darfur? Is that not contradictory for those that say; "we must protect the troops!" Going into Darfur with military troops will lead to a further massacre of Darfur's innocent people. The sadistic Sudanese troops, and Muslim extremists will kill as many people as possible before the American troops get there. Does this remind you of Germany at the end of the war? Gee, now we don't have to worry about feeding them, we can save money!
Once more the United States will end up in a guerrilla war. We can take out their Federal Government very easily, but do we want to be a colonial power? The UN, don't be silly. They will use our money, and send over sight seeing troops. The African Union should be the one to help! What have they ever helped? Just about every government in Africa is very corrupt. We give, they take. But the people that need get nothing.
There is only one way to help. We do need to send in troops, but they should oversee the generous goods being delivered. The Sudanese government should not be the one to distribute anything. If they do, they will never get to the ones that were supposed to get them.
I have many friend's from Africa that come from different countries, and they all say the same thing. "The government is corrupt-corrupt-corr upt!" Has Africa contributed anything of necessity that you can remember? My mind is like that of an Ostrich.
Shall we discuss the war? It is not like like the war in Iraq. Terrorism is not at the bottom of the conflict. We are not going to fight Al-Queda, although they will try to get involved. As I am told by my African friend's, the war is tribal, and about religion. Most people in the US don't want to get involved in a civil war. Darfur is a true civil war. Ask the British teacher that let her class choose the name Mohammad for a stuffed animal.
There can only be one law if the Muslims have their way. So do we send our troops in to keep Christianity alive in Darfur? That is the real question? Is this going to be the start of a CRUSADE? I predicted there would be a Crusade two years ago that would take place in the next decade. This is as good a place to start as any.
The Muslims have been on the attack for quite some time. Lets be honest, not politically correct. How far are we going to permit them to expand, before we do the obvious? This can only happen with the use of our troops. But we have to fight to win! You don't use your military to start another Korea, or Viet Nam. You use the military to achieve victory. In simple English, bomb the hell out of them! There will be civilian casualties of course, but what do our opponents care about civillian casualties. We destroyed Japan, Germany, etc. Are they not our friend's now?
If we don't do the job correctly, don't do it. I don't think our country is ready, and willing to take the action necessary in Darfur.
Learn more about this author, Harvey Stelman.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Yes
by David Nuttle
The United Nation's has limited authority and capability to conduct really effective peacekeeping operations. For this reason, many people would like the U.S. military to prevent Janjaweed, Arab militias (from the Abbala tribes) from killing or displacing more Black African, non-Arab, farmers from the Fur, Zaghawa, and Massaleit tribes. The fact that nearly 400,000 Africans have been killed since 2003, and over 2.8 million displaced since that date, has created an even greater demand for U.S. action to stop the genocide. Given the U.S. conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. military does not have the forces needed to be effective in Darfur. Most Janjaweed forces are well armed by the Govenment of Sudan (GoS), and they receive some operational support from the Sudanese military and air force. The Janjaweed have good local intelligence, and are highly mobile using guerilla forces mounted on horse or camel. With all of these factors considered, the U.S. military would be expected to fail in Darfur.
There are a number of other things the U.S. could do to help stop the genocide in Darfur. Given the fact that the initial cause of the conflict was extreme drought, desertification, and overpopulation, the U.S. could offer to help with a program to drill water wells as well as to develop systems to collect and store the available rainwater. The U.S. could also offer to provide technology to make solid fuel ethanol pellets as a subsitute for charcoal now used by over 20 million Sudanese to cook and heat homes. (Sudan has surplus sugar crops to make the ethanol.) Cutting of trees and brush, to make all of this charcoal, is a major cause of desertification. The offer of help would be a gesture of friendship to see if GoS President Omar al-Bashir might change his policy of support for the Janjaweed. In addition, the U.S. could offer to help negotiate a truce with the Sudan Liberation Movement and the Justice and Equality Movement, used by the Fur, and other African tribes, to organize an effort to fight the Janjaweed and demand fair treatment from the GoS.
In addition to the above effort, the U.S. needs to put more economic and diplomatic pressure on the Chinese to get them to dramatically reduce support for the GoS, and stop selling weapons to the GoS. At the same time, the U.S. needs to give PetroChina other options than buying petroleum from Sudan. The GoS has money to buy weapons, for the Janajaweed, because of all their oil (petroleum) sales to PetroChina. The GoS is also buying some weapons from the Russians, so the U.S. needs to improve its relations with the Russians to help further reduce total weapons availability (and we need Russain help for many other reasons).
If none of the above efforts is effective, the U.S. could undertake a covert kidnapp operation to capture GoS President Omar al-Bashir and deliver him to face charges of genocide, and crimes against humanity, before the International Criminal Court (ICC). Unless and until those responsible for any genocide are held accountable, most genocides will continue. United Nations peacekeepers cannot perform this task given the veto power in the U.N. Security Council, and due to not having host government support (as needed to operate effectively). An example of this failure was seen during the Srebrenica massacre when Serbian troops conducted a genocide campaign against Bosnian Muslims. Over 400 armed U.N. peacekeepers could only observe and report how many were killed. We know that the U.N. cannot perform effective peacekeeping. In the case of African Union (A.U.) peacekeepers, in Darfur, they do not have the leadership, trained troops, weapons, mobility, and sufficient numbers to bring peace to Darfur. Moreover, the A.U. has some of the same limitations faced by U.N. peacekeepers.
The U.S. already has an image problem when it comes to a failure to effectively deal with genocide in the cases of Cambodia, Rwanda, Laos, and Vietnam, as well as Darfur. In the opinion of many people, worldwide, the U.S. only acts to protect resources needed to sustain its "Consumption Empire." We have an urgent need to change that image, and that gives us one more reason to stop the genocide in Darfur. The U.S. also needs to act to stop the genocide against the Hmong, by communist forces in Laos. In addition, the U.S. needs to act as needed to stop communist Vietnamese forces in their campaign of genocide against Montagnard tribes in that country. Yes, the U.S. needs to take greater action in Darfur as well as any area where genocide is taking place. Global peace will not be possible unless and until all the killing, rape, torture, and destruction has been ended.
Learn more about this author, David Nuttle.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
