Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Sudan Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: What fate Sudan?
nathan    5/7/2004 1:17:49 PM
Should the international community help Sudanese rebels to defeat the murderous regime in Khartoum? Does the British government as the former colonial power, share some of the responsibility of preventing attacks against civilians? What solutions can we put forward to stop the genocide in that country that is currently underway?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
SGTObvious    RE:What fate Sudan?   5/7/2004 1:23:57 PM
Whatever the outcome, somehow the BBC will declare it to be OUR fault. Don't look to any of the Arab nations to provide any help. It's muslims doing the killing, so by their book its not "genocide", its "the internal affairs of a sovereign state". Don't look to the USA, we're all booked right now. So is the UK and Poland. Someone's got to do this, though. Remind me again, why does Germany have an army? I forget. What's it for? Oh, and Spain is also available.
 
Quote    Reply

nathan    RE:What fate Sudan?   5/7/2004 3:09:30 PM
Germany's army is severely restricted in what it can and cannot do abroad. No-one expects the US to come to Sudan's aid. Even if the US didn't have enough on its plate at the moment, I suspect that the memory of Somalia would have scared her away from this conflict. If the United Nations doesn't act, then it deserves to be condemned as it was after the Rwanda genocide. Intervention will only occur if the Security Council takes a moral stand. I believe that its Britain's obligation to provide leadership here because of its colonial role in the country. I'm not stating that the UK is anyway responsible for the chaos but she would be the natural choice partly because of her seat on the Security Council. If we wait for the fledgling African Union to take a stand, we'll just be witnesses to further massacre. A Security Council resolution should be passed as soon as possible and resolutely acted upon. Is genocide any less important than the issue of weapons of mass destruction?
 
Quote    Reply

BBrad    RE:What fate Sudan?   5/20/2004 6:54:44 AM
Sudan is different to Somalia. It is much safer for any army to operate in Southern Sudan than it was in Somalia. The people of the south are mostly non-Muslim who desire freedom of speech, freedom of religion and democracy. That is why they have been declared enemies of Allah by the north, they are regarded as enemies of Allah because they refuse to accept Islamic Law (the Sharia), which treats non-Muslims as second class citizens. Any nation who desired to help the people of the south could quite comfortably operate in the South. The people of the south would fight with them not against them. And the army could use a purely defensive strategy and use air strikes when necessary. The South only want their own democratic government. Don't worry abou tliberating the north as they don't want to be liberated. They want the Sharia so let them have it. But the people of the South need to be defended. A campaign in Sudan would be much easier than either Afghanistan or Iraq. http://www.iabolish.com/escape/
 
Quote    Reply

nathan    RE:What fate Sudan?   5/20/2004 8:35:45 AM
The United States took Sudan off of its list of states being uncooperative in the War Against Terror. Considering recent events, I find this to be a grave mistake. Has the Sudan been rewarded for cooperating in the War on Terror at the expense of non-Muslims in the South who are being massacred? If the United States is to win the War on Terror, then it needs to fight terror in all its forms, including genocide. I think today's reversal will send the wrong message entirely.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics