|
|
|
|
|
Twizted Humanitarian Crew
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 1:37 pm
For those who don't know already there is a massive genocide taking place in Sudan what are everyone's feelings on this (obviously no one is FOR the genocide [I hope]) but what are the feelings about whether we should get involved or not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 6:21 pm
I think that the U.N. should have gotten involved a long time ago and sent in a coalition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Twizted Humanitarian Crew
|
Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 7:39 am
james628 I think that the U.N. should have gotten involved a long time ago and sent in a coalition. sadly the U.N. is not what is should be for example look who the majority of U.N. soldiers are: Americans and Brits. The rest of the world needs to get more active in the United Nations and I think that would probably help solve conflicts faster and easier
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 12:17 pm
Can we cut trade and other monies, to show that the United States doesn't support the genocide? I think that would be a better plan of action.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:36 pm
thenerdqueen Can we cut trade and other monies, to show that the United States doesn't support the genocide? I think that would be a better plan of action. that wouldent do much, we tried that in south africa to stop aparthied but it still lasted for 46 years, we did that with the ottoman empire to stop the genocide against the Armenians but it didint end until russians got involved and invaded, we tried that with cambodia but the genocide there didint end until vietnam invaded, we cut trade with japan to try and end there fighting in china but that got us bombed at Pearl Harbor, the only way to efectively end the violance in Sudan is for a country to send troops and stop the fighting, It worked in rwanda were the genocide ended from france just sending a few hundred troops. peacefull salutions cant always end the violance. I think that in this case sanctions and trade embargos would only alow more time for the killing to continue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:32 pm
james628 thenerdqueen Can we cut trade and other monies, to show that the United States doesn't support the genocide? I think that would be a better plan of action. that wouldent do much, we tried that in south africa to stop aparthied but it still lasted for 46 years, we did that with the ottoman empire to stop the genocide against the Armenians but it didint end until russians got involved and invaded, we tried that with cambodia but the genocide there didint end until vietnam invaded, we cut trade with japan to try and end there fighting in china but that got us bombed at Pearl Harbor, the only way to efectively end the violance in Sudan is for a country to send troops and stop the fighting, It worked in rwanda were the genocide ended from france just sending a few hundred troops. peacefull salutions cant always end the violance. I think that in this case sanctions and trade embargos would only alow more time for the killing to continue. I have not researched the other cases sufficeintly, however, the United States did not stop trade with South Africa until the 1990's - at the end of the regime. If there is an international boycott, the genocide will stop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 6:58 am
thenerdqueen james628 thenerdqueen Can we cut trade and other monies, to show that the United States doesn't support the genocide? I think that would be a better plan of action. that wouldent do much, we tried that in south africa to stop aparthied but it still lasted for 46 years, we did that with the ottoman empire to stop the genocide against the Armenians but it didint end until russians got involved and invaded, we tried that with cambodia but the genocide there didint end until vietnam invaded, we cut trade with japan to try and end there fighting in china but that got us bombed at Pearl Harbor, the only way to efectively end the violance in Sudan is for a country to send troops and stop the fighting, It worked in rwanda were the genocide ended from france just sending a few hundred troops. peacefull salutions cant always end the violance. I think that in this case sanctions and trade embargos would only alow more time for the killing to continue. I have not researched the other cases sufficeintly, however, the United States did not stop trade with South Africa until the 1990's - at the end of the regime. If there is an international boycott, the genocide will stop. A boycott might not work because with all the nations that boycott sudan there are still some that will choose to help the gov. of sudan, Countries like Russia and China are sending weapons to the sudanese militias who are responable for most of the killing in darfur even tho there is a U.N. weapons embrgo with sudan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:00 pm
I'll put it this way: The U.N. doesn't give wepons to the terrorists. Russia does. The standard rilfe is the AK-47, which is available at just about any marketplace in Iraq for around $30 USD. If your country's representative in Russia tells them "We hate america!" Russia will almost literally throw AK-47's at them.
Also, you should probably refrain from using definitives (will) until it actually happens. No one cna know for certain that anything will happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Twizted Humanitarian Crew
|
Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 7:15 pm
uryu ishida I'll put it this way: The U.N. doesn't give wepons to the terrorists. Russia does. The standard rilfe is the AK-47, which is available at just about any marketplace in Iraq for around $30 USD. If your country's representative in Russia tells them "We hate america!" Russia will almost literally throw AK-47's at them. Also, you should probably refrain from using definitives (will) until it actually happens. No one cna know for certain that anything will happen. the problem is the Abtomot Kalashnakova model #47 a.k.a. the AK-47 Fully automatic assualt rifle is no longer just being sold by Russia, Russia has circulated well over 10 million AK-47's and can be found in any country in the world. Even the United States.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 7:27 pm
Jungle Soldier uryu ishida I'll put it this way: The U.N. doesn't give wepons to the terrorists. Russia does. The standard rilfe is the AK-47, which is available at just about any marketplace in Iraq for around $30 USD. If your country's representative in Russia tells them "We hate america!" Russia will almost literally throw AK-47's at them. Also, you should probably refrain from using definitives (will) until it actually happens. No one cna know for certain that anything will happen. the problem is the Abtomot Kalashnakova model #47 a.k.a. the AK-47 Fully automatic assualt rifle is no longer just being sold by Russia, Russia has circulated well over 10 million AK-47's and can be found in any country in the world. Even the United States. china has even making its own version tho not anywhere near as good as the russian model
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:22 am
But back to Darfur - how can the genocide be stopped without causing another Cold War?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:04 am
thenerdqueen But back to Darfur - how can the genocide be stopped without causing another Cold War? well right now causing a cold war isint the problem the big problem is that its turning in to a real war between sudan, chad and the republic of central africa and the people of dafur are right in the middle of it, the u.n. is trying to send peace keeping troops but sudan say's any peacekeeping troops will been seen as an act of war
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 10:24 am
Why is this war taking place? Have the leaders tried to do a peace talk at least?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 11:14 am
thenerdqueen Why is this war taking place? Have the leaders tried to do a peace talk at least? they did try peace but some of the darfur rebels refused to stop fighting, and the war between chad and sudan is from the refugees from darfur spilling over into chad and the sudanese militias are attacking some of the darfur people on chad's side of the border, so chad declared war on sudan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 3:02 pm
The reason we're not getting involved in Darfur is simply because it is not profitable. Unlike the Middle East, Africa has few valuable resources. It's certainly wrong to just sit and let it happen, but unfortunately, the U.N. is a selfish institution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
