eMGee

They are, actually. Heavily mongrelized arabs, or otherwise I couldn't explain why they are so dark aswell (and have very strong negroid facial features, more than regular arabs).

At least, I don't see the difference between both of the main groups in Sudan. Even a, left-wing , journalist said he didn't see much difference

Officer of Engineers

Those who advocate military intervention should understand exactly what you're asking men and women in uniform to do. You're asking us to shoot these Arab women (as a last resort maybe but when it comes down to it, that's what you need to do).

Remember what I told you the CF debate on how to stop another Rwanda. When you come upon a village with the village cheering on a very young pregnant mother with a baby on her back about to butcher another young pregnant mother with her baby on her back, you

1) try to negotiate with a show of force

2) failing that, you order your sniper to take out the biggest thug with an AK47

3) if that didn't work and short of a full fledge firefight (which I have absolute confidence in my people), you shoot that little pregnant mother about to hack the other pregnant mother.

If you're not willing to see your own people shooting women and children to stop a genocide, then don't ask us to go in there. If you are willing, then be prepared for alot of basketcases coming home to mental wards for the rest of our lives.

__________________
Chimo

troung

“Nuke both sides till they stop”

Its coming from one side. The Sudanese military has more or less stopped trying to fight the SPLA and instead attacks women and children. The use militias and converted cargo planes to attack the blacks. Really a no fly zone with vocal American support for the blacks would wrap up this conflict.

“What should be done about this? Is the Sudanese govt. willing to stop the Arab militias?”

No just the opposite.

Officer of Engineers

I don't even know if it would slow them down. Most of these militias are barely out of the Stone Age and bombing them back to the Stone Age won't help.

troung

"I don't even know if it would slow them down. Most of these militias are barely out of the Stone Age and bombing them back to the Stone Age won't help."

Still it would put massive pressure on the central government. These militias are more or less acting behind the lines and someone does need to do something.

Using the Afghan model we could force a solution which ends this problem. The SPLA is a strong force but lacks air power altough they have a good stock of SA-14s.

The biggest problem is the fact the Arabs will not accept reality and realize they cannot control the Blacks. A two state solution is needed. Plus it is a front in the war on terror (unlike Iraq).

Blademaster

But it certainly means that there will be a lot less of them.

eMGee

Latest news in! The Dutch government, alone, has already "donated" €100 million to Sudan!!

ChrisF202

That is ubserd, how dumb are those people? Dont they see that they are supporting killers? The money should have been sent to the SPLA.

Ray

Ok fine if they donated. But I hope they distribute it themselves to the Darfur people. Or else, it will only be used for more guns.

It is always better to give in kind and distribute yourself.

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

eMGee

VERY, and that's an understatement!


Guess what! Our economy isn't doing so great, cuts everywhere; we need the money more than those stupid islamist ****s!

troung

A good article on the Air War over Sudan...

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_180.shtml

Ray

If that is true, then I cannot understand the cause for the generosity.

Aryan

I guess it must have been a bad year for the clogs and windmill international markets then.

Jay

Sudan warned of sanctions

By Masood Haider


UNITED NATIONS, Sept 18: UN Security Council on Saturday adopted a US sponsored resolution that threatens oil sanctions against Sudan if it fails to stop atrocities in the Darfur region. The vote was 11-0 with four nations abstaining.

China, Russia, Algeria and Pakistan abstained. China had earlier threatened to veto the measure but relented after UN Secretary-General's appeal for swift unanimous action.

It calls for an expanded African Union monitoring force and a probe into human rights abuses, including genocide.

The resolution asks Sudan to cooperate with an expanded African Union monitoring mission in Darfur, where an estimated 50,000 people have been killed and 1.2 million forced out of their homes.


http://www.dawn.com/2004/09/19/top16.htm

Why on earth would China block this?

__________________
A grain of wheat eclipsed the sun of Adam !!

Officer of Engineers

U.N. Vote on Sudan Hinges on China


By TAREK EL-TABLAWY, Associated Press Writer

UNITED NATIONS - A U.N. Security Council vote on whether to threaten sanctions against Sudan hinged on China and other opponents who fear that the specter of punishment could ruin efforts to end a crisis that has killed more than 50,000 and spawned 1.2 million refugees.

The United States submitted a final draft with final changes Friday, making minor changes in a bid to win support from China and other opponents including Russia.

The last draft still threatens sanctions if the Khartoum government doesn't rein in militias ravaging western Darfur and calls for an international commission to investigate alleged human rights violations and whether or not acts of genocide occurred — two issues raised by the opponents.

U.S. Ambassador John Danforth said the United States had at least nine "yes" votes for the resolution, the minimum needed for adoption, and several council diplomats said there would probably be at least 11 votes in favor.

But it wasn't clear what China, which threatened to veto the original draft, would do about the latest text.

Before the final draft was released, China's U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya said Beijing was concerned that the resolution "will be a recipe for failure for the peace talks" aimed at ending the crisis that has killed more than 50,000 people and forced over 1.2 million to flee their homes.

There were signs Sudan already believed that. The talks in Nigeria collapsed Friday and the two sides said no deal was likely soon. Still, Sudan pledged to stick to the terms of an oft-violated cease-fire agreement for the Darfur region and said it will allow humanitarian agencies unfettered access to the area where tens of thousands have died.

Sudan's government reiterated charges that the U.S. criticism had boosted rebel intransigence at the talks.

"Statements made by senior officials of the USA poisoned the talks environment and sent wrong signals to the rebels who immediately stiffened their positions and contracted sudden disinterest on the talks and discussions and adopted a negative attitude," the government statement said.

Sudan's government and government-allied Arab militia are accused by the United Nations (news - web sites), United States and others of waging a campaign of killing, torture, rape and arson to drive out Darfur's non-Arab farmers.

The United States and some aid groups say genocide has already been committed in Darfur, a charge the government denies. Tens of thousands are already dead in Darfur and 1.2 million people have fled their homes, including 200,000 in refugee camps in neighboring Chad.

The violence broke out with the emergence of two rebel groups after February 2003.

The United Nations calls it the worst humanitarian crisis anywhere.

The revised version of the U.N. draft — the third the United States has submitted in as many days — came a day after U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) called for immediate U.N. action to halt attacks against civilians in western Darfur, which he said were continuing despite the government's promise to rein in the marauding militias.

China, Russia, Pakistan and Algeria have voiced concerns at including even the possibility of sanctions, stressing that the impetus should be on getting the government to cooperate and avoiding language that complicate efforts to resolve the conflict and provide humanitarian relief.

"I understand the feeling of the secretary-general. There is an urgency in the sense of finding a solution to the problem of Sudan," said China's Wang. "But as I see it, there are many problems in Sudan ... The essence of the problem is peace."

Wang declined to say whether his government would veto or abstain on voting on the resolution in earlier form.

The draft resolution strongly endorses an expanded African Union force and threatens sanctions, singling out the "petroleum sector," if the Sudanese government doesn't curb the Arab militias and start to disarm them and punish the perpetrators — and if it doesn't cooperate with a beefed-up African Union monitoring force.

The final draft states that the Security Council will make a decision on any further measures after consultation with African Union, giving the 53-nation body additional input.

It also expanded a clause which acknowledged some steps taken by the Khartoum government to facilitate access for humanitarian workers in western Darfur.