Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Scenario: UN backed forces invade Sudan

  1. #1
    Senior Contributor Canmoore's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 May 06
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,669

    Scenario: UN backed forces invade Sudan

    In this scenario, the UN finally decides that they are not going to let another Rawanda happen under there noses, and after much debate, agree on a military force to topple the Sudanese government and stop the Genocide in Darfur.

    What countries would take place? How would the battle pan out? How many casualties? What kind of forces would be needed? And how about after the invasion, what will the UN do for the new Sudan?

  2. #2
    Contributor
    Join Date
    01 Jan 05
    Posts
    374
    Quote Originally Posted by Canmoore View Post
    In this scenario, the UN finally decides that they are not going to let another Rawanda happen under there noses, and after much debate, agree on a military force to topple the Sudanese government and stop the Genocide in Darfur.

    What countries would take place? How would the battle pan out? How many casualties? What kind of forces would be needed? And how about after the invasion, what will the UN do for the new Sudan?
    I think most likely it will be made up of Indian, Chinese, Australian, USA, Italy, Spain etc etc. It would be of random countries. Predominantly those not serving in Lebanon or other places of conflict.

    You would need adleast 50 000 Un soldiers. Thats nothing major for toppling a government. You need only this amount because the Sudanese army are realy poorly equipped and trained.

    It needs to happen soon though. Because the genocide is already happening. But no one cares. I mean look at the response this thread is getting so far.

    The UN needs to act quickly on Sudan. It is already worse than Rwanda.

  3. #3
    Senior Contributor Canmoore's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 May 06
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,669
    It seems to me that Africans like Middle Eastern Muslims excell at guerilla warefare. Those loyal to the government may not go so quietly into the night...Im not an expert on Africa, so i may be wrong. But it seems its a mistake to think that it would be a cakewalk, at least Somalia wasnt a cakewalk.

  4. #4
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    If the countries who could do this, wanted to do this, it would have been done by now.

  5. #5
    -{SpoonmaN}-
    Guest
    Indeed, no one cares because it doesn't directly affect anyone except a bunch of really poor countries that also have no bearing on their foreign policy. If the important members of the UN wanted to rid the world of the Sudanese government and the Janjaweed they sure as hell could do it, and probably quite easily.

  6. #6
    Senior Contributor Canmoore's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 May 06
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,669
    Then i guess we can confirm that the UN is utterly useless, now lets all tell that to the hippies who would rather having our boys die in Sudan, fighting for nothing that interests us, rather than dying in a country that once harbourd the very terrorists who killed over 3000 on 911 including 26 canadians, plus other pre-911 terrorist attacks.

  7. #7
    A Self Important Senior Contributor troung's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    8,046
    Then i guess we can confirm that the UN is utterly useless, now lets all tell that to the hippies who would rather having our boys die in Sudan, fighting for nothing that interests us, rather than dying in a country that once harbourd the very terrorists who killed over 3000 on 911 including 26 canadians, plus other pre-911 terrorist attacks.
    The UN is only as good as its members if no one wants to go itno the Sudan then what?

    And I don't see people in the real nation which currently harbors the terrorists... starts with the letter "P"...

    And the Sudan is big into hiding terrorists and even had Bin Laden as their guest of honor.
    To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

  8. #8
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,806
    UN is useless because it's a place for talks and negotiations and more talks and to play nice.

    We need strong arm dictatorship in the UN to actually do something about Sudan, or Rwanda, or any other places where genocide takes place. But that's not what the UN is.

    No one wants to send their own boys to die for someone else's problems, unless there's substantial reward involved, like a strategic location for a base or oil or other minerals. Even then most would just buy this stuff on the open market.

    War isn't popular in advanced nations and poor nations are too poor to worry about sufferings a continent away.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  9. #9
    A Self Important Senior Contributor troung's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    8,046
    UN is useless because it's a place for talks and negotiations and more talks and to play nice. We need strong arm dictatorship in the UN to actually do something about Sudan, or Rwanda, or any other places where genocide takes place. But that's not what the UN is.
    So should we give the UN a military or give up the rights to our own?
    To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

  10. #10
    -{SpoonmaN}-
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by troung View Post
    So should we give the UN a military or give up the rights to our own?
    I've advocated the idea of having a New UN where membership is conditional on a basis of democratisation and liberalisation (although I put forward the point that these conditions might have to be waved in the case of China or the body would be irrelevant). In effect you'd have a UN that would be made up of more democratic states, and as such wouldn't allow some of the nastier dictatorships to do things like sit on Human Rights committees and the like. It could also have the requirement that its members be obligated to placing 5% of their Military forces into a joint Peacekeeping Force unless they're in a national emergency, giving the body a pool of standing military assets that it could deploy to trouble spots, with the more traditional Ad Hoc coalitions still being used in the event of a major conflict like Korea or the First Gulf War. I do have to admit though, while this body might be more inclined to take action on things, since its members would at least have the common ground of being reasonably democratic and it would have pretty solid military resources set aside for it, I still doubt that it could always be counted on to make a big effort in places like Darfur, because, as we've said here, none of the democracies really care either.

  11. #11
    A Self Important Senior Contributor troung's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    8,046
    I've advocated the idea of having a New UN where membership is conditional on a basis of democratisation and liberalisation (although I put forward the point that these conditions might have to be waved in the case of China or the body would be irrelevant). In effect you'd have a UN that would be made up of more democratic states, and as such wouldn't allow some of the nastier dictatorships to do things like sit on Human Rights committees and the like
    Whats stopping the liberal democracies right now?

    It could also have the requirement that its members be obligated to placing 5% of their Military forces into a joint Peacekeeping Force unless they're in a national emergency, giving the body a pool of standing military assets that it could deploy to trouble spots, with the more traditional Ad Hoc coalitions still being used in the event of a major conflict like Korea or the First Gulf War.
    Would never fly over here.
    To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

  12. #12
    -{SpoonmaN}-
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by troung View Post
    Whats stopping the liberal democracies right now?



    Would never fly over here.
    Oh yeah, I know, you're as much of a problem to the functioning of the UN as everyone else. In a lot of ways Australia is even worse.
    Then again, something of this sort may come about, as there have been proposals for a 'democratic caucus' in the UN that would allow the democracies to work together to block resolutions proposed by dictatorships etc.
    I really cant see why everyone hasnt already set it up.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Random Thoughts on the Mighty Hog - Part 2
    By Shipwreck in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 219
    Last Post: 11 Dec 17,, 23:10
  2. Interview with PLAAF LGen Liu Yazhou
    By Officer of Engineers in forum The Field Mess
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 22 Jul 13,, 13:59
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05 Nov 06,, 14:42
  4. Many Reasons the US Should Engage Syria
    By Ray in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 23 Aug 06,, 11:49
  5. Quagmire or not?
    By Shek in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 04 Jul 05,, 17:18

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •