Bombing Somalia
Comments
-
i doubt missionaries fight
. -
Wanna bet? It's called "fire and brimstone". And that's not necessarily religated to Christians. The word can be a mighty sword.
-
Re: escap's question: "What can the U.S. be doing?"
1. Immediately enforce a no-fly zone over Darfur
The president of neighboring Chad has offered use of an air base from which the U.S. (with or without the help of other nations) could enforce a no-fly zone over Darfur. Using military aircraft Pres. Omar Bashir and the government of Sudan openly attack villages filled with non-combatants. This needs to be stopped immediately. Regardless of the details, a government is simply not allowed indiscriminately attack its own citizens.
Writes Nicholas Kristof:...the U.S. and France should enforce a no-fly zone from the French air base in Abéché, Chad. American military planners say this is practicable, particularly if it simply involves destroying Sudanese aircraft on the ground after they have attacked civilians.
Granted, these approaches carry real risks. After we shoot up a Sudanese military plane, Sudan may orchestrate a ''spontaneous'' popular riot that will involve lynching a few U.S. aid workers -- or journalists.
But remember that the Sudanese government is hanging on by its fingernails. It is deeply unpopular, and when it tried to organize demonstrations against the Danish cartoons, they were a flop.
The coming issue of Foreign Policy magazine publishes a Failed States Index in which Sudan is ranked the single most unstable country in the entire world. If we apply enough pressure, Sudan's leaders will back down in Darfur -- just as they did when they signed a peace deal to end the war with southern Sudan. (Apr 25, 2006)
2. Get China on board
The president of Chad says he would be happy to have Americans do this, and it would be easy: instead of keeping airplanes in the air, we would simply wait until a Sudanese plane bombed a village, then strafe that plane on the ground afterward. (The first time, we would just damage the plane; we would destroy any after that.)
Asked about such a no-fly zone in the Zogby poll, 70 percent (of Americans) said they supported the idea, and only 13 percent opposed it. (Mar. 19, 2006)
In the words of the New York Times, "Genocide is different, and Beijing knows it." I strongly urge you to read this editorial published last August (and saved here on my blog). It explains how Beijing can be pressured to help the situation in Darfur, despite its economic commitments to Khartoum.
Excerpt:China is generally pretty thick-skinned about human-rights criticisms. Its practices at home leave much to be desired, and it does business with more than its share of unsavory regimes abroad. But genocide is different, and Beijing knows it. China is already embarrassed by its support for Mr. Bashir. When Prime Minister Wen Jiabao visited Africa recently, he pointedly did not go to Sudan.
3. Freeze assets
Surely Beijing does not want the world to see it as the main obstacle to sending a U.N. force to end the killing in Darfur. But right now, that is exactly the case. Other countries, like Russia, are also hanging back. But if China dropped its objections, they would probably follow its lead.
The U.S. should freeze the assets of and restrict all travel by any Sudanese officials who have been identified as being complicit in the genocide by Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the U.N. and the ICC. Nothing gets a despot's attention like going after his money (or that of his henchmen).
4. Peacekeeping
I'm quoting myself from another blog post:Without troops, advisors and logistical support from major military powers (US, UK, France, et al), any UN force will struggle to be effective. Many observers have pointed out that the best way to get Khartoum's (and the people of Sudan and the wider Muslim world's) approval would be to build the peacekeeping force out of troops from Muslim and African armies, not white, Christian, Western ones.
Nicholas Kristof also has these suggestions for the U.S.:
The best hope for an end to the immediate genocide would be for Khartoum to accept an expanded UN force built out of the existing AU force, with such a force getting logistics and advisors from the US and other world powers.First, we must pony up for the African Union security force. The single most disgraceful action the U.S. has taken was Congress's decision, with the complicity of the Bush administration, to cut out all $50 million in the current budget to help pay for the African peacekeepers in Darfur. Shame on Representative Jim Kolbe of Arizona -- and the White House -- for facilitating genocide.
And in closing, I offer these selected excerpts from other Kristof columns:
Mr. Bush needs to find $50 million fast and get it to the peacekeepers.
Second, the U.S. needs to push for an expanded security force in Darfur. The African Union force is a good start, but it lacks sufficient troops and weaponry. The most practical solution is to ''blue hat'' the force, making it a U.N. peacekeeping force built around the African Union core. It needs more resources and a more robust mandate, plus contributions from NATO or at least from major countries like Canada, Germany and Japan.
Third, we should impose a no-fly zone. The U.S. should warn Sudan that if it bombs civilians, then afterward we will destroy the airplanes involved.
Fourth, the House should pass the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act. This legislation, which would apply targeted sanctions and pressure Sudan to stop the killing, passed the Senate unanimously but now faces an uphill struggle in the House.
Fifth, Mr. Bush should use the bully pulpit. He should talk about Darfur in his speeches and invite survivors to the Oval Office. He should wear a green ''Save Darfur'' bracelet -- or how about getting a Darfur lawn sign for the White House? (Both are available, along with ideas for action, from www.savedarfur.org.) He can call Hosni Mubarak and other Arab and African leaders and ask them to visit Darfur. He can call on China to stop underwriting this genocide.
Sixth, President Bush and Kofi Annan should jointly appoint a special envoy to negotiate with tribal sheiks. Colin Powell or James Baker III would be ideal in working with the sheiks and other parties to hammer out a peace deal. The envoy would choose a Sudanese chief of staff like Dr. Mudawi Ibrahim Adam, a leading Sudanese human rights activist who has been pushing just such a plan with the help of Human Rights First. (Nov. 29, 2005)..."Imagine if Mr. Bush had made Darfur an important issue at the Asian summit meeting last week, if he had returned via Cairo for a meeting with Arab leaders, if he had dispatched Condi Rice to Chad to shore it up." Nov 21, 2006
...In the last few days, Sudan has bowed to outside pressure and reluctantly agreed in principle to accept some U.N. peacekeepers in Darfur. That's a reminder that pressure can work, but we haven't applied nearly enough. For the peacekeepers to save lives and the killings to stop, much greater effort will be essential. Nov. 19, 2006
...President Bush could visit Chad and the Central African Republic as a show of support to keep those two countries from collapsing -- and he could invite Chinese leaders, who provide Sudan with the guns used for atrocities, to join him.
At the least, Mr. Bush could dispatch Condi Rice to Chad to show the U.S.'s support -- then have her stop off in Cairo for meetings with Arab leaders on the crisis. The U.S. could also try targeted sanctions against Sudanese leaders, a no-fly zone to stop Sudanese jets from bombing civilians, and especially a major new effort to start a real peace process in Darfur, for ultimately only a peace agreement can end these horrors. Nov 12, 2006
...we must put genocide squarely on the international agenda. One lesson of history is that world leaders always prefer to ignore a genocide, but when forced to face the horrors -- as in Bosnia or Kosovo -- they figure out ways of responding. The most acute need is not for policies but for political will. July 9, 2006
...Madeleine Albright helped end the horrors of Sierra Leone simply by going there and being photographed with maimed children. Those searing photos put Sierra Leone on the global agenda, and policy makers hammered out solutions. Granted, it's the fault of the ''CBS Evening News'' that it gave Darfur's genocide only 2 minutes of coverage in all of last year (compared with the 36 minutes that it gave the Michael Jackson trial), but the administration can help when we in the media world drop the ball.
The U.S. could organize a summit meeting in Europe or the Arab world to call attention to Darfur, we could appoint a presidential envoy like Colin Powell, and we could make the issue much more prominent in our relations with countries like Egypt, Qatar, Jordan and China. Apr 25, 2006
...A new poll by Zogby International that surveyed 1,000 Americans a few days ago asked about Darfur. Sixty-two percent said that ''the United States has a responsibility to help stop the killings in the Darfur region of Sudan''; only 24 percent disagreed. Mar 19, 2006 -
Darfur is beyond political help. if you really want to do something go get some arms and go fight. talk is cheap.
actions works better in the none western world. talks is just that talks.
you could protest till the cows come home. -
all we are saying is give peace a chance...
all we are saying is give peace a chance... -
Boygavriel, thanks. That's a lot to digest, but will read all of it!
-
LeeHo wrote: Boygavriel, thanks. That's a lot to digest, but will read all of it!
Ditto. -
Many observers have pointed out that the best way to get Khartoum's (and the people of Sudan and the wider Muslim world's) approval would be to build the peacekeeping force out of troops from Muslim and African armies, not white, Christian, Western ones.
True, you might get Khartoum's approval with such a scheme, but I doubt it. And if Khartoum did approve, it would be because they know that such a peacekeeping force wouldn't do as good a job as well-equipped, well-led, professional infantry (yeah, the kind that usually comes from "white, Christian, Western" armies, to use the given term) and might not even be motivated to try. Unfortunately, that's the main reason the AU force has been permitted to operate - Sudan knows they are totally ineffective. Give them some teeth and the tune would change.
The no-fly zone would certainly be helpful in denying the use of airpower, but airpower isn't necessary for Khartoum to keep raising hell - and as they found out, it's tough to find and bomb a bunch of Toyotas driving around over such a massive area.
I'm all for action, but I think we need to be realistic about what sort of action will truly be effective - although something is better than nothing, it might still prove a disappointment. -
escap wrote: [quote=LeeHo]Boygavriel, thanks. That's a lot to digest, but will read all of it!
Ditto.
My pleasure. Darfur is very important to me and I'm open to discussing any aspect of it with anyone.
I realize all my quotes are from Nick Kristof. I have other sources too, but his are the most accessible. -
armchair_warrior wrote: Darfur is beyond political help. if you really want to do something go get some arms and go fight. talk is cheap.
Cynicism kills, man.
actions works better in the none western world. talks is just that talks.
you could protest till the cows come home.
Political pressure will do as much to end to the genocide as anything else. Bashir cares about his power & money more than he cares about killing destitute villagers. If the genocide threatens his grip on power (and cash), he'll end it.
Diplomacy ended the 30 year civil war in southern Sudan. There's no reason it can't end the 4 year war in the West. -
Drano wrote: True, you might get Khartoum's approval with such a scheme, but I doubt it. And if Khartoum did approve, it would be because they know that such a peacekeeping force wouldn't do as good a job as well-equipped, well-led, professional infantry (yeah, the kind that usually comes from "white, Christian, Western" armies, to use the given term) and might not even be motivated to try. Unfortunately, that's the main reason the AU force has been permitted to operate - Sudan knows they are totally ineffective. Give them some teeth and the tune would change.
With diplomatic skill, the international community (with China included), could pressure Bashir into ending the genocide. He doesn't actually benefit from it financially. And as I said above, money & power are more important to him than killing Darfur villagers. The motives of this genocide are very different from Rwanda '94 or the Holocaust.
An expanded AU force, with troops from other Muslim or black countries could definitely make humongous strides towards ending the violence. As in Rwanda in '94, the people doing the actual killing are a bunch of disorganized thugs (as opposed to the Nazi army, for example). Just the presence of peacekeepers (not the use of actual force), can be enough to end the violence.
The key to the expanded force is that they need logistical support from a first world military. That is where we come in. Not with man-power, but with know-how.The no-fly zone would certainly be helpful in denying the use of airpower, but airpower isn't necessary for Khartoum to keep raising hell - and as they found out, it's tough to find and bomb a bunch of Toyotas driving around over such a massive area.
I agree 100% that the no-fly zone would by no means stop the slaughter, but it would slow the pace significantly. If the Janjaweed didn't have Anatov bombers as back up, their attacks might not be nearly as effective or frequent.
Also the symbolism of stopping the air attacks would do wonders. The fact that the government openly attacks its own civilians with military airships is the icing on the genocidal cake. Khartoum adds insult to genocidal injury when it doesn't even try to hide its hand in the genocide.I'm all for action, but I think we need to be realistic about what sort of action will truly be effective - although something is better than nothing, it might still prove a disappointment.
As I said in my lengthy post above, I think there are a number of very realistic steps the U.S. could take, at little cost and trouble to us, that would do wonders to help stop the violence.
Will we help the Darfurians walk hand in hand in the streets? No. Can we slow (or stop) the 100,000-per-year death rate? Absolutely. Our moral responsibilities do not lie in making Sudan a functioning democracy (coughcoughTheIraqDebaclecough). Our responsibilities lie with being proactive when helpless civilians are slaughtered.
If your neighbor's house is on fire...
or in this case, if your friend halfway across the globe's house is on fire... -
An expanded AU force, with troops from other Muslim or black countries could definitely make humongous strides towards ending the violence. As in Rwanda in '94, the people doing the actual killing are a bunch of disorganized thugs (as opposed to the Nazi army, for example). Just the presence of peacekeepers (not the use of actual force), can be enough to end the violence.
I do not share your sense of certainty - or, if you prefer, optimism - in this matter, but as I said above: Something is better than nothing. And it does have the benefit of being more politcally feasible. -
Drano wrote:
I'm always reminded of this one story I read about in UN Force Commander Gen. Romeo Dallaire's memoirs about the genocide in Rwanda in 1994.An expanded AU force, with troops from other Muslim or black countries could definitely make humongous strides towards ending the violence. As in Rwanda in '94, the people doing the actual killing are a bunch of disorganized thugs (as opposed to the Nazi army, for example). Just the presence of peacekeepers (not the use of actual force), can be enough to end the violence.
I do not share your sense of certainty - or, if you prefer, optimism - in this matter, but as I said above: Something is better than nothing. And it does have the benefit of being more politcally feasible.
The UN force in Rwanda was tragically under-staffed, but even moreso with logistics and firepower. He literally sent guys out into the field without even a pistol to defend themsevles. During the genocide, many potential victims sought refuge at churches. So frequently when Dallaire's men attempted to protect civilians, they ended up doing so at a church. (think: barricaded door with bloodthirsty mob outside).
Anyway, at one such church a mob promised to come on a certain day to break in and kill any Tutsis. So two of Dallaire's soliders went to the church to try and keep a peacekeeping vigil outside. As with many missions, they had to do so without any arms whatsoever. So these two Pakistani UN soldiers set up camp on two chairs, in front of the church, and awaited the mob. They ended up turning the mob back and saving the lives of everyone inside.
Somehow, whether by divine intevention or what, two unarmed U.N. soldiers were able to repel a bloodthirsty mob. Dallaire pointed to this as one of the many instances in which simply the presence of international troops (not even white or first world ones), can be enough to turn back bloodthirsty thugs in the middle of a genocide. This was a scene that repeated itself many times over.
Now granted this is obviously just one measley example. And I know it's optimistic thinking. And I know there are many differences between Rwanda and Sudan. However this story really did happen, and I think it points to something larger. Especially where disorganized thugs and defenseless villagers are concerned. I wouldn't exactly recommend this tactic to someone in the Sunni Triangle, you know? And the Janjaweed don't exactly resemble The Third Reich either. -
Boygabriel wrote: [quote=Drano]
I'm always reminded of this one story I read about in UN Force Commander Gen. Romeo Dallaire's memoirs about the genocide in Rwanda in 1994.An expanded AU force, with troops from other Muslim or black countries could definitely make humongous strides towards ending the violence. As in Rwanda in '94, the people doing the actual killing are a bunch of disorganized thugs (as opposed to the Nazi army, for example). Just the presence of peacekeepers (not the use of actual force), can be enough to end the violence.
I do not share your sense of certainty - or, if you prefer, optimism - in this matter, but as I said above: Something is better than nothing. And it does have the benefit of being more politcally feasible.
The UN force in Rwanda was tragically under-staffed, but even moreso with logistics and firepower. He literally sent guys out into the field without even a pistol to defend themsevles. During the genocide, many potential victims sought refuge at churches. So frequently when Dallaire's men attempted to protect civilians, they ended up doing so at a church. (think: barricaded door with bloodthirsty mob outside).
Anyway, at one such church a mob promised to come on a certain day to break in and kill any Tutsis. So two of Dallaire's soliders went to the church to try and keep a peacekeeping vigil outside. As with many missions, they had to do so without any arms whatsoever. So these two Pakistani UN soldiers set up camp on two chairs, in front of the church, and awaited the mob. They ended up turning the mob back and saving the lives of everyone inside.
Somehow, whether by divine intevention or what, two unarmed U.N. soldiers were able to repel a bloodthirsty mob. Dallaire pointed to this as one of the many instances in which simply the presence of international troops (not even white or first world ones), can be enough to turn back bloodthirsty thugs in the middle of a genocide. This was a scene that repeated itself many times over.
Now granted this is obviously just one measley example. And I know it's optimistic thinking. And I know there are many differences between Rwanda and Sudan. However this story really did happen, and I think it points to something larger. Especially where disorganized thugs and defenseless villagers are concerned. I wouldn't exactly recommend this tactic to someone in the Sunni Triangle, you know? And the Janjaweed don't exactly resemble The Third Reich either.
that guy's story is so awful. I read an article about his memoirs (which I haven't read - they sound like a gut-wrenching read) in the new york review of books - he still apparently suffers from acute PTSD and refuses to stop testifying about what happened in Rwanda, even though his shrinks keep telling him that he's gotta let it go. -
diplomatic pressure really don't work. there is no economic interest for it to work. hell we aren't there or other countries cause there is no interest!
like i said if you wanna do something best through actions in none western world than talk.
at the end of the day. folks go home and feel better about themsleves and still not really involved. thats why i always find western protesters funny. -
armchair_warrior wrote: diplomatic pressure really don't work. there is no economic interest for it to work. hell we aren't there or other countries cause there is no interest!
I understand your cynical view of western liberals but it's over-simplified and factually inaccurate. -
alafairnadia wrote: that guy's story is so awful. I read an article about his memoirs (which I haven't read - they sound like a gut-wrenching read) in the new york review of books - he still apparently suffers from acute PTSD and refuses to stop testifying about what happened in Rwanda, even though his shrinks keep telling him that he's gotta let it go.
I don't know, I mean yeah it's about a genocide so it's not exactly uplifting. But the man's faith in the international community to help bring peace to troubled areas of the world is inspirational. He has a lot of interesting ideas for how to turn the U.N. into a more productive force for peace.
Because of the U.N's failure in Rwanda in 1994, Dallaire has dedicated himself to trying to spread awareness of what could be possible. I saw him speak at the NYC Bar Association a few years ago and he's in pretty good shape these days. His emotional issues are no longer debilitating.
I thought it was a really good book, but obviously I'm really interested in the subject. -
not cynical at all. I'm just saying best go with action than words outside of the western world. people in the third world would respect actions better.
oh talk about how none western folks see western folks. read the novel "Nectar in a Sieve" how the western doctor trying to save these poor folks. -
armchair_warrior wrote: not cynical at all. I'm just saying best go with action than words outside of the western world. people in the third world would respect actions better.
The people of southern Sudan beg to differ.
Diplomacy has and can save lives. Sorry man. The U.S. can end genocide without putting troops on the ground. -
diplomacy saves lives only when one side respects the other side. this isnt the case.
while you wasting your time postings with tools like me, folks are still dying. -
armchair_warrior wrote: diplomacy saves lives only when one side respects the other side. this isnt the case.
:roll:
while you wasting your time postings with tools like me, folks are still dying.
In the words of Ron Burgandy, agree to disagree. -
Finally had a moment to read through all this and just wanted to respond with my two cents as well.
Boygabriel wrote: Re: escap's question: "What can the U.S. be doing?"
No. The goal is laudable but I think the last thing the US needs right now is another military campaign against an Arab, Muslim government.
1. Immediately enforce a no-fly zone over Darfur2. Get China on board
This would be great, but I frankly don't think it's possible. China is dependent on the Sudan and other "unsavory" nations for its energy needs, and it's unlikely to risk its economy for the Darfur victims. Also, in one of the great ironies of this era, China's international image is largely positive, thanks to America drawing so much of the world's enmity. Despite its human rights abuses and support for brutal regimes, polls consistently show China's int'l image as favorable.3. Freeze assets
Agreed. This seems like a feasible and potentially effective means of applying pressure. Similar moves against N Korea have high irritated that country.4. Peacekeeping
A peacekeeping force of neighboring African nations is definitely the ideal. If it's not welcomed by the Sudan, however (which it's not), this would mean an invasion. Not going to happen. And judging by our success in Iraq, most people will be skeptical of the potential for a successful occupation of a multi-ethnic nation caught in a civil war.
As far as the other points: sanctions, the bully pulpit, rallying support among local sheiks, I support all of these measures. Certainly making a public issue of the genocide is a no cost step that would help create the right momentum, and we haven't done nearly enough of this. I wonder where the rest of the world is, too. Why is there massive outrage and protests across the globe when the US exercises force, but when the Sudan commits genocide people just yawn? Why is it that France felt it was worth every ounce of diplomatic capital in its arsenal to oppose the US on Iraq (not to mention just about everything else), but seems to consider Darfur a low level priority? Western Europe and Canada have long accused the US of being a self-interested, evil bully who thinks nothing of supporting evil regimes for its own economic gain; but they have held themselves out as being superior. Well, why the apathy? Countries like Norway, Canada, Sweden, etc., have little to lose by making a stink over Darfur, and unlike the US their reputations are largely unblemished. Why don't they speak up? Frankly, if they don't want the US to keep acting unilaterally and uncooperatively, they need to sometimes be willing to step up and do some of the dirty work themselves. -
let me throw another eastern view on this. you guys have problems at home. there are people dying in the ghetto's and highways and bogs. why don't you guys direct that energy to your own house before going about the world "fixing" problems.
-
armchair_warrior wrote: let me throw another eastern view on this. you guys have problems at home. there are people dying in the ghetto's and highways and bogs. why don't you guys direct that energy to your own house before going about the world "fixing" problems.
darlin', aren't you from brooklyn? what's this "your problems" business?
no doubt there are big problems here. but man, there is no comparison. -
i'm just saying people don't have to look far for nasty human beings and causes. the homeland isn't fix yet. yet go to other places to meddle where the help would or wouldn't to be wanted.
-
AW, I agree with your basic point that we should get our own house in order before we start out trying to fix other people's, but at the same time there is a huge difference between our problems, such as homelessness and crime, and genocide. It's not comparable.
-
Sorry for the delayed response, but I'd love to keep this discussion going.
escap wrote: Finally had a moment to read through all this and just wanted to respond with my two cents as well.
No. The goal is laudable but I think the last thing the US needs right now is another military campaign against an Arab, Muslim government.
[quote=Boygabriel]Re: escap's question: "What can the U.S. be doing?"
1. Immediately enforce a no-fly zone over Darfur
Understood. However enforcing a no-fly zone requires minimal time/money/resources when compared to most "military campaigns". From Bush/Iraq War I to Bush/Iraq War II we kept a no-fly zone over northern Iraq almost solely to protect the Kurds from more of Saddam's genocide. Obviously situations & global moods are different these days, but the precedent is there.escap wrote:
As I (and Nick Kristof) said, genocide is different. Sudan is as dependent on China as China is on them. This is not a zero-sum, either/or situation. It is entirely possible for China to apply pressure (diplomatically/delicately) without compromising their energy interests. In the past few months China has shown signs of warming to the situation.2. Get China on board
This would be great, but I frankly don't think it's possible. China is dependent on the Sudan and other "unsavory" nations for its energy needs, and it's unlikely to risk its economy for the Darfur victims. Also, in one of the great ironies of this era, China's international image is largely positive, thanks to America drawing so much of the world's enmity. Despite its human rights abuses and support for brutal regimes, polls consistently show China's int'l image as favorable.
Check out this article from last week. (I can post it if you don't have access to the WaPo website.)escap wrote:
You say, "Not going to happen." But it has happened. In the South. Sudan suffered a 30+ year civil war in its south that was largely brought to an end by the efforts of our beloved George W. B. There is now a U.N. force doing a great job in there, helping to facilitate the reconstruction of a decimated region. Now we have to do the same thing in the western part of the country, only the urgency is much greater (b/c of the genocide).4. Peacekeeping
A peacekeeping force of neighboring African nations is definitely the ideal. If it's not welcomed by the Sudan, however (which it's not), this would mean an invasion. Not going to happen. And judging by our success in Iraq, most people will be skeptical of the potential for a successful occupation of a multi-ethnic nation caught in a civil war.
There are a lot of hints that the anti-peacekeeping rhetoric of Khartoum is just bluster. It is a complex situation and Khartoum has a lot of reasons to give anti-imperialist sound bites. Beginning with the fact that they're an unpopular dictatorship that's ruled with an iron fist for 20+ years.
As I posted earlier, annihilating poor Darfurian villagers will no longer be a top proirity for Khartoum if it's faced with threats to its power (and thus wealth). As long as they can act with impunity, the genocide will continue. If they're faced with legitimate international pressure and threats of force, the entire dynamic of the situation changes.
I don't disagree with the views some people have that are realist/cynical/whathaveyou. But giving up is not an option. This is a massive challenge to conscience and values of the global community. We need to rise to the occasion and stop a genocide.
If our neighbor's house is on fire. -
Boygabriel, I certainly hope you're right, and there's definitely no harm in trying. One point about the no-fly zone is that, in using the precedent argument, you're talking about the period of time that led up to 9/11. No, the no-fly zone didn't cause 9/11, but two of Al Qaeda's stated grievances were America's military presence in the Gulf region and our sanctions against Iraq, so I doubt further military action in the Sudan will win us any friends. Then again, I guess it's cowardice to avoid doing what you know is right because you're scared of retaliation....then again, I'm scared of retaliation.
On all other points I agree. I'd also like to see us approach the Sudan not in a finger-pointing "you're evil" kind of way, but rather recognize that there are two sides to this decades-old conflict, and just simply have a neutral, constructive approach. The short term goal is obviously to end the slaughter, but that's worthless without a long-term goal of establishing a fair peace. Hopefully that would help keep the Sudanese govt from getting so defensive and would in fact lead to more progress in "putting out the neighbor's fire." -
escap wrote: On all other points I agree. I'd also like to see us approach the Sudan not in a finger-pointing "you're evil" kind of way, but rather recognize that there are two sides to this decades-old conflict, and just simply have a neutral, constructive approach.
I agree. You brought up a really important detail. No matter how much I think Pres. Bashir should be put away for life, what's important is a realistic plan for peace.
The conflict in Darfur is centuries old, and while it's kind of a red herring for the genocide, it nevertheless is an important detail. -
escap wrote: I guess it's cowardice to avoid doing what you know is right because you're scared of retaliation....then again, I'm scared of retaliation.
I think it's unlikely that Sudan is going to make the difference as far as whatever comes next - although Al Qaeda might try to pretend it does if we do something there.
Also, the "I'd better not make him/her/them angry or they'll hurt me" posture usually makes matters worse when dealing with irrational people or groups - and I don't think the root is usually cowardice, but rather false hope.
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds