DaFoot Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 My understanding of the situation: 1.5-2 million people displaced by fighting between Arabs and Blacks. Government seems to be behind the Arabs. The current African Union peacekeeping force of around 7000 due to pull out, Sudan refusing to allow UN peacekeepers in to replace the AU force - Sudan government saying it is 'bridgehead to remove Islamic [Arab] government'. Government forces massing, apparently for showdown with rebel forces. Seems to be a feeling from UN that if nothing is done, the 1.5-2 million displaced (black) people may be massacered(sp?). Given that brief background, do you think the UN or USA should send in troops to protect the refugees regardless of the governments 'we dont want them' stance (as they may end up fighting UN presumably). OR Should we allow the country to sort out it's own problems, even if this may (pretty certainly) mean a lot of people being killed on rascist grounds? - read ethnic cleansing. I am under the impression that the situation is more or less a count down to genocide - we know it will happen - should we interfere to stop it? If anyone cares to correct my understanding of the situation, please do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 I don't know a deal more about this than you've summarised here, dafoot, but based on your posting then yes, I think the UN should intervene - on a large scale if neccessary to prevent a genocide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaFoot Posted September 19, 2006 Author Share Posted September 19, 2006 Even though the government (which I assume the UN etc recognises as the government) says no? When does invasion (I word it like that because the force is not officially wanted) become acceptable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Orange Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 That's more or less my understanding of the issues. As for UN action, I totally agree that something needs to happen before more innocent people are killed by this militia. I would agree with the insertion of UN troops in that area to protect these people and repell any attacks by this militia, even if it's against the will of the government of the said country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 Even though the government (which I assume the UN etc recognises as the government) says no? When does invasion (I word it like that because the force is not officially wanted) become acceptable? When it's neccessary to prevent genocide. The government are clearly unable or unwilling to take the neccessary steps, so someone else is going to have to... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-Mariachi Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 Aren't the current troubles caused by the rebels ? http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1875704,00.html Jonathan Steele Articles Latest Show All Profile All Jonathan Steele articles Sorry George Clooney, but the last thing Darfur needs is western troops The rebels, not Khartoum, scuppered this year's peace deal - the solution has to be an expanded African Union force........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaFoot Posted September 19, 2006 Author Share Posted September 19, 2006 Aren't the current troubles caused by the rebels ? http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1875704,00.html My understanding of the term 'rebel' implies that they started the trouble. However if it right that they are (in part) fighting against slavery - are they really starting the trouble? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-Mariachi Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 My understanding of the term 'rebel' implies that they started the trouble. However if it right that they are (in part) fighting against slavery - are they really starting the trouble? In many ways "terrorists" seems to be more en-vogue, but somehow these groups are called "rebels", nonetheless, there was a peace deal not so long ago this year and it seems that the insurgents are now breaking the peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaFoot Posted September 19, 2006 Author Share Posted September 19, 2006 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1875704,00.html Some interesting thoughts in that article... "...The complex grievances that set farmers against nomads was covered with a simplistic template of Arab versus African..." An unfortunate aspect of societies need for fast (not in depth) news, in much the same way as the Irish problems were categorised into Protestant vs Catholic. "...Is it really possible that western governments, in spite of being burned by their interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, would use force against another Muslim state? ..." Another good question, I'd like to think that wouldn't influence the descision makers too much though I'm sure it will. I also wonder wether our descision makers are considering the issue purely on humanitarian grounds or wether the available (or lack of) natural resources would affect the descision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaFoot Posted September 19, 2006 Author Share Posted September 19, 2006 I think the rebel vs terrorist thing is along the lines of rebels fight their own authority (government etc). Terrorists (in the current usage) refers to attacking other countries without open war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.