Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Personally, I didn't say that. Just that I don't know enough about the country to make any real contribution. THe information presented is great, but it takes more than that to understand how to solve a crisis.
Do nothing from a US POV? Yeah, probably. These days we lack any moral authority. Even if we did manage to be able to "do all the right things" people, and especially Muslim people, have a negative view that we likely wouldn't be able to pull anything successful off. I prefer to stay out of business we are not embedded in at the moment. We have enough global civil strife we are already involved in and are already perceived as imperialists.
The US has already been involved in this manner:
Quote:
Since at least 2001, high-level representatives from the US and Sudanese governments have agreed on intelligence-sharing measures, which led to a visit for Sudan’s intelligence chief, Maj. Gen. Salah Abdallah Gosh, to CIA Headquarters in Langley, Virginia in April 2005. State Department officials anticipated that they likewise would host Maj. Gen. Gosh at an event in Washington, D.C. in June 2009, but this never materialized.
The State Department reported on April 30, 2009 that "Sudan remained a cooperative partner in global counterterrorism efforts. During the past year, the Sudanese government continued to pursue terrorist operations directly involving threats to U.S. interests and personnel in Sudan." Mr. Gration testified that the United States will "seek increased and enhanced cooperation with the Sudanese government to counter terrorism and to promote regional security, consistent with—and not at the expense of—our overall objectives of peace and security in Sudan."
However, if I was a betting woman, I would bet that you already knew that.
Actually, I was thinking of a leader of any country. Not necessarily Darfur. From any aspect, such as dealing with the influx of refugees and how to handle the division in your own country etc. and so on but keeping in mind all of these other variables.
I want to read your article before I respond anymore.
However, if I was a betting woman, I would bet that you already knew that.
Actually, I was thinking of a leader of any country. Not necessarily Darfur. From any aspect, such as dealing with the influx of refugees and how to handle the division in your own country etc. and so on but keeping in mind all of these other variables.
I don't know much about Africa in general, so I didn't know about that, although it hardly surprises me. I don't really know how it affects people on the ground, so I can't say its the right thing or not. I just in general have little optimism on countries politically messing around in other countries these days. Perhaps its too isolationist, I know. But with how my country has been involved in many aspects, I think justified. People may think they are doing something for good intentions, but rarely do they realize an "injustice" has come to their attention and deemed important because of the way certain information has been filtered tho them, and not realize all the unintended consequences of messing around, even with the best intentions.
And I think that's the problem: the US (and many countries) have little issue messing around in other places with no concept of history and culture and complex situations.
That's also why I can't really answer your question as a ruler of Darfur, or some abstract country. Each area is different. People like to apply a single idea across all situations ("We need another Marshall Plan!", "Socialism always bad, capitalism always good!" "Democracy always good!") But every area is different, with different forces at work and different stages of economic and political development. Because one thing worked in Country A, means perhaps you should think about applying it in Country B, but this must be analyzed with a full understanding.
Some people think independence=freedom and is always best when they talk about some other countries (Darfur, China, Russia), but not to them (American Civil War, Basque region)
The African nations are sliding into despair, our own country is becoming a hodge podge of regional interests, each seeking their needed dollars at the expense of the others. To even suggest a US led solution to the horrors that have become everyday life in Darfur would be inviting hubris and futility on our nation. Our own government is sinking under the weight of it's own colonial relationship with Wall Street.
I don't know much about Africa in general, so I didn't know about that, although it hardly surprises me. I don't really know how it affects people on the ground, so I can't say its the right thing or not. I just in general have little optimism on countries politically messing around in other countries these days. Perhaps its too isolationist, I know. But with how my country has been involved in many aspects, I think justified. People may think they are doing something for good intentions, but rarely do they realize an "injustice" has come to their attention and deemed important because of the way certain information has been filtered tho them, and not realize all the unintended consequences of messing around, even with the best intentions.
And I think that's the problem: the US (and many countries) have little issue messing around in other places with no concept of history and culture and complex situations.
That's also why I can't really answer your question as a ruler of Darfur, or some abstract country. Each area is different. People like to apply a single idea across all situations ("We need another Marshall Plan!", "Socialism always bad, capitalism always good!" "Democracy always good!") But every area is different, with different forces at work and different stages of economic and political development. Because one thing worked in Country A, means perhaps you should think about applying it in Country B, but this must be analyzed with a full understanding.
Some people think independence=freedom and is always best when they talk about some other countries (Darfur, China, Russia), but not to them (American Civil War, Basque region)
You bring up a lot of good points. Although, I do have to say that I wasn't thinking of as a ruler of Darfur but other countries that have been impacted.
Not the article but the responses are similar to those in Israel. As they are in all countries that have an influx of refugees. This, then, would be a constant.
Sending the peace-keepers in is ludicrous. Have you ever seen No Man's Land? That is the best representation of how ineffective they are-and deliberately kept so.
NATO is not an answer. They escalated the conflict in Kosovo. They would do precisely the same thing here.
Sending in our military is like begging for a war with China. Proxy at the start and all out eventually.
We already know that we have corporations at play. We already know that there is a proxy war.
For the record, I do not even listen to the cries of "democracy" and etc. The moment that it starts being spread there is something else on the table. We have a historical pattern that says so.
The refugees cannot return from Israel. They have no choice but to resettle. The two main passage ways have been disrupted. They cannot come through Egypt without being shot and they cannot board a ship from Libya and sail to Italy. There are countries that are unwilling to accept them. And the refugees cannot return home. So, with the exception of Egypt, they will find themselves detained for extremely long periods of time while they are "processed". The US may detain individuals for extremely long periods of time. In Egypt, they are not or have not been pushed into camps. They cannot leave and they cannot stay. Too, peace cannot be obtained unless Chad gets it together.
Some things deserve attention. The women in the camps have to go out daily to gather wood. The wood around the camps disappears rapidly. They have to go farther out and then they are raped.
They either need military protection to get the wood or they need some type of fuel. They need water. They need basic things. But the only argument that I have been hearing is if this really constitutes genocide or when did the genocide end?
They either need military protection to get the wood or they need some type of fuel. They need water. They need basic things. But the only argument that I have been hearing is if this really constitutes genocide or when did the genocide end?
And this is an issue as well. Even assuming a country doesn't physically enter another country's borders, Military training and weapons supply can be good and bad. It's no doubt a country needs a strong police or military to maintain order. One need only look at Katrina and see that in the absence of imposed order, things can fall apart very quickly. But who draws the line to say one country needs it for stability and another is oppressive? The people who make these decisions should have deep understanding of the country's situation, not only from the US or other "helping" country's vantage point, but from the native country's as well. This is rare in government positions.
And this is an issue as well. Even assuming a country doesn't physically enter another country's borders, Military training and weapons supply can be good and bad. It's no doubt a country needs a strong police or military to maintain order. One need only look at Katrina and see that in the absence of imposed order, things can fall apart very quickly. But who draws the line to say one country needs it for stability and another is oppressive? The people who make these decisions should have deep understanding of the country's situation, not only from the US or other "helping" country's vantage point, but from the native country's as well. This is rare in government positions.
The ICC issued a warrant for Bashir. He will try to distance himself more and more. Bashir is very aware. However, because of the corporations and China and the CIA and other countries this has been delayed.
On a certain level this is not about understanding the countries situation "fully". The people in government do know and are very aware. It is a chess match. It is Machiavelli's the Prince. It is balance. Calculated.
However, at the very real people level, they are very real people.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
