|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 12:56 pm
I'm assuming because you've clicked here you know about the crisis in Darfur, Sudan already, so I won't bother getting you up to speed. However, the pressing question still remains: What do we do? Should the US get involved? How?
400,000 already dead, the government refusing to let anyone in...suggestions?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 6:06 pm
get an international body and go in... that simple... the goal of the UN is to protect life, and liberty
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 9:37 am
Hate to say it, but we've got our hands full ATM in the middle east. Nice to see the UN is handling it so well, instead of poo-pooing the US. rolleyes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 9:57 am
My party wants to send military personell there, with or without UN approval. It took the UN years to stop the slaughter in Rwanda. It's happening again in Sudan.
Norwegian health personell and organizations are pulling out, and most are already gone, because it's too dangerous. It has got to be stopped. Now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 12:14 am
Yes send in a toothless army that can’t fight, and can only take away the guns they see to watch the slaughter. That always works so well.
And nice to see another UN blonder, and to notice that the AU isn’t doing much about it either.
Personally I will say make this part of the “war on terror,” have multiple bombing campaigns to push the forces back, then have the toothless UN go in, with the US air force “enforcing” the prevention of the slaughtering of the now refugees.
(you forgot to mention we also did nothing in Lebanon which this more closely resembles.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 1:03 pm
Yeah, the gov't of Sudan isn't letting anyone in except for the African Union, so military and UN won't work. The african union isn't nearly strong enough to do this on their own, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:14 pm
Lady_Giselle Yeah, the gov't of Sudan isn't letting anyone in except for the African Union, so military and UN won't work. The african union isn't nearly strong enough to do this on their own, though. exactly we would have to go in against thier will. and start a war in order to save lives. (oxymoranic i know but hey)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:31 pm
I have to go with caddius, the U.S is to held up in Iraq and else where. And the U.N peacekeepers have proven their uselessness in situation like this. My answer to Darfur is to use NATO and the A.U.
NATO has proven that it can handle peacekeeping and military operations in third world enviroments (Bosnia and Kosovo). And the A.U is of course that well-needed African element that can be beneficial to establishing peace talks between North African Arabs and Black Sudanese Christians in the long run.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 6:59 pm
******** that! Why would we put the United States in a position where they will get eternaly ********, we go in to help, 3 weeks later the media makes us the ones who start the war, are evil blood sucking a** holes who have 0 care for human life, even though the people over there are the ones killing and tourchering. (sp) So why send our troops to die for some ungrateful country on both sides, Dar whatever and the US?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 7:09 pm
Lupin The Great I have to go with caddius, the U.S is to held up in Iraq and else where. And the U.N peacekeepers have proven their uselessness in situation like this. My answer to Darfur is to use NATO and the A.U. NATO has proven that it can handle peacekeeping and military operations in third world enviroments (Bosnia and Kosovo). And the A.U is of course that well-needed African element that can be beneficial to establishing peace talks between North African Arabs and Black Sudanese Christians in the long run. I don't think we should let NATO do it either, why you ask? Because they are a majority of US troops, and hell we don't need to send them to a place like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 3:47 pm
Drewser Lupin The Great I have to go with caddius, the U.S is to held up in Iraq and else where. And the U.N peacekeepers have proven their uselessness in situation like this. My answer to Darfur is to use NATO and the A.U. NATO has proven that it can handle peacekeeping and military operations in third world enviroments (Bosnia and Kosovo). And the A.U is of course that well-needed African element that can be beneficial to establishing peace talks between North African Arabs and Black Sudanese Christians in the long run. I don't think we should let NATO do it either, why you ask? Because they are a majority of US troops, and hell we don't need to send them to a place like that. Last thing we need is a "Operation Restore Hope" situation in sudan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 8:23 am
Lupin The Great Drewser Lupin The Great I have to go with caddius, the U.S is to held up in Iraq and else where. And the U.N peacekeepers have proven their uselessness in situation like this. My answer to Darfur is to use NATO and the A.U. NATO has proven that it can handle peacekeeping and military operations in third world enviroments (Bosnia and Kosovo). And the A.U is of course that well-needed African element that can be beneficial to establishing peace talks between North African Arabs and Black Sudanese Christians in the long run. I don't think we should let NATO do it either, why you ask? Because they are a majority of US troops, and hell we don't need to send them to a place like that. Last thing we need is a "Operation Restore Hope" situation in sudan. Exactly, by the was I'm liking the sig
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 6:22 pm
Drewser Lupin The Great Drewser Lupin The Great I have to go with caddius, the U.S is to held up in Iraq and else where. And the U.N peacekeepers have proven their uselessness in situation like this. My answer to Darfur is to use NATO and the A.U. NATO has proven that it can handle peacekeeping and military operations in third world enviroments (Bosnia and Kosovo). And the A.U is of course that well-needed African element that can be beneficial to establishing peace talks between North African Arabs and Black Sudanese Christians in the long run. I don't think we should let NATO do it either, why you ask? Because they are a majority of US troops, and hell we don't need to send them to a place like that. Last thing we need is a "Operation Restore Hope" situation in sudan. Exactly, by the was I'm liking the sig Thanks, I don't even remember the person who said no to it. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:33 pm
Drewser Lupin The Great Drewser Lupin The Great I have to go with caddius, the U.S is to held up in Iraq and else where. And the U.N peacekeepers have proven their uselessness in situation like this. My answer to Darfur is to use NATO and the A.U. NATO has proven that it can handle peacekeeping and military operations in third world enviroments (Bosnia and Kosovo). And the A.U is of course that well-needed African element that can be beneficial to establishing peace talks between North African Arabs and Black Sudanese Christians in the long run. I don't think we should let NATO do it either, why you ask? Because they are a majority of US troops, and hell we don't need to send them to a place like that. Last thing we need is a "Operation Restore Hope" situation in sudan. Exactly, by the was I'm liking the sig Again I agree with you for the most part especially in that whatever action the US will be crucified. However, the only thing I am saying we could do, is not send troops, but air support and start blowing up groups who plan to commit the genocide. Let the AU handle the manpower on the ground. Of course we will get ******** in this plan too, but it is about the only thing that we can do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:35 pm
Lupin The Great Drewser Lupin The Great Drewser Lupin The Great I have to go with caddius, the U.S is to held up in Iraq and else where. And the U.N peacekeepers have proven their uselessness in situation like this. My answer to Darfur is to use NATO and the A.U. NATO has proven that it can handle peacekeeping and military operations in third world enviroments (Bosnia and Kosovo). And the A.U is of course that well-needed African element that can be beneficial to establishing peace talks between North African Arabs and Black Sudanese Christians in the long run. I don't think we should let NATO do it either, why you ask? Because they are a majority of US troops, and hell we don't need to send them to a place like that. Last thing we need is a "Operation Restore Hope" situation in sudan. Exactly, by the was I'm liking the sig Thanks, I don't even remember the person who said no to it. sweatdrop I wonder if the person who doesn’t think that it is a radical threat to global security knows what radical Islam really is. And if he/she supports it. I don’t see how it could be a threat to global security.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
