http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3998243.stm

Well, the Sudanese government have lost all the benefit of the doubt I originally gave them a couple of months back. Surely its time for a show of international military force in the area beyond the handfull of AU troops there? I'm inclined to say 'screw them' if the Sudanese government complains we're violating their territory - this has gone on long enough in my honest opinion.

EDITS: The quote was the wrong part

[ 11-10-2004, 11:13 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Agree: I'd say the world community, insofar as there is one, is well past the traditional notion of territorial sovereignty when serious human rights abuses are evident.

However, on the practical side, who has the troops to send right now? I can tell you honestly that U.S. forces are heavily committed as is, and I don't think western Europe is much different ...

Yeah, I doubt the UK could manage it for any extended period, and the French are tied up in Ivory Coast at the mo. I guess that leaves the Germans and they'd never break sovereignty in this kind of manner.

Ah well, hopefully somebody will dig deep...

<font color=skyblue>What's Canada doing these days? They have a few guns to spare, don't they?</font>

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">I think we are still tied up in Afghanistan.

Plus we would need to hitch a ride from the US. The PM is suppose to be meeting with the Sudanese government, so not sure what good that will do.</font>

[ 11-10-2004, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

Welcome to the party Sham, come on in the water's fine ;)

We're pretty much tapped out, conducting an imperialistic pre-emiptive war of naked agression, lead by our hatefilled buffoon oil hunger leader. I guess now is the time for the other non imperialistic brothethood of man we're all in this world together countries to step up to the plate and knock one out of the park. Only problem is in this game the pitcher keeps pitch'n strikes even if the batter hasn't picked up his batt and entered the batters box. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Yep, sounds like a potential just war if there ever was one.

:D [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img] :D

And I was so resisting the urge to make comments about how this is the kind of thing troops should be doing instead of invading Iraq ;) [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 11-10-2004, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Well, Sudan has been a well-known haven for terrorists for years. Didn't bin Ladin have terrorists "summer camps" and operated out of Sudan until he moved to Afghanistan?

:D [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img] :D

Quote:

Originally posted by John D Harris: We're pretty much tapped out, conducting an imperialistic pre-emiptive war of naked agression, lead by our hatefilled buffoon oil hunger leader. I guess now is the time for the other non imperialistic brothethood of man we're all in this world together countries to step up to the plate and knock one out of the park. Only problem is in this game the pitcher keeps pitch'n strikes even if the batter hasn't picked up his batt and entered the batters box. [img]smile.gif[/img]

And I was so resisting the urge to make comments about how this is the kind of thing troops should be doing instead of invading Iraq ;) [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]Don't worry about that Sham, (in the words of the rightwing religious "You and I can sitdown and have comunion on this one". ;) ) I believe this is the exact type of reason we should send troops, I supported sending troops to Iraq because of the torture and other abuses going on there. I said all along SoDamn Insane needed his rear end kicked, no matter what the excuse was, that was OK by me as long as he got his rear end kicked. I support sending troops to each and every country where they are needed, to kickout some 2 bit thug dictator or corupt gov't. I have no problem nation building to free people from tyranny or save people from dying. I do have a problem with nation building for nation building's sake, or tak'n the Lion's share of risk when others are able to do more but don't. That's the problem I had with Kosovo, the western European countries no longer had to worry about the big bear to their east, or shooting war amoung themselves. They more then had to military forces to take out piece of Horse manure Mal-oso-low-vich by themselves. I didn't see the need for the USA to be the single largest contributor, but I'm not paid the big bucks or elected to make those kinds of choices.

[ 11-10-2004, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

And the difference between Saddam and the Sudanese government is????

Firstly, just an update on the situation from a BBC correspondent who was watching when it all happened:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4000705.stm

Secondly, I agree with everything you said John D, apart from the bit about butt-kicking ;) Actually, I was for the war in Iraq originally. (watches everyone's jaw hit the floor :D ) Then with the complete lack of WMD or any kind of imminent threat I was much less enthusiastic, but still wouldn't really lose any sleep over getting rid of Saddam. The trouble is though, if human rights is your reason then there are much worse places in the world than Iraq was. The things I oppose about the Iraq war are the 'gung-ho' attitude, the feeling I can't shake that it was a son continuing his father's legacy, the fact that oil was a factor and the fact that the policy-makers have no clue about how to successfully nation-build and therefore the situation will be made ten times worse.

I agree with your comments about the Kosovo war, I think once again Britain did the lions share of the European work and you're quite correct about the American's shouldering the major burden. However, and it's a big however, the American's have done everything in their power to thwart attempts to create some kind of European Defence Force (which is, if we're honest, what's needed for Europe to ever become a successful military power). There's a lot of hypocrisy going on, where the administration complains on the one hand, and blocks and opposes on the other hand.

Stratos - I believe he had a brief stint there, although I've always been under the impression that Afghanistan was very much where he kept ending up. I suppose all the countries around Sudan are obvious choices - any poor country which is unable to secure its borders would be some kind of haven. If we can have terrorist cells in the US and Europe with the kind of anti-terrorism networks we have, it's small wonder that there are plenty over there I guess.

And the difference between Saddam and the Sudanese government is???? </font>[/QUOTE]The Sudanese aren't as oily as the Iraqis?

One thing they have in common is that neither had WoMD.

Sham, I hate to hear the USA is put'n presure to stop a European Defense force, each country or allaince of countries should decide for themselves what they need and want. Which administration was putting presure? or have all of them of late?

Now I will say this about Mama (UK) the old woman ain't as tough as she once was, but she don't take crap from anybody., and you don't really want to mess with her. She doesn't have a problem turn'n somebody over her Knee and deliver'n a spank'n. ;)

There maybe other places that need cleaning out also, but you have to start somewhere, and we had troops nearby, so Iraq was as good as any place to start open'n up the first can of woop'ass. Gung-ho-ness is part of the American animal, it may get bred out, but I for one hope it isn't. Motivation goes alongway in a scrap.

I think it's been consistent opposition from when it was first mentioned. The Pentagon hates the idea of having anything separate from NATO, the White House hates having anything run by the French or the Germans, the British public feel much the same way about Europe in general so there are a lot of things conspiring against it.

I'm probably being a little harsh on the US administration - it's probably the British government that's the largest factor in blocking it actually (largely because Europe would probably ignore the US on an issue like this, but they need Britain to make it work), but they cite US concerns as a reason.

Just found this on CNN:

The last bit is rubbish I think, although it was originally Blair's brainchild along with France, I think he would prioritise not annoying the American's much more than trying to push something so politically controversial in Britain through parliament for only a limited thanks abroad from President Chirac et al.

I could be wrong and cynical...you never know. But they've been talking about it since 1999, so I'll be most surprised if it happens anytime soon.

The Sudan does not produce scores of terrorists or threatens the security of the west so it will be one of the last in line to be dealt with.

I'm afraid you're right, General Nosaj. As atrocious as these (and other) human rights violations are, Deep Thought has already set the priorities on force deployment for the foreseeable future ...