Wednesday, July 21, 2004

Sudanese government directed recruitment of Janjaweed militia

Not surprisingly, the Sudanese government is now denying responsibility for the genocide in Sudan.

However, International Human Rights Watch have documents proving that Sudanese government officials directed recruitment and arming of the Janjaweed militia.

Read the full text here.




10 Comments:

At July 22, 2004 at 6:47 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

America would have to lead it and there would have to be a large American contingent. If the Darfur nomads chose to fight and the government chose to covertly back them, which could happen, it could spark a jihad in which we would end up fighting Egyptians, Libyans, nothern Ugandans, and Sudanese Arabs with Sudanese funding and the promise of land and slaves if they drive us out. If that happened, we would have to topple the government to win. We could not use indiginous forces as in Afganistan because they are partly Christian and fly the Christian flag. If we used them, the charge of Crusading would stick with many Muslims and could undermine our efforts in Iraq. That could happen even if we didn't use Christian forces. It would take the resolve of the American people to win, against a country that was no threat to us (Americans). It is not good to go in if that is not there.

The charge that they harbored Al Quaeda is true but might seem stale to many Americans. It would have been easier to do this right after 9-11. Bush's Evangelicals could push Bush into it if they made it an absolute condition of their vote, but that is not likely. I don't think it will happen.

But if you want it to happen, you would have to be willing to accept the possibility of an Islamic jihad. Not that there isn't one now. But it could rapidly turn into a situation that is no ordinary peacekeeping mission. You have to realise that.

 
At July 22, 2004 at 10:51 AM, Blogger Frederick said...

Of course there will always be problems when it comes to liberal intervention. Especially nowadays when the UN seems to be highly unwilling to take part in any humanitarian action that involves sending peace-keepng troops. Personally I would be glad to see the US or a coalition of NATO and UN troops entering Sudan and preventing furhter genocide from being committed.

As for the fear of an Islamic Jihad. Yes, these kind of actions might spark more violence, but violence and genocide is occuring NOW as we speak and argue amongst ourselves in the West. And in the meantime lives are being lost in their thousands. We can't let our fear of Islamofascism control our actions and politics.

In my view inaction can often kill more people than action in these kind of humanitarian crises.

 
At July 22, 2004 at 10:52 AM, Blogger Frederick said...

Of course there will always be problems when it comes to liberal intervention. Especially nowadays when the UN seems to be highly unwilling to take part in any humanitarian action that involves sending peace-keepng troops. Personally I would be glad to see the US or a coalition of NATO and UN troops entering Sudan and preventing furhter genocide from being committed.

As for the fear of an Islamic Jihad. Yes, these kind of actions might spark more violence, but violence and genocide is occuring NOW as we speak and argue amongst ourselves in the West. And in the meantime lives are being lost in their thousands. We can't let our fear of Islamofascism control our actions and politics.

In my view inaction can often kill more people than action in these kind of humanitarian crises.

 
At July 22, 2004 at 10:53 AM, Blogger Frederick said...

Of course there will always be problems when it comes to liberal intervention. Especially nowadays when the UN seems to be highly unwilling to take part in any humanitarian action that involves sending peace-keepng troops. Personally I would be glad to see the US or a coalition of NATO and UN troops entering Sudan and preventing furhter genocide from being committed.

As for the fear of an Islamic Jihad. Yes, these kind of actions might spark more violence, but violence and genocide is occuring NOW as we speak and argue amongst ourselves in the West. And in the meantime lives are being lost in their thousands. We can't let our fear of Islamofascism control our actions and politics.

In my view inaction can often kill more people than action in these kind of humanitarian crises.

 
At July 22, 2004 at 5:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The US can't afford to get a bloody nose. If we went in, losing would not be an option. The interventions in Lebanon and Somalia led to a dangerous perception of weakness. If it was done we would have to be willing to "go it alone" if European and African forces decided it was not worth it. In order to do that, we would have to have full support of the American people to topple the government and stay indefinitely. The full case would have to be made to the American people by Bush, based on antislavery, ties to Al Qaeda, genocide (whether it really meets the definition or not, it would have to be called that to make the full case and mobilise long-run support), and the totalitarian nature of the clerical regime. We might even have to call people "evil", despite the European consequences. If we go in before that case is made, we wont know if the American people will ultimately buy the case for a full-scale war and hence whether we can really succeed. It could be that Americans would support peacekeeping, and ultimately if the situation went south would support seeing it through so we don't end up looking weak. Antislavery is also a powerful sentiment in the US. But it looks like the American people are evenly split about the Iraq war and may not have the resolve. If the UN calls it genocide, says it meets the legal definition, invokes the military chapter of the charter and says "all means necessary", the Europeans are in and anything is achievable. France would stand in the way. We will be lucky if we can get them to support oil sanctions, since they have oil ties to the regime.

 
At July 23, 2004 at 10:28 AM, Blogger Frederick said...

OK, I see where you're coming from. However the US decides to act, Tony Blair seems, quite rightly, to think that there is a moral obligation to help the suffering people in Sudan. Go to http://www.guardian.co.uk/sudan/story/0,14658,1266383,00.html for the full story if you have not already read it.

 
At October 3, 2005 at 10:52 PM, Blogger Brother Roy said...

Joseph Paxton

 
At October 5, 2005 at 12:14 AM, Blogger Brother Roy said...

Horticultural Society

 
At October 5, 2005 at 2:25 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!

I have a Free site Free Article Search. It pretty much covers author ephron related stuff.

Come and check it out if you get time :-)

 
At October 12, 2005 at 9:21 AM, Blogger Editor Choice said...

Enjoyed your Blog. Continue your great job. Thanks
I wanted just to mention an interesting site about Religions. With more than 500 pages, Religion News and Articles: Religion Universe: Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Taoism (Daoism) and many others

 

Post a Comment

<< Home