Mr. President, Its Time To Send The Navy & Marines To Darfur

[NATO AIR]

The genocide rages on, with the UN and EU bumbling on talking out of both sides of their mouths, doing nothing to stop genocide and doing a whole lot to let it continue. People are being slaughtered, raped, maimed, EXTERMINATED. The Sudan government is bragging that America cannot save the victims, America is too busy in Iraq. I beg to differ. We have 6 surge ready aircraft carriers with enough air power on each one to wipe out Sudan's military and stop the slaughter, tens of thousands of Marines in Europe, Africa and Asia to kick ass on the ground if needed, and the moral urgency to do this as fast as possible.

Mr. President, you say you have political capital to spend. Could you please spend some right now and tell the American people we have to go to Darfur because the rest of the world does not give a damn about a race of human beings being exterminated, because the Africans are not strong enough to intervene yet, because we're America and this is what we do, we save the innocent and we punish the wicked.

The Democrats will support you. John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, Barrack Obama, Harry Reid, even Hilary Clinton, all will agree with your assessment. If not, remind the African-Americans of this nation that the Democrats have no interest in stopping the slaughter of Africans by Arabs in Sudan (yes it is dirty but its hopefully unnecessary) The Republicans will support you. Bill Kristol, Chuck Hagel, John McCain, John Warner, Bill Frist, all will agree and have already in numerous op-eds and talk show appearances.

America will support you... we believe in America the strong, America the just, America the rescuer, and there is no mission, no place on Earth in more need of being rescued than Darfur. No wicked people more deserving of being brought to justice than the government of Sudan. No military more ready and able to be strong for the mission at hand. If you want, I'll be the first one on the ground and the last one out. ( I can treat wounded Marines, I can return fire, I can shoot a gun decently, I can learn whatever you need me to.)

Mr. President, Please?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31102-2004Nov6.html

AT DAWN ON Tuesday, a few hours before Americans began voting, Sudanese police and soldiers arrived at a camp for displaced people in South Darfur. They set fire to huts, beat people with truncheons and shot an unknown number; then, as The Post's Emily Wax reported, they loaded 250 families into trucks and drove them away. They did all this, moreover, at a camp just eight miles from a contingent of Nigerian cease-fire monitors, whose job is supposedly to deter such war crimes. Meanwhile the United States is leading an international response to Darfur's crisis. Its principal goal is to deploy more African Union monitors of the sort that failed Tuesday.

For a while over the summer, the world's response to Darfur seemed to be gathering momentum. A series of high-level visits to the region, including stops by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, put pressure on Sudan's government to stop murdering civilians; the U.N. Security Council passed two resolutions condemning the abuses; Congress and then the Bush administration determined that the systematic killing of ethnic Africans met the definition of genocide. Sudan's government responded by allowing relief workers to bring food and medicine to displaced people and by agreeing to the presence of African Union troops. All this progress was unforgivably slow, and tens of thousands of people died waiting for it. But it was still progress.

Now the momentum has fizzled. Preparations for an African Union force continue, but the violence in Darfur has flared to the point that it's not clear what 3,500 outsiders can accomplish in an area the size of France. Tuesday's attack on civilians was just one of many, and anti-government rebel groups are growing more violent and numerous. From Bosnia to Sierra Leone, the world has a painful history of putting peacekeepers into situations where there is no peace to be kept. Darfur may be one more.

The world faces a choice now, and its nature must not be obscured by more weeks of U.N.-speak about being preoccupied with the problem. Having recognized weeks ago that the killings in Darfur represent genocide and having correctly projected that the death toll will amount to at least 300,000, the Bush administration and its allies must decide how much they care. They can choose to think beyond their flimsy African Union deployment. Or they can choose to accept genocide

 

[dilloduck]

Hopefully with the election over and after some settling down time the US will take action. So much to do and so little time before our internal politics take center stage again.

 

[NATO AIR]

So much to do and so little time before our internal politics take center stage again.

sad but true...
but i truly believe he could go to congress and get a near 95-5 vote from the senate and an equally high vote from the House for this right now.

 

[dilloduck]

sad but true...
but i truly believe he could go to congress and get a near 95-5 vote from the senate and an equally high vote from the House for this right now.

I agree--if nothing else Bush could throw it out on the table for some open discussion for all to hear.

 

[NATO AIR]

I agree--if nothing else Bush could throw it out on the table for some open discussion for all to hear.

America deserves and needs a fair, realistic discussion about this, with the media actually reporting on it in with the importance it deserves and the politicans being truthful.

 

[Isaac Brock]

If hope if the US goes, Canada will join in whatever fashion. Back home there is talk in the ranks that if the US go, that Canada's soldiers should be ready.

Until then we'll have to support the AU, and hope for the best. I think there is great promise with AU if they received the necessary support.

 

[NATO AIR]

If hope if the US goes, Canada will join in whatever fashion. Back home they're talk in the ranks that if the US go, that Canada's soldiers should be ready.

Until then we'll have to support the AU, and hope for the best. I think there is great promise with AU if they received the necessary support.

i think canada would stand by us... the AU isn't ready or able at this point.

 

[CSM]

Christian Science Monitor
November 9, 2004

US, Africa Team Up To Help Darfur

The US has provided airlifts and pledged $300 million to support African troops in west Sudan.

By Abraham McLaughlin and Duncan Woodside

JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA AND KIGALI, RWANDA – The deep-throated buzz of American C-130 cargo planes has been rumbling across the skies over Sudan's troubled Darfur region of late.

The three gray pot-bellied aircraft, and the 125 US Air Force personnel who run them, have been ferrying Rwandan and Nigerian soldiers into Darfur as part of a plan by the African Union - a kind of United Nations of Africa - to help halt the killings in western Sudan, killings the US calls genocide. Experts say the cooperative effort represents the world's best, and perhaps last, hope of helping Darfur's masses, who've recently seen rising levels of violence.

It's also the biggest test yet of an emerging architecture aimed at halting Africa's conflicts: African "boots on the ground" backed by US or European money and logistical prowess. Success could mean it becomes the battle-tested formula for addressing Africa's wars. Failure could mean continued travails for people in Darfur and elsewhere.

The partnership between African and Western nations may not be perfect, but "it's better than anything that went before," says Alex de Waal, a longtime Africa observer and fellow at Harvard University's Global Equity Initiative.

The deployment of some 3,000 Nigerian and Rwandan troops and police officers under the African Union (AU) banner comes amid increased insecurity in Darfur. Last week Sudanese government troops reportedly moved into two refugee camps, forcibly removing some residents and preventing aid agencies from accessing the camps. The move was perhaps in retaliation for the kidnapping of 18 Arabs by Darfur rebels. Two rebel groups began an insurgency against the government early last year, claiming Khartoum has sidelined their region.

The UN's World Food Program (WFP) had to relocate 88 staff members due to safety concerns. Other aid groups have pulled staff from the unsafe areas. The WFP estimates 160,000 people in Darfur are in need of food and other aid but are in areas too unsafe for international agencies to enter. In all, 1.6 million Darfur residents have been displaced since fighting began. Some 70,000 civilians have been killed, many by government-backed militias. Peace talks in Nigeria have so far not borne fruit.

Into this fray comes the 322nd Air Expeditionary Group of the US Air Force, based in Ramstein, Germany. They set up camp at Rwanda's main airport, surrounded by rolling hills and turquoise mountain lakes. From there they've ferried troops, supplies, and equipment - including armored personnel carriers - 1,000 miles north into Darfur. Besides planes, the US has pledged $300 million to the Darfur effort. The European Union has also pledged $125 million. The money and airplanes are crucial because African countries notoriously have little of either. But they do have troops - something America has been reluctant to put in Africa since 18 US rangers were killed in Somalia in 1993.

Rwanda became one of the first African countries to provide troops for the Darfur effort, in part because of still-fresh memories of its own genocide in 1994. Other African nations have promised to send troops - a total of more than 700 from Chad, Gambia, Kenya, South Africa, and Tanzania, according to news reports.

"The US Air Force's contribution to ending this crisis is just one part of a larger US and international effort," says the US mission commander, Col. Robert Baine. "Our focus is on providing airlift for African Union forces so they can save African lives."

The push by Africans to solve their own problems marks a significant shift, experts say. Rather than waiting for the outside world to resolve the crisis, "The AU has taken a very clear lead in saying, 'These are African problems, and we will sort them out,' " says Mr. de Waal.

But turning this rhetoric into a safe reality for people in Darfur will be tough, experts say. The AU, for instance, is seriously short-staffed. Its planning group for the Darfur mission reportedly includes only three people - and they're on loan from the United Nations.

For the AU troops, success depends on at least four variables observers say.

First, long-distance transport, which is being handled by the US. Second, communications like high-power radios, which are expensive. Third, health, which is a major concern in the forbidding desert of Darfur. Fourth, the rules governing their mission. So far the AU has restricted their role to protecting AU observers who are already on the ground monitoring a shaky government-rebel cease-fire signed in April. They can only protect civilians in their "immediate vicinity." And their ability to prevent government and rebel forces from looting aid convoys, which has been a recurring problem, is limited.

In the end, "It's not a question of whether it might work. It's got to work," says Henry Boshoff, a military analyst at the Institute for Security Studies in Pretoria, South Africa. The main reason: "Who else is going to do it?" he asks. There's an effective deadlock in the UN Security Council over Sudan. Nations like China and France have essentially blocked US efforts to slap sanctions or take other actions against the Sudanese regime. The US and EU "decided this was the way to get past the deadlock," says Mr. Boshoff.

It's a formula that worked fairly well in Liberia last year, observers say, when US Marines supported regional troops. Together they helped restore order following that country's civil war. The best thing about the new architecture, says de Waal, is that it engages a host of stakeholders in solving the problem.

If the Darfur mission succeeds, it could give real impetus to the model, experts say. Last month, for instance, Somalia's newly elected president, Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed, asked the AU for 20,000 peacekeepers to help rebuild his war-torn country. Such a large deployment would require major international support.

I suspect there will be even more help on the way. Gradual build up for the US makes sense in the light of ongoing military activity. We can only hope it is quick enough to be effective.

 

[NATO AIR]

I suspect there will be even more help on the way. Gradual build up for the US makes sense in the light of ongoing military activity. We can only hope it is quick enough to be effective.

let us hope, the sudanese are now ramping up their extermination agenda. time is something we really don't have.

 

[CSM]

Some familiar names out of the UN here who are busy trying to block any relief to the Sudaneese effort:

"In the end, "It's not a question of whether it might work. It's got to work," says Henry Boshoff, a military analyst at the Institute for Security Studies in Pretoria, South Africa. The main reason: "Who else is going to do it?" he asks. There's an effective deadlock in the UN Security Council over Sudan. Nations like China and France have essentially blocked US efforts to slap sanctions or take other actions against the Sudanese regime. The US and EU "decided this was the way to get past the deadlock," says Mr. Boshoff."

I really fail to understand how the UN retains any credibility.

 

[NATO AIR]

Some familiar names out of the UN here who are busy trying to block any relief to the Sudaneese effort:

"In the end, "It's not a question of whether it might work. It's got to work," says Henry Boshoff, a military analyst at the Institute for Security Studies in Pretoria, South Africa. The main reason: "Who else is going to do it?" he asks. There's an effective deadlock in the UN Security Council over Sudan. Nations like China and France have essentially blocked US efforts to slap sanctions or take other actions against the Sudanese regime. The US and EU "decided this was the way to get past the deadlock," says Mr. Boshoff."

I really fail to understand how the UN retains any credibility.

no credibility with me anymore.

well, we didn't get security council blessing for kosovo, guess we won't get it for darfur.

what really ticks me off is these bastards are bragging that we can't do anything, that we won't do anything... "the americans can't save you"

that's like a slap in the face

 

[Trigg]

Why do you think we should go to the Sudan? The african union doesn't want us there. They only want our money.

Three different countries are waging war against white people, Zimbabwe, South Africa and the Ivory Coast. Whites in Zimbabwe make up less then 1% of the population, yet are being used as scape goat for all the countries problems. The africans don't want white people there so why should we go, let them solve their own problems.

I was shown a black sight the other day, Destee.com. They talk about how all whites should be kicked out of africa by any means possible. This group on the web sight hates the military and thinks no blacks should serve. Although when they talk about the "revolution" in the US they say it would be a good idea to have trained people in charge.

A few on this web sight are decidedly racist and hate everyone that isn't black. So, back to my question, why should we go to Africa when they don't want us here and are killing whites who have lived there generation after generation???

 

[NATO AIR]

Why do you think we should go to the Sudan? The african union doesn't want us there. They only want our money.

Three different countries are waging war against white people, Zimbabwe, South Africa and the Ivory Coast. Whites in Zimbabwe make up less then 1% of the population, yet are being used as scape goat for all the countries problems. The africans don't want white people there so why should we go, let them solve their own problems.

I was shown a black sight the other day, Destee.com. They talk about how all whites should be kicked out of africa by any means possible. This group on the web sight hates the military and thinks no blacks should serve. Although when they talk about the "revolution" in the US they say it would be a good idea to have trained people in charge.

A few on this web sight are decidedly racist and hate everyone that isn't black. So, back to my question, why should we go to Africa when they don't want us here and are killing whites who have lived there generation after generation???

the people of darfur want us there. they know pres. bush and the american people are the only ones who give half a damn enough to save them. that is good enough for me and probably a few others. they are being exterminated through rape, maiming and slaughter. we cannot let this stand in this day and age.

i strongly disagree with the treatment of whites in places like zimbabwe, but there is still hope for freedom and justice in that part of the world... there is hope in darfur at all except for that of a US intervention. eventually dictators like mugabe will collapse and responsible leadership that does not scapegoat whites will take power.

 

[CSM]

the people of darfur want us there. they know pres. bush and the american people are the only ones who give half a damn enough to save them. that is good enough for me and probably a few others. they are being exterminated through rape, maiming and slaughter. we cannot let this stand in this day and age.

i strongly disagree with the treatment of whites in places like zimbabwe, but there is still hope for freedom and justice in that part of the world... there is hope in darfur at all except for that of a US intervention. eventually dictators like mugabe will collapse and responsible leadership that does not scapegoat whites will take power.

You guys are probably too young to remember "Big Daddy" Ammin. If you research that guy, you get an idea of how things like this get started and how the general populace REALLY thinks.

 

[NATO AIR]

You guys are probably too young to remember "Big Daddy" Ammin. If you research that guy, you get an idea of how things like this get started and how the general populace REALLY thinks.

he died recently didn't he?

 

[CSM]

he died recently didn't he?

I sure hope so! He was an evil evil man....

 

[NATO AIR]

I sure hope so! He was an evil evil man....

i think he died of kidney failure in saudi arabia.

 

[CSM]

i think he died of kidney failure in saudi arabia.

I'll have to check, I kind of let him slip off my radar scope when he was removed from power.

 

[CSM]

Idi Amin:

http://www.africanhistory.about.com/library/biographies/blbio-amin.htm

 

[CSM]

More on Idi Amin. Seems he found asylum in Saudi Arabia and died there in 2003.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idi_Amin