Abuja Talks Failure =(

4 Responses to “Abuja Talks Failure =(”

1. Anonymous on April 25th, 2006 5:35 am

   drima,
   The government started the slaughter, so I am a little suspicious of their claim that they now lost control when they start to get pressure from the international community. When did they loss control? After 10,000 people or 50,000? And how many actually died? They are still covering that up and refusing humanitarian missions.
   The UN was in Rwanda at the start of the genocide. They took out their own people and withdrew troops and let millions die at the hands of men carrying machetes.
   President Bush suggested NATO troops. Listening to you, now I realize, they would probably just make the situation worse because they would attract every al qaeda agent and sympathizer for miles.
   So, perhaps your right. Perhaps supporting the AU in Dafur would be the way to go.
   Why would any troops stay permanently? Just establish a peace and a political process and leave. The country has to function on it’s own, but again, your right. Nothing is ever that simple, is it?
   t

2. tommy on April 25th, 2006 8:23 pm

   Here is a crazy idea, I don’t know how well it would fly in the real world, I’m not a military planner but it might be something worth considering.

   How about having the people of Darfur protect themselves with a little support from the U.S. (or some other Western nation)?

   The U.S. could, in addition to providing humanitarian assistance, remove men in Darfur of fighting age to some other country and provide them with a little bit of basic military training and some weaponry. Alternatively, they could send in the Green Berets to train rebels in Darfur. The United States could back up the Darfur rebels with air support - and prevent the Sudanese military from being able to back the janjaweed up with air support.

   With the janjaweed (and the Sudanese military) having to worry about American close air support, a situation might evolve like it did in northern Iraq after the first Gulf War. Here, the Kurds were largely autonomous because they could field a militia and, being in the no-fly zone, the Iraqis couldn’t use air power against them. In the case of Darfur, we could go even further and supply the rebels with actual air support. The janjaweed and the Sudanese military would not be able to send large units against the people of Darfur.

   This would have the advantage of keeping American forces far away from any actual land role and thus out of al-Qaeda or other jihadists’ reach while allowing people in Darfur to protect themselves.
   Who is going to do a better job protecting the people of Darfur? The Darfurians themselves, who truly depend on it or the venal, incompetent fools at the United Nations.

3. Drima aka ST on April 25th, 2006 9:23 pm

   t,
   “Why would any troops stay permanently?” That’s what many will perceive such as in the case of Iraq.

   I’m not in the position to make the choice of if the UN should go or not because I’m not one of those suffering in Darfur but believe me if the UN does get involved it could turn into a bigger mess. Supporting the AU for now at least just temporarily should be a better option. And yes I wish things were simpler.

   tommy,
   “Here is a crazy idea”

   NO SHYTE… one crazy idea dude… it will probably inspire half of Sudan to go into Iraw for jihad =p

   But seriously such a thing would just ruin the America’s image further. I’m not talking based on right and wrong, I’m talking based on people’s perceptions.

4. tommy on April 26th, 2006 8:33 am

   Drima,

   Ruin America’s image further?

   Is that even possible in that part of the world? LoL.

   I still think that an well-armed, well-supported and, at least temporarily autonomous, Darfur might be the best way to go.

Leave a Reply