That’s what he’s saying:
Jan 31, 2007 (KHARTOUM) — Sudan has accused the United States of working to dismantle the National Congress Party regime through peace deals and international human rights organizations. This approach has replaced the containment policy applied in the past, a Sudanese official said.
Sudanese Presidential Advisor Mustafa Osman Ismail has reiterated that the American strategy towards Sudan had a different picture before: it aimed at ousting the regime through the neighboring countries and providing all the necessary financial resources to needed for the implementation of this strategy.
Hmmmmm. Interesting. Well at least we don’t have 140,000 troops stationed in the country or a big gigantic mess (besides Darfur obviously) so me thinks no problemo.
SudaneseThinker
SudaneseThinker
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
“Well at least we don’t have 140,000 troops stationed in the country or a big gigantic mess (besides Darfur obviously) so me thinks no problemo.”
The mess in Darfur (and previously in the south) looks to me much worse than anything that happened in Iraq since 2003.
Perhaps you should have 140,000 troops stationed in the country.
I totally agree with you, A:B:
Yes, the “mess” also seems to consist of radical Muslims killing other radical Muslims.
Exactly why wouldn’t a civil war between Shias and Sunnis not be in US interests? The conflict in Iraq is already serving as a prod for a massive realignment and rethinking of policies for the Sunni Arab Gulf states, who have more to fear from America’s enemy, Iran, than from either Israel or the US.
“Perhaps you should have 140,000 troops stationed in the country.”
Andrew, Yup sure and then we’ll have a very lovely Sudanese al-Qaeda in action. Based on that logic, UN troops in Darfur would be a good idea and intervention would be okay. How is that supposed to work for the benefit of Sudan given the current situation?
Dismantling the National Congress Party regime through peace deals and international human rights organizations is a far better strategy than invading the country with 140,000 troops.
“Yes, the “mess” also seems to consist of radical Muslims killing other radical Muslims.”
Finnpundit, I certainly agree and I’m not going to deny that at all. In fact the majority of the killing is done by those terrorists. Moreover I’ve mentioned previously that the American military does its best to avoid civilian casualties. However I don’t agree with you about putting the term (mess) between quotes. Are you denying the fact that things in Iraq have gone horrible? Iraq is a mess. I don’t think that can be denied. However more recently, it seems like there have been improvements. I’m glad Bush is taking a tougher line with Maliki.
Drima Says:”Yup sure and then we’ll have a very lovely Sudanese al-Qaeda in action. Based on that logic, UN troops in Darfur would be a good idea and intervention would be okay. How is that supposed to work for the benefit of Sudan given the current situation?”
You don’t have Sudan’s own al-Qaeda in action now? UN troops would be a good idea. Sudan has had almost constant civil war since the 1950s. A million killed in the South. Four million driven from their homes. Half a million killed in Dafur. Face it, the Sudanese have screwed up even bigger than the Americans have. Perhaps it is time for international trusteeship?
Drima: Iraq is a “mess” only the way Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Darfur are a mess, meaning that there is some sporadic violence. Indeed, I think that the violence in Nepal has been on a par with Iraq, proportionately speaking, in terms of fatalities.
Look at any television footage from Iraq not following some terror bombing, and you’ll find people going on with their daily lives in a rather mundane way. If civil war was raging in the country, then civil society wouldn’t be functioning the way it evidently does in Iraq. What’s more, a “mess” doesn’t export 1.6 million barrels of oil a day.
What is a mess, - and this is where the term can be applied - is the way people’s thinking about Iraq has been shaped by Main Stream Media. There is no room for nuance, or attempts at insight or understanding. People swallow whole the tripe reported by ideologue-journalists, without taking the time to chew and think on it a bit. With the constant barrage of opinions coming from these paid sensationalists, it is easy to dismiss Iraq as a “mess”.
“Sudanese government accused Washington to mobilize African leaders to deny African Union chairmanship to president al-Bashir.”
This comment escapes me.No, El-Bashir is definitely in denial, definitely in denial!!!!! There is no other explanation. I can’t believe that he still thinks he is eligible albeit the quagmire that he has dragged our country in to( despite of the conspicuous improvements in the capital).I’m stumped!!!
Sry, I meant inspite of.
Hipster, Al-Bashir is not in denial. It is, I believe, much worse than that. He wants the people to be in denial. It’s an old tactic, find an enemy to blame for everything. Distract the population so that they don’t blame the government. Al-Bashir is doing just that, using any opportunity he has for it.
RK, thankx:)
Yup,that’s what most of the Arab leaders are doing.
Leave a Comment