Which Is Better For Sudan, a Democrat or Republican President?

8 Responses to “Which Is Better For Sudan, a Democrat or Republican President?”

1. Andrew Brehm on April 1st, 2008 11:19 am

   Quoted from the article:

   “DESPITE almost 1.5 million bombing sorties flown against Germany during the Second World War, the United States and Britain failed for lack of trying to destroy the system of transport that fed the gas chambers and crematoria.”

   You know… the reason for that was simply that WW2 had to be sold not as a war fought on behalf of the Jews but as a war fought for America against German imperialism, for the same reason that the war against the terrorists must not be be advertised as a war fought on behalf of Israel.

   American and British power was also limited and when the choice had to be made between saving Jews and hitting the Germans were it hurt the German war effort, strategic thinking dictated the latter. That is unfortunate but, imho, completely understandable.

   The author is right though. Very few nations would come to Sudan’s aid. But the liberal left in America and Europe would go ballistic.

2. The Rude Dog on April 1st, 2008 5:59 pm

   A Republican is better in principle if you want any kind of serious foriegn aid.
   However, the Repub nominee is a Democrat. Our two Democrats are socialist/Isolationist.
   Presdent Bush wanted to set up Africom on the continent, but he was given no support. Liberia did offer to sponsor it, but it would be better suited in a more central-eastern nation, like Kenya or Eithiopia.
   The Africom would establish on the ground in the dirt relationships with the locals, and as you can imagine, Janaweed and other losers would be hard pressed to continue when they know a small detachment of spec ops and African military will be in pursuit.
   Also, Africom will encourage more international involvement WITHOUT approval of the corrupt and failed UN.
   This will happen in the near future because China is the machine behind most of Darfur’s problems. China also wants the Niger oil delta, so you can see how the U.S. interest will be married to the African peoples.
   Does anyone really think China will treat the masses better after Darfur?
   So the answer is short is a Republican President. It just has to be one who is willing to push Africom and raise support for it.

3. Amal on April 1st, 2008 6:10 pm

   Hey Drima,

   I am following the US election but not because of its effects on Sudan cause I dont think much will change really but because I hopeful that Osama (ooops, silly me, I meant Obama of course!) will win.
   I think the person who wrote this article is living in dreamland. Firstly, the reality suggest that it would be near impossible for the US to committ itself to another war, its got its hands already tied with the whole Iraq,Afghanistan, Iran and the problems with Kurdistan and Turkey. Its doubtful wither Congress would agree the US troops being sent to yet another destination. A destination as remote and unknown as Sudan, where its just a huge vast desert land. Who will they be protecting, the massalit, the fur, the Zubidiya, the Zagawa etc. How can they distinguish between all these divided people who look and live exactly the same.
   Are they going to get rid of both the army and the rebels, are they going to gather people and ask them who are arabs and who are africans and then kill all the arabs.

   I dont think its a good solution. Even if you defeated the government as was clearly demonstrated in Iraq, there will be many gangs with excess weapons who will target and kill people from other tribes and the Americans will spend their time putting a government in power that will not be able to bring an end to anything.

   Secondly, the US has no reason to fight the Ingaz government. They are posssible its best allies in the region. Evereyone knows that we spy on other counrties and Arabs for the CIA. The biggest US embassy in Africa is opening soon in Sudan. The CIA came and held a conference for African secret services for a week last year in Khartoum. People are not stupid, why would the US want to change a regime that has been so good to it for so long.
   Anyways, anything is possible with that rubbish pit named Sudan, I wouldnt put anything past it.

   By the way, what do YOU think? I hope reading this article hasnt given you any nightmares?

4. JMac on April 2nd, 2008 5:07 am

   Well, I suspect if you administered a poll and asked folks to state their party affiliation and then asked them to point Sudan out on the globe, I dare say the overwhelming majority of correct answers would come from people who associate with the Democratic party.

   This is my opinion, (and it is certainly not true of all Republicans), but I think the big divide is that Republicans typically “pity” African countries whereas Democrats typically “respect.”

   I believe our current president loves Africa because Africa may be the only place left on earth that loves him.

   And, also, I think this question depends on what you personally define as “best” for Sudan. I believe that continuing to feed aid is simply not the right way. It pacifies but it doesn’t improve anything. I believe we should have a strong unified consistent voice in supporting the peace process (Darfur and North/South relations), but that should be as far as it goes. So, ultimately, I believe the answer is NEITHER.

5. Mark on April 2nd, 2008 5:53 am

   I think that it is unlikely that any of the possible presidents would take direct military action in Darfur.

   If action is taken, I think it would probably be more likely that McCain, would take action. Though at most it would be providing logistical and material support to other countries to try and stop what is going on in Darfur. The most likely scenario is political and economic pressure placed on Sudan and China.

6. Roman Kalik on April 2nd, 2008 10:24 am

   This is my opinion, (and it is certainly not true of all Republicans), but I think the big divide is that Republicans typically “pity” African countries whereas Democrats typically “respect.”

   I’m not so sure about that. Democrats are typically the ones in favor of just throwing food and aid money at Africa without much regard for the local economy, and the younger Democrats typically like Africa out of pity and Western Guilt trips. That doesn’t translate much into respect in my book.

   Republicans may not be likely to find Sudan on a map (possibly because many traditional Republicans don’t give much of a damn about the world outside US borders), but Democrats seem to be led far too much by wishy-washy notions of how the world ought to have worked.

7. Andrew Brehm on April 2nd, 2008 12:06 pm

   “Republicans may not be likely to find Sudan on a map”

   Which is of course very stupid considering how many liberals probably don’t have a problem locating a random US state or Candian province in north America or keeping all those ’stans apart in Asia.

8. Rob on April 5th, 2008 4:51 pm

   Would it make any difference? Post-9/11 there is one major factor that drives American foreign policy, and that’s going to be the same whether a Democrat or Republican is in charge.

   And anyway, it was Clinton that bombed a pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum and George W Bush helped find peace in the south.

   As for that silly New York Times article, well the whole thing is based on a very dubious premise. Are we really comparing what is happening in Darfur with the Holocaust? Get real

Leave a Reply