UN might threaten sanctions on Sudan

[Scott]

Look out Sudan! The UN is getting to maybe threaten sanctions someday. Better start acting right.

U.N. council OKs resolution to act on Sudan crisis (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/africa/07/30/unvote.sudan/index.html)

U.N. council OKs resolution to act on Sudan crisis

U.S. says sanctions still possible if Darfur violence isn't stopped

From Jonathan Wald
CNN
Friday, July 30, 2004 Posted: 6:43 PM EDT (2243 GMT)

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- The U.N. Security Council voted overwhelmingly Friday in favor of a U.S.-backed resolution implicitly threatening to impose sanctions if the government of Sudan does not stop atrocities in the Darfur region within 30 days.

Thirteen members of the council voted for the resolution, with China and Pakistan abstaining.

After the vote, French President Jacques Chirac announced France would send some humanitarian troops to Darfur.

...


I know I'd be scared.

[addabox]

So the US should invade, right? I mean if we don't want to be in the same league as those pussies at the UN.

[Scott]

Yea that's exactly what I'm saying you read my mind you're a genius.

[pfflam]

Hmm?!

It could be fake but it looks like real results to me: Bowing to UN Demands, Sudan Says it Will Disarm Arab Militias (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/01/international/africa/01sudan.html)

[pfflam]

Oh, and look at this . . . . America does nothing, but the French are sending troops: FRENCH SEND TROOPS TO BORDER (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3943137.stm)
Those surrender monkeys . . . they're just trying to make us look bad!

[Scott]

Yes great pfflam you're doing your part. 200 French troops. :wow: They're at the border:wow:

Maybe in another 6 months when 50,000 people are dead and the UN decides that it's now time to maybe think about actual sanctions (before they cave do to pressure from arab muslim countries) ... I'll drag this thread back up.

[groverat]

By all means, Scott, drag the thread up whenever you like.

"UN pussies won't get any results!"
- "Well they agreed to comply with UN demands."
"FRANCE SUCKS!"

:lol: :lol:

[Scott]

Ye and we all know once someone agree to comply with UN the job is over. Dust your hands off. Job well done!

[faust9]

Originally posted by Scott
Ye and we all know once someone agree to comply with UN the job is over. Dust your hands off. Job well done!

What the hell do you want here scott? Do you want us to send the troops we don't have available to Sudan? Do you want other countries to send the troops they don't have to Sudan(in case you didn't know this most other countries don't maintain huge standing armies)? I'm trying to figure out why you started this thread. The UN is taking action. The US is onboard with the UN's actions (we postponed a security council vote for 30 days to allow Sudan the time to comply). What do you want specifically? Its silly to start a thread without meaning, rhyme or reason. What do you want? Do you want us to carpet bomb Sudan and let Shell take the oil? What do you want? Simple question answer it without snide smart-ass avoiding answers if you can.

[addabox]

Originally posted by faust9
What the hell do you want here scott? Do you want us to send the troops we don't have available to Sudan? Do you want other countries to send the troops they don't have to Sudan(in case you didn't know this most other countries don't maintain huge standing armies)? I'm trying to figure out why you started this thread. The UN is taking action. The US is onboard with the UN's actions (we postponed a security council vote for 30 days to allow Sudan the time to comply). What do you want specifically? Its silly to start a thread without meaning, rhyme or reason. What do you want? Do you want us to carpet bomb Sudan and let Shell take the oil? What do you want? Simple question answer it without snide smart-ass avoiding answers if you can.

Well I'll second that.

Scott, you're pretty much on record as regarding the UN as useless.

You also support the president's unilateral invasion of Iraq, brushing aside the obsolete UN in favor of vigorous direct action.

So the UN lives down to your expectations. So what? More evidence in your book that they have no role to play in pax americana, so what is to be done?


There aren't any other world bodies. By your lights the United States is the only power that has the cojones to get anything done, so.....

It's up to us. Which means direct military action. So my first response was not sarcastic, it seems to me to be the inevitable logic of your world view.

Unless of course you just want to get off on pointing out how useless the UN is and don't really care about what happens in Sudan.

[Scott]

The UN is not a serious organization. I don't think you could even call it a paper tiger. It's a paper weasel at best.

Oh and addabox it's hard to have a unilateral multilateral invasion. If the US is going it alone what are all those other countries doing there?

[faust9]

Originally posted by Scott
The UN is not a serious organization. I don't think you could even call it a paper tiger. It's a paper weasel at best.

Oh and addabox it's hard to have a unilateral multilateral invasion. If the US is going it alone what are all those other countries doing there?

Why didn't you answer my question(s)?

[Scott]

Originally posted by faust9
Why didn't you answer my question(s)?

I did.

[Randycat99]

No, no, no- what Scott is trying to do is draw your attention to this issue so you can see how it unfolds over the coming months. How many "severest consequences" resolutions will be passed over how many mos/years vs. how many more people die every passing week. Let's see how this pans out. Let's see what the UN is able to get done this time. Let's see how well the humanitarian needs get served here. I don't see Scott advocating a bombing campaign, so do not muddy the waters with such assertions. The way I see it, this is the UN's big chance to do things "by the book" and make things better.

People here have cited that assistance should have gone to this part of the world well before even worrying about Iraq. So now they are getting attention. They can stop complaining about unwarranted attention in one place and ignoring another. That's all this topic is about, imo.

[addabox]

Originally posted by Scott
The UN is not a serious organization. I don't think you could even call it a paper tiger. It's a paper weasel at best.

Oh and addabox it's hard to have a unilateral multilateral invasion. If the US is going it alone what are all those other countries doing there?

You mean the 20,000 (and shrinking) "coalition" troops vs. the 145,000 (and growing) American troops? Well, I would say the overwhelming bulk of them (half coming from Great Britain alone) are there because European leaders like Tony Blair figure it's better to play ball with the Bush administration than to risk the political fall-out of publicly breaking with Washington (all though these countries seem to be on their way to a generalized liberal uprising as a consequence of the vast divide between their leadership and the citizenry).

The balance are purely ceremonial and serve to almost comically inflate the list of the "willing" (big shout out to Monaco and New Guinea).

Now, again, given your contempt for the UN, what's to be done? I believe that is the question.

[Scott]

Any military operation that the US undertook that included troops from other armies would be overwhelmingly american. But you can't redefine "unilateral" and "multilateral" to fit your anti-US bias.

[faust9]

Originally posted by Scott
I did.

No you didn't, and anyone else reading this thread can clearly see that you have not addressed "what would you do scott?"

Just to recap all of your responses in one place so you can point out where you answered my question:

1
Look out Sudan! The UN is getting to maybe threaten sanctions someday. Better start acting right.

U.N. council OKs resolution to act on Sudan crisis

I know I'd be scared.


2
Yea that's exactly what I'm saying you read my mind you're a genius.


3
Yes great pfflam you're doing your part. 200 French troops. They're at the border

Maybe in another 6 months when 50,000 people are dead and the UN decides that it's now time to maybe think about actual sanctions (before they cave do to pressure from arab muslim countries) ... I'll drag this thread back up.


4
Ye and we all know once someone agree to comply with UN the job is over. Dust your hands off. Job well done!


5
The UN is not a serious organization. I don't think you could even call it a paper tiger. It's a paper weasel at best.

Oh and addabox it's hard to have a unilateral multilateral invasion. If the US is going it alone what are all those other countries doing there?


6
I did.


7
Any military operation that the US undertook that included troops from other armies would be overwhelmingly american. But you can't redefine "unilateral" and "multilateral" to fit your anti-US bias.


So I'll ask again--What would you do right now to help Sudan Scott? Would you have America invade yet another country? Would you have A thrid party country invade Sudan? Would you use sanctions as a tool to guide change?

I want to know because without that answer, this thread has no substance and is simply designed to place the UN in a fail/fail situation. Until you answer the question no matter what the UN does will be not enough.

So, what would you do Scott?

[bunge]

Originally posted by faust9
So, what would you do Scott?

Most likely he would simply ignore your questions and continue with his dishonest and disingenuous responses. At least that's the pattern I've seen from him.

[Randycat99]

Originally posted by faust9
I want to know because without that answer, this thread has no substance and is simply designed to place the UN in a fail/fail situation. Until you answer the question no matter what the UN does will be not enough.


You were speaking of glass houses?... :\

[faust9]

Originally posted by Randycat99
You were speaking of glass houses?... :\

No clue what you mean by that. :???: :???: :???:

[Scott]

What would I do? I'd have the UN be a much more serious organization. Start by stripping all dictatorships and religious theocracies from any positions of power and allow only free democracies to have a full say in what the UN does.

[faust9]

Originally posted by Scott
What would I do? I'd have the UN be a much more serious organization. Start by stripping all dictatorships and religious theocracies from any positions of power and allow only free democracies to have a full say in what the UN does.

So, you advocate removing the sovereignty clause from the UN charter. You know the one that says nations have a right to choose their form of leadership be it monarchy, constitutional monarchy, democratically elected leaders or dictator.

You alluded to the answer, what would you do with Sudan. Would you attack, or sanction. Simply removing noncooperative states from the UN body would effect little to no change.

[Randycat99]

It wouldn't effect the wording and intent of sanctions one bit? 'kay...

[pfflam]

Originally posted by Scott
What would I do? I'd have the UN be a much more serious organization. Start by stripping all dictatorships and religious theocracies from any positions of power and allow only free democracies to have a full say in what the UN does. HAHA

I take it that you meant strip them of power within the UN . . .
or, did you mean that you would you set up a 'Nation Governement Police' and decide who can govern whom, and how?
And who would be the dictator there?

But of course I'm sure you didn't mean that . . . . at least not overtly.

[Randycat99]

Maybe this is a "What would France do?" moment? :???: (anybody got a funny France pic? :) )

[bunge]

Originally posted by Scott
What would I do? I'd have the UN be a much more serious organization. Start by stripping all dictatorships and religious theocracies from any positions of power and allow only free democracies to have a full say in what the UN does.

How would that help the Sudan?

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Scott
allow only free democracies to have a full say in what the UN does.

Are you including the US in there as a "free democracy"?

[Randycat99]

...and here's where the topic is lead astray... :(

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Randycat99
...and here's where the topic is lead astray... :(

Astray from what? No one even knows what the hell Scott's point was/is. UN might threaten sanctions on Sudan and Scott either thinks it's stupid or is a good thing and won't say anything other than the equivalent "The UN sucks."

[Randycat99]

He certainly didn't start the topic to discuss if the US is really a free democracy or not...but detours like this are par for the course, really.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Randycat99
He certainly didn't start the topic to discuss if the US is really a free democracy or not...but detours like this are par for the course, really.

Scott can ignore that post and respond to the ones that directly address the thread. Or, as I suspect, he'll shy away from any thread that begins to prove him wrong.

[Randycat99]

Yes, let us all concentrate on disregarding that dubiously planted post.

As for the foreshadowing bit in your post, I don't think that is particularly conducive toward any kind of useful discussion. As such, it is similarly superfluous as the aforementioned post derailment.

[Xool]

Independent on one's opinion of the UN, I think they need to be more involved with Sudan. This is a major issue that should be addressed immediately.

I don't think that we alone should immediately send troops to the Sudan, but the US could damn well champion a plan to resolve the issue. At the very least it could force this issue in the UN.

Unfortunately the current administration has already shown the UN what it thinks of it and I doubt Bush will help either situation at all.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Randycat99
Yes, let us all concentrate on disregarding that dubiously planted post.

As for the foreshadowing bit in your post, I don't think that is particularly conducive toward any kind of useful discussion. As such, it is similarly superfluous as the aforementioned post derailment.

For someone who's complaining about a post derailing a thread, you're doing a mighty fine job of it. You're the ONLY person talking about it.

[addabox]

Originally posted by Randycat99
Yes, let us all concentrate on disregarding that dubiously planted post.

As for the foreshadowing bit in your post, I don't think that is particularly conducive toward any kind of useful discussion. As such, it is similarly superfluous as the aforementioned post derailment.

Christ, what do you want? You claim a single post derails the thread, then get sarcastic about how we haven't focused on it.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by addabox
Christ, what do you want? You claim a single post derails the thread, then get sarcastic about how we haven't focused on it.

And then derails the thread by complaining that it's been derailed.

[Randycat99]

Yes, it was all me. :rolleyes: I guess somebody's got to shunt your chicanery. Now please shut your yap, already. 8)

[faust9]

Originally posted by Randycat99
Yes, it was all me. :rolleyes: I guess somebody's got to shunt your chicanery. Now please shut your yap, already. 8)

I'll put us back on track:

What would you do Randy? Would you commit forces or enact sanctions?

[Randycat99]

Why I'm all for the UN doing as they see fit (thought that was clear already). :rolleyes:

[addabox]

Originally posted by Randycat99
Yes, it was all me. :rolleyes: I guess somebody's got to shunt your chicanery. Now please shut your yap, already. 8)

I'm sorry, it's going to take me a little while to get past the notion of having ones chicanery shunted. If, in fact, I ever can.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by addabox
I'm sorry, it's going to take me a little while to get past the notion of having ones chicanery shunted. If, in fact, I ever can.

The last time I had mine shunted was just to drain a little fluid off. Gross looking, but didn't hurt too bad.

The UN really needs to step up to the plate with this business in Sudan before it (Sudan, not the UN) turns into something like Rwanda. I'd love to see France and Germany (and maybe Russia) offer as many troops as they can.

[Frank777]

Originally posted by faust9
So, you advocate removing the sovereignty clause from the UN charter. You know the one that says nations have a right to choose their form of leadership be it monarchy, constitutional monarchy, democratically elected leaders or dictator.

What sane country "chooses" a dictatorship?

The clause should be amended to exclude dictatorships from having a vote at the UN.

This is the 21st century, not the 14th.

[faust9]

Originally posted by Frank777
What sane country "chooses" a dictatorship?

The clause should be amended to exclude dictatorships from having a vote at the UN.

This is the 21st century, not the 14th.

Pakistan is one. My point was excluding nations from the UN because of their chosen govenrence systems serves little to no practical purpose.

[Frank777]

I'm not trying to be mean, but by that kind of logic South Africa could not have been thrown out during the reign of Apartheid, because White Rule would have qualified as the country's "chosen" governance.

Every now and then Humanity has to take a step toward progress.

The UN's ultimate aim should be to have all members eventually adopt democratic systems of governance. I'm not saying we force everyone to convert at once, but the banana republics should have observer status only during voting.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Frank777
I'm not trying to be mean, but by that kind of logic South Africa could not have been thrown out during the reign of Apartheid, because White Rule would have qualified as the country's "chosen" governance.

Every now and then Humanity has to take a step toward progress.

The UN's ultimate aim should be to have all members eventually adopt democratic systems of governance. I'm not saying we force everyone to convert at once, but the banana republics should have observer status only during voting.

Actually, the UN's ultimate aim ought to be to provide a venue for countries to solve problems.

[Frank777]

Originally posted by midwinter
Actually, the UN's ultimate aim ought to be to provide a venue for countries to solve problems.

Point taken, but the world's most dangerous problems - from the Mid-East to Sudan to the Koreas and elsewhere, usually tend to involve more dictatorships than not.

[Scott]

Originally posted by midwinter
The last time I had mine shunted was just to drain a little fluid off. Gross looking, but didn't hurt too bad.

The UN really needs to step up to the plate with this business in Sudan before it (Sudan, not the UN) turns into something like Rwanda. I'd love to see France and Germany (and maybe Russia) offer as many troops as they can.

Of course that wont happen. France and Germany have no ability to project their power. Russia is too poor.

Sudan is already a Rwanda. Does it matter that much if it's 3,000,000 or 300,000 or 30,000?

[bunge]

Originally posted by Scott
Of course that wont happen. France and Germany have no ability to project their power. Russia is too poor.

Sudan is already a Rwanda. Does it matter that much if it's 3,000,000 or 300,000 or 30,000?

Sorry I was correct folks.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Scott
Of course that wont happen. France and Germany have no ability to project their power. Russia is too poor.

France sent the following to Desert Storm:

18,000 troops, 60 combat aircraft, 120 helicopters, 40 tanks, 1 missle cruiser, 3 destroyers, 4 frigates

[Scott]

How long did it take to get them all there and how?

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Scott
How long did it take to get them all there and how?

I think they all rode mopeds and stopped on the way a lot for coffee, a smoke, and a nap.

Linky (http://www.armyradio.com/publish/Articles/Desert_Storm_Equipment/Desert_Shield_Storm.htm)

What the hell are you getting at?

[bunge]

Originally posted by midwinter
What the hell are you getting at?

Ignoring the questions posed to him.

[Scott]

No bunge just getting back to. Fink. Anyway enough with my shadow the troll.

France and Germany have no ability to project their power in a meaningful way. Just what I said before. Am I typing in English?

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Scott
France and Germany have no ability to project their power in a meaningful way. Just what I said before. Am I typing in English?

You can't even quote yourself accurately. That's not what you said before. Before, you said this:


France and Germany have no ability to project their power.


There's a difference between that and what you've said now that you've qualified it with some kind of nebulous "in a meaningful way," which allows you to define it however you want. I suppose, in the end, you're going to argue that unless France can muster 175,000 troops it's not "meaningful."

[bunge]

Originally posted by Scott
Anyway enough with my shadow the troll.

Paranoia will destroy ya.

[Scott]

Originally posted by bunge
Paranoia will destroy ya.

There he is again. Someone step on him!

[Scott]

Originally posted by midwinter
You can't even quote yourself accurately. That's not what you said before. Before, you said this:

Oh okay? Then I'll say this. They can only project their power in meaningless ways. Feel better?



Originally posted by midwinter
There's a difference between that and what you've said now that you've qualified it with some kind of nebulous "in a meaningful way," which allows you to define it however you want. I suppose, in the end, you're going to argue that unless France can muster 175,000 troops it's not "meaningful."

No but maybe you think armies that can project their power in ways other than meaningful ones are relevant.

Maybe those troops can charter air france to get them here. I hear there are some SST planes no one is using.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Scott
Oh okay? Then I'll say this. They can only project their power in meaningless ways. Feel better?

So now you're changing your language even further? Which is it, Scott? France's army, which sent 18,000 troops, 60 combat aircraft, 120 helicopters, 40 tanks, 1 missle cruiser, 3 destroyers, 4 frigates to Iraq in Desert Storm (and, from what I understand, some pretty friggin' cool special ops teams), either cannot project power, cannot project power in a meaningful way, or can only project power in a meaningless way. You've said 3 different things, all in some stupid attempt to crack a joke about France being, what? A bunch of wimps? Or maybe just the French army being that? Are you suggesting that if France offered the same amount of troops in Iraq right now they'd be so useless that we should turn them down? Are you suggesting that French troops are somehow genetically incapable or making a difference in Sudan?

maybe you think armies that can project their power in ways other than meaningful ones are relevant.

I have no idea what you're getting at, unless you somehow think that the French army shows up somewhere and just hangs around and smokes cigarettes while the soldiers make fun of Americans.

Maybe those troops can charter air france to get them here. I hear there are some SST planes no one is using.

Again, I don't understand what you mean. The SST fleet was old and expensive to maintain, and so the Concorde was retired. Are you using some kind of random French-insult generator to make these posts or something?

[Frank777]

I don't know much about the French military situation (aside from the well-known internet jokes) but if it's anything like the Canadian situation, Scott's probably right.

The Liberals in Canada (heavily influenced by European ideas) cut military spending to the point that our military can only participate in large-scale missions where the Americans offer to give our troops and equipment a ride.

I am not kidding.

During this year's election debates, the current Prime Minister was asked about funding the military. He responded with a lot of hyperbole about how the Conservatives wanted to buy aircraft carriers which were a waste of money and then mused about how Canada need to buy more "medical ships" to sail around the globe.

Unbelievable. I hope Europe isn't buying into this kind of idiocy as well.

[Anders]

NEWSFLASH---NEWSFLASH---NEWSFLASH

Us doesn´t have the sealift capacity to deliver their own troops and materiel . They hire companies, even from socialist europe to do so for them.

[Harald]

France's army, which sent 18,000 troops, 60 combat aircraft, 120 helicopters, 40 tanks, 1 missle cruiser, 3 destroyers, 4 frigates to Iraq in Desert Storm (and, from what I understand, some pretty friggin' cool special ops teams

Scott, is that "meaningless?"

Answer up!

:lol:

[123]

Originally posted by Frank777
This is the 21st century, not the 14th.

So what? You seem to be equating the 21st century with rational, enlightened people but there is actually no link between the two.

[Scott]

Originally posted by Harald
Scott, is that "meaningless?"

Answer up!

:lol:

I did. Are you reading the thread or just trolling?

[bunge]

Originally posted by Harald
Scott, is that "meaningless?"

From France, when it doesn't support his argument, yet it's meaningless. But when it's Poland's 300 troops in Iraq, that means it's a meaningful multi-lateral force.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Scott
I did.

I think what he meant was for you to give a definitive answer rather than vacillating between three opposing viewpoints.

[Scott]

Originally posted by bunge
I think what he meant was for you to give a definitive answer rather than vacillating between three opposing viewpoints.

What three opposing viewpoints did i vacillate between? Please be specific.

[midwinter]

So now you're changing your language even further? Which is it, Scott? France's army, which sent 18,000 troops, 60 combat aircraft, 120 helicopters, 40 tanks, 1 missle cruiser, 3 destroyers, 4 frigates to Iraq in Desert Storm (and, from what I understand, some pretty friggin' cool special ops teams), either cannot project power, cannot project power in a meaningful way, or can only project power in a meaningless way. You've said 3 different things, all in some stupid attempt to crack a joke about France being, what? A bunch of wimps?

[pfflam]

Well. I'm starting to think that France or the US should just get in there with some air-fire power and at least shoot down the Sudanese Gunships . . . they might want to think abiout pulling a Kosovo here . . . Scott might be right about the innertia of the Bureacracy in the usual UN modus operandi . . .

HERE (http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0811/dailyUpdate.html?s=ent2)

[Scott]

I nominate France.

[Scott]

Anyone want to second that?