It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Not Just Give Arms to The People of Darfur?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 02:08 AM
link   
I had this idea to seriously obstruct the genocide in Darfur being committed by Arab Militia (tribes) with the blessing of the Sudanese government: Give the…
1. Fur people: en.wikipedia.org...
2. Zaghawa: en.wikipedia.org...
3. Masalit: en.wikipedia.org...
Of Western Sudan weapons.

This idea is so ripe; in fact according to Wikipedia these people already have the…
Sudan Liberation Army: en.wikipedia.org...
Justice And Equality Movement: en.wikipedia.org...

Both these groups are fighting for democracy, and have been mobilised by the Sudanese government’s racial discrimination against the three (listed) ethnic groups.

My Strategy
1. Paying for the Weapons…
Well we have army surplus we normally sell onto other countries anyway, a government subsidy to get them in the hands of people who really, really need them wouldn’t attract much domestic criticism (not that arms sales normally attract much attention anyway).
2. Delivering Them…
As said the Sudan Liberation Army and Justice And Equality Movement make obvious vendors, I'm sure MI6 could sort a few air deliveries out. What exactly is the Sudanese government going to do about? Cut copper supplies of? Oh we don’t buy their copper anymore because of U.N sanctions, because of the genocide.
3. Legalising the Transaction…
Western nations often seem to be a law upon ourselves anyway; but I guess we could always try getting it rubber stamped through the U.N. Maybe China would oppose it, but if they did, would it really be both their while if this is one time violating the U.N might not be such a bad thing?

My Logic…
Had the 6 Million Jews killed during the Third Reich…
a. Known they were being genocided
b. Had e.g. pistols
Don’t you think the military would have thought twice about committing the Genocide (when it)? After all if I was a civilian facing a genocidal enemy then I would think to myself “We’ll at the current rate I’m going to be dead anyway; therefore anything I do is a bonus”
I might have shot several genocidal enemies before being killed myself, others will have shot none at all. Even so overall, you would expect the 3rd Reich to be down about 6 million troops, or people who could have been used as troops, and whose role troops would have to fill.
That’s a big consideration!!!

Reinforced Logic…
Unlike Afghanistan we don’t appear to be planning to imminently occupy the place so an armed population isn’t really our problem. And if we were planning to occupy it, “who the hell are my countrymen to die in foreign country as merely a invading police force?” is my thoughts. But arms…
We’ll in my opinion there are certain people you can ethically sell weapons to and certain ones you can’t. People facing genocide has got to be the top of the list of those you can.
The Liberal Left…
Some short circuit thinking, liberal person is bound to point out all the social problems an armed population can cause, America for instance.
My attitude is: Let them say Blah, Blah, and whatever else. Because can they think of a bigger social problem than everyone all being dead? Somehow I doubt it!!!

Not An Original Idea of Mine…
1. This article is titled: Should The West Arm the Kosovo Liberation Army
www.guardian.co.uk...
2. And we helped arm the Anti-Taliban Northern Alliance www.guardian.co.uk... (we should have before since they’d been fighting the Taliban for over 6 years before 9/11).

So the Unnerving Question Is…
Why Hasn’t This Idea Been Talked About More Before?

After all Blair wanted to send troops to Darfur…
www.guardian.co.uk...
Then Dropped The Idea: news.scotsman.com...

Why does Blair’s occupation daydreaming get so much attention from our pres leaders? When meanwhile; a far smarter idea (like to give Darfur’s people the means to defend themselves against killers) passes almost unspoken?
Surely there is something seriously lacking in the mindset of not just our press, but also our leaders? Why Is that? and Where Does It Come From?




posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 07:22 AM
link   
Probably because the UN hates civilian ownership of firearms and for them to supply people greatly in need of defense against marauding militias and a corrupt government would go against the UN's push for global cicilian disarmament.

I had someone on here tell me guns were bad and if I wanted no gun control I should head over to Somalia. Apparently this person failed to realize that gun control there and in all of these militia run, genocide regions is as tight as can be in that if you dont buy into the rhetoric spewed by the guys with the guns you cant have a gun.

This is all remenicient of the first American gun control measures pushed about by the KKK who were tired of the blacks being able to defend themselves with guns. So to ease in lynchings the KKK got various gun control measures accepted. Once it became unpopular to limit the 2nd Amendment based on race they moved to keep guns out of the hands of poor people through taxation, price structure and permitting. A good example of this is that most people think getting a handgun permit in NYC is impossible. Well, its not if youre exceedingly wealthy and can afford a team of lawyers.

The UN would rather every victim on this Earth die than defend themselves. Thats called moral superiority.

Instead of giving .30 cents a day to drop grain that the warlords would steal how about a charity that puts guns in the hands of victims? I'd give daily to such a cause. Let the warlords steal grain guarded by an armed villiage.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 07:51 AM
link   
well...
because the guns probably wouldn't end up in their hands.... think about it, where did the initial food aid we gave to afghanistan go? warlords...



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Obviously we wouldnt just drop a crate of firearms and ammunition in the middle of nowhere and expect it to end up where it should. We'd have to have military transport bring them in directly and even leave behind a force to train and drill them.

We cant just take the UN approach of dropping a crate with their eyes covered and flying away.

Of course all of this assumes that interfering with Darfur wont lead to more of the U.S. keeps interfering with global politics stuff. Im sure if supplying, arming and training the victims resulting in the victims becoming the oppressors the entire globe will jump down our throats shouting "how could you have let this happen"

Damned if we do, damned if we dont.



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Liberal1984 it seems that you could have a workable plan that would only involve a relatively small training force. Just one note of caution after the people are are suffering no longer need assistance they could well turn on the west but in this case it seems to be worth the risk.



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Liberal1984 it seems that you could have a workable plan that would only involve a relatively small training force. Just one note of caution after the people are are suffering no longer need assistance they could well turn on the west but in this case it seems to be worth the risk.


...just as it did when the West armed the Iraqi forces fighting heroically against those horrible Iranians.

It's a very complicated world we live in.



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 06:28 PM
link   
I think one or two US Army Special Forces A Teams (also known as the Green Berets) should go in their and train and arm the Darfur people to fight back much in the same way they trained the Montagnard tribesmen of Civilian Irregular Defense Group (CIDG) to fight the VC and the PAVN in the Vietnam War.

Its obvious that the UN's methods are not going to bring about an end to this madness.

[edit on 4-10-2007 by ChrisF231]



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Quote: Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul

well...
because the guns probably wouldn't end up in their hands.... think about it, where did the initial food aid we gave to afghanistan go? warlords...


Yes (but as said) this time there are at least two native organisations resisting the genocide: Sudan Liberation Army and the Justice And Equality Movement
Of course some guns will eventually get in the wrong hands, but if you deliver them directly to an organisation resisting genocide then that’s a pretty good head start. (As said guns in the wrong hands is always a headache, but not as bad headache as everyone been dead).

Quote: Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Obviously we wouldnt just drop a crate of firearms and ammunition in the middle of nowhere and expect it to end up where it should. We'd have to have military transport bring them in directly and even leave behind a force to train and drill them.


No what you do is drop a few crates in the middle of nowhere; where you’re allies like Sudan Liberation Army or the Justice And Equality Movement have been tipped of they would be. They can get them to their own caves-holes in the ground by themselves.
Also there should be no-little need to leave behind anything so complex-advanced that you actually need to spend time training people how to use them. We’re talking about close combat weapons, and simply enough of them to cause enough injuries in order for it to be unworthwhile for a militia to attack innocents like women and children. Pistols should do the trick!
Of course a few anti aircraft weapons would be neat in order to shoot down the ancient Sudanese aircraft they use to keep bombing villages. But these are few and far in-between. Besides at the moment the villages have no pistols-handguns and no anti-aircraft weapons.

The Second Step…
Having delivered the most desperately required low-tech weapons to the targeted people, you say to the Sudanese government “Oh so you reject to our recent arms deliveries? Well if you thought that was bad it just so happens that we have some surplus 21st century weaponry!!! Now are you going to be good, and start negotiating with these people in a semi-civilised fashion, or are we going to show these people how to really give you’re headquarters a pain up the arse?”

Needless to say, it should be fairly easy to predict what the answer of a self-serving, self-interested government will be!!!

Maybe a few years down the line, we should even be able to go back to buying Sudanese copper?

So basically the Sudanese government gets to be faced with reason, and everyone else (including the West) benerfits (accept maybe China which is currently buying Sudanese mineral resources at rip-off prices due to everyone else’s sanctions).



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 07:38 AM
link   
Thought I would update this to...

Why Not Give Arms To THE PEOPLE OF ZIMBABWE?



Robert Mu-garbish is only hanging on by the will of a (well paid) immoral few. His people would make excellent warriors (most are infected with Aids) can you imagine 30 something’s, who know they only have a few years to live, fighting for the democracy, and standard of living their people could so easily once again to enjoy?
They put suicide bombers to shame!!!

(Unless of course they're completely unarmed, as is the current status).

The West could easily correct this China only trade business, by helping the people themselves install a respectable government.
And wouldn't you agree that if (in the worst case) an armed rebellion by the people of Zimbabwe did lead to worse government, its hardly imaginable how it could be much worse, and therefore make much of a difference.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join