It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


How should the US approach Sudan?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 07:54 PM
I read through an recent article written by Ron Paul that said the US should not send troops to Sudan.
He made the following statement:

The men and women of the United States Armed Forces risk their lives to protect and defend the United States. Can anyone tell me how sending thousands of American soldiers into harm's way in Sudan is by any stretch of the imagination in the U.S. national interest or in keeping with the Constitutional function of this countrys military forces? I urge my colleagues in the strongest terms to reject this dangerous resolution.

I started reading up some of the other speeches he made and came across the following from June 2001 regarding another resolution on Sudan:

Without Constitutional authority, this bill goes on to encourage the spending of $10 million of U.S. taxpayers hard-earned money in Sudan but for what purpose? From the text of the bill, we learn that "The United States should use all means of pressure available to facilitate a comprehensive solution to the war in Sudan, including (A) the multilateralization of economic and diplomatic tools to compel the Government of Sudan to enter into a good faith peace process; [note that it says "compel . . good faith peace"] and (B) the support or creation of viable democratic civil authority and institutions in areas of Sudan outside of government control." I believe we used to call that nation-building before that term became impolitic. How self- righteous a government is ours which legally prohibits foreign campaign contributions (again with no constitutional authority to regulate campaigns) yet assumes it knows best and, hence, supports dissident and insurgent groups in places like Cuba, Sudan and around the world. The practical problem here is that we have funded dissidents in such places as Somalia who ultimately turned out to be worse than the incumbent governments. Small wonder the U.S. is the prime target of citizen-terrorists from countries with no real ability to retaliate militarily for our illegitimate and immoral interventions.

Here are some excerpts from comments on the bill:

Section 5Use of Appropriated Funds.
Section 5 urges the President to expend promptly on behalf of
the anti-government National Democratic Alliance coalition the $10
million in Economic Support Funds appropriated for fiscal year

Another bill, HR 5531 states the following:

President George W. Bush today signed into law H.R. 5531, the Sudan Peace Act. The Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives on October 7, 2002 by a vote of 359-8. The Senate passed the same language by unanimous consent on October 9, 2002. The Act:

* Calls for: multilateralization of economic and diplomatic tools to compel Sudan to enter into a good faith peace process; support for democratic development in areas of Sudan outside government control; continued support for people-to-people reconciliation in non-government-controlled areas; strengthening of humanitarian relief mechanisms; and multilateral cooperation toward these ends...

...The Act authorizes to be appropriated $100 million for each of the fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005 for assistance to areas outside government control to prepare the population for peace and democratic governance, including support for civil administration, communications infrastructure, education, health, and agriculture.

With all of this talk of funding anti-governement groups and providing assistance to areas outside of government to prepare for peace and democratic governance, it sounds like the US government has been funding a Coup.

Do you feel the US should try and help the people to overtrow the government?
Is direct military action preferable?
Should the US stay out even though the Sudanese government seems to be engaging in horrific acts against it's people?

What is the best solution in this case?

posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 08:03 PM
US has no business in Sudan except that it helps Bush avoid dealing with the real threats to the US which is NK and China.

posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 09:15 PM
Let the UN pull thier weight on this one. We are already spread too thin.

posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 04:51 PM
Neither the US nor the UN can do anything for Sudan. It's so sad to see Arab Muslims in the north commit genocide on Black Chritians in the south, and the rest of the Arab world turn a blind eye (like they have on terrorism). If the US or UN went into Sudan, they'd just get shot at by both sides like they were in Somalia...

I suppose the US could send its Air Force over Sudan to bomb the military positions of the Arab Muslims, like it did the Serbs in Bosnia who were committing genocide on the Croats. But would it be as effective in Sudan as it was in Yugoslavia? Would the more liberal countries accuse the US of being "racist" for bombing Arab Muslims to save Black Christians? I just don't know...

posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 05:00 PM
I see all this as a waste of American dollars that very well could help the problems we are facing here in our own soil.

The Sudan problem should be a combine effort of US and UN but we can not go on bombing the muslins because it will become an insult to the muslin community, this is all about double standards.

And meanwhile people will continue to die while the leaders of the strongest countries play foreign policies. Giving money is only going to be used to arm the wrong people so they can continue their abuse. This is so sad.

posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 05:10 PM
Let's see, Sudan was a former colony of what European power? Britain I think... They should clean it up. I think it should be the responsibility of the former colonial power to help their former colonies. I know France has done it a few times in the recent past, so we should make it common practice. Go in under the UN with the bulk of the forces being made up of (insert country here).

Besides, I bet these people would actually WANT our help....

posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 05:15 PM

Originally posted by Flinx
Let's see, Sudan was a former colony of what European power? Britain I think... They should clean it up. I think it should be the responsibility of the former colonial power to help their former colonies.

Actually most of the middle east used to be colonies of Britain and they are the ones that divided the middle east and gave it back to the people.

posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 05:15 PM
The UK are going to go help if needed,

From this news report we have 5000 troops ready to go when

Britain has been urged to provide military power to intervene in Sudan, and Chief of General Staff, General Sir Mike Jackson, said the Army would be ready if called upon.

He said a brigade of 5,000 soldiers could be ready and fully equipped if the Government decided to send troops in.

posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 05:18 PM
What can I say Britain is one of the true friends US have. But 5000 troops is not that many unless is just for humanitarian reasons.

posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 05:32 PM
5000 is probably enough on the ground. It's open countryside, and small mobile groups of UK troops would be well able to deal with them. It's something our boys would be well suited too.

The people causing the problems in the Darfur region are brutal, but lightly armed militia.

If it were a big well armed army we were facing, we might want to take our bigger, better armed American friends along, but in this case it's not really neccessary!

US involvedment, if any, would probably be in the form of high tech support, maybe some logistics help etc.. If we could borrow a couple of your UAV drones though we would be grateful! We promise not to break them!

[edit on 25-7-2004 by muppet]

[edit on 25-7-2004 by muppet]

posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 05:49 PM

Originally posted by marg6043
What can I say Britain is one of the true friends US

bad administrations aside, the feeling's mutual!! you really have to learn to make a proper cup of tea for next time we come round though.. Lipton is a no no!! Tetley, Typhoo, or PG Tips only please!!
. Oh and the milk only goes in first when you use a teapot

just so you know...

posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 06:02 PM
I think 5,000 UK troops would put quite a hurting on these monsters in the Sudan. The UK troops are some of the best trained and equiped in the world. Those people in the Sudan killing everyone are mainly thugs with guns. I would be all for American surport be it a carrier,spec. ops,UAVs what ever they need if England went into the Sudan they have helped us out enough its only right to return the favor.

Muppet your right about the tea I had a relative bring me back some from England and it was dam good.Also picked up some Irish tea that was also quite good.

posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 06:43 PM
Also, politically speaking, it would sit better with the British public if we operate in different areas to the US sometimes, Bush's reputation being what it is over here.

The war of terror being what it is, there are enough theatres of operation to go round (unfortunately).

If the US were to go into Iran for example(and I hope they don't!), I'd imagine the UK would stay out of it, and help out instead by taking up the strain in Afghanistan and Iraq(and Sudan of course). Same result overall, but we would each be able to do things our own way.

Shadow: a carrier? wow thanks! bit OTT though.. we only want the drones cause they look so damn cool, and we don't have any of our own yet!! you guys have way cooler toys!

[edit on 25-7-2004 by muppet]

[edit on 25-7-2004 by muppet]

posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 07:59 PM
By the way I don't tea I am from the Caribbean so coffee is my choice,

And for the troops well British are better at urban warfare and probably more prepared, while US has good technology and is good at quick fast efficient assaults.

This just my opinion

Now the only problem is the way this radical militia do their things, as soon US or UK gets into Sudan the radical muslin and other groups will start their terrorist attacks against the US and Uk, their goal is to cause as many casualties as possible that is their tactics and a lot of media coverage the better.

posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 09:16 PM
I don't think these guys are that connected with the global terrorsts. Maybe they harbour them.. they probably get inspired by Bin Laden, but they look to me more like local guys than someone who could in any way threaten the west... This is genocide and ethnic cleansing, not terrorism as such.

In this case it's easy to spot the bad guys... the rest are dead or have fled over the border into Chad. These groups don't infiltrate normal society like terrorists, they just travel in groups, village to village, killing people.

At the end of the day it's not an invasion of Sudan.. We're not trying to change the country, or the government. We're just offering to help the local goverment deal with something that also happens to be strategically good for us too (less fanatics to harbour terrorists). Overall, I don't think it would increase international terrorism, but it could save thousands of lives in Darfur, and hopefully get the sudanese people, and the government, just a little bit more "on-side".

EDIT : spotting another thread I realised I am a bit underinformed on this! I was aware of the darfur situation, but not so much of the wider issues thyere. Will do some reading!

[edit on 25-7-2004 by muppet]

new topics

top topics


log in