It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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 country’s military forces? I urge my colleagues in the strongest terms to reject this dangerous resolution.
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.
Section 5—Use 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
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by marg6043
What can I say Britain is one of the true friends US