Sudan - Should the world intercede militarily?

I suppose we could start rumours that Sudan has WMD but I doubt anyone would really care (and probably didn't really in Iraq either) - but a few whispers about a major oil find and we would be in like Flint.

I definitely don't think the outside world should remove Mugabe, at least not by force. There's lots of things they could and should be doing in terms of sanctions and restricting the wealth and movement of his henchpeople which would be useful in terms of undermining the regime but he's far, far stronger than Saddam in terms of the number of people ideologically tied to his government and the number of people who'd fight for him. It would be a complete bloodbath. Mugabe is, after all, head of popular movement that went wrong rather than someone who's always been a brutal fascist. I think a UN force might be a good idea in Sudan, assuming it's possible to put together a viable one. I wouldn't support a British and US or Nato led intervention, though.

Yes... if you have a system in place that can keep a check on your potential despots (any leader to hand)... or even get rid of them when they are past their sell-by date.... you are light years ahead of those that can not... Those of us who enjoy it (or at least more of it).... should be promoting tolerance and democracy everywhere on the globe.... not just a change from one despot to another potential one (Mugabe comes to mind)... ....that takes committed engagement and time and help to build institutions and educate people capable of running them.... yes that has taken hundreds of years in some cases here.... in this day and age, it need take only one or two generations..... ....and the occasional military led removal of particulary heinous regimes that try and hold back time for their peoples....

Ah! he never lets me down, bless 'im.

You know something? If 'I' had made that last post of stephy's, I would have been labelled,a 'stinking little hypocrite' or a 'stuck up little twat', or whatever description suits my young friend, BUT because it was posted by someone with problems who isn't seen as an adversary, it's taken as interesting and acceptable. Well I'll go to the foot of our stairs. Stephy, you promised you wouldn't be offensive and abusive anymore? Me? I made no such promise, but I've kept off your case for a while now.

The most important thing we can do is to make sure that Iraq, Zimbabwe, Sudan (and, for that matter, North Korea, Turkey, Indonesia, Cambodia, Burma, Rwanda, Israel and Saudi Arabia...) don't happen again. Deals with tyrants for the sake of the wealth of oil- and arms-trading multinational bosses who are closely linked to our politicians and some of press barons must cease, then one would have some kind of moral authority.... I suggest exactly how to achieve this in my novel. I suppose what I'm saying is that by the time things descend to the state they're in in Sudan it's not easy to resolve. We should be spending a lot more on aid, but as far as possible this should involve buying supplies, help and expertise in the affected country, not just shipping in food and foreigners, who often leave the place even less capable of looking after itself than before. _MUCH_ more important than aid would be the elimination of trade barriers! Trade barriers against the developing world are an obscenity, a crime against humanity! (Guess what I think of Bush!) Eric

... To say nothing of the Multilateral Agreement on Investments! Iraq has been nailed to a board and is effectively being raped with impunity by (largely) US-based multinationals. Rant, rant...! Drool, slather...!

You obviously mean those 'trade barriers' that enforce us to buy cheap goods from the developing world at the expense of jobs at home.

There should certainly NOT be military intervention in either Sudan or Zimbabwe. It may solve a very short term cirisis but will create, in the longer term, a far worse crisis. We need to lean heavily on the Sudanese and Zimbabwean governments through the UN in order to make them see some kind of sense. Surely you military intervention types have seen the error of your ways/wars after Iraq? Good answers sometimes take time. Guns and bombs rarely solve anything. they are objects of last reaction. When you or your near neighbours are attacked by the Nazis, sure, go to war. I'm not a pacifist and I can see cases where war is morally and politically defensible - but Iraq was a bad mistake and Sudan and Zimbabwe would be worse. No chance of it happening though - they don't have enough oil.

Like the UN is any use at all.

The UN is a fucking joke, and has always been so. I admire your restraint Tony, but it DOESN'T work. OK, I admit that the other way isn't exactly brilliant but it does have SOME advantages. Yes, I know you will ask me what they are and I will respond after due consideration.

I don't believe we (the US/UK) need to continue killing people. If it's a few people we're after, then lets send the fellows with the little rubber boats in until they get the job done. I don't want to see large scale troop deployments to another hell-hole of a country, dividing our society, maiming thousands more, taxing our economies and orphaning more children. If these idiots (Bush/Blair) took 1/2 the money their throwing at killing and destruction and put it towards educational and medical applications, the world would be a much finer place. Killing people doesn't foster long term cooperation. On the election. Bush or Kerry... There's no difference. They are both killers. Bush is a phychopath, a well educated phychopath, but nonetheless. He actually laughed, when during an interview as Governor of Texas, he was asked about the execution of a prisoner from death row. He was quite proud of having this person killed. Phychopath!!! Kerry, was a Navy officer during Vietnam. Won a Silver Star in February of 1969, a big war hero. He's killed other humans with his own hands. Some may think this qualifies him to lead the military. I don't. The military needs to be run by civilians, just to keep them in check. The wars need to be run by the generals, just to keep them in check. Kerry may win this. Bush is arrogant and will probably try to use the "terror threat" to his advantage, scaring the crap out of everybody right up until election time. The majority will see through this and show him the road to Texas.

You cant send elite forces in to remove dictators, it's against some or other convention apparently. *rolls eyes* Mykle, as an aside, i've seen you say in like flint before - isn't it 'in like flynn', referring to errols - ahem - appetite?

You can do anything with elite forces you wish to attempt. We seem to ignore most other conventions when we feel like it, what's the difference? We call it an invasion. So, we're only invading with 40 troops at a time. In like flint, is a take from the old 60's secret agent spoof and has it's roots in in like Flynn, when Erol Flynn the hollywood movie actor as acquited of rape or something like that. In like Flint was the name of the movie with James Coburn and is a suitable phrase.

Mississippi, I'm not sure what point you were making. The people who make the trainers are paid b****r all. I'm not an advocate of unrestricted free trade, but I abhor the hypocrisy of those who claim to be but apply it selectively. Read this if you want to know my views: Otherwise you should read Stiglitz. You'll find some links about him here: Tony and radiodenver, I tend to agree with you. A wee spelling lesson radiodenver: "psychopath"! ;-)

yes i know denver. never mind.

cellarscene....you poor sod. Get the net! Splain it to him Liana!

The whole point about the UN is that it should be some good. It never will be if it is constantly undermined, evaded, ignored and shafted by the superpowers. UNICEF can't get any money from the USA if it advises young people to use condoms as a way of preventing AIDS. Have you ever heard of anything so daft? The smaller countires need to band together and bust up the big guys. They were doing this quite well under the leadership of Fidel Castro - but then the US stuck on the blockade on Cuba and the rest got cold feet. I accept that the USA are not the only baddies here - but they are the most powerful nation on earth at the moment and if they don't learn that we don't all think like them and want what they want then we are in for a very rocky ride indeed. You must stick with hope - and the UN is a symbol of hope.

Sadly Tony, I agree with much of what you say. The USA are baddies, I think, because we are so big. The bigger you are, the more people look to you to solve the problems. This is my issue. We're not a turnstile over here. Everybody comes, hat in hand, the money comes out of my pocket. The thing about the Bush administration is if he doesn't like somebody violating a UN resolution or if he needs a UN resolution, he'll ramrod it through the UN anyway and anybody that don't pony up isn't "our friend". On the same theme though, if "we/he" doesn't like something, it's ignored. Too much of a double standard. The little guys banding together...Well, I prefer to think of it as everybody takes responsibility for their own problems before them come knocking on my door to solve it. I have an issue with the worlds expectations that I fund their stupidity and failures. I rather fund our own.

I think the world has realised Denver that it can do very well without US money - as it always comes with a caveat. The trouble is, the US hasn't realised that it could do without the rest of the world's money.

Eric, I was being sarcastic, YOU were the one that brought up trade barriers against developing countries, 'I' wasn't aware there were any of significance. I rarely if ever, read links that point to the posters own work, it's a silly little thing I can't shake off, about people fishing for reads. I know that's probably not how you meant it but as I say, it's one of my silly little nuances. Tony, I thought the blockade of Cuba was the result of Kruschev trying to base Russian missiles there, aimed at Americas heartland. That was an act of undeniable provocation, and Kennedy did the right thing. Fidel Castro is not the guy in the white hat you appear to be casting him as, either. I agree the UN 'should' be effective but it never will be. Why? Well as I'm sure you know, the security council has five permanent members with a veto. They are/were the most powerful/influential five and as such without them the UN is a bit like a eunuch. So what IS the answer? Disband the UN and set up a better balanced forum? To be effective anyway it really needs the backing of the whole damned planet, as it is, polarised groups fight among themselves regardless of UN resolutions. All the talk about 'illegal' wars, provoked by the Iraqi war were just so much idealist crap. What IS legal? What IS illegal? It depends on your point of view for starters, and it also depends on what the area of jurisdiction is and who governs the jurisdiction. I could quite easily say, 'It's illegal to smoke on my property' and as I am the owner, and therefore the rule-maker on it, I am entitled to enforce the rule. I accept that as my property falls under the national jurisdiction I have to defer to that, but outside of national boundaries national laws are meaningless.

The Cuba thing is really interesting, and I laugh at the ignorance of some people about this subject. I was stationed in Guantanamo Bay from 1979-1981, and got a pretty good history lesson and first hand view on this whole subject. A lot of the world believes that poor old Castro is being picked on by the big-bad US. Well, poor old Castro ain't no poor-ole guy by anybody's estimate here. He's a deceiving, double faced, murdering scum-bag. He's directly responsible for Cuba's troubles. I've seen the refugees, first hand, that have had their families slaughtered trying to escape his grasp, I've seen people die in droves trying to float from Cuban shores on rafts, looking for nothing more than a safe place to sleep in the US. I personally rescued two Cubans who had been floating in the Caribbean for over 6 days on nothing but a log during the M-boat lift in 79. These men kissed my feet when I pulled them from the water. You want to talk about Cuba, talk to a Cuban exile, you'll get the truth from him. You won't see it on the BBC news tonight, that's for sure. Castro wanted to put atomic weapons less than 100 miles from our coast and was willing to start a war over it. If he had the weapons, he would have eventually used them out of arrogant stupidity. We would never have allowed it to happen, no matter what it took. We've played way too nice with this thug over the years. The man has mudered thousands, including members of his own family (his brother). Anybody want's to talk Cuba, Come and get it!

I see George W is finally starting to come clean. "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we," Bush said on Thursday.

lol

Since there is "very little obvious political or economic reason" I can, without hesitation, stare into my crystal ball and foresee... It's murky... Ah, it's clearing... I can see two men, er, I think they are men... Both short names beginning with the letter B... They are discussing what to do about the crisis... Hang on... I think one of them said, "Gosh - um..." It's getting fainter... The other one's just said "In an election year...? Are you nu - ..." Sorry, it's gone dead. The ball has spoken... [%sig%]

'He's a deceiving, double faced, murdering scum-bag. ' 'We've played way too nice with this thug over the years. The man has mudered thousands, including members of his own family (his brother).' Which was the bit didn't the American government like about him?

Yes, we all read it and did our guffawing. Don't you have anything better to do?

Jeff, Great image... Sounds like a scene from the Wizard of Oz. There's a picture of a girl in a bikini selling feminine napkins beneath that crystal ball I'll bet.

Radiodenver, you got your history lesson on Cuba courtesy of the US Military. No bias there, then. Everything I have ever read about Cuban exiles in the UK press or on the Internet portrays them as a Mafia who, not being successful in murdering Castro, murder humanitarians who send aid to Cuba, other nationalities who are pro-Cuba and ultimately each other. If I dared to post this in Miami myself and my family would be dead meat - yes there are the poor souls who risk their lives to leave Cuba on rafts, but there are a lot of wealthy exiles and their descendents who got out comfortably 50 years ago and just foment hatred. To think that these people are more reliable than the BBC which has an admirable reputation for balance world wide is sheer lunacy. I know that I'm out of line in your country (which actively reinforces Cuban poverty by its disgraceful and wicked blacklist, pandering to the Mafia in an electorally marginal state) but, heck, so is the Pope and the president of Canada, that notorious land of evil lefties in your own backyard.

Neil, Neil, Have you been to Cuba? Where did you get your history lesson? I got my history lesson being on the ground, in place and by personal experience. You're full of shit dude.

*blushes*

castro is just as bad as bush they are alike anyone who wants to be a leader of a country has obviousley a bad pyscotic illness...

Neil, as much as I like you, and I do, you are so naive. The BBC is just as prone to bias as any other organisation, as I'm sure those involved in the recent WMD fiasco and the subsequent suicide and resignations would admit/deny. I have never been to Cuba myself but I have friends who have, and they tell me that the tourist areas are not the whole story, an aspect you don't even acknowledge. You just talk about a few gangster escapees and financial refugees, they are not escaping because they find the climate inclement.

new politics should take the power of the indivual and place it in to the community this is the only viable form of democracy that will save the world & mankind from oblivion. This should be the pretext of the final reveloution 'if there ever is one'. It could work and it could be based much around the theory of the trigger effect, except by using this form of democracy the trigger would be peace NOT WAR....

and i suppose that was the idea that castro started out with but when the reveloution becomes violent then the cause is lost. The trigger of the reveloution has to be peace and then it will end in peace....... *a bit of sense here somewhere*

I saw that Al Pacino movie, pretty good wasn't it?

I went to Cuba in the mid 90's... and was priviledged to live with some families and experienced their lives at first hand.... (not encouraged of course... we broke out of the holiday resort and found a room with some families... who were later ostracised for letting a room out) I feel ashamed that at the night in our 'secretive' conversations with many Cubans... I was holding out hope for a regime change in the near future... saying with the collapse of the Eastern Bloc it was inevitable that sheer economics would force changes soon like it did elsewhere.... They looked at me with unbelieving eyes... knowing what they had had to up with for two generations... Now, here almost a deacade over and nothing has changed for them... Fidel Castro's Cuba should be held up as an example of very little.... the reality of living there is overwhelmingly stifling - its the closest to '1984' that I have come across or heard of.... I am not surprised people have risked all to get out... just so that even cleaning toilets in the slums of Florida seems a better option...

If I had been to Cuba, it wouldn't make any difference because I would be accused of seeing and hearing what the controlling regime wanted me to see and hear. Why should your (military) experience be trustworthy? WE can't know everything first-hand and have to trust what we read from multiple sources and might get it wrong, but leaning solely on American understanding of any situation is sheer bloody stupid - yes, and naive. Western Europe, Canada and other Latin American countries don't share US paranoia, which must grate with your leaders - Castro hasn't invaded any other countries, after all, which is more than can be said for America. Yes, I know the standard of living is low by US standards (though life expectancy is quite high) and there's a lot of prostitution to make ends meet but YOUR country, Mr Denver, WANTS it like that and has just imposed yet more sanctions. "He (Castro) earned the enmity of the US by nationalising US-owned properties" is one of the BBC website's comments on the recent history of Cuba. Aah, well, more bias, I suppose. George, I think you're trying to wind me up and succeeding; someone else can take this one on if they wish.

Come on Neil, you're at your best when wound up, though you're actually mistaken, I wasn't trying to wind you up at all.

Neil, Everything's biased, doesn't matter what you do. Truce! I'm not going to argue about Cuba with you. You're a good man. Lets change the subject...., lets say...Hong Kong. What do you know about Hong Kong?

So he's not fiull of shit then? Crikey.

(full - sorry, fat fingers... all that bingeing)

James Bond got killed in Hong Kong in 'You only live twice,' but it turned out it was a hoax. But you should have seen my little face when i first saw the film over thirty years ago.

Liana, You're so bad.

Neil... Sorry mate... as far as living in Cuba is concerned you are talking absolutely bollocks... Can you envision a society where: Every second of everyday you have to keep your guard on you... in case you say the wrong thing... and a person close to State overhears (the beauty is, this could be anybody)... and the wrong thing can have consequences such as how much food quota you get next time, whether you have access to luxuries such as soap and toothpaste... the education your children will get (notice I am not even getting to the imprisonment and torture yet... and even if that is propaganda... the reality of upsetting petty officials that run the State when it is the State that supplies EVERYTHING is just too horrible to contemplate... Self- Initiative... such as selling stuff, renting a family room.. any kind of entreprenuerial activity that is not directly licensed by the State is frowned on... A society where from birth you are fed ONE version of events... wherever you turn... at school, all papers, all news, all TV... the official version.... I copuld go on... Things are a changing if course... The foreigners they have had to let in... so as to get the dollars (courtesy of their daughters)... The internet... satellite TV, Radio..... all these alternative sources of information are seeping through the State net... I was right about one thing, it will inevitably collapse one day as all these stupid experiments do... but it has been so entrenched it is taking far too long for those who have endured and continue to do so...

No, I'm good.

Okay, Pierce Brosnin (sp), he's giving up on James Bond, who's the best actor to take his place. Gotta have a good James Bond ya know. How else can England save the world? *ducks beneath the table, one eye peeking.*

Johnny Depp would be a brilliant James Bond.

Johnny Depp!!!! He's not English (I don't think, isn't he French now?) C'mon man, you put an American in the role and we'll never hear the end of it. Find a good English actor for christ sakes!

You know what I dont like? I dont like the aggression towards people on this thread. Neil has always been perfectly respectful on ABC to everyone, and he has in just in a matter of an hour, been told he is full of shit, and talking bollocks. Does a thread on military intervention *have* to make the males start on some macho testosterone overload?