UN to begin Darfur peace mission

#1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7165443.stm

The new United Nations peacekeeping force for Darfur in Sudan is due to start its operations.

The force, Unamid, replaces the African Union observer mission in the western region to become the world's largest peacekeeping force with 26,000 troops.

The deployment of the force has been delayed by a dispute with the Sudanese government over its composition.

It will also immediately face a severe test - how to deal with a new offensive by Chadian forces and Darfur rebels.

A number of towns and villages in western Darfur have been under attack from the combined force since Friday.

Hamstrung

The new United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur (Unamid) is an attempt to end the conflict in the troubled Sudanese region, which has seen the deaths of more than 200,000 people since 2003.

It currently has just 9,000 soldiers and police on the ground.
This appears to be another case of too little too late. Not only that but the international community are once again dragging their feet on committing troops. Some countries like the US, UK, and Canada are already over committed - but what about the rest of the world - where are they? 8O

Or are they hoping that the African Union can muster up a force that will save them the trouble? :roll:

Remember Rwanda? Also remember how well the UN (African troops - Nigerian I believe) did in Sierra Leone, where some of the UN soldiers committed worse atrocities than the Rebels? :x

I wonder how many more people will have to die in Darfur before the rest of the world is finally guilted into action. :pissedoff:
 
#2
So you believe that the "rest of the world" is morally obliged to prevent/halt/resolve every African conflict? Why?
 
#3
Situation normal then for the UN. remember your comments when it all goes to rat sh1t and everyone blames the UN
 
#5
Send in the feckin French!
approx quote(s) I liked from mock the week:
Something you will never hear a Frenchman say:
''The battle was long and hard .. but finally with grit and determination we won through''

''How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris?
- they dont know, they've never tried''

doubt they will develop a spine anytime soon :wink:

maybe ze Germans?
 
#6
Zega said:
Send in the feckin French!
Sarkozy's spokesman David Martinon said last Saturday that a rapid UN deployment is essential for the return of peace in the region.

1100 French troops are busy next door in Tchad and Hervé Morin Minister for Defence is currently there to see in the New Year with them.
 
#8
Whiskybreath said:
So you believe that the "rest of the world" is morally obliged to prevent/halt/resolve every African conflict? Why?
Those who are members of the UN have an obligation to assist when the UN asks for help. Sadly, many of the members list Darfur, as with many other situations as "Somebody Else's Problem". (Douglas Adams - RIP)

Look how quickly the UN moved into Bosnia - and how slowly they reacted to Rwanda, which saw the largest genocide atrocity since the Second World War. Some racial prejudice going on there perhaps? Or like you appear to infer, that Africa should solve it's own problems?

The main problem is that Africa CAN'T solve it's own problems - history has shown us that. :(
 
#9
Its a bit dodgy for white countries to go into Africa, We don't want anyone calling us racist. After all Zimbawe is left well alone.
Where's the AN in all this? why don't they sort it out?
 
#10
stacker1 said:
Its a bit dodgy for white countries to go into Africa, We don't want anyone calling us racist. After all Zimbawe is left well alone.
Where's the AN in all this? why don't they sort it out?
Look at Sierra Leone - African 'UN' troops were sent in to keep the peace - they (in some instances) became worse than the rebels - raping, and murdering locals, while all the time being paid by the UN.

It took the British going into Sierra Leone to finally stabilise the situation - the UN troops were told to leave.

Ask any citizen of Sierra Leone - and they'll say that they preferred the mainly 'white' British troops to the African troops sent there by the UN.

There are currently still too many tribal rivalries in Africa to make a AN force viable.
 
#11
Lesleycape said:
...Or like you appear to infer, that Africa should solve it's own problems?

The main problem is that Africa CAN'T solve it's own problems - history has shown us that. :(

That's the very point. Sub-saharan Africa will never be credibly self-governing or indeed self-supporting in any way which 'liberal' Western thought would like to see it. I see no valid moral justification for expending British or other 'Western' military lives, taxpayers' money or poorly-directed charitable donations to anywhere there while it remains in that state, and you'll be waiting a long time for any meaningful change.
 
#12
Lesleycape said:
stacker1 said:
Its a bit dodgy for white countries to go into Africa, We don't want anyone calling us racist. After all Zimbawe is left well alone.
Where's the AN in all this? why don't they sort it out?
Look at Sierra Leone - African 'UN' troops were sent in to keep the peace - they (in some instances) became worse than the rebels - raping, and murdering locals, while all the time being paid by the UN.

It took the British going into Sierra Leone to finally stabilise the situation - the UN troops were told to leave.

Ask any citizen of Sierra Leone - and they'll say that they preferred the mainly 'white' British troops to the African troops sent there by the UN.

There are currently still too many tribal rivalries in Africa to make a AN force viable.
I don't doubt the British army did a better job, But unfortunly it cost soldiers lives. We shouldn't have to go in because other countries have crap armies.
 
#13
Whiskybreath said:
Lesleycape said:
...Or like you appear to infer, that Africa should solve it's own problems?

The main problem is that Africa CAN'T solve it's own problems - history has shown us that. :(

That's the very point. Sub-saharan Africa will never be credibly self-governing or indeed self-supporting in any way which 'liberal' Western thought would like to see it. I see no valid moral justification for expending British or other 'Western' military lives, taxpayers' money or poorly-directed charitable donations to anywhere there while it remains in that state, and you'll be waiting a long time for any meaningful change.
Agreed, however burying our heads in the sand won't achieve anything. 9/11 should have taught us something. Rogue or unstable countries become breeding grounds for disaffected youth - many of whom become easy targets for indoctrination by terrorists, whose main goal seems to be destroying our way of life.

Prior to 9/11 we ignored such states, or gave meaningless rebukes in the UN, and they came back to bite us in the arse. :(

Can we really afford not to get involved?
 
#15
Lesleycape said:
Whiskybreath said:
Lesleycape said:
...Or like you appear to infer, that Africa should solve it's own problems?

The main problem is that Africa CAN'T solve it's own problems - history has shown us that. :(

That's the very point. Sub-saharan Africa will never be credibly self-governing or indeed self-supporting in any way which 'liberal' Western thought would like to see it. I see no valid moral justification for expending British or other 'Western' military lives, taxpayers' money or poorly-directed charitable donations to anywhere there while it remains in that state, and you'll be waiting a long time for any meaningful change.
Agreed, however burying our heads in the sand won't achieve anything. 9/11 should have taught us something. Rogue or unstable countries become breeding grounds for disaffected youth - many of whom become easy targets for indoctrination by terrorists, whose main goal seems to be destroying our way of life.

Prior to 9/11 we ignored such states, or gave meaningless rebukes in the UN, and they came back to bite us in the arse. :(

Can we really afford not to get involved?
Yes because squaddies lives are quite valueable (not that Labour would agree)
Its not our problem, let the left wing do-gooders go over there and try and sort it out.
 
#16
stacker1 said:
Lesleycape said:
Whiskybreath said:
Lesleycape said:
...Or like you appear to infer, that Africa should solve it's own problems?

The main problem is that Africa CAN'T solve it's own problems - history has shown us that. :(

That's the very point. Sub-saharan Africa will never be credibly self-governing or indeed self-supporting in any way which 'liberal' Western thought would like to see it. I see no valid moral justification for expending British or other 'Western' military lives, taxpayers' money or poorly-directed charitable donations to anywhere there while it remains in that state, and you'll be waiting a long time for any meaningful change.
Agreed, however burying our heads in the sand won't achieve anything. 9/11 should have taught us something. Rogue or unstable countries become breeding grounds for disaffected youth - many of whom become easy targets for indoctrination by terrorists, whose main goal seems to be destroying our way of life.

Prior to 9/11 we ignored such states, or gave meaningless rebukes in the UN, and they came back to bite us in the arse. :(

Can we really afford not to get involved?
Yes because squaddies lives are quite valueable (not that Labour would agree)
Its not our problem, let the left wing do-gooders go over there and try and sort it out.
No arguement - Squaddies lives are extremely valuable - and having already too much to do, I never suggested that the British should be sent into Darfur. My main question was "Where is the rest of the world?" because it seems that only a few countries (Britain especially) seem to shoulder the main burden of offering troops to UN peace keeping missions.

p.s. However, I would love to see all the tree-hugging do-gooder peace-niks go over there to help 'facilitate' the peace. I reckon they'd last 5 minutes - any advance on that? :wink:

p.p.s. When I say can we afford not to get involved - I'm using the Royal We - meaning the world in general not Britain personally.
 
#17
Its a nations responsibility to defend its values as well as its borders, many might not think that but part of britishness is fairness and the integrity to stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves, even when it means a cost to ourselves.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - Edmund Burke.
or “To see the right and not to do it is cowardice.” Confucius

To make everything into a cost/benefit analysis is very Maciavellian but we don't make it as men/people, so why should we expect our country to do it?
 
#18
I'm going to be a bit of a scrooge becasue I'm sick of giving help to everybody else when our country has its own problems.

Load an aircraft with a nice tactical thermonuclear device and drop that as aid. Problem solved.
 
#19
Lesleycape said:
Whiskybreath said:
So you believe that the "rest of the world" is morally obliged to prevent/halt/resolve every African conflict? Why?
Those who are members of the UN have an obligation to assist when the UN asks for help. Sadly, many of the members list Darfur, as with many other situations as "Somebody Else's Problem". (Douglas Adams - RIP)

Look how quickly the UN moved into Bosnia - and how slowly they reacted to Rwanda, which saw the largest genocide atrocity since the Second World War. Some racial prejudice going on there perhaps? Or like you appear to infer, that Africa should solve it's own problems?

The main problem is that Africa CAN'T solve it's own problems - history has shown us that. :(
Maybe it is because there is no political will to help a continent that has consistently chosen for tribal loyalties and is corrupt as a corrupt thing.
 
#20
mattspanic said:
Its a nations responsibility to defend its values as well as its borders, many might not think that but part of britishness is fairness and the integrity to stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves, even when it means a cost to ourselves.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - Edmund Burke.
or “To see the right and not to do it is cowardice.” Confucius

To make everything into a cost/benefit analysis is very Maciavellian but we don't make it as men/people, so why should we expect our country to do it?
The UK upholds its values within in our borders (allegely anyway) If we upheld our values outside those borders we would be at war with countries like china instead of trading with them.
If we went to Darfur within a few years we would be classed as occupying that country and get shit of the locals and our own liberal twats.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top