Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (140796)	7/18/2004 10:19:15 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 281500

Perhaps I missed your point about protected enclaves because your last two posts here on the subject of Darfur didn't mention "protected enclaves". The ideas you did propose in your last post were: 1) Spending billions to build infrastructure on the continent of Africa, but presumably not in Sudan, because we should be concentrating on some of the poor but stable nations. (Sudan is one of the most unstable places in Africa. I suspect that means the blacks of Darfur should simply be wriiten off. ) 2) Opposing sanctions on Sudan, presumably including the UN sanctions the Bush administration is urging as well as the existing US sanctions. As I said before it's hard to imagine how either of these ideas would get the Sudanese Arabs to stop killing off the blacks of Darfur. It's a shame you're unwilling to explain your ideas since you think they might work and the Darfur situation is a developing real-time problem. Personally, I think the Bush administration is trying to get the UN to do something and is very right to do so. I also think we should maintain our own sanctions - Sudan did kick out Al Qaeda and agree to negotiate with the black southerners they'd been enslaving. I see this as evidence sanctions and diplomatic pressure has done some good. As for other things, I think that depends on the UN. If the UN could be gotten to do something - anything - meaningful, I'm sure the US would be first among the supporters of that effort. As for US intervention, I don't think we can given - no one currently sheltered by Sudan has attacked America as in the case of Afghanistan, there are not 17-18 UNSC resolutions on Sudan as in the case of Iraq, and of course there is no Congressional resolution. But if the UN effort totally fails, I'd personally support providing, in additon to humanitarian aid, basic arms and ammo to the blacks of Darfur so they can defend themselves. Since the janjawid attacking them are horseback nomads, nothing fancier than rifles ought to be needed to allow them to defend themselves.