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: Brumar89 who wrote (185994)	5/2/2006 12:08:51 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Can NATO intervene without heavy US military involvement? I don't think so. But I'd be happy to be proven wrong. It's not clear to me that heavy military involvement is required. It's not a situation where you're trying to take over all of Sudan. It's just the Darfur region which is a small part of Sudan. The AU had some troops in Darfur. The AU could have sent more troops and was willing to, but didn't have the funds to do it. The French had troops on the border of Sudan protecting some refugee camps. Germany was donating some equipment. I've forgotten now what some other countries were doing. It was never enough, but they were doing something. jttmab