|By Astroscholar88 (Astroscholar88) on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 04:04 pm: Edit|
Does anyone think that military intervention is needed in Darfur? I can't seem to find this on the internet, but was there an ultimatum given to the Sudanese(sp?) government regarding the genocide?
I personally think that military intervention is needed and all countries in the UN should help.
|By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 04:13 pm: Edit|
The best idea out there in my mind is having the African Union go in even if it means making giving them a lot of financial reward. It's always best for the West to stay out unless it's really necessary (like Rwanda for instance). If you are following the news you'll see theat Rwandan and Nigerian troops have moved into the region. Right now they are only "peace keeping" and making sure aid can flow into the region. Hopefully there numbers can increase and they are given the power to defend civilians. Darfur is the size of France so it will be quite difficult to monitor so a lot of troops are necessary. If the AU doesn't look like they can handle it, then the rest of the world should step in, but they probably won't.
The AU option seems to be the most likely considering the past also. Look no further than 1994 -- the West doesn't like to intervene to stop genocide/atrocities especially in Africa.
If you are really interested in this I recommend Me Against My Brother, which covers the civil war in Sudan quite well along with Somalia and Rwanda though not dealing with Darfur. Even more specifically, Nicholas Kristof has done a series of editorials in the New York Times on Darfur that were superb and brought it to the world's attention.
Report an offensive message on this page E-mail this page to a friend
|Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.|
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|