Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

liberating sudan

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • liberating sudan

    If Libya provided NATO with land access to the Sudanese border, what would a NATO vs Sudan war look like? Is that terrain able to be crossed? I think it is desert but I'm not sure. It looks an awfully long way to Khartoum. I would like the war to be fought with the Sudanese military elements being given a chance to defect, not just desert, so that the war ends up looking more like a military coup by junior officers, with NATO not needing to fire a shot. I would like ground forces to enter via Libya to give Libya a chance to repay the free world in some small manner. Thanks.

  • #2
    Bloody hell. Perhaps you should read Churchill's The River War and study Kitchener. Egypt would be the key to a descent on the Sudan.Yes, it's desert- apart from the Nile valley.

    But why would NATO do it ?
    "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
    Samuel Johnson.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post
      But why would NATO do it ?
      Well they did Bosnia and Kosovo and Libya. There are two parts to the process. One is how to actually do it technically and the other is to lobby our democratic governments to start or join a military coalition, not necessarily NATO.

      Comment


      • #4
        Bosnia and Kosovo were in Europe. Libya was on the Mediterranean Sea. The Sudan is a lot further away and no NATO country has any special interests there

        Pruitt
        Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

        Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

        by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

        Comment


        • #5
          I'm curious. Why should I care? Why should I endorse a military action? Let them fight it out by themselves. Now a quarantine of arms I would consider.

          Credo quia absurdum.


          Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
            I'm curious. Why should I care? Why should I endorse a military action? Let them fight it out by themselves.
            The government recently (2019-06-03) carried out a massacre (Khartoum Massacre) which included raping women. I would have hoped that you were raised as a child to protect women, without qualification as to the race/religion/nationality/location of those women. I would also hope that your religion teaches you to protect women, and perhaps if it doesn't, part of the War on Terror could be to get you to convert into a religion that does teach that.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
              The Sudan is a lot further away and no NATO country has any special interests there
              I don't believe that NATO/West only ever acts in self-interest. I believe that western governments genuinely care about the welfare of others, which is why they send food aid to Africa and sent troops to Somalia and Haiti. Sudan would be another humanitarian intervention. Besides which, we do have interests there. It is in our interests, as a response to 9/11, to have more Muslim democracies so that we can see whether Muslims can be reformed rather than needing to be genocided. It is also part of geostrategy to have Sudan converted into an allied democracy.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Paul Edwards View Post
                Well they did Bosnia and Kosovo and Libya.
                They can be considered the periphery of Europe, what happens there has direct effect on neighbouring states, Sudan ? Hardly….

                Originally posted by Paul Edwards View Post
                Sudan would be another humanitarian intervention.
                Libya was hardly a "humanitarian intervention", and indeed one could wonder if the Serbs started negociding Muslims today, if anyone would care to act.

                2019 is not 1990.

                It is also part of geostrategy to have Sudan converted into an allied democracy.
                That would nice yes, but considered unrealistic imho, at most should the situation deteriorate there you could see limited bilateral action genre Mali, not full blown NATO invasion.

                Also with Trump in the White House, NATO is pretty much dead in the water, short of Russian invasion no one is going to send national troops abroad with him in command.

                The US lobbied to put the Syria/Iraq operation against IS under the NATO flag, don't know if that ever actually happened - I doubt it ?

                Edit,

                A compromise was reached apparently, NATO "joined" the existing US coalition in a supporting role..

                While all 28 nations in Nato have individually joined the coalition - some sending war planes to assist in US-led bombing of the jihadists’ positions in Syria and Iraq - the alliance has not formally followed suit.

                Mr Stoltenberg was keen to stress Nato’s role would not involve combat, instead expanding its use of surveillance planes, stepping up Iraqi training programmes, and creating a new cell in Brussels to co-ordinate anti-terror intelligence and planning.
                https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a7755751.html
                Last edited by Snowygerry; 19 Jun 19, 03:58.
                High Admiral Snowy, Commander In Chief of the Naval Forces of The Phoenix Confederation.
                Major Atticus Finch - ACW Rainbow Co.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
                  That would nice yes, but considered unrealistic imho
                  The factors that you think make it unrealistic for Sudan to be converted into an allied secular capitalist liberal democracy, and not a member of the Non-Aligned Movement are exactly what we need to resolve as a response to 9/11. The response to 9/11 may include changing ourselves, not just overthrowing foreign regimes. E.g. the problem you cite with NATO could be resolved by letting France take the military lead in NATO for relatively minor overseas operations. France was the front-man for Libya too. It was good to see someone else stepping up to the plate instead of relying on the US to do everything.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Paul Edwards View Post
                    The factors that you think make it unrealistic for Sudan to be converted into an allied secular capitalist liberal democracy, and not a member of the Non-Aligned Movement are exactly what we need to resolve as a response to 9/11. The response to 9/11 may include changing ourselves, not just overthrowing foreign regimes.
                    Well it's not as much what I think - but what the various national governments that make up the NATO decision making process think about it.

                    E.g. the problem you cite with NATO could be resolved by letting France take the military lead in NATO for relatively minor overseas operations. France was the front-man for Libya too. It was good to see someone else stepping up to the plate instead of relying on the US to do everything.
                    That's what they do in Mali yes..

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Serval

                    Then again Mali and surroundings have strategic and commercial resources that interest the French in particular, Sudan to my knowledge, has not.

                    "Nation building" is not part of that though, maybe as an unintended "side effect" - but I doubt it.
                    High Admiral Snowy, Commander In Chief of the Naval Forces of The Phoenix Confederation.
                    Major Atticus Finch - ACW Rainbow Co.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
                      Well it's not as much what I think - but what the various national governments that make up the NATO decision making process think about it.
                      Well I think we need grassroots political activism to lobby the NATO countries. Also as part of the general response to 9/11. And it shouldn't just be members of NATO countries doing this lobbying. I for example am Australian. I would like to see Libyans lobbying NATO for further interventions too. And lobbying to join NATO too. At the end of the day, the response I would like to see to 9/11 is the entire damned world formally committed to protecting MY human rights. Not just my human rights, but also the rights of Americans working in skyscrapers.

                      "Nation building" is not part of that though, maybe as an unintended "side effect" - but I doubt it.
                      I am not proposing we do nation-building in Sudan. Merely topple the military dictatorship so that the existing civilian uprising is allowed to succeed.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Paul Edwards View Post
                        I would like to see Libyans lobbying NATO for further interventions too. And lobbying to join NATO too.
                        There have been further "interventions", but not of the humanitarian kind...

                        Basically UK, France, Italy, US, Russia and what not, have all adopted one or more of the various competing factions and now they're all fighting for supremacy.

                        https://www.ecfr.eu/mena/mapping_libya_conflict

                        Good luck sorting that out...

                        Merely topple the military dictatorship so that the existing civilian uprising is allowed to succeed.
                        I fear the "grassroots" political climate in Europe atm. is one of let them sort it out, and keep them out.

                        We just had EU elections, but toppling African dictators was not high on the agenda I'm affraid.

                        At the end of the day, the response I would like to see to 9/11 is the entire damned world formally committed to protecting MY human rights. Not just my human rights, but also the rights of Americans working in skyscrapers.
                        9/11 Was 20 years ago, the young people we would sending to Africa to topple dictators, were barely born then.

                        Maybe there was a momentum to do such things back in 2000, but it was wasted on Iraq and Afghanistan...
                        Last edited by Snowygerry; 19 Jun 19, 04:57.
                        High Admiral Snowy, Commander In Chief of the Naval Forces of The Phoenix Confederation.
                        Major Atticus Finch - ACW Rainbow Co.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
                          I fear the "grassroots" political climate in Europe atm. is one of let them sort it out
                          Then part of the response to 9/11 needs to be to reeducate Europe. We shouldn't be asking for Sudanese women to sort out the RSF thugs raping them.

                          We just had EU elections, but toppling African dictators was not high on the agenda I'm affraid.
                          There have been things like Live Aid in the past. I consider state-slavery where women don't even have the right to not be raped is worse than natural starvation due to overpopulation.

                          9/11 Was 20 years ago, the young people we would sending to Africa to topple dictators, were barely born then.
                          Then we need to educate young people about the importance of 9/11 and that we haven't remotely finished avenging the WTC jumpers, and that this event will continue to guide foreign policy for decades or centuries.

                          Maybe there was a momentum to do such things back in 2000, but it was wasted on Iraq and Afghanistan...
                          Afghanistan and Iraq were not wasted efforts. We were able to do remarkable things - stand up democracies in places that had no history of democracy. By force of arms. Something that was supposedly impossible. The feedback we got from these actions showed that immediate genocide of all Muslims, or all Arab Muslims, or all Arabs, was not definitely necessary, and we should stay our hand for now.

                          To me there is no choice. The only sure way America can ensure that foreign terrorists never again commit 9/11 is to genocide literally all foreigners, including Australia. Note that an Australian terrorist recently mass-murdered people in New Zealand. It is only by chance that he did that in New Zealand and not the US. To avoid genociding all "foreigners", including Australians, we need America to treat all foreign countries as defacto extensions of the US, such that any terrorism committed by a foreigner is considered to be defacto home-grown terrorism like Timothy McVeigh, and there is nothing for the US military to do, such as lobbing a nuke at McVeigh's home town.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Paul Edwards View Post
                            I am not proposing we do nation-building in Sudan. Merely topple the military dictatorship so that the existing civilian uprising is allowed to succeed.
                            Just like in the Afghan thread, you are delusional. These areas (they hardly qualify as states, and they certainly are NOT nations) are populated by heathen savages without a trace of the underlying Judeo-Christian cultural foundation that produced the rational Enlightenment-liberal that you (and any number of others, including George W.Bush and his neocon sychophants) assume is universal. Hobbes (I think) described life in nature as has nasty, brutish, and short. These people don't care about your supposedly universal values, they care about getting things for their tribe or clan at the expense of any outsiders. And they have severe cultural dysfunctions even within their own- see child marriage, first cousin marriage, and FGM, in this case. I'm not particularly familiar with Sudan, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a strong current of homosexual pederasty there, too. The idea that the dysfunction in these places is caused by the oppression of Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, or a military dictatorship is specious. If we replaced the current ruling shitheads, the savages would just pick another group of shitheads to rule, because shithead is the only available choice.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Paul Edwards View Post
                              Afghanistan and Iraq were not wasted efforts. We were able to do remarkable things - stand up democracies in places that had no history of democracy. By force of arms. Something that was supposedly impossible. The feedback we got from these actions showed that immediate genocide of all Muslims, or all Arab Muslims, or all Arabs, was not definitely necessary, and we should stay our hand for now.
                              You don't really have any idea of what Afghanistan and Iraq look like, do you? What actually exists is not anything like a functioning, self-sustaining democracy. What exists is a bunch of uncivilized, heathen savages presenting the facade of what we demand as long as we are willing to pay for it and enforce it at our cost and to their individual and group benefit.

                              Originally posted by Paul Edwards View Post
                              To me there is no choice. The only sure way America can ensure that foreign terrorists never again commit 9/11 is to genocide literally all foreigners, including Australia. Note that an Australian terrorist recently mass-murdered people in New Zealand. It is only by chance that he did that in New Zealand and not the US. To avoid genociding all "foreigners", including Australians, we need America to treat all foreign countries as defacto extensions of the US, such that any terrorism committed by a foreigner is considered to be defacto home-grown terrorism like Timothy McVeigh, and there is nothing for the US military to do, such as lobbing a nuke at McVeigh's home town.
                              What does this even mean? Pure, nonsensical, delusional rantings.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X