Tuesday, September 07, 2004

Darfur and Sudan

Aaron from Free Will has a damn good piece up about Sudan, Darfur, and international non-action in that area of the world. Go read. I'll be here when you get back.

Dum da dum da dum, hmmmmmmm, dum de dum.....

Back? Great. Here's my take:

America can't do jack squat about Darfur right now. We don't have the troops.

If Clinton hadn't done a military fire sale during his eight years in office, we wouldn't be stretched so thin. But he slashed the military. Seriously, Clinton took a double-bit axe to the military on a regular basis, and it shows. It's a testiment to Bush's leadership that the military is doing as well as it is, but the simple fact remains; if we don't get at least another division of Army troops up and running, we can't continue to do the things we're doing. We don't have the manpower. And I'm not even going to touch what the Navy, Air Force and Marines need. I'm sure there are many other people with more knowledge and expertise in those areas than myself.

However, this whole disaster is exposing the rest of the world for what it is. It's exposing the UN (again!) for what it is. Worthless, weak, corrupt, incompetant, and useless. If the rest of the world REALLY wanted to put an end to the genocide, it could. The USA isn't the only country with a military! There are plenty of other countries who have the means to put a stop to the massacres and murder going on in Sudan.

They just don't want to.

Let me add that Britan and Australia, as well as the other countries in our coalition in Iraq are tapped out as well. Contrary to John Kerry's insults and slander, those countries have a hell of a lot more than 500 troops in Iraq and Afganistan. But what about France? Germany? Spain? What about Russia? Where are all the countries who refused to join the USA because we weren't getting rid of Saddam for "the right reasons"? Where are all those countries who call themselves compassionate and caring? Where the hell is the vaunted UN "peacekeepers"?

The protesters here in the USA got one little miniscule part right. It's all about the oil. FRANCE'S oil. France's TotalFinaElf had huge oil contracts with Saddam, and they have their hand in the cookie jar oilcan when it comes to Sudan as well. Germany, for being so "humanitarian" and "peaceloving", doesn't give two hoots about peace anywhere else. And Russia under Putin looks out for itself first. Sudan pumping oil to the rest of the world is competition. Sudan brutalized by thugs and pumping oil to a few corrupt governments like France means Russia can sell it's oil to other countries instead.

And the UN has always been a toothless paper tiger. When your organization consists mostly of corrupt thugs, theocracies, murderers, terrorists, brutal dictators, and criminals of every stripe, all of whom vote against the few upstanding countries trying to do the right thing, you're just S.O.L. Why the hell should Syria allow the world to stop Sudanese genocide? As far as Syria is concerned, that "ethnic cleansing" is perfectly fine! Muslims killing non-muslims! Jihad, Allahu Ackbar, go brother go! Do you really think Cuba gives a shit about Sudan? Hell no! As far as Castro is concerned, the more focus put on Sudan, the less focus put on the murder and torture of dissidents in his own country. Why the hell should Castro help out Sudan?

The only UN peacekeepers worth a damn were the ones from the Anglosphere - America, Australia, and Britan (with Poland recently rejoining the ranks of the competant). The Dutch? Hiding in their compound while civilians get murdered. Everywhere the UN has put troops from other countries than the big four, murder, rape, child prostitution, and corruption has followed. The UN without the USA is worse than nothing, it's an impediment to peace worldwide.

If you want to get a taste of the world without the USA, look at Sudan. If you want to get a taste of Democrat Party policy, look at Sudan. If you want to get a feel for UN control, look at Sudan. If you want to get a taste of how John "Let's enforce UN sanctions" Kerry would handle terrorism.... look at Sudan.

'Nuff said.

No comments: