Why won't Europe do anything about The Sudan?

Norway will send a force of 170 to a United Nations force planned to enter the Darfur region in Sudan at the end of the year. Link
I think more european countries are also planning to send forces.

 

While Norway's contribution should be duly noted they won't be sending battle forces as per the article:

"The Norwegian contingent will consist of engineers and transport, not battle forces."

 

why send in battle forces

 

Um, well there is a little problem with the Muslim militia who are running rampant in the country. With battle forces present, the military sends a clear signal about who is in charge.

 

thats not always true, sometimes a foreign battle force sends the message that they are there to take over, this causes people to start beliving in what the militia is saying and join them. sending in a foreign army is not always the answer

 

Right. Do you even understand what is going on there? It is sectarian violence, much like has gone on in your area of the world for decades, but on a much grander scale. Christians or animists would not even be welcomed to join the opposition. They will continue to be slaughtered.

 

if you are talking about sectarian violence in the north of ireland, every time the British army went in to either help or hinder (depending on who you are talking to) it was always a major recruiting campaign for different organisations.

yes i know what is happening like many other militias these were funded by us dollors they have the weapons and the strength to do alot of damage to ordinary people but when requests are made to send in troops the leader of Sudan government won't let un troops in but now the us ambassador has resigned this may change.

 

Europe has always been passive. In history all their wars were completely senseless and over some anymosities, never about fighting a cause that needed to be faught. When there is something important happening, they are hiding. Except the UK and a few others who are at least trying to help somewhat. They know that what the US is doing is necessary. Their minds seem to be far more open and alert than the ones of their neighbors. It´s really scarry to watch how cowardly the European media in general attacks the US and their efforts. This is not about oil or making politicians rich. It´s about world peace.

Don´t any of you guys remember high school? How do you stop a bully from bullying you? By standing there and saying ¨please don´t hurt me¨?

 

Good point! And, it amazes me how many people in "the west" think that those in "the east" and elsewhere see things the same way that we do. While we may consider diplomacy, they want victory including the annihilation of Israel.

 

Have you not thought that the reason Europe is hanging back is because they put more effort into trying to find a peaceful resolution before going in all guns blazing (except for the UK that is so far up the USAs arse it has to do exactly what the USA tells it too because Blair is nothing but a poodle.)

I must admit some nations are a little bit timid, maybe a lot of the people in countries such as France and Germany believe that the threats such as Saddam and his (non existent) WMDs were over-exaggerated.

These are very dangerous times and countrys sending troops into unwinnable "wars" such as in Iraq where there is a very likely chance that they will not come back can make any rational nation think twice.

 

I believe they "hold back" because they are weak on defense. Because the US will protect them. Is that not correct? The US has an "obligation" to protect them after WWII? I remember seeing a show on this a while back, on Discovery Times where this was brought up and why welfare across Europe is so rampant. Basically because they don't have to spend much on defense.

 

I believe they "hold back" because they are weak on defense. Because the US will protect them. Is that not correct? The US has an "obligation" to protect them after WWII? I remember seeing a show on this a while back, on Discovery Times where this was brought up and why welfare across Europe is so rampant. Basically because they don't have to spend much on defense.

​

Which is exactly why I believe the US should pull our troops out of most of western Europe. If the Soviet threat is gone, why are we still there?

 

Yes. End the occupation of western USA!

 

LOL. Yes, I see the error of my way! Thank you for pointing it out; now corrected!

 

Things have changed, things are different than they once were. This is not Ghandi going against the UK government or the 60´s hippies protesting the establishment. We have a real enemie, as real as Hitler was an enemie of the world.

 

The only things that have changed are the weapons & methods being used in war. For thousands of years man has been invading other countries for whatever reason, its a fact of life that will continue until the extinction of man.

As AGS said Europe would rather find a peaceful resolution to a threat because of their past experience with conflicts.

As Shannon pointed out when the British troops came into Ireland in the 60's it created major recruiting campaign for different organisations, which is eactly what happened in Iraq and isnt going to be solved in the next year or two. It took the North of Ireland over 30 years to solve its conflict but it still stands unstable.

By the way, who is the enemy of the world blogmaster?

 

Most countries are also scared of sending troops because of activists. Politicians don’t want to have a war on their hands so they just choose to ignore it.

 

The biggest problem we are all facing is that the actual threat is being highly over exaggerated as I keep on saying.

We hear every now and then about crazy plots like the "liquid bomb" plot bullshit. The plot would have been impossible* to pull off anyway yet it gets blanket mainstream media coverage for 3 or 4 days. Then what? Do we hear any more about it? No we don't.

But to the average sheeple (the average man on the street that goes to work, comes home and watches the 6 or 10 o'clock news) that is all he sees. He sees it for around 3 days then it goes away, but it sticks in his mind.

Whether it turns out to be a load of old bollocks (as it usually does) is of no consequence, it will not get blanket coverage anyway, in fact, it will be lucky to get a 1 minute slot before the jokesy item at the end of most news programmes.

It is just a prime example of how the media is used to brainwash people.
Remember that just 5 major corporations control nearly all of the worldwide mainstream media, that is why it is so damn easy to spread fear on the people everywhere. Don't need to be Sherloch Holmes to figure that one out.

* This is a must read article:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/

 

AGS, this thread is about Sudan, not conspiracy theories you have.

People are dying there, and I think it's the UN's fault. In Sierra Leone, a private army for hire was operating on a very small budget, with extreme effectiveness. The UN booted them out, because as we all know it, they want their own military. Since then the UN has been working it's ass off to prevent private militaries from helping in other regions e.g Rwanda....leading to millions dying.

Many have been disbanded, officially, and other have to holding positions such as 'advisor'. They're far more effective at bring the peace and at a cheaper cost.

If anything, they need reasonable parameters and allowance of these individuals to operate. I believe Rwanda could have been prevented or scaled down, and so could Darfur. We don't need a centralized force to come-in,...but then again, I don't think the UN gives a fuck about these people.

 

In theory it sounds great, but do you think that doing nothing will stop terror?

Islam extremism is and will remain the enemy of the world for quite some time.