In the shadow of war

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.worldmag.com/articles/19418 This is worth reading

Why?
Would you like to give your opinion or a summary to get the topic moving?

Sudan is a fertile breeding ground for terror. The Arab spring countries will be too in a few years but that can't be addressed yet. A few fighters and attack planes and helicopters, some patriot batteries, some marines and special forces, and some B-52 strikes would go along way. Also, secretly fund some mercenaries and allow them to act outside the Geneva convention so they can use the best weapon of all: pig's blood. Let them copy General John Pershing's actions in the Moro wars by executing prisoners with bullets dipped in pig's blood and freeing witnesses. If Sudanese troops and guerrillas were getting injected with pig's blood and executed, or eaten live by pigs, the number of troops willing to fight will dwindle. If we sprayed pig's blood over towns and cities the way we sprayed agent orange over Vietnam. It doesn't have to be another Afghanistan or nearly as expensive. As long as we fight brutally enough for the Sudanese to get the message, the Islamists will have to settle down. The northern areas don't have as much jungle as the south, and doesn't have the kind of terrain (on the same scale) to copy the Taliban's tactics.

The separation of the two Sudan's into seperate states was supposed to be the end of the war.
But it looks like the fun has only begun.

There is fault on both sides from what I gather ( the south agressed against the north in some places).

But the north is more powerful.



What can you say? One more African bloodbath in the making.
A few hundred miles to the north east of the inter sudanese border is the Darfur region of the same republic of what is now North Sudan. Darfur is still an issue.

South Sudan has no oil so the US wont get involved in rescuing it from the North.

So what do you suggest?

Sudan is the largest country in Africa. The Nile flows through it.

First we send in the Missionaries, then the guns.

After partition it has been the South that has has been taking land from the north, and that was a millitary invasion. They went after an oil field.

Women and children are in camps in the south, the men are in the north with guns.

The government has been fighting an armed enemy, for years. Many of them from Uganda. Black Africans from the south have been crossing into Sudan like Mexicans in the night, and now claim it as their own.

Darfur is all along the border with Chad, where Blacks have been coming over the border invading the mountains. Darfur is historically Arab, all the place names are, which some are trying to make part of Greater Chad.

When will the UN Partition the US, forming a majority Hispanic country?

They too are recent invaders, born in another country, without papers, permission, land title, of another religion, language, culture, color, who have just as much right to Freedom as anyone.

In Mauritania they had the same problem, they rounded up 70,000 and dumped them back in Senegal. Crossing a river does not give ownership, citizenship, or minority status.

The US deports 250,000 a year, and those just the convicted Felons.

Sudan has an illegal immigrant problem, and someone has been giving them guns.

The reason for the partition, and why the People and Government accepted it, was to end fighting.

It is now South Sudan that is staging cross border raids and occupying an oil field in the north, and making further claims on the land of the north.

If you have a problem with the partition, take it up with the UN. Both sides agreed, the south would be it's own country, the north their own.

Even before feeding the starving children, building houses, farming, the south is conducting war on the north.

Like the partition of India, people were supposed to move to the partition setup for thier group. Same for Ireland.

The north gave up part of their country for peace, but the south did not deal in good faith, to them a partition is only a staging area for continuing the war.

There are no men in the camps, they are off fighting, occupying a North Sudan oil field where workers, government troops, civil government, local villages were killed without warning or a declaration of war, in a cross border raid.

UN Supplies meant for the poor starving children went to their army, these victims of evil Arab slavery and genocide, are the ones doing the invading and shooting and killing, just as they did in Darfur.

The first act of newly created South Sudan, was to launch war on the north and invade.

Peace talks are not working out.

South Sudan is about to learn that they are no longer being policed as illegal aliens in someone else's country, but are a country, have declared war on the neighbor, invaded, slaughtered, occupied, and now have the status of, "Enemy Combatant"

Sudan has said, "This means war," the oil fields will be recovered,

The north reports they have the oil field, and 1300 dead southerners.

None of that Undocumented Alien stuff, Enemy combatant deaths.

The south is telling the UN that they did not mean real borders, just make the other people, that have lived there for thousands of years, go away, and even if it is not part of the south, they want half of all the oil.

Next they will demand half the Red Sea Ports.

The south wanted UN Peacekeepers to monitor their new oil field. The UN said withdraw behind the agreed border, then we can talk. The south refused. The UN told both sides to settle it between themselves. Next day the oil fields changed hands.

Until the last the north was talking to the UN about upholding the agreement, witheld reacting, giving Peace and the UN a chance.

The south refused, made more demands, it worked before, and the 1300 seem to be the entire force they were going to take over the world with. While it looked powerful to them, the reports do not speak of any prisoners, survivors, or escaped back across the border. Killed to the last man.

1300 is a lot of guns, perhaps we will find where they came from,

Meanwhile in Syria, the UN is being protected by the Government, from the International Terrorists who refuse to hold talks. Their comment was a 2200 pound bomb set off in morning rush hour traffic, killing 55, injuring hundreds.

Those who claim to be the Government of Syria in exile have been found to be one guy with a cheap office, who puts out press releases. He has no visable means of support. There are three, Istanbul, Paris, London, and they are all reading from the same page. Assad must leave first is their only answer. They have no idea of what government they want, how it would be different,

They just want Assad, his government, armed forces, all supporters, and the Russians to leave, as a precondition to talks. In the recent election 64% turnout, the Syrian people supported the government.

That means 25,000,000 have to leave as a precondition to talks, and they will not be allowed to talk if they do.

Clinton called the election a fraud, because no International Terrorist were registered to vote, and even in America, the voter turnout is always way less than 64%.

She made these comments In Saudi Arabia where the turnout is always 100%, and they all vote for the King. Her international mission was to sell more Bonds, since China stopped buying.

The King told her after Assad leaves, and Iran is destroyed, would be a better time to talk.

The Turks shut up after Putin called them South Georgians.

This conflict can't be solved with violence alone. It would simply erupt elsewhere, in any region with more than one ethnic group, as has been happening across Africa since decolonisation. Africa is not a continent fit for the current system. After decolonisation, colonial borders have often been kept, or unrealistic new borders have been drawn by revolutionary governments. These borders usually didn't take into account the ethnic groups living in them, meaning some have been divided into two or three countries. They also didn't take into account religious factors, which can cause a lot of trouble in a region notorious for sectarian violence. In some countries, there are religious majorities in some region that are subject to governance from a group that is a minority there. South Sudan used to be an example of those struggles - Christian, but subject to islamic governance. The main problem in Africa now is that random governments, often dominated by one ethnic or religious group, are expected to effectively and fairly govern a lot of other groups.

One solution I'd consider myself a proponent of is to divide Africa in a better way and enforce the division from the outside until it's settled. Divide it much more along ethnic and religious lines, and not political or previous-owner lines. People are much less likely to be violent, separatist or oppressive against their own ethnic and religious group. And really, Sudan and West Africa are the regions most affected by violence both political and religious, while also having most 'ethnic diversity' within countries.

The UN has not done well in Africa. Even language groups were broken up in tribes that fought for land.

Leave them alone, they will fight.

A few things I picked up reading about Mauritania. The southern blacks called the Arab plus mixes White People. White People covers everything that is not tribal black. The Colonials left stories, about how bad those White People were.

When the Sudan war started, the south were called african animists, that same faith that produced Voodoo. spirits are everywhere, and now they are called christians.

Sudan, being on the Red Sea, met them all, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Baal, Jewish, Christian, but were early converts to Islam, about 1300 years ago. Sub Saharan Africans never changed.

The Colonial era was something of a big game hunt, Africans being considered a form of Gorilla. The survivors were enslaved in place, and White People took the land.

The fighting is going on along the White Line in the north, where Black African meets Arab, Islamic, and we can hardly tell the differance, it is a cultural thing.

The main causes are drought in the Sahal, Lake Chad dried up, overpopulation, and other groups pushing from the south. The same things that caused humans to leave Africa long ago.

Before the colonial era, tribal warfare kept them in check. When an outside enemy showed up, Shaka Zulu fought his own tribe, became chief leader, and warred on the British. It could only hold together for a war, then they broke up, to village warfare.

All hunter gather people report that 10% or more are killed within the tribe, and more in conflict with the neighbors. That is if you are winning. Losing meant genocide.

While they are border warriors, they are not a force without a strong leader. The 1300 that died in Sudan, likely died in an hour, from not understanding millitary warfare.

The problem is they have almost stopped killing each other, and the population is booming. Nigeria is on a path to out number the US in fifty years.

This is not going away.

There are some excellent points being made here. With that being said though this bit about Pershing using pig’s blood against the Moro in the Philippians has never been documented nor does it align with his record while there. So most likely it’s not true, he was actually pretty humane in comparison to some of the other commanders that were there at the time. I also believe history bears out that when people become fanatic about a cause the normal taboos no longer apply.

The Sudan is originally an African influence country its people were called Nubians in ancient times and was prodomintly Christian until the Muslim conquest, hence enter the Arabs. The colony powers did not do anyone any favors by carving Africa up the way they did and the African’s have no real concept of freedom as a whole as we know it in the western world, they are familiar with only power.

If one must go to war though it must be total war, it actually tends to lead to shorter and less bloody outcomes. Half measures won’t do.

"The essence of war is violence; moderation in war is imbecility."
Jacky Fisher