AWArulz
Knackwurst
   
  
     
 
 
Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY
Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 1 min.
| AIM: |  |
| | | Y!: |  |
|
|  #41 Posted on 15.9.06 2334.50 | Instant Rating: 6.71 | Originally posted by Stephanie
OK - the US won't enter a sovereign nation with troops without an invitation. However, we're advising the UN to send "peacekeepers" (read: troops) into another sovereign country without their invitation; that sounds a lot like advising an invasion. Perhaps we should just declare a "resolution" and enter Pakistan - that seems to make anything all right.
Steph
Let's start by establishing that Pakistan and Sudan are both members of the UN, as is the United States.
http://www.un.org/Overview/unmember.html
as a member state, Sudan should be willing to abide by UN Security Council resolutions. Resolution 1706 regarding a peace accord and external peacekeepers has been approved 12-0-3, to implement the status-of-forces agreement dated 9 October 1990. It voted that 17,300 more military personnel and an appropriate civilian component including up to 3,300 civilian police personnel and up to 16 Formed Police Units would be sent to help Sudan maintain the peace.
But they refuse. Only a full member resolution can approve a UN forced peacekeeping force. Not us, the whole world.Until that happens, the world has to wait for Sudan to invite us. You see, that HAD happened for Iraq.
Now: can we, or france or Saudi Arabia do it on their own? Sure, but it would piss off Kofi Annan. You see, it shouldn't have happened in Iraq because they had already called for it. But whatever.
Pakistan had a goverment in some measure of control of its borders, and we're allies. Nuff Said.
(edited by AWArulz on 16.9.06 0037)
We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center. | CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス
Since last post: 18 hours
Last activity: 1 hour
| #42 Posted on 15.9.06 2338.20 | Instant Rating: 9.25 | Originally posted by Stephanie
OK - the US won't enter a sovereign nation with troops without an invitation. However, we're advising the UN to send "peacekeepers" (read: troops) into another sovereign country without their invitation; that sounds a lot like advising an invasion.
You really don't see an "apples & oranges" comparison between "hunting for Osama" and "stopping genocide?" Granted, the Darfur situation is probably one of the most criminally underreported story by our fine mainstream press. I'll spare you the Google; you can do that one on your own if you're interested.
As for the peacekeeps, they have already been authorized, although apparently not sent.
The UN Security Council passed Resolution 1706 at the end of August, (daccess-ods.un.org) (44K PDF - HTML version can be found here (state.gov))
Besides, forget what W thinks about Darfur - George Clooney (un.org) thinks something should be done! GEORGE CLOONEY! ;-)
Perhaps we should just declare a "resolution" and enter Pakistan - that seems to make anything all right.
Steph
We've never "declared" a resolution - they actually exist when the UN actually passes them. I'm sure if we thought we could get the other permanent members of the Security Council on board, you'd have seen a resolution by now, but somehow I doubt the UN would see it our way.
UN aside, there's also the whole "Pakistan's a friend" thing that's probably keeping W respectful of their sovereignty.
EDIT: Up late, AWARulz? ;-)
(edited by CRZ on 15.9.06 2340)
| AWArulz
Knackwurst
Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY
Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 1 min.
| AIM: | |
| | | Y!: | |
|
| #43 Posted on 16.9.06 1153.15 | Instant Rating: 6.71 | Originally posted by CRZ
EDIT: Up late, AWARulz? ;-)
Watching Letterman, reading UN Security council resolutions, eatin' some Pizza, thinking about Cuba.
Mrs AWA is at her Dad's - so me and the one left at home are batch'n it.
We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center. | spf
Scrapple
Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada
Since last post: 23 days
Last activity: 2 days
| AIM: |  |
| | |
| #44 Posted on 18.9.06 1620.35 | Instant Rating: 5.57 | Originally posted by CRZ
UN aside, there's also the whole "Pakistan's a friend" thing that's probably keeping W respectful of their sovereignty.
Well that and the fact that considering we haven't been able to pacify a group of tribal warlords and cave-dwelling militants in Afghanistan or various splintered Sunni groups in Iraq, I'm thinking pissing off a nuclear-armed nation with a modern well-equipped military is not exactly something we want to do. There's a reason that we have tried to avoid going to war with anyone who is remotely close to being able to match our capabilities since Vietnam. Hence Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq II. And the lack of action in N. Korea, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, and to some degree China.
Now I'll never be able to lead SPF's spfers! (The W) | | Pages: Prev 1 2 3
| | | | |
Thread rated: 6.20
