14 ms·

Let's be honest. If someone did send in the troops to restore order, people would be screaming "How dare you invade a sovereign country" or "You're only doing

by csense 5mo ago

Let's be honest. If someone did send in the troops to restore order, people would be screaming "How dare you invade a sovereign country" or "You're only doing this because you want oil" or "The President wants to make Sudan the 51st state" or "You're wasting money and soldiers' lives messing around in a place most of us can't even put on a map" or "You're just doing whatever the Jews tell you to do."

RIMR 5mo ago
That's probably because: A. Our tactics would constitute an invasion B. We would try to seize oil or other natural resources while we were there. C. The president would literally say something like this on national television.
LightBug1 5mo ago
[flagged]
- nradov 5mo ago
  Which international peacekeepers? They have to come from somewhere. How would they be armed? Would they have artillery and air support or small arms only? What would the rules of engagement be?
  - LightBug1 5mo ago
    What do you think international peacekeepers means? Where do you think they've come from before? How do you think they've been armed before? What have the rules of engagement in previous peacekeeping missions been? I notice you skipped the piece about pressuring the key players, which is much closer to a solution than what you chose to focus on. Any more questions? Because that seems to be all you have. Pop over to Claude or GPT. I heard it might have some answers.
    - nradov 5mo ago
      What a silly, low-effort comment. It's always sad to see that level of arrogant ignorance on HN. There haven't been many examples of international peacekeepers imposing peace by force. In the few cases where peacekeeping missions sort of worked usually the warring parties already had some sort of truce or at least the major fighting had stopped. Where there was no peace to keep, the international peacekeepers have been ineffective. Sometimes they even ended up becoming victims themselves due to restrictive RoE and lack of firepower. The reality is that only the USA and maybe France has the expeditionary military capability including tactical air power necessary to execute a mission like this. No other country is in a position to even try. And I wouldn't want to see American lives wasted trying to impose peace in Sudan.
      - LightBug1 5mo ago
        Welcome to the elite club. You fit right in. Note, you STILL couldn't bring yourself to the real meat of the argument. Even your military argument was pathetic. Enjoy festering.
- cindyllm 5mo ago
  [dead]
papa0101 5mo ago
then bloody stop sending troops to all other countries under whatever pretexts.
- renewiltord 5mo ago
  [flagged]
  - watwut 5mo ago
    I do not know who it is "we", but Trump is certainly NOT trying to stop sending soldiers abroad. Instead, it is using them to attack Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, boats on the see cause killing is fun and to threaten Greenland. Iran is completely pointless and expensive war in particular. Also, pressuring Ukraine to give up more territory then Russia took is NOT "stopping to mess in other peoples affairs" either. Also, what Vance is doing in Europe is not "stopping to mess in other peoples affairs" but instead "meddling into politics trying to make far right happen". Trade war with Canada and numerous attempts to "punish" other countries for prosecuting corruption are also meddling.
    - renewiltord 5mo ago
      [flagged]
      - actionfromafar 5mo ago
        The US is too large to pretend it can be isolationist.
        renewiltord 5mo ago
        The Europeans want us out of Europe. So maybe we should go. I think that seems mutually agreeable. Let them slaughter each other again and we can come stop it and pick up the pieces. Again. Always have to be the adult in the room.
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
Calavar 5mo ago
It's really hard to cry victim about others misrepresenting Trump's motives for the Iran war as oil, oil, oil when the US did in fact launch a military attack on a country - within the last six months - where the subsequent negotiated agreement on oil rights was quite literally described by the White House press secretary as "the president’s control of Venezuela’s oil" [1] and just a few weeks later the president held a public, televised conference with Chevron and ExxonMobil executives in the White House where he pitched them on investing in the Venezuelan oil industry [2] [1] https://www.wsj.com/business/energy-oil/trump-venezuela-oil-us-control-plan-265a39c1 https://www.wsj.com/business/energy-oil/trump-venezuela-oil-... [2] https://youtu.be/sD4x6T-u4XY https://youtu.be/sD4x6T-u4XY
fwipsy 5mo ago
If the article called for direct military intervention, I missed it.
SadTrombone 5mo ago
There are other countries and coalitions in the world that aren't the United States. Humanity fought and ended wars for thousands of years before the United States ever existed.
- yostrovs 5mo ago
  Most of the countries and coalitions you're alluding to have no functional militaries or actual interest in doing something about the war. They do strongly condemn.
insane_dreamer 5mo ago
No one is saying the US should send troops to Sudan. But it has made the situation for civilians much much worse by gutting USAID, and it could flex its might to force diplomatic solutions to end the fighting, but it's not. If Sudan had oil though, we'd probably have already see the US militarily involved.
dist-epoch 5mo ago
Exactly this, the same "The Guardian" that routinely complains that any western/US military intervention in Africa is "western colonialism" is now begging for western/US military intervention. Typical example: > Colonialism in Africa is still alive and well > Today’s waves of migration are a direct result of Britain’s disastrous intervention in the ousting and killing of the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. > The current situation is down to the failure of western powers, particularly the US and British governments, who feel they’re the custodians of almighty power and believed could do as they wished in Africa without any blowback. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/01/colonialism-in-africa-is-still-alive-and-well https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/01/colonialism-in...

by csense 5mo ago

RIMR 5mo ago

That's probably because: A. Our tactics would constitute an invasion B. We would try to seize oil or other natural resources while we were there. C. The president would literally say something like this on national television.

LightBug1 5mo ago

[flagged]

nradov 5mo ago
Which international peacekeepers? They have to come from somewhere. How would they be armed? Would they have artillery and air support or small arms only? What would the rules of engagement be?
- LightBug1 5mo ago
  What do you think international peacekeepers means? Where do you think they've come from before? How do you think they've been armed before? What have the rules of engagement in previous peacekeeping missions been? I notice you skipped the piece about pressuring the key players, which is much closer to a solution than what you chose to focus on. Any more questions? Because that seems to be all you have. Pop over to Claude or GPT. I heard it might have some answers.
  - nradov 5mo ago
    What a silly, low-effort comment. It's always sad to see that level of arrogant ignorance on HN. There haven't been many examples of international peacekeepers imposing peace by force. In the few cases where peacekeeping missions sort of worked usually the warring parties already had some sort of truce or at least the major fighting had stopped. Where there was no peace to keep, the international peacekeepers have been ineffective. Sometimes they even ended up becoming victims themselves due to restrictive RoE and lack of firepower. The reality is that only the USA and maybe France has the expeditionary military capability including tactical air power necessary to execute a mission like this. No other country is in a position to even try. And I wouldn't want to see American lives wasted trying to impose peace in Sudan.
    - LightBug1 5mo ago
      Welcome to the elite club. You fit right in. Note, you STILL couldn't bring yourself to the real meat of the argument. Even your military argument was pathetic. Enjoy festering.
cindyllm 5mo ago
[dead]

papa0101 5mo ago

then bloody stop sending troops to all other countries under whatever pretexts.

renewiltord 5mo ago
[flagged]
- watwut 5mo ago
  I do not know who it is "we", but Trump is certainly NOT trying to stop sending soldiers abroad. Instead, it is using them to attack Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, boats on the see cause killing is fun and to threaten Greenland. Iran is completely pointless and expensive war in particular. Also, pressuring Ukraine to give up more territory then Russia took is NOT "stopping to mess in other peoples affairs" either. Also, what Vance is doing in Europe is not "stopping to mess in other peoples affairs" but instead "meddling into politics trying to make far right happen". Trade war with Canada and numerous attempts to "punish" other countries for prosecuting corruption are also meddling.
  - renewiltord 5mo ago
    [flagged]
    - actionfromafar 5mo ago
      The US is too large to pretend it can be isolationist.
      - renewiltord 5mo ago
        The Europeans want us out of Europe. So maybe we should go. I think that seems mutually agreeable. Let them slaughter each other again and we can come stop it and pick up the pieces. Again. Always have to be the adult in the room.

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]

Calavar 5mo ago

It's really hard to cry victim about others misrepresenting Trump's motives for the Iran war as oil, oil, oil when the US did in fact launch a military attack on a country - within the last six months - where the subsequent negotiated agreement on oil rights was quite literally described by the White House press secretary as "the president’s control of Venezuela’s oil" [1] and just a few weeks later the president held a public, televised conference with Chevron and ExxonMobil executives in the White House where he pitched them on investing in the Venezuelan oil industry [2] [1] https://www.wsj.com/business/energy-oil/trump-venezuela-oil-us-control-plan-265a39c1 https://www.wsj.com/business/energy-oil/trump-venezuela-oil-... [2] https://youtu.be/sD4x6T-u4XY https://youtu.be/sD4x6T-u4XY

fwipsy 5mo ago

If the article called for direct military intervention, I missed it.

SadTrombone 5mo ago

There are other countries and coalitions in the world that aren't the United States. Humanity fought and ended wars for thousands of years before the United States ever existed.

yostrovs 5mo ago
Most of the countries and coalitions you're alluding to have no functional militaries or actual interest in doing something about the war. They do strongly condemn.

insane_dreamer 5mo ago

No one is saying the US should send troops to Sudan. But it has made the situation for civilians much much worse by gutting USAID, and it could flex its might to force diplomatic solutions to end the fighting, but it's not. If Sudan had oil though, we'd probably have already see the US militarily involved.

dist-epoch 5mo ago

Exactly this, the same "The Guardian" that routinely complains that any western/US military intervention in Africa is "western colonialism" is now begging for western/US military intervention. Typical example: > Colonialism in Africa is still alive and well > Today’s waves of migration are a direct result of Britain’s disastrous intervention in the ousting and killing of the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. > The current situation is down to the failure of western powers, particularly the US and British governments, who feel they’re the custodians of almighty power and believed could do as they wished in Africa without any blowback. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/01/colonialism-in-africa-is-still-alive-and-well https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/01/colonialism-in...