You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Africa: Horn
Britain preparing to send troops to Darfur
2004-12-26
While Liz and Chuckles may be a tad clueless, Mr. Blair is ready to step up to the, er, wicket.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair has ordered the military to prepare to deploy up to 3,000 soldiers to the conflict-torn Sudanese region of Darfur, the Independent on Sunday reported. The newspaper, without quoting sources, said the deployment would be discussed next month with senior military officials. "When you decide to make an intervention you have got to be able to move fast," it quoted an unnamed minister as saying. Any deployment by Britain would be undertaken as part of a new European Union rapid reaction force, it said.
In that case it won't be "rapid".
Fewer than 1,000 peacekeepers are on the ground in Darfur, as part of an African Union force dispatched to help monitor a ceasefire between rebels and government troops. But their presence, expected to be boosted to 3,200, has had little impact so far, amid continued violence between the two sides.
One peacekeeper per every 100 square kilometers? Yeah, I'd say that's true.
Posted by:Steve White

#5   Oh, but the LLL is wrong, you see, thar's O-I-L in that thar country. Oh my God!!!! The Brit's MUST be after all of that OIL!!!
Let's see how many troops line up from France and Germany for that dog and pony show.

>>Aris Too bad the left ALWAYS drags their asses for YEARS while millions die in Kosovo/Serbia/Croatia/Bosnia-Herz. and Dafur. Let's not forget the swift action the LLL took to protect millions in Rwanda too. Uh oh. I did forget, they didn't do shit but business as usual. (Read as talk, talk, talk, (is it over yet?), talk, talk, talk (is it over yet?)
Posted by: 98zulu   2004-12-26 7:40:20 PM  

#4  According to the LLL, this is a 'good' intervention because the West really has nothing at stake.

I think I would more describe it like this: There's a portion of the Left that supports interventions to stop preexisting conflicts, but doesn't support interventions to overthrow tyrannies.

Which is why this portion of the Left supported interventions in Kosovo and now Darfur, but wouldn't support interventions in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2004-12-26 6:08:11 PM  

#3  Yes we will smn. I don't want you to worry about that. So rest easy.
Posted by: Shipman   2004-12-26 9:17:51 AM  

#2  According to the LLL, this is a 'good' intervention because the West really has nothing at stake. And most of the LLL is willing to admit that what is happening in Darfur is (or approaches) genocide.

I've always thought that the LLL was willing to use military power right up to the moment the USA would declare its intentions to intervene; after which all military moves are declared immoral. Let's see if the same is true when the Brits make a move.
Posted by: Steve White   2004-12-26 12:25:04 AM  

#1  Interesting to see if the Brits have as much seething and venom on this assignment, then they did by helping their US 'friends' with Iraq. Oh, by the way, we won't be down there to back them up!
Posted by: smn   2004-12-26 12:22:38 AM  

00:00