Sudan: a Third Front?

Quote:

So here we are. Is an unstable Iran with a nuke capable of taking out Israel or the Saudi oilfields or Ankara acceptable? At what point is it worth American blood and treasure to deal with it? Or do we just live with it?

If I were Iran, I'd want a nuke. It is apparently the only deterrent to US invasion, ie North Korea.

How many countries should we invade to prevent them from having the same capabilities that we already have? Isn't there any other alternative?

What else could be offered by the UN or anybody else when the objective is extermination of undesirables and absolute control?

The point is countless efforts at diplomacy have not worked re Israel vs Palestine; the UN vs Saddam; North vs South Korea; China vs Taiwan, etc. Now in some cases the threat of military and/or economic retaliation has produced an uneasy peace. In cases of radical Islamic fundamentalism, however, diplomacy seems to fall on deaf ears.

Military threats are no longer much of a deterrance since the 'bad guys" (or Dys seems to prefer 'terrorists') know Americans, at least since WWII, have typically tucked tail and run if they encounter strong resistance. They know all they have to do is make it messy, Americans will turn against the government, and American troops then soon leave. The Sudanese terrorists have as much said so in their taunts to us.

The point is countless efforts at diplomacy have not worked re Israel vs Palestine; the UN vs Saddam;

The United States has imposed economic sanctions against Sudan since November 1997, prohibiting trade between the two countries, as well as investment by U.S. businesses in Sudan. In February 2000, the sanctions were broadened to include a prohibition against U.S. citizens and companies conducting business with the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company (GNPOC), an international consortium of petroleum companies currently extracting oil from Sudan. The sanctions, however, did not apply to the foreign individual parent companies of GNPOC, which included (at the time) Calgary-based Talisman Energy, Malaysia's Petronas, and the Chinese National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC). Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington DC, U.S.-Sudanese relations appear to have improved somewhat, as the United States is attempting to encourage Sudanese cooperation in the war against terrorism. Sudan reacted unfavorably to the passage of the Sudan Peace Act in October 2002, which outlines stiff sanctions, ranging from a downgrading of diplomatic relations to a UN arms embargo, that could be imposed on the Sudanese government if it negotiates in bad faith with the country's main rebel force, the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA), based in the primarily non-Muslim, non-Arab south of Sudan. In April 2004, however, President Bush decided not to impose additional sanctions under the Sudan Peace Act as part of a strategy aimed at encouraging the country's peace process.

Sudan's costly, bloody 21-year internal conflict with the SPLA and other rebel movements has, over the past two decades, claimed (directly or indirectly through famine) as many as two million Sudanese lives. In May 2004, after two years of negotiations (starting with the July 2002 Machakos Protocol), the government and SPLA reached agreement on several major issues -- sharing of oil revenues (50/50), the application of Islamic religious law (will not be applied in the South), self-determination for the southern Sudan (a referendum on secession will be held after a transitional period of six years), etc. A final resolution of Sudan's civil war could greatly help the country's economy, lead to the lifting of various sanctions against the country, and encourage investment by foreign companies (including oil companies).