Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/23/08 07:53 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: Even by thirteen I could spell genocide. What's happening to our youth?

American Idol, Survivor, Rap music, Grand Theft Auto, and Halo.

Lurk more, kid. And grow a sense of humor (along with a little more hair on your balls) before you make any more threads.

I don't think hair on your balls contributes to making good posts, there are no doubt many people with a fair amount of hair on their balls that still post like shit.

Here are a few pointers. Cursing doesn't make you cool. Capitalization is your friend. Stop spacing your lines like some kind of drunken haiku. Learn appropriate punctuation. Don't act like a toddler when someone points out a mistake like spelling "genocide" wrong. Comport yourself like an adult and people will consider your opinions.

Haiku?
Countless days spent here
Solace from the outside world
No time for hygene

At 11/23/08 08:07 PM, Korriken wrote: I don't think hair on your balls contributes to making good posts, there are no doubt many people with a fair amount of hair on their balls that still post like shit.

I was simply implying that he should wait until he is no longer thirteen years old, not actually suggesting that a hairier sac will contribute to his posting ability. Or...was I?

well if i should wait until after thirtenn, then you'll be hearing alot from me in a couple of weeks. Also its texting that is the problem with other kids, not videogames. Also, ive been shut out of society so their is hardly anyway for me to lose my talent of spelling(which i did have a few years ago) to texting, but enough with the excuses

Jesus, some of you are actting like assholes just because he couldn't spell a word right.

Damn, I came here thinking that there was a discussion about Genesis but I have been let down.

Well anyway, instead of making fun of him, I will discuss the topic.

I think there is no reason, other than a moral obligation to help these people. I would really hate to see any time/effort put into a war in a poor, African nation.

At 11/24/08 09:57 AM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: once it agin its the AU's Problem

Yeah, I agree with you here. The West can't go around playing Superman in every conflict area. Western involvement has done more harm than good in the region so why should they intervene? Military solutions aren't going to solve deep economic/ethnic/social problems that go hundreds of years. Europeans have been blowing killing each other for thousands of years and learned to how solve their problems through the creations of institutions (the EU etc.) and Africa should do the same. African solutions to African problems.

Genisis? Mean the first chapter in the Bible?

Darfur is where the garden of eden is?

Oh...genocide.

Nah, not even close.

At 11/23/08 03:57 PM, Musician wrote: So, getting back on track. I personally think we should help, but I think using military force would be a big mistake. The world community has talked a lot about an all out embargo on the Sudan, which would stop them from generating enough revenue to buy arms to support their genocide. Unfortunately, China doesn't want to comply with this, and is basically single-handedly funding the Darfur Genocide by buying oil from them.

Thus, I think the best solution is just for the US to threaten to stop trade with China unless they embargo the Sudan.

Sanctions and embargos are simply useless. The data on this is quite clear.

What has caused most of the genocides in the 20th and 21st Centuries is an imbalance in arms after a government and/or army collapsed. One ethnicity or tribe gets their hands on the guns and the other side does not. The side with the guns then turn them on the unarmed group. Therefore what I would provide:

* Small arms such as M-16s and AK-47s. I would also provide a number of humvees armed with .50 calibur machine guns in proportion to the Janjaniweed (sp?) militia's arsenal of similar vehicles.
* Air support. Whenever a helicopter takes off and heads toward a village, a F-16, F-15 or F/A-18 can shoot it down.

The simple truth is these people do not care about international economics. What they care about is gathering as much power and wealth relative to others in their country. The horrendous atrocities are correlated to the arms imbalance.

Genocide. The ethnic cleansing is called genocide.

At 11/24/08 06:55 AM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: its genocide you fucking noob and and it was rebels who instigated it and the government reacted its the AUs problem not ours so who the fuck cares.

The government "reacted"? You are aware that the government of Darfur is funding the Janjaweed right? Not the mention, the African Union has already tried to end the violence in Darfur; they got beaten pretty badly. the AU just doesn't have the resources to engage a problem like this effectively.

the fact is that nothing any western power can do to interfere will help. Look back at history at when the west has tried to stop conflicts between two foreign powers.

Vietnam - Failure
Korea - Made no significant progress, but created more deaths than there would have been without their involvement
Iraq - Failure

In general if there is a conflict between two powers it is up to those two powers to settle it. When two people are pointing guns at each other if you stand between them you will just get yourself shot. The only thing you can do is shoot one so there is only one body on the floor instead of two.

At 11/24/08 08:00 PM, Musician wrote:

At 11/24/08 06:55 AM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: its genocide you fucking noob and and it was rebels who instigated it and the government reacted its the AUs problem not ours so who the fuck cares.

The government "reacted"? You are aware that the government of Darfur is funding the Janjaweed right? Not the mention, the African Union has already tried to end the violence in Darfur; they got beaten pretty badly. the AU just doesn't have the resources to engage a problem like this effectively.

The AU is the only group that can really step in officially, but I would have no objection to additional funding and donations being given to them by the UN and other foreign powers.

At 11/24/08 07:02 PM, TheMason wrote: Sanctions and embargos are simply useless. The data on this is quite clear.

I respectfully disagree, the Sudan relies heavily on it's oil exports. If they were to loose their ability to sell oil to China, the Sudanese government would lose the vast majority of it's funding. At the very least this would significantly reduce the effectiveness of the "rebel" militias.

* Small arms such as M-16s and AK-47s. I would also provide a number of humvees armed with .50 calibur machine guns in proportion to the Janjaniweed (sp?) militia's arsenal of similar vehicles.
* Air support. Whenever a helicopter takes off and heads toward a village, a F-16, F-15 or F/A-18 can shoot it down.

Military approaches to domestic conflicts end badly. This is the lesson we should have taken from Iraq and Vietnam. Furthermore, arming the other side would only serve to re-ignite the fighting, and cause more deaths. It's demented to suggest such a thing, especially when there's a viable non-violent alternative.

The simple truth is these people do not care about international economics. What they care about is gathering as much power and wealth relative to others in their country. The horrendous atrocities are correlated to the arms imbalance.

It doesn't really matter if they care or not. They simply wont be able to buy arms without selling oil.

At 11/24/08 08:14 PM, Musician wrote:

At 11/24/08 07:02 PM, TheMason wrote: Sanctions and embargos are simply useless. The data on this is quite clear.

I respectfully disagree, the Sudan relies heavily on it's oil exports. If they were to loose their ability to sell oil to China, the Sudanese government would lose the vast majority of it's funding. At the very least this would significantly reduce the effectiveness of the "rebel" militias.

Sanctions simply are not going to work, you're not going to get China and other countries on board and that ain't gonna happen. Furthermore, the weapons that the Janjanaweed militia are using are not all that expensive. In short there is no reason to believe that sanctions would work in this situation where they fail in just about every other situation.

* Small arms such as M-16s and AK-47s. I would also provide a number of humvees armed with .50 calibur machine guns in proportion to the Janjaniweed (sp?) militia's arsenal of similar vehicles.
* Air support. Whenever a helicopter takes off and heads toward a village, a F-16, F-15 or F/A-18 can shoot it down.

Military approaches to domestic conflicts end badly. This is the lesson we should have taken from Iraq and Vietnam. Furthermore, arming the other side would only serve to re-ignite the fighting, and cause more deaths. It's demented to suggest such a thing, especially when there's a viable non-violent alternative.

This is not Iraq and Vietnam. This is more closely related to Yugoslavia, Somalia and Rwanda. Furthermore, there never was any fighting...it is slaughter all because one side has arms and the other does not. What I am saying does not invovle an invasion or occupation which produces a foreign presence which in turn cause the problems we saw in Iraq and Vietnam. A similar approach saw success in Yugoslavia.

And as for it being "demented"...this is just an ad homineum and appeal to emotion logical fallacy. Right now when there is no fighting we should do nothing to de-stabilize the situation. However, if the fighting re-ignites then there is no viable non-violent alternative. Sanctions, especially in terms of humanitarian objectives are ineffectual and as such hardly constitute a "viable" alternative.

The simple truth is these people do not care about international economics. What they care about is gathering as much power and wealth relative to others in their country. The horrendous atrocities are correlated to the arms imbalance.

It doesn't really matter if they care or not. They simply wont be able to buy arms without selling oil.

We are not talking about expensive weapons. An AK-47 in Africa can literally be bartered for with a chicken. Ammo is similarly inexpensive. So it would not provide the economic chokehold on the Janjanaweed that you think it would. What impact it would have would be negated by a switch to illicit activities such as human trafficking, drugs, blood diamonds, arms running, etc.

In short, they do not care because their survival does NOT depend upon the economic forces that we in the West are accustomed to.

At 11/24/08 08:03 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: the fact is that nothing any western power can do to interfere will help. Look back at history at when the west has tried to stop conflicts between two foreign powers.

Vietnam - Failure
Korea - Made no significant progress, but created more deaths than there would have been without their involvement
Iraq - Failure

Vietnam I can understand but for Korea...okay...but however the protestors there are pretty ungrateful however (I know they have the right to do so but they did came across as something that did make some people wish it is a failure)

For Iraq it's too early to tell but hopefully it'll succeed, anything can happen so who knows

At 11/24/08 09:09 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote:

At 11/24/08 08:03 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: the fact is that nothing any western power can do to interfere will help. Look back at history at when the west has tried to stop conflicts between two foreign powers.

Vietnam - Failure
Korea - Made no significant progress, but created more deaths than there would have been without their involvement
Iraq - Failure

Vietnam I can understand but for Korea...okay...but however the protestors there are pretty ungrateful however (I know they have the right to do so but they did came across as something that did make some people wish it is a failure)

For Iraq it's too early to tell but hopefully it'll succeed, anything can happen so who knows

Hopefully Iraq will succeed, but it would have to do so very quickly as Barack Obama is going to set timetables for complete withdrawal by 2011 (I support Obama's decision entirely).

Remember even if it does succeed within the next week, it won't be the same standards Bush originally mentioned. Bush originally said that it would probably be over in a week.

At 11/23/08 09:32 PM, universal-fear wrote: well if i should wait until after thirtenn, then you'll be hearing alot from me in a couple of weeks. Also its texting that is the problem with other kids, not videogames.

texting doesn't help, but otherwise they would just be talking on their cell phones. and games like Grand Theft Auto degenerates the human brain and turns children into morons who think "crime is kool and fuck the police" Also, age matters little, maturity and intelligence is everything. You'll get there, just stay informed and get Firefox, it has a spell checker.

At 11/24/08 08:40 PM, TheMason wrote: Sanctions simply are not going to work, you're not going to get China and other countries on board and that ain't gonna happen.

It is happening though, just about every country that could potentially make a difference has embargoed the Sudan with the exception of China. The "other countries" including the US, France, and Britain have already placed economic sanctions on the Sudan. China has just decided to take advantage of it and buy up all their oil. This can be solved pretty easily by threatening economic sanctions against China.

Furthermore, the weapons that the Janjanaweed militia are using are not all that expensive. In short there is no reason to believe that sanctions would work in this situation where they fail in just about every other situation.

You're not accounting for vehicles, rations, fuel, body armor, and of course the constant supply of ammunition needed to maintain a military force; not to mention you have to multiply that by the sheer numbers of soldiers that they maintain. The Sudan is incredibly dependent on exports, without them they would have virtually no money. Even if the resources they need are cheap they'll still need to make tremendous cutbacks.

This is not Iraq and Vietnam. This is more closely related to Yugoslavia, Somalia and Rwanda. Furthermore, there never was any fighting...it is slaughter all because one side has arms and the other does not. What I am saying does not invovle an invasion or occupation which produces a foreign presence which in turn cause the problems we saw in Iraq and Vietnam. A similar approach saw success in Yugoslavia.

Fine, it will re-ignite the "slaughter" if you will. I'm not sure exactly where you get the idea that arming the other side would lead to good things. If you have a man with a gun threatening another man with a gun, giving the other man a gun isn't necessarily the right idea, especially if you have very good reason to believe that both those men are willing to use their guns. The appropriate response is to take the gun from the first man. In this analogy taking the gun from the first man means stopping the flow of funds and weapons into the Sudan.

Now another thing I want to bring up in this part of the conversation is that not only is China buying the vast majority of their exports, China is also providing the Sudanese government with the vast majority of their weapons. Apparently the Sudan recieves 90% of it's weapons from China. Just another reason why the US must place pressure on China in this situation.

And as for it being "demented"...this is just an ad homineum and appeal to emotion logical fallacy. Right now when there is no fighting we should do nothing to de-stabilize the situation. However, if the fighting re-ignites then there is no viable non-violent alternative. Sanctions, especially in terms of humanitarian objectives are ineffectual and as such hardly constitute a "viable" alternative.

I'm sorry Mason but you have yet to make a convincing argument against a trade embargo on the Sudan. It's true that most likely the weapons that the Janjaweed militia uses are cheap and somewhat easy to come by, but that does not mean that a enormous loss in funds will be "ineffectual" in preventing them from receiving supplies. At the very least the government will not have nearly enough money to continue funding them in such large numbers, and they'll revert to what they previously were before they recieved government funding: A resistance that can threaten some amount of damage, but doesn't pose a significant threat to an entire race of people.

What impact it would have would be negated by a switch to illicit activities such as human trafficking, drugs, blood diamonds, arms running, etc.

None of the activities that you listed can fully compensate for the loss of oil exports.

In short, they do not care because their survival does NOT depend upon the economic forces that we in the West are accustomed to.

No but their government funding does. I'm not suggesting that it would wipe out the Janjaweed entirely, but it would certainly deal a devastating blow for them to lose virtually all of their funding and around 90% of their arms. Their existence as a well funding military force does in fact depend on economic forces like trade.

On another note I am in support of giving more funding and supplies to the African Union; I'm just not in favor of giving similar funding and weaponry to rebel movements inside of Darfur. The difference is that the African Union is a force that's shown itself to be more interested in preserving the stability of the region, and less interested and wiping one side out. Of course, any increase of funding to the AU should be accompanied by the previously mentioned economic sanctions.

At 11/25/08 01:46 AM, Musician wrote:

It is happening though, just about every country that could potentially make a difference has embargoed the Sudan with the exception of China. The "other countries" including the US, France, and Britain have already placed economic sanctions on the Sudan. China has just decided to take advantage of it and buy up all their oil. This can be solved pretty easily by threatening economic sanctions against China.

You're not accounting for vehicles, rations, fuel, body armor, and of course the constant supply of ammunition needed to maintain a military force; not to mention you have to multiply that by the sheer numbers of soldiers that they maintain. The Sudan is incredibly dependent on exports, without them they would have virtually no money. Even if the resources they need are cheap they'll still need to make tremendous cutbacks.

Actually I am. The problem with your approach is you're looking at provisioning an army in accordance with Western standards which is erroneous.
* The vehicles they are using are called "technicals" in professional military circles. These are often dilapidated pieces of shit. Their value is probably around $100-200.

* They don't really care about their troops so they are not providing steaks & potatoes.

* See the point above: they are not providing their militia troops with body armor.

* They are not paying these troops with anything other than cheap narcotics (such as Kot). They are not getting $80,000 for college under a GI Bill. They are not getting dorms and barracks where they have cable and internet access. In fact the "sheer numbers" come from violently forced conscription. The difference between African conscription and US conscription is that instead of sending a person to jail for draft dodging they rape and kill your female family members before they kill you.

In the end you have an "army" that is comprised of brutal people who were raised in a Hobbesian hell and have been carrying an AK-47 since before they were taller than the rifle was long.

The cost of operating such an army is negligable.

Fine, it will re-ignite the "slaughter" if you will. I'm not sure exactly where you get the idea that arming the other side would lead to good things. If you have a man with a gun threatening another man with a gun, giving the other man a gun isn't necessarily the right idea, especially if you have very good reason to believe that both those men are willing to use their guns. The appropriate response is to take the gun from the first man. In this analogy taking the gun from the first man means stopping the flow of funds and weapons into the Sudan.

Embargoes are not going to stop the flow of weapons into the Sudan. The only way you're going to take the gun away from the first man is to use military force. You use an analogy but we see that despite embargoes funds have flowed to the militia (and other para-militaries) through other means.

Furthermore, arming an oppresed people to the level of their oppressors stems violence. The violence is caused because Group X has guns and Group Y does not. Group X can rape, murder and pillage at will. Group X will only stop when one of several conditions is met:
1) They have sucked all the wealth from Group Y.
2) Group Y poses a significant threat.

This is something that is seen time and time again throughout history.

Apparently the Sudan recieves 90% of it's weapons from China. Just another reason why the US must place pressure on China in this situation.

But we're not. China owns 2/3 of the US' bond debt. Attempting to do something such sanctions or embargo (ie: anything that has any teeth no matter how small) would seriously hurt our economy.

I'm sorry Mason but you have yet to make a convincing argument against a trade embargo on the Sudan. It's true that most likely the weapons that the Janjaweed militia uses are cheap and somewhat easy to come by, but that does not mean that a enormous loss in funds will be "ineffectual" in preventing them from receiving supplies. At the very least the government will not have nearly enough money to continue funding them in such large numbers, and they'll revert to what they previously were before they recieved government funding: A resistance that can threaten some amount of damage, but doesn't pose a significant threat to an entire race of people.

What impact it would have would be negated by a switch to illicit activities such as human trafficking, drugs, blood diamonds, arms running, etc.

None of the activities that you listed can fully compensate for the loss of oil exports.

Yes it will. We have seen this with groups such as the Janjaweed militia time and time again. These activities are highly lucrative and could easily provision an armed group with AK-47s, "technicals" and machetes.

Furthermore, embargoes and sanctions do not work. That they are failures as policy should be enough of a "convincing argument". In fact there is more than enough evidence to show that sanctions when used to stop humanitarian abuses actually cause more death and human rights violations.

No but their government funding does. I'm not suggesting that it would wipe out the Janjaweed entirely, but it would certainly deal a devastating blow for them to lose virtually all of their funding and around 90% of their arms. Their existence as a well funding military force does in fact depend on economic forces like trade.

Nope. You grossly overestimate just how much it costs to arm and field a militia in this region.

On another note I am in support of giving more funding and supplies to the African Union; I'm just not in favor of giving similar funding and weaponry to rebel movements inside of Darfur. The difference is that the African Union is a force that's shown itself to be more interested in preserving the stability of the region, and less interested and wiping one side out. Of course, any increase of funding to the AU should be accompanied by the previously mentioned economic sanctions.

The problem with this approach is even though it is a force from the region...it is still a foreign occupational force. This produces hostility towards the peacekeepers and is why our efforts in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan are so resisted. However in Kosovo we provided air power while the Kosovar Liberation Army (armed by us) did the ground fighting.

Mason, I think I see where the misunderstanding is. The Janjaweed are not like the usual militia you'll find in Africa, they are much more heavily armed. It's true that the AK-47 is a commonly used weapon in the Sudan Military (which the Janjaweed has essentially become a part of now), however they also have access to modern weaponry such as assault helicopters and fighter aircraft. Many of these vehicles take hundreds of thousands of dollars to purchase and maintain. Not exactly something that you can buy with a chicken. Furthermore, the Sudanese government does provide body armor to many of it's troops, albiet not all of them. The Sudanese government also provides their troops with rations. Steak and potatoes or not, rations certainly factor into the maintenance costs of their military.

The problem with your analysis is that you're making the assumption that the Janjaweed is similar to any other African militia, when in reality the Janjaweed is being backed by the well funded Sudanese government. They are much more technoligically advanced than the other African rebel movements you're associating them with.

Secondly, I disagree entirely with you're analysis of the situation. Giving the other side more weapons will only increase tension in the region. Even if it does provoke a short term peace such acts could have devastating long term effects. For example, if one side becomes a significant threat it may provoke further military expansion by the Sudanese government, which in turn would increase the destructive outcome of any potential war.

Not to mention you're also making the fatal mistake of assuming that "Group Y" is only looking to defend themselves. Such is not the case. "Group Y" has shown clear hostility towards those of arab ethnicity. Most likely "Group Y" would attempt to use it's new power to perform genocide on "Group X" as well. It's also quite possible that "Group Y" might become too ambitious and provoke a retaliation that would lead to an even larger more widespread slaughter of their race. Your detterence theory sounds great, in theory, but unfortunately you're not going to be the one making strategic decisions for them, and you cannot predict what they will do with their weapons.

Finally on the topic of the African Union. It is true that they are a foreign presence, however it is not the same as the US presence in Iraq. AU peacekeepers are Africans, usually of similar cutural backgrounds as the refugees in the Sudan, which makes the inhabitants of the Sudan more likely to accept the presence of the peace keepers (and also makes the peace keepers more likely to be considerate of the sudanese citizens). It's also important to note that the African Union represents Africa as a whole and not an individual country. This also makes Sudanese citizens more likely to be accepting of an AU presence.

At 11/25/08 09:22 PM, Musician wrote: Mason, I think I see where the misunderstanding is. The Janjaweed are not like the usual militia you'll find in Africa, they are much more heavily armed. ...

The problem with your analysis is that you're making the assumption that the Janjaweed is similar to any other African militia, when in reality the Janjaweed is being backed by the well funded Sudanese government. ...

Yes they are at the high end of provisioning in terms of African/Third World militias. Furthermore, I'm not underestimating the strength of the militia. If you look at my original post you'll see that I address the issue of air support provided by the Sudanese government. That is why I advocate "no-fly" zones where we blow them out of the sky when they threaten a village.

My analysis comes from studying sanction efficacy and Non-Government militaries (ie: militias and terrorists). Yes the Sudanese government is providing some funding to the militia making it a quasi-government entity. However, if the warlords decide they want to press their campaign after loosing government funds they will find the way. Body armor and air support in this situation are luxuries...not necessities.

Secondly, I disagree entirely with you're analysis of the situation. Giving the other side more weapons will only increase tension in the region. Even if it does provoke a short term peace such acts could have devastating long term effects. For example, if one side becomes a significant threat it may provoke further military expansion by the Sudanese government, which in turn would increase the destructive outcome of any potential war.

Sanctions probably made the situation worse as worse. They give oppressive regimes justifications to "clean house" and send people to prison camps or just outright execute them. In short the "peaceful" solution more often than not is counter-productive and produces nothing more than more suffering.

Right now the momentum appears to be heading towards stabilization. However, based on observations of similar cases this could be easily derailed. So at this point in time arming the non-Arabs would be a bad idea. However if things fall apart then providing air support for "no-fly zones" and small arms to provide pairity (equalize the imbalance) is probably the best solution.

Not to mention you're also making the fatal mistake of assuming that "Group Y" is only looking to defend themselves. Such is not the case. "Group Y" has shown clear hostility towards those of arab ethnicity. ...

I'm not making that fatal mistake and it shows that you have missed my point. Genocides happen because there is an arms imbalance. That is why I did not advocate giving the non-Arabs tanks. Think of it as MAD writ small. We have seen this in so many genocides in the last half of the 20th Century. It only happens when one side is at a gregious disadvantage in terms of guns. (I'm thinking I could have a paper for one of my courses next semester.)

Finally on the topic of the African Union. It is true that they are a foreign presence, however it is not the same as the US presence in Iraq. ...

You make the mistake of over-simplification here. Africa is incredibly divided in terms of Ethno-Lingustic Factionalization (ELF). There is a saying in Somalia: "Me against my brother, My brother and I against our Clan, Our Clan against the Nation, Our Nation against the World". Just look at Somalia, Rwanda and now Darfur. These people have an intense hatred against the tribe in the next valley over, hatred so intense that they will seek to exterminate entire peoples for exceptionally tenuous ethnic differences. So yes the AU is still going to be seen as a foreign presence (we actually saw this in Somalia and Rwanda).

I will give you that there may be a small degree of perceived difference. However, it is not significant enough (based on recent experience) to expect any more success from an AU peacekeeping force than a Western.

At 11/26/08 12:51 PM, TheMason wrote: Yes they are at the high end of provisioning in terms of African/Third World militias. Furthermore, I'm not underestimating the strength of the militia. If you look at my original post you'll see that I address the issue of air support provided by the Sudanese government. That is why I advocate "no-fly" zones where we blow them out of the sky when they threaten a village.

I guess I got the wrong impression when you started reffering to their vehicles as "technicals". I'm sure they use those, but the Janjaweed also have access to tanks, other armored vehicles, and bomber aircraft, which have been used to wreak massive destruction on certain villages in Darfur. At the very least, you were incorrect when you called the operating costs of the Janjaweed militia "negligible".

My analysis comes from studying sanction efficacy and Non-Government militaries (ie: militias and terrorists). Yes the Sudanese government is providing some funding to the militia making it a quasi-government entity. However, if the warlords decide they want to press their campaign after loosing government funds they will find the way. Body armor and air support in this situation are luxuries...not necessities.

They are luxuries that make a significant difference in how effective they are. If they lose bombers, and tanks and all of their other "luxuries", suddenly the residents of Darfur have a whole lot less to worry about. It might not stop them completely, but it effectively cripples them.

Sanctions probably made the situation worse as worse. They give oppressive regimes justifications to "clean house" and send people to prison camps or just outright execute them. In short the "peaceful" solution more often than not is counter-productive and produces nothing more than more suffering.

The Sudanese government is already "outright executing" the residents of Darfur. They don't need a justification for their actions, they've already crossed the line. There's hardly anything they could do to make it worse at this point. Even if there was, I doubt they'd wait for an excuse to begin doing it.

I'm not making that fatal mistake and it shows that you have missed my point. Genocides happen because there is an arms imbalance. That is why I did not advocate giving the non-Arabs tanks. Think of it as MAD writ small. We have seen this in so many genocides in the last half of the 20th Century. It only happens when one side is at a gregious disadvantage in terms of guns. (I'm thinking I could have a paper for one of my courses next semester.)

There are plenty of ways to solve an arms imbalance. Removing weapons from the other side is just as effective and much less destructive. The problem is that you're evaluating the detriments of an imbalance of arms and you're disregarding the problems cause by a balance of arms. While an arms imbalance can create genocide, an arms balance can lead to a much more destructive and longer lasting war.

As any legitimate authority on MAD theory will tell you, there's always a chance that "deterrence" can backfire. If you argue for supplying arms to the other side, you also have to realize that you're making a gamble that the detterence factor will work as planned. In a region like Darfur, where conflicts are driven by ethnic clashes that go back decades, that's a bad gamble.

I will give you that there may be a small degree of perceived difference. However, it is not significant enough (based on recent experience) to expect any more success from an AU peacekeeping force than a Western.

You have a point, but putting support behind an impartial foreign peacekeeping presence is still a better course of action then pumping more arms into a voilent conflict. The AU is more likely to be interested in enforcing a ceasefire and less likely to pick fights based on ethnicity. I admit that the AU isn't ideal, but it's the best shot for stability in this particular reason.