Eclipsed from the headlines by the ongoing carnage, there is an active
civil resistance in Iraq that opposes the occupation, the torture regime
it protects, and the jihadi and Ba'athist 'resistance' alike.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 10/08/2007 - 01:36.
"Illogical tirade"!? Perhaps the question before posting should be one dealing with reading comprehension rather than arithmetic...I am sure the likes of Bill know the sum of two and two, but whether they can put them together and deduce logic, is doubtful given the last input. How's that for ironic?
So let me dumb it down even further.
Eritrea is not trying to overthrow the government of Sudan.
Hence Eritrea is not trying to destabilize or weaken Sudan
or even the Sudanese government. That job was allready done,
most of it by the Sudanese themselves.
Eritrea is trying to RECONCILE the Sudanese government with the rebels so that they can work with eachother and jointly strengthen Sudan. Why? Because Eritrea needs a stable Sudan on its side, a power in its own right with whom Eritreans can partner on equal, cooperative terms as a counterweight to onesided, US-aided Ethiopian influence in the region.
This can only go as well as Eritrea manages its long hard background work (still ongoing by the way) of trying to get the many Sudanese opposition/rebel movements to get along amongst themselves. Hence the umbrella movement NDA based in Asmara. Without this, the rebels would have no leverage in face of the Sudanese government which despite its weaknesses is a hell of a lot stronger than they are individually. It would be easy for Khartoum to just divide
and conquer (and they have, over decades).
Troubleshooting you: who would probably hatch a predictably simplistic argument once again, laced with pompous sarcasm, that it is better to simply get rid of the Sudanese regime
entirely.
Well no, because: a) it would not necessarily lead to any stability in the long run, but rather more instability and chaos (like in Iraq), because neither Bashir's government alone nor any coalition of opposition movements are strong enough to exclusively sustain Sudan as a stable, strong, united country while facing the other sides insurgency (which would obviously be supported by foreign forces: either Ethiopia and the west on the side of the opposition
or islamic regimes on the side of Bashir). Each side is only strong enough to weaken the other at the expense of long-term regional stability at large. This would only benefit third party powers financially strong enough to
outsource Sudan's military occupation to a cheaper military
(under the guise of "peacekeepers"), keep the Sudanese weakened by in-fighting and suck them dry of their oil and gas. Ethiopians make very cheap "peacekeepers" by the way.
That is why Eritrea is trying to get the Sudanese to reach a concensus by which they can work towards the same goal (which would be a goal that benefits Eritrea as well) and be a power in their own right rather than a pawn in the game of foreign powers...Eritrea wants a strong stable Sudan, a power in its own right, at its side, as a viable counterweight against Ethiopian US-mercenaries.
»
Reply
google2
For more breaking news and world events, seeThe first open media site where anyone can report from anywhere
Advertisements:
Propaganda:
The inconvenient facts and unanswered questions surrounding the attacks are legion, but the endemic sloppiness of the self-styled "researchers" is delegitimizing the entire project of critiquing the "official version." The ostentatiously named "Truth movement" is not clearing the air, but muddying the water.
WW4 Report pamphlets
WAR AT THE CROSSROADS
An Historical Guide Through the Balkan Labyrinth
The Balkan region is intensely multicultural - a point of crossroads and clash for some of the world's major religions, cultural spheres, and economic systems. While there have been vicious wars in Balkan history, these have taken place in the context of manipulation by imperial powers and the self-serving local leaders who cater to them.
opensource technology and the people of Sundays Energy
It is difficult to humble an obstinate fool.
"Illogical tirade"!? Perhaps the question before posting should be one dealing with reading comprehension rather than arithmetic...I am sure the likes of Bill know the sum of two and two, but whether they can put them together and deduce logic, is doubtful given the last input. How's that for ironic?
So let me dumb it down even further.
Eritrea is not trying to overthrow the government of Sudan.
Hence Eritrea is not trying to destabilize or weaken Sudan
or even the Sudanese government. That job was allready done,
most of it by the Sudanese themselves.
Eritrea is trying to RECONCILE the Sudanese government with the rebels so that they can work with eachother and jointly strengthen Sudan. Why? Because Eritrea needs a stable Sudan on its side, a power in its own right with whom Eritreans can partner on equal, cooperative terms as a counterweight to onesided, US-aided Ethiopian influence in the region.
This can only go as well as Eritrea manages its long hard background work (still ongoing by the way) of trying to get the many Sudanese opposition/rebel movements to get along amongst themselves. Hence the umbrella movement NDA based in Asmara. Without this, the rebels would have no leverage in face of the Sudanese government which despite its weaknesses is a hell of a lot stronger than they are individually. It would be easy for Khartoum to just divide
and conquer (and they have, over decades).
Troubleshooting you: who would probably hatch a predictably simplistic argument once again, laced with pompous sarcasm, that it is better to simply get rid of the Sudanese regime
entirely.
Well no, because: a) it would not necessarily lead to any stability in the long run, but rather more instability and chaos (like in Iraq), because neither Bashir's government alone nor any coalition of opposition movements are strong enough to exclusively sustain Sudan as a stable, strong, united country while facing the other sides insurgency (which would obviously be supported by foreign forces: either Ethiopia and the west on the side of the opposition
or islamic regimes on the side of Bashir). Each side is only strong enough to weaken the other at the expense of long-term regional stability at large. This would only benefit third party powers financially strong enough to
outsource Sudan's military occupation to a cheaper military
(under the guise of "peacekeepers"), keep the Sudanese weakened by in-fighting and suck them dry of their oil and gas. Ethiopians make very cheap "peacekeepers" by the way.
That is why Eritrea is trying to get the Sudanese to reach a concensus by which they can work towards the same goal (which would be a goal that benefits Eritrea as well) and be a power in their own right rather than a pawn in the game of foreign powers...Eritrea wants a strong stable Sudan, a power in its own right, at its side, as a viable counterweight against Ethiopian US-mercenaries.