Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Valtiel

Sudan non inherent?

Recommended Posts

It's been all over the news; apparently, there's been a peace deal signed between the rebel leaders and somebody else, and Colin Powell has signed it as a witness. This is supposed to end the civil war that's been going on, but does this mean that the harms are gone? I've been running genocide and slavery as the harms, but I can't remember if they have anything to do with the civil war or not...

 

Does anyone know if this means that Sudan can't be run anymore? Or if not, how would you answer arguments that Sudan is non inherent?

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sudan is still inherent. The North/South civil war ended.

 

However, most Sudan affs solve the Darfur conflict which is still going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks man.

If anyone finds anything that'd make it non inherent, please post a link here, I need to be 100% sure...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

also, they signed a treaty. there was an article that i read recently, and i'll try to find it, that talks about how it's not really going to do anything to really solve. it's paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i also read that bush has made it clear that he isnt going to send any troops into sudan anyway but he does say that he supports the expansion of african peacekeepers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this'll suck balls.

 

 

i just read about powell and annan saying its not a genocide anymore in the papers sunday. if its still inherent now it probably wont be for long.

 

 

and onto the next aff...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are solving for Genocide, it isn't inherent anymore. I did get evidence supporting that the ceas-fire isn't upholding. I think I read somewhere that the US will be paying money to help stop the violence in Sudan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I don't, but I'll say this. "Everything is on the internet, you just need to look. Even things that are too come are their."

I think I read it under Sudanese Ceasefire not upholding or something like that in google.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

because of this "ceasefire" agreement, is it safe to say that topicality peacekeeping cannot be run since there is peace in sudan and that by sending un forces and supporting them, that it would be peacekeeping?

 

also about this, can the affirmative use this piece of evidence to their advantage in any way? or is this type of evidence about the peace agreement better off with the neg team to use against the aff by saying that the peace agreement will just make things worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Darfur is definitely still inherent. I found these kick-ass cards that say that the Sudan Peace Pact is actually going to make the problem in Darfur worse.

 

 

I agree. I think it could still be run quite effectively, especially with those cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the agreement was for the north-south conflict not for darfur. you will have to be carefull bc the un somewhere i read is sending people to sudan. you could run the case so that the north-south pko can be expanded to darfur.

 

i don't know if this will help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you are solving for Genocide, it isn't inherent anymore. I did get evidence supporting that the ceas-fire isn't upholding. I think I read somewhere that the US will be paying money to help stop the violence in Sudan.

Oh, it's still inherent. 35,000 people are still dying a month, 2-3 million still displaced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the UN also said that sudan isnt a genocide...there is an article on it somewhere online. i dont remember where i saw it, try google though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In order to get Sudan to agree to the PKO, the UN capitulated to the stipulation that UN peacekeepers will not step foot in Darfur. Darfur falls under the purview of the AU PKO... and they are doing a horrible job (over a hundred ceasefire violations in the past two months). Sudan was also allowed right of refusal based on the make-up of the UN PKO... and it is already saying it is unhappy with the proposed composition of the force and wants further negotiations. So peacekeeper deployment is at least 6 months away and probably much longer. There are cards out there that Darfurians are dying at a rate of 600 to 3,000 a day, so delay is fatal. There is also excellent evidence that the North-South peace accord actually feeds the violence because it frees up government troops which Khartoum will use in Darfur. As far as the genocide, not genocide argument goes, I think a strong case can be made that the UN is guilty of equivocation... they say Sudan is not committing genocide, but may be committing acts with genocidal intent. There is evidence (and I haven't explored it enough to tell you how strong it is) that the UN would declare genocide if an ICC tribunal affirmed Sudan's intent as genocidal... and the only thing standing in the way of the ICC tribunal is the US. The Congressional delegation that just returned from Darfur continues to label the situation a genocide, says humanitarian aid is not getting to the displaced, and projects the number of casualties is much higher than Sudan, the AU, and the EU are reporting. You may not want to run this case the same way you did a couple of months ago, but it can still be run.

 

jmcowan@cox.net

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...