a

[The Snake Brotherhood]

.

[Old Tyrannia]

Interesting.
I would be interested to know the cause of this schism. Also, do you really think that another Sudanese Civil War would effect the rest of Africa so badly? I imagine it would alter the balance of power majorly, but to be honest I can't see it having particularly far reaching effects, although I wouldn't be surprised to see nearby countries building up there military- just in case.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I still think Darfur is still a very serious issue with so many people being in refugee camps. They have to be rehoused in a safe environment if the conflict is going to be resolved once and for all.

[East Congaree]

No independence for Nubia, Darfur, or South Sudan, period.

[Old Tyrannia]

No independence for Nubia, Darfur, or South Sudan, period.

You know, I must say having taken a closer look at the background for the wars it seems to me the South Sudanese have every right to freedom. The north is obviously dominant and the south seems to me to have been exploited.
All that from a few minutes on Wikipedia.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Nuke 'em.

[The Snake Brotherhood]

Nuke 'em.

You need their oil, remember. Divide and then rule. That is the principle.

[East Congaree]

No independence for Nubia, Darfur, or South Sudan, period.

You know, I must say having taken a closer look at the background for the wars it seems to me the South Sudanese have every right to freedom. The north is obviously dominant and the south seems to me to have been exploited.
All that from a few minutes on Wikipedia.

Home rule is a good idea, yes. Beyond that, hell no.

[The Snake Brotherhood]

I still think Darfur is still a very serious issue with so many people being in refugee camps. They have to be rehoused in a safe environment if the conflict is going to be resolved once and for all.

That's what I said. The Obama administration shouldn't be shifting the focus to South Sudan before Darfur has been solved in a way that is satisfactory for all sides.

[Risottia]

YOO-HOO! NEW WAR FOR OIL COMING!

[East Congaree]

YOO-HOO! NEW WAR FOR OIL COMING!

No. Ideally, a good government would get in power in Sudan and the non-Arab regions would be given home rule. Right now, the Egyptian and Sudanese goverments do suck, though. Egypt's government jailed all people in my denomination....

[Snrubenahs]

I think all of you are missing something huge here. It is no secret that the Northern Sudanese are largely muslim. Furthermore, the Darfurians are not only receiving volunteers and donations for food and medicine, but they are receiving ammunition as well. According to the doctrines of the Koran, the entire nation of Sudan belongs in Daru al-salom, meaning that a land once ruled by Islam shall always be ruled by Islam. To complicate matters further, most Sudanese in the South are not Muslim but Christians and Pantheists. Religion is an issue not often mentioned in the major news outlets, so it is unlikely that many have heard of this.

To make matters more complicated, the South is a source of resources just as important as oil: slaves. You can buy a human being about $30-$40 USD in Sudan. Surprised? Wherever there is genocide, there is slavery.

What all of this boils down to is this: the causes of the fighting will draw the outside world to interfere more and more. Foreign volunteers will start showing up in Sudan, much like what took place in The Spanish Civil War or in China, or in any country. The idealists, fanatics, extremists and revolutionaries will join on both sides. Once again we will have Ernest Hemingways and George Orwells. We will also see people claiming to be Ma'udi, etc. on the northern side.

Is this good or bad? What does Nationstates say?

EDIT: Specifically I mean is it a good thing for foreigners to grab their guns and fight in the war?

[Risottia]

No. Ideally, a good government would get in power in Sudan and the non-Arab regions would be given home rule. Right now, the Egyptian and Sudanese goverments do suck, though. Egypt's government jailed all people in my denomination....

Which is?

[East Congaree]

No. Ideally, a good government would get in power in Sudan and the non-Arab regions would be given home rule. Right now, the Egyptian and Sudanese goverments do suck, though. Egypt's government jailed all people in my denomination....

Which is?

Qur'anists are jailed in Egypt. Basically, it means we don't follow hadiths or Sunnah.

[East Congaree]

I think all of you are missing something huge here. It is no secret that the Northern Sudanese are largely muslim. Furthermore, the Darfurians are not only receiving volunteers and donations for food and medicine, but they are receiving ammunition as well. According to the doctrines of the Koran, the entire nation of Sudan belongs in Daru al-salom, meaning that a land once ruled by Islam shall always be ruled by Islam. To complicate matters further, most Sudanese in the South are not Muslim but Christians and Pantheists. Religion is an issue not often mentioned in the major news outlets, so it is unlikely that many have heard of this.

To make matters more complicated, the South is a source of resources just as important as oil: slaves. You can buy a human being about $30-$40 USD in Sudan. Surprised? Wherever there is genocide, there is slavery.

What all of this boils down to is this: the causes of the fighting will draw the outside world to interfere more and more. Foreign volunteers will start showing up in Sudan, much like what took place in The Spanish Civil War or in China, or in any country. The idealists, fanatics, extremists and revolutionaries will join on both sides. Once again we will have Ernest Hemingways and George Orwells. We will also see people claiming to be Ma'udi, etc. on the northern side.

Is this good or bad? What does Nationstates say?

No independence for South Sudan. Of course they're Christian/Pagan, but that doesn't matter. We're not stupid; It's common knowledge South Sudan isn't Islamic.

[Fson]

I think all of you are missing something huge here. It is no secret that the Northern Sudanese are largely muslim. Furthermore, the Darfurians are not only receiving volunteers and donations for food and medicine, but they are receiving ammunition as well. According to the doctrines of the Koran, the entire nation of Sudan belongs in Daru al-salom, meaning that a land once ruled by Islam shall always be ruled by Islam. To complicate matters further, most Sudanese in the South are not Muslim but Christians and Pantheists. Religion is an issue not often mentioned in the major news outlets, so it is unlikely that many have heard of this.

To make matters more complicated, the South is a source of resources just as important as oil: slaves. You can buy a human being about $30-$40 USD in Sudan. Surprised? Wherever there is genocide, there is slavery.

What all of this boils down to is this: the causes of the fighting will draw the outside world to interfere more and more. Foreign volunteers will start showing up in Sudan, much like what took place in The Spanish Civil War or in China, or in any country. The idealists, fanatics, extremists and revolutionaries will join on both sides. Once again we will have Ernest Hemingways and George Orwells. We will also see people claiming to be Ma'udi, etc. on the northern side.

Is this good or bad? What does Nationstates say?

No independence for South Sudan. Of course they're Christian/Pagan, but that doesn't matter. We're not stupid; It's common knowledge South Sudan isn't Islamic.

Unles you are South Sudanese, you really cant justify being against it.

[Arroza]

East Congaree: Would you still be against the separation of Sudan if the southern portions of the nation did not have any possible material resources [oil]?

If so, why should the people of southern Sudan continue to be governed from Khartoum? How do they / would they benefit?

I'm not trying to be a dick and ask leading questions, I'm just being curious, since you seem to be quite passionate about that point.

[East Congaree]

East Congaree: Would you still be against the separation of Sudan if the southern portions of the nation did not have any possible material resources [oil]?

If so, why should the people of southern Sudan continue to be governed from Khartoum? How do they / would they benefit?

I'm not trying to be a dick and ask leading questions, I'm just being curious, since you seem to be quite passionate about that point.

You stop my nation from being a slave to Washington, D.C., and we'll talk. The Pacific Coast states, the Rust Belt, and the Northeast run US politics. And, yes, I would be against South Sudan even if it had next to no natural resources.

[Snrubenahs]

I think all of you are missing something huge here. It is no secret that the Northern Sudanese are largely muslim. Furthermore, the Darfurians are not only receiving volunteers and donations for food and medicine, but they are receiving ammunition as well. According to the doctrines of the Koran, the entire nation of Sudan belongs in Daru al-salom, meaning that a land once ruled by Islam shall always be ruled by Islam. To complicate matters further, most Sudanese in the South are not Muslim but Christians and Pantheists. Religion is an issue not often mentioned in the major news outlets, so it is unlikely that many have heard of this.

To make matters more complicated, the South is a source of resources just as important as oil: slaves. You can buy a human being about $30-$40 USD in Sudan. Surprised? Wherever there is genocide, there is slavery.

What all of this boils down to is this: the causes of the fighting will draw the outside world to interfere more and more. Foreign volunteers will start showing up in Sudan, much like what took place in The Spanish Civil War or in China, or in any country. The idealists, fanatics, extremists and revolutionaries will join on both sides. Once again we will have Ernest Hemingways and George Orwells. We will also see people claiming to be Ma'udi, etc. on the northern side.

Is this good or bad? What does Nationstates say?

No independence for South Sudan. Of course they're Christian/Pagan, but that doesn't matter. We're not stupid; It's common knowledge South Sudan isn't Islamic.

Unles you are South Sudanese, you really cant justify being against it.

I'm sorry, perhaps neither of you understand the question or I worded it poorly. What do you think of outsiders fighting in the war?

[Arroza]

East Congaree: Would you still be against the separation of Sudan if the southern portions of the nation did not have any possible material resources [oil]?

If so, why should the people of southern Sudan continue to be governed from Khartoum? How do they / would they benefit?

I'm not trying to be a dick and ask leading questions, I'm just being curious, since you seem to be quite passionate about that point.

You stop my nation from being a slave to Washington, D.C., and we'll talk. The Pacific Coast states, the Rust Belt, and the Northeast run US politics. And, yes, I would be against South Sudan even if it had next to no natural resources.

Your nation?

[East Congaree]

East Congaree: Would you still be against the separation of Sudan if the southern portions of the nation did not have any possible material resources [oil]?

If so, why should the people of southern Sudan continue to be governed from Khartoum? How do they / would they benefit?

I'm not trying to be a dick and ask leading questions, I'm just being curious, since you seem to be quite passionate about that point.

You stop my nation from being a slave to Washington, D.C., and we'll talk. The Pacific Coast states, the Rust Belt, and the Northeast run US politics. And, yes, I would be against South Sudan even if it had next to no natural resources.

Your nation?

The South, along with whatever parts of non-Neoliberal America wish to join her. Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, the Midwest, and other places llike that would qualify.

[Fson]

I think all of you are missing something huge here. It is no secret that the Northern Sudanese are largely muslim. Furthermore, the Darfurians are not only receiving volunteers and donations for food and medicine, but they are receiving ammunition as well. According to the doctrines of the Koran, the entire nation of Sudan belongs in Daru al-salom, meaning that a land once ruled by Islam shall always be ruled by Islam. To complicate matters further, most Sudanese in the South are not Muslim but Christians and Pantheists. Religion is an issue not often mentioned in the major news outlets, so it is unlikely that many have heard of this.

To make matters more complicated, the South is a source of resources just as important as oil: slaves. You can buy a human being about $30-$40 USD in Sudan. Surprised? Wherever there is genocide, there is slavery.

What all of this boils down to is this: the causes of the fighting will draw the outside world to interfere more and more. Foreign volunteers will start showing up in Sudan, much like what took place in The Spanish Civil War or in China, or in any country. The idealists, fanatics, extremists and revolutionaries will join on both sides. Once again we will have Ernest Hemingways and George Orwells. We will also see people claiming to be Ma'udi, etc. on the northern side.

Is this good or bad? What does Nationstates say?

No independence for South Sudan. Of course they're Christian/Pagan, but that doesn't matter. We're not stupid; It's common knowledge South Sudan isn't Islamic.

Unles you are South Sudanese, you really cant justify being against it.

I'm sorry, perhaps neither of you understand the question or I worded it poorly. What do you think of outsiders fighting in the war?

Seeing as i quoted somebody else i was pretty sure i was adressing his post.

[East Congaree]

I think all of you are missing something huge here. It is no secret that the Northern Sudanese are largely muslim. Furthermore, the Darfurians are not only receiving volunteers and donations for food and medicine, but they are receiving ammunition as well. According to the doctrines of the Koran, the entire nation of Sudan belongs in Daru al-salom, meaning that a land once ruled by Islam shall always be ruled by Islam. To complicate matters further, most Sudanese in the South are not Muslim but Christians and Pantheists. Religion is an issue not often mentioned in the major news outlets, so it is unlikely that many have heard of this.

To make matters more complicated, the South is a source of resources just as important as oil: slaves. You can buy a human being about $30-$40 USD in Sudan. Surprised? Wherever there is genocide, there is slavery.

What all of this boils down to is this: the causes of the fighting will draw the outside world to interfere more and more. Foreign volunteers will start showing up in Sudan, much like what took place in The Spanish Civil War or in China, or in any country. The idealists, fanatics, extremists and revolutionaries will join on both sides. Once again we will have Ernest Hemingways and George Orwells. We will also see people claiming to be Ma'udi, etc. on the northern side.

Is this good or bad? What does Nationstates say?

No independence for South Sudan. Of course they're Christian/Pagan, but that doesn't matter. We're not stupid; It's common knowledge South Sudan isn't Islamic.

Unles you are South Sudanese, you really cant justify being against it.

I'm sorry, perhaps neither of you understand the question or I worded it poorly. What do you think of outsiders fighting in the war?

I don't take an issue with it. It's bound to happen; Muslims help muslims,fascists help fascists, communists help other leftists, Roman Catholics help Roman Catholics. I have an incredible distaste for the Egyptian and Sudanese governments, though.

[Fson]

East Congaree: Would you still be against the separation of Sudan if the southern portions of the nation did not have any possible material resources [oil]?

If so, why should the people of southern Sudan continue to be governed from Khartoum? How do they / would they benefit?

I'm not trying to be a dick and ask leading questions, I'm just being curious, since you seem to be quite passionate about that point.

You stop my nation from being a slave to Washington, D.C., and we'll talk. The Pacific Coast states, the Rust Belt, and the Northeast run US politics. And, yes, I would be against South Sudan even if it had next to no natural resources.

Your nation?

The South, along with whatever parts of non-Neoliberal America wish to join her. Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, the Midwest, and other places llike that would qualify.

I see your another Hijacker of the souths cause....shame

[Arroza]

East Congaree: Would you still be against the separation of Sudan if the southern portions of the nation did not have any possible material resources [oil]?

If so, why should the people of southern Sudan continue to be governed from Khartoum? How do they / would they benefit?

I'm not trying to be a dick and ask leading questions, I'm just being curious, since you seem to be quite passionate about that point.

You stop my nation from being a slave to Washington, D.C., and we'll talk. The Pacific Coast states, the Rust Belt, and the Northeast run US politics. And, yes, I would be against South Sudan even if it had next to no natural resources.

Your nation?

The South, along with whatever parts of non-Neoliberal America wish to join her. Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, the Midwest, and other places llike that would qualify.

So you advocate secession for the Southern U.S., but not for South Sudan?