Rock The Vote Southern Sudan

[meanJewGreen]

southern sudan has a weeklong referendum on whether or not to break free from the northern half of sudan.

yay for people exercising freedom, especially in the developing world.

[KRAM1]

I agree with the concept, and are happy the people of Southern Sudan are getting a chance to vote to establish their own country. But, it will be one of the poorest, if not the poorest, independent nation on earth should the vote pass. Very little, if any, infrastructure including roads. A very very small minority of the people can even read or write and education is all but non-existent in the area. All that to say, if the vote passes, this new "nation" will need a lot of support and help from other nations if it is going to survive and not become just another Sudan, Ivory Coast, Afghanistan, etc., etc. I wish them all the best and all the success in the world, but they are going to need more than "best wishes".

[Censored by Laurie]

I agree with the concept, and are happy the people of Southern Sudan are getting a chance to vote to establish their own country. But, it will be one of the poorest, if not the poorest, independent nation on earth should the vote pass. Very little, if any, infrastructure including roads. A very very small minority of the people can even read or write and education is all but non-existent in the area. All that to say, if the vote passes, this new "nation" will need a lot of support and help from other nations if it is going to survive and not become just another Sudan, Ivory Coast, Afghanistan, etc., etc. I wish them all the best and all the success in the world, but they are going to need more than "best wishes".

The English should never have left Anglo-Egyptian Sudan...

[KRAM1]

The English should never have left Anglo-Egyptian Sudan...

While not a very PC comment, it could be the start of a very interesting debate. For me, I believe every nation has a right to self-government, but do understand when, at times, it is necessary for one nation to intercede in the affairs of another nation when it is necessary to protect legitimate self-interests. OK, we can debate that idea as well, couldn't we? But, for the sake of this discussion, and just for the sake of discussion (so let's not get our panties in a wad discussing it and start calling folks racists or any other such thing)....would certain countries have been better off in the long run to have remained under British rule? I can think of several nations who at one time had pretty decent infrastructure, educational systems and economies while under British rule that have not fared so well after "kicking the Brits out". Now, one could say, "sure, great if you were part of the British establishment or a member of the ruling class, but not so good for the local residents". I think that would be a fair statement indeed when you look back at colonial Africa and the colonial middle east. But, have the "locals" done a very good job in many of these places creating a "livable" nation with quality infrastructure, educational opportunities, jobs, etc., etc. in their own right? I guess one could look at Colonial France and the US for that matter as well.

I realize it is all well and good to say that every nation should keep their noses out of any other nation's business, and in an ideal world that would be peachy. Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world...too bad. But, since many of these places scream bloody murder for more and more financial and military aid from Britain, France, the US, etc., etc., is it fair to say they are "independent nations" and should be left alone? What would happen if foreign aid were pulled from such places. Would these nations all be better off in the long run if the rest of the world just stood back and let the chips fall where they may? Would such a position lead to a lot of famine and bloodshed in the less developed new nations or would the world be surprised at what could develop given the nations were left alone to fend for themselves? There have been as many successes as failures with newly "crowned" nations as failures, but were the success because of or in spite of "help" from other nations?

Deep stuff, and no way one figures it out here, but I think an interesting discussion if one could actually discuss such a thing without bringing emotions into the discussion. It is interesting and educational in my opinion to discuss such things with an open mind and not, perhaps, from one's "regular political/social" point of view. Is such a thing even possible?

[Denia Park Pedro]

It's not that the British shouldn't have left, it's that they shouldn't have left in the manner that they did. They had spent generations keeping locals as far as possible from the exercise of power and influence that by the time they decided to pack it in not only was there nobody that knew how to run a country left living, there was nobody that had known anybody who knew. Sensible, responsible leadership had all died and when the Brits left the only power there was who had the most guns.

These (for lack of a better term) gang leaders were only interested in getting rich and making their friends rich, not doing right by their people. Some African countries are coming out of it, but some are still so deep (Zimbabwe springs to mind) that I don't know when they'll pull out of it.

[eulesseagle]

This is more about religion with the muslims taking control of the north and the Christians taking control of the South. Literally millions have died in defense of Christianity in the Sudan. Will this be a panacea for peace in the region? I really doubt it due to the growth of Islam throughout Africa and some of the socialistic nut jobs that run some of the other countries.