Provisional results show South Sudan votes to secede

[muriel_volestrangler]

Source: Reuters

Provisional results from South Sudan's referendum show that almost 99 percent of voters have chosen independence, the referendum commission's website said on Sunday after 98.7 percent of the votes had been counted.

The referendum was promised under a 2005 north-south peace deal which ended Africa's longest civil war. A vote for secession was widely expected because of persistent tension between the mainly Muslim north and southerners who mainly Christian or follow traditional religions.

"As of now, 100 percent of the North and (overseas) votes and 98.7 percent of the South votes have been processed," the commission's website (southernsudan2011.com/) said.

The provisional and incomplete results showed that 98.81 percent of voters wanted secession, it said, confirming earlier returns.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70M0B020110123

---

Turnout also met the 60% hurdle: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/01/22/sudan.referendum.results/

This was not a surprise, of course (though one might raise an eyebrow at the one-sidedness of the vote).

[jody]

1. Hope the North invades the South and puts an end to the idea of secession. Of course that would

anger legends of history who believed:

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."

“The right of revolution is an inherent one. When people are oppressed by their government, it is a natural right they enjoy to relieve themselves of oppression, if they are strong enough, whether by withdrawal from it, or by overthrowing it and substituting a government more acceptable.”

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. Are you implying that south Sudan is a slave-holding culture?

In fact, it's south Sudan which has tended to suffer from having its people abducted in raids by people from the north.

Of course, I may have misread what you have written. But it looks to me as if you are trying to compare the 'plight' of the American slave-holding states with that of southern Sudan.

[jody]

4. Do you disagree with the universal meaning of the quotes I cited? nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. Yes; what makes you think American quotes are universal? (nt)

[jody]

7. Some are and became part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but you knew that. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. Which of those 2 made it into the Declaration of Human Rights? (nt)

[jody]

9. You asked "what makes you think American quotes are universal?" I answered that question. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. Do you feel like answering my first question?

Or will you stick in 'slavery wasn't the reason for the American Civil War' mode?

[jody]

13. The OP quoted "98.81 percent of voters wanted secession". I quoted Lincoln & Grant who supported the

right of people to change their government or secede.

Why do you want to sidetrack the author's OP by talking about slavery when
the author apparently wanted to talk about secession?

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. I am the thread starter; I want to know why you sidetracked the thread with slavery denial

After all, the southern states of the US never held a referendum among their population to ask if they wanted to secede. The slaves never got asked at all, about anything. Thus, your attempt to liken this to the situation 150 years ago in the US is a red herring from a sore southerner still bitter over getting told to stop slavery.

[jody]

15. You introduced "slavery" not I. I quoted two legends who believe people have the right to change

their government or secede.

Are you so naive as to believe that Lincoln and Grant are only important for your simple focus on "slavery"?

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. Anyone who introduces the American Civil War without acknowledging it was about slavery

is a whining southerner who can't accept the moral failure of their states 150 years ago. Yes, when you introduce Lincoln and Grant in a post with 'North', 'South' and 'secession' in the title, you're whining about not being allowed to continue slavery. No, I'm not so naive as to fall for your southern crap that the American Civil War wasn't all about slavery.

[jody]

17. ROFL because your answer to my question in #15 is "YES". Have a great day and goodbye. nt

[DCKit]

5. I would also ask: "Who drew the borders?"

Many of the problems in the M.E. and Africa have arisen from the creation of artificial states by the colonial powers. There was no regard for the historic borders of the various peoples/tribes and/or religious groups.

How much less of a problem would the illegal invasion of Iraq have been had the country been divided into three states - Sunni, Shia and Kurd? Or Afghanistan?

[karynnj]

10. huh?

As there were decades of what was essentially genocide, there is likely NOT a solution that keeps this country whole. This vote seems overwhelming.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. They're pretending that the American South wanted to secede for reasons other than slavery

and are trying to pretend that leaders like Lincoln and Grant were unfair to the oh-so-put-upon slaveholding states.

[nyy1998]

2. Great news!!! Now if we could get Darfur to do the same! nt