Although there are active Al Qaeda training camps in Sudan and there is mass genocide, Bush says he is not interested in stopping the ruthless dictator there because there isn't enough oil for Halliburton to justify drilling. TIME Magazine: The Tragedy of Sudan The Tragedy of Sudan Fifty thousand are dead, thousands more will die, and more than 1 million have lost their homes. Simon Robinson visits Darfur and witnesses what is happening while the world dithers. By SIMON ROBINSON Oct. 4, 2004 The first sound Zahara Abdulkarim heard when she woke that last morning in her village was the drone of warplanes circling overhead. Then came gunshots and screams and the sickening crash of bombs ripping through her neighbors' mud-and-thatch huts, gouging craters into the dry earth. When Abdulkarim, 25, ran outside, she was confronted by two men in military uniform, one wielding a knife, the other a whip. They were members, she says, of the Arab militia known as the Janjaweed, which over the past 18 months has slaughtered tens of thousands of black Africans like Abdulkarim across the... http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/conspiracy_theory/fullstory.asp?id=156 The Bush administration claims it's on a mission to root out terrorism all over the world, yet it provides the Chadian military with both trainings and armaments to keep groups linked to al-Qaeda active in the Sudan troubled region, Darfur.
Actually a few months ago when this started coming up, the US did try to put a resolution through the security council in the UN condeming this and to order immediate sanctions and to find a solution to Dafur, guess who opposed it though, France.
The washington post had a great article last summer about how Africa was a really fertile area for terrorism. It is largely unpoliced, has corrupt governments, has great areas to hide out in, and the U.S. doesn't give two fucks about it. That and it has a giant-assed muslim population sympathetic to their cause.
I love that, when in doubt BLAME FRANCE comment. King George has already proven that he doesn't listen to the U.N. The U.N. security council had to pull their weapons inspectors out before the advancing American Army ran them over. The problem is that Sudan only has Al Qaeda, Mass Murder, Terrorism....and not enough oil to fight over. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/su.html Economy Sudan Oil - consumption: 50,000 bbl/day (2001 est.) Oil - exports: NA (2001) Oil - imports: NA (2001) Oil - proved reserves: 631.5 million bbl (1 January 2002) Compared to... http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html Economy Iraq Oil - production: 2.2 million bbl/day; note - prewar production was 2.8 million bbl/day (January 2004 est.) Oil - consumption: 460,000 bbl/day (2001 est.) Oil - exports: 1.7 million bbl/day (January 2004) Oil - proved reserves: 113.8 billion bbl (1 January 2002) ************** You can bet the next invasion will be Syria or Iran. That's where the oil is.
Well France blocked the invasion of Iraq also and that didn't matter one way or the other. Are you going to blame France for all of the women and children killed in Iraq?
This isn't about Iraq, I'm talking about the Sudan, and they blocked the original resolution we put into the security council.
Who gives a fuck?! That isn't the reason why King George hasn't done anything about the genocide going on in Sudan. France has nothing to do with it. I notice that you don't post the reasons for France's U.N. vote. You just take a cheap shot. King George promised the American people that he would root out terrorists and the countries that habor them. Bush LIED. He doesn't give a fuck about how many people who die in Sudan. Sudan is proof that all Bush cares about is oil profits. http://icasualties.org/oif/
If it were only oil profits, we'd be in the Sudan in a heartbeat, that country has an oil buisness that is just starting with millions upon millions of untaped reserves, and we have a much better reason to go after them then we ever did Iraq, and with the country already controlled 1/2 by rebels, it would be even easier then Iraq.
Exactly Fly. Blame him for unilateralism, then blame him for not being unilateralist. Either way you win!
Sudan does not have enough oil to even fight over. MadCap you are full of shit. Do you know the difference betweeen millions and billions? Economy Sudan proved reserves: 631.5 million bbl (1 January 2002) http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/su.html Economy Syria proved reserves: 2.4 billion bbl (1 January 2002) http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/sy.html Bush doesn't care about unilateralism, only his own oil agenda. He is indifferent to it. Bush will be unilateral if it gets him oil. Bush will go against world opinion if it gets him oil. It's all about the oil. I don't win, I am just right.
No, if Bush acts unilaterally, you criticise him. If he doesn't, you criticise him. If he doesn't go to Sudan, its because he doesn't care about people. If he does, its about oil. You need consistency to earn credibility, Fly.
Bull shit. There isn't enough oil in Sudan to fight over. Halliburton would not make any money. The only reason to go into Sudan would be humanitarian. There is no, "If he does, its about oil" when talking about Sudan. PB you are the truth molestor who justifies every crappy thing King George does.
Like I said Fly, consistency earns credibility. If there isn't enough oil in Sudan then there isn't enough in Syria, either. Syria has about 2% of Iraq's reserves and will probably run out within ten years. Your arguments are incompatible, though that won't stop you. PS We never sold WMDs to Iraq so your cartoon is further evidence of how clueless you are.
You can make that comment and he can argue it, but it didn't happen, so we'll never really know will we?
