Wow, and you thought other people's theories were nuts....
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueCat
We overlook Rwanda, Sudan, etc. full knowing of large scale killings but do nothing
So with that said..... why do you think "we chose" Iraq over ALL THE OTHER possibilites? There were countries that pose a much greater security threat as well as countires with greater humanitarian needs. Why Iraq?
Greater humanitarian needs....maybe equal to. There was genocide happening in Iraq too and we did stomp on countries toes that didn't really give a rats ass due to self interests. I'm sure the assassination attempt on paw had something to do with it also.
Like I've said, there's alot of shit that we aren't privy about. Who REALLY knows why? We opened the doors with an open election process that basically puts the Shi'ites into power with a 60% majority. Iran is a Shi'ite run government. Could end up being a big slap in the kisser but once again, who knows?
Wow, and you thought other people's theories were nuts....
Quote:
Originally Posted by F L E S H
Because the US have nothing to gain by freeing poor Africans who possess no resources whatsoever. Just like in Cambodia. Spread freedom my ass.
Sudan has no resources? Get real dude! The French already have their oil deals arranged in that country! :rolleyes:
'World's worst humanitarian crisis'
"In Darfur, it would be better to help the Sudanese get over the crisis so their country is pacified rather than sanctions which would push them back to their misdeeds of old," junior Foreign Minister Renaud Muselier told French radio.
France led opposition to US moves at the UN over Iraq. As was the case in Iraq, France also has significant oil interests in Sudan.
Mr Muselier also dismissed claims of "ethnic cleansing" or genocide in Darfur.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3875277.stm
Wow, and you thought other people's theories were nuts....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
Sudan has no resources? Get real dude! The French already have their oil deals arranged in that country! :rolleyes:
'World's worst humanitarian crisis'
"In Darfur, it would be better to help the Sudanese get over the crisis so their country is pacified rather than sanctions which would push them back to their misdeeds of old," junior Foreign Minister Renaud Muselier told French radio.
France led opposition to US moves at the UN over Iraq. As was the case in Iraq, France also has significant oil interests in Sudan.
Mr Muselier also dismissed claims of "ethnic cleansing" or genocide in Darfur.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3875277.stm
Right, but the US has oil interests in the middle east, so that's why they "free" those people instead of people in the Sudan.
No interest = no freedom.
Wow, and you thought other people's theories were nuts....
Quote:
Originally Posted by F L E S H
Right, but the US has oil interests in the middle east, so that's why they "free" those people instead of people in the Sudan.
No interest = no freedom.
Wasn't our companies pumping oil during Saddam, it was French and Russian. The French are tied all up in Sudan, so why should it be the U.S.? Why not France?
Wow, and you thought other people's theories were nuts....
the US involvement is not a newfound whim of philanthropy by Washington. There is a deliberate strategic national interest: access to oil. Since the Clinton administration, the US has been angling to diversify its oil supplies away from the turbulent Middle East region.
The US has increased policing of the West Africaâ??s oil producing region. The US carrier USS Harry Truman has been deployed on Africaâ??s Atlantic coast under an exercise dubbed "Summer Pulse 04".
The US passes off the exercise as part of the war against terror, but the reason is the oilfields off the west coast of Africa, described as the fastest growing source of oil over the past 10 years.
The US strategic interests in Africa are in the unveiling of the "Africa Doctrine" last year, which involves stability of oil states and therefore energy security. One of the pillars of the doctrine is the African Coastal Security Programme announced in April 2003, weeks before the invasion of Iraq. To ensure stability in the supply of oil, the US is helping the Nigerian military contain civil unrest. And Nigeria has received four of seven military ships.
Despite insistent denials by US Assistant Secretary of State for Africa, Mr Walter Kansteiner, the signs are that a navy base is likely in the Gulf of Guinea, possibly on the Island of Sao Tome, where America is funding a deep-sea port. The US oil interests target Africaâ??s 20 per cent oil contribution to the world market and 60 million barrels of proven oil reserves west of the continent.
In June 2002, the BBC quoted oil industry sources confident of deep-water discoveries that would boost the production on the Atlantic rim for old players like Nigeria, Angola, Gabon, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, and newcomers like Sao Tome.
Sudan falls into this orbit not for its current production levels but for its potential to supplement the Gulf of Guinea oil belt. With peace imminent in southern Sudan, Darfur can only be an inconvenience to a possible link line from Chad to the previously "blood oil" in Southern Sudan.
Wow, and you thought other people's theories were nuts....
THE discovery of oil in Africa would seem to have begun to reinsert the continent into the dynamics of world trade and has resuscitated considerable interest on the part of the US government. In the autumn of 2002, the British magazine The Economist made an accusation to that effect that was echoed by officials and researchers.
In an interview for Asia Times Online published in the fall of 2003, US security analyst Michael Klare, the author of Resource Wars, warned of Washingtonâ??s potential implication on the African continent. When asked where the next oil conflict after Iraq could emerge, Klare responded, "I think in Africa, the situation there is heating up."
To illustrate the basis for such statements, in 2001 a report by Vice President Richard Cheney on US national energy policy affirmed that Africa would be "one of the fastest-growing sources of oil and gas for the United States."
http://granmai.cubaweb.com/ingles/20...7/28petro.html
Wow, and you thought other people's theories were nuts....
Saddam and Chirac: 30 Years of Sleaze
NewsMax.com Wires
Wednesday, April 9, 2003
France has desperately and publicly sought a peaceful solution of the Iraqi crisis with a sole strategic goal: strong influence if not control of the world's future leading oil reserves.
At the same time, French President Jacques Chirac has consolidated his status as heir of former President Charles De Gaulle's policy of independence from the United States.
The Iraqi government remembered Chirac's predecessor Francois Mitterrand's opposition to allied action to evict Iraqi forces from Kuwait, before ultimately joining the Desert Storm coalition, and thus suspected France would eventually not use its veto power to block a second U.N. resolution. With good reason: If it were to have a stake in postwar oil developments, France must have realized it needed to be seen as a supporter of the "coalition of the willing."
Although the veto option did not materialize, opponents of the Iraqi regime accuse France of duplicity, citing opposition to use of force against Saddam's regime as a prime example. They see the French challenge to U.S. hegemony as propaganda for Arab consumption, in an attempt to divert attention from France's own objectives in Iraq.
Funded by the Genocidal Maniac
Opposition leaders accuse France of freely violating international law and the U.N. charter when it comes to safeguarding its interests and argue that Paris' opposition to war was solely to avert its good friend and client Saddam Hussein's ouster.
They point to a quarter of a century of such close relations that Baghdad generously contributed to Chirac's election campaigns and made annual donations to the Gaullist Rassemblement Pour La Republique political party, founded by Chirac.
They cite mutual public declarations of admiration made by the two leaders during Chirac's 1975 trip to Baghdad as prime minister, a visit that ushered in the golden age in French-Iraqi relations.
Shortly thereafter, France provided financial and technical assistance for the Ozirak, Iraq's first nuclear reactor. Israel eventually bombed the Ozirak, keeping Saddam from having a nuclear offensive capability during the Gulf War in 1990-91. At the time, Chirac's critics called him "Jacques Ozirak," much as now U.S. commentators have taken to referring to the French president as "Jacques Iraq."
Follow the Money, Oil, Weapons ...
After Chirac's 1975 visit, Iraq became the leading buyer of French arms, as well as France's main oil supplier. In fact from 1980 until Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, exports to Iraq and Saudi Arabia accounted for 75 percent of France's total arms sales, with the United States eventually taking the lead in Saudi Arabia.
The situation has been further complicated by a struggle between France and Russia over commercial dominance in Iraq.
France was strongly criticized by Baghdad last year when it agreed to the U.N. imposing "smart sanctions" against Iraq. At the time, the Iraqi newspaper Babel, run by Saddam's eldest son Uday, warned France its stance endangered French oil "interests and privileges" in Iraq.
France's leading oil company, Total Elf, which has held exclusive negotiating rights for the huge Majnoun and Bin Omar oil fields, was about to sign new contracts late last year, prior to the Iraqi oil minister being dismissed for canceling contracts with Russia.
Stifling the Opposition
In a bid to recoup its position, the Chirac regime has been the sole major European country refusing to receive Iraqi opposition leaders or hold official discussions with them.
Thus the diplomatic dilemma for Jacques Chirac: Having viewed French interests better served with a friendly Saddam Hussein in power, he has rightly feared the U.S.-led coalition would topple the Iraqi despot. And with good reason.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti.../9/91851.shtml
France was Iraqs largest arms dealer, France sold nuclear designs to Iraq, let the damn French clean up their own mess, FOR ONCE, in Sudan!
Wow, and you thought other people's theories were nuts....
Follow the Money, Oil, Weapons ... <----yes exactly right! Just don't isolate one country as any less guilty than the others...
Let me reiterate.....
USA, Russia, France and Britain do the largest businesses of arms trade in the world. Sometimes, these arms sales are made secretly and sometimes knowingly to human rights violators, military dictatorships and corrupt governments. This does not promote democracy in those nations........it is wrong.
Wow, and you thought other people's theories were nuts....
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueCat
USA, Russia, France and Britain do the largest businesses of arms trade in the world. Sometimes, these arms sales are made secretly and sometimes knowingly to human rights violators, military dictatorships and corrupt governments. This does not promote democracy in those nations........it is wrong.
Arms for special interests, self interests instead of humanitarian for oil, etc... Unfortunately thats what makes the world go around.
Like I said before, I surely ain't gonna worry about it I just hope all these dumb fucks don't go to far and blow us all up! The only way, I believe, for a country now days to stay "pure" is to be complete isolationists. You know how it is though, you take away one asshole problem and there's another to replace it.
Wow, and you thought other people's theories were nuts....
Actually Costa Rica got rid of it's standing Army and put all the money into social programs. They have some of the best medical care in the world. It is better than the US medical care in many ways...
The have also invested highly in Ecotourism and it has worked out really well.
I can't wait to move there.
You will not convince me that making weapons and selling them to other countries so they can blow each other away is an OK accepted practice. It never will be for me, ever. I don't believe that is what makes the world go around. Its not OK becuase every country is doing it. Every country is wrong.
I live my life with a clear conscience...
