It shouldn't matter who sold who the guns. If they wanted guns that badly they could manufacture them. True, adding to the problem doesn't help. Its the person on the trigger that does the killing. We can't sell them the motive, just the tools.
Printable View
It shouldn't matter who sold who the guns. If they wanted guns that badly they could manufacture them. True, adding to the problem doesn't help. Its the person on the trigger that does the killing. We can't sell them the motive, just the tools.
But why did they sell the guns? They signed oil contracts in the troubled southern region.......it seems a quick fix of killing the people of this region was easier than sharing the wealth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zimzum
Wish I could find the thread.....I had one on this exact subject about a year ago or better. Spelled out French intentions pretty clearly.
Have a good one!:jointsmile:
"France's oil giant TotalFinaElf has enormous, but presently inaccessible, concession rights in southern Sudan," Reeves said in a editorial prior to the vote. "Perversely, upgrading Khartoum's human rights status makes it much more likely that the regime will be able to extend its scorched-earth tactics to 'secure' these concessions for TotalFinaElf."
Reeves charged that "other EU countries â?? Germany, Britain, Italy, Sweden â?? have also had their appetites whetted by Khartoum's relatively recent petro-wealth."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=32098
France has provided Khartoum with military intelligence for the prosecution of the jihad, while French and German helicopters have been used for ethnic cleansing in southern Sudan's oil fields. Further, their subversion does not stop there. In concert, the Franco-German contingent persuaded the United Nations Commission on Human Rights to censor any utilization of the word "slavery" from official documents on Sudan, favoring instead the terminology of "abduction".
http://www.iabolish.com/update/press-release.php?id=41
Have a good one!:jointsmile:
^^^
What do you mean America & Exxon Mobil isn't responsible for this, that can't be right ;)
You guys have got to stop looking at this like it is just America. Exxon Shell BP Dynacorp etc are not owned by just Americans...that is not what I am saying at all.
But why did they sell the guns? They signed oil contracts in the troubled southern region.......it seems a quick fix of killing the people of this region was easier than sharing the wealth.
Exactly Psycho killing the indigenous people is easier than taking care of them!! That is the point I am trying to make. The original question was why is nothing being done and this is the reason.
It does not matter French, US, Great Brits, It is still these *cough* NON corrupt governments that are selling weapons in regions of unrest not for humanitarian reasons like they want you to believe but to stake their claim in the resources and as the climate changes and the water dries up these indigenous people are moving onto lands that put them in conflict with governments and big oil. I am sorry but I think it is wrong to want to make the entire world over to look like the USA. So many people in this country think democracy means having a Wal-Mart and Mc Ds on every corner. I dont.
And the same people that think this is not happening also think there is no global warming. I just don't understand this kind of reasoning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
OH well then if French and Germans are doing it then it must be OK. :rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueCat
Gonna steal that last part for a sig for a while if that's ok.
Had to modify it a little since I don't live in the states.
THIS is my point.......what does the USA and it's market place have to do with the French, once again, being envolved in a genocidal act in Africa? Rwanda, Sudan..........how the hell is the U.S. linked to this and now that it's done are we the "world police" as the left states over and over or should we have the French clean up their own toilet for once?Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueCat
Have a good one!:jointsmile:
LOL........new smilie for politics.
Have a good one!:Tomcat:
In a perfect world yes but, France isn't going to help in Sudan for same reason as Iraq, money, as soon we refused to "guarantee" the contracts they (France) signed with Saddam they pulled out. Never-mind that we couldn't "guarantee" that the new Iraq Government would honor those deals, even if we want too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
As soon as France figured out that we weren't installing a puppet Government that they could milk, they were gone.
In Sudan we should try and help those people even though it's not our doing.
All the "it's America's fault, corporate greed/conspiracy" Bla-bla-bla is just background noise.
I'm proud that America always tries to do the right thing, we're not always successful but we are committed to trying. There will always be people that can not be honest enough with themselves to admit all thats right with my country. .
I truly hope America's new UN Ambassador is as effective at putting a international coalition together as Bolton was, I think not, it put I will wait and see. I hope I'm wrong but without Bolton,I think Dufar is going to go from bad to worst.