China opposes expanded sanctions against Sudan

[Psycho4Bud]

BEIJING, May 29 (Reuters) - China said on Tuesday that it opposed expanded sanctions against Sudan after reports the United States will unveil tough new restrictions on Sudan and push for another U.N. resolution on the bloodshed in Darfur.

China's representative on African affairs, Liu Guijin, who has been acting as an envoy on Darfur, said "pressure and sanctions" did not help resolve problems.

"Expanding sanctions can only make the problem more difficult to resolve," Liu told a news conference in Beijing. Asked whether China would veto any new U.N. Security Council resolution targeting Sudan, he said: "It's still too early to speak of."

Liu's comments reflected the pressure China faces as it seeks to balance ties with Sudan and calls from Washington and other Western capitals for tougher action on Darfur.

Fighting by government-linked militia and rebel groups in that region of western Sudan has killed more than 200,000 people and driven about 2 million from their homes, the United Nations has estimated. Sudan says only about 9,000 have died.

Beijing said earlier this month it would send 275 military engineers for a U.N. force to bolster African Union peacekeepers already in Darfur, as an initial step of the "Annan" peace plan, which Sudan has accepted in principle but delayed implementing.

But China, a major investor in Sudan's oil, has blocked sending U.N. peacekeepers to Darfur without Khartoum's consent, bringing accusations from human rights groups that it is abetting widespread bloodshed, even genocide. As a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, China can veto resolutions.
News | Africa - Reuters.com

This is CLEARLY about the oil. If China wants to block sanctions then I'd suggest they send in troops to clean up the mess.

Have a good one!:s4:

Psycho4Bud Reviewed by Psycho4Bud on 05-29-2007. China opposes expanded sanctions against Sudan BEIJING, May 29 (Reuters) - China said on Tuesday that it opposed expanded sanctions against Sudan after reports the United States will unveil tough new restrictions on Sudan and push for another U.N. resolution on the bloodshed in Darfur. China's representative on African affairs, Liu Guijin, who has been acting as an envoy on Darfur, said "pressure and sanctions" did not help resolve problems. "Expanding sanctions can only make the problem more difficult to resolve," Liu told a news Rating: 5

[medicinal]

Fighting by government-linked militia and rebel groups in that region of western Sudan has killed more than 200,000 people and driven about 2 million from their homes, the United Nations has estimated. Sudan says only about 9,000 have died.

Sounds familiar, except about 650,000 have died in Iraq. The 2 million displaced sounds about right, and the lying about the number killed rings a bell with US figures in Iraq. Gee, do you think the US government and the Sudanese government are run by the same type people? Kill em all and let God sort it out! ..........................................This is CLEARLY about the oil. If China wants to block sanctions then I'd suggest they send in troops to clean up the mess.........Sound familiar? clearly about the oil, Ha Ha Ho Ho He He, talk about hypocritical!

[Psycho4Bud]

Fighting by government-linked militia and rebel groups in that region of western Sudan has killed more than 200,000 people and driven about 2 million from their homes, the United Nations has estimated. Sudan says only about 9,000 have died.

Sounds familiar, except about 650,000 have died in Iraq. The 2 million displaced sounds about right, and the lying about the number killed rings a bell with US figures in Iraq. Gee, do you think the US government and the Sudanese government are run by the same type people? Kill em all and let God sort it out! ..........................................This is CLEARLY about the oil. If China wants to block sanctions then I'd suggest they send in troops to clean up the mess.........Sound familiar? clearly about the oil, Ha Ha Ho Ho He He, talk about hypocritical!

Find me a valid article that states that the reason that the U.S. invaded was to protect our oil interests and that we could really give a rats ass about the killing in the country. NOTHING hypocritical about it.....

Have a good one!:s4:

[medicinal]

Find me a valid article that states that the reason that the U.S. invaded was to protect our oil interests and that we could really give a rats ass about the killing in the country. NOTHING hypocritical about it.....

I suppose the definition of "Valid" would be the key player in this venue, If you think I can't find a hundred articles that state we're in Iraq for the oil, you'd be wrong. As far as the killing, we started it and are continuing it, without us, there would be 600,000+ Iraqis alive that aren't now!PROOF - WAR ON IRAQ IS FOR OIL

Bush decided to invade Iraq in April 2001, six months before September 11th, and the official reason was to improve Western access to Iraqi oil.


"President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that 'Iraq remains
a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets
from the Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to
the US 'military intervention' is necessary."[1]
The decision for military action had nothing to do with 9/11, the war on terrorism, the UN weapons inspections, weapons of mass destruction, Iraqi human rights, or any of the factors that the US government would like you to believe are the true motives for war.

The only people who will benefit from the war on Iraq are the elite wealthy oil men who finance Bush's election campaigns, and people like Bush who have huge personal investments in the oil industry. Oil company profits have already increased by fifty percent this year because of the war, and the invasion hasn't even started yet!


"Profits in the fourth quarter soared 50% to $4.09bn (£2.5bn),
beating analyst expectations."[2]
War-time propaganda tells you what you want to hear; that your politicians have noble motives for the war on Iraq.

Before you choose what to believe, have you considered the facts[3] for yourself?

[Psycho4Bud]

Find me a valid article that states that the reason that the U.S. invaded was to protect our oil interests and that we could really give a rats ass about the killing in the country. NOTHING hypocritical about it.....

I suppose the definition of "Valid" would be the key player in this venue, If you think I can't find a hundred articles that state we're in Iraq for the oil, you'd be wrong. As far as the killing, we started it and are continuing it, without us, there would be 600,000+ Iraqis alive that aren't now!

There would still be 600,000 dead but the only difference would be that there would be no Sunni and a hell of alot more Kurds and Shiites.

Have a good one!:s4:

[medicinal]

PROOF - WAR ON IRAQ IS FOR OIL

Bush decided to invade Iraq in April 2001, six months before September 11th, and the official reason was to improve Western access to Iraqi oil.

"President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that 'Iraq remains
a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets
from the Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to
the US 'military intervention' is necessary."[1]
The decision for military action had nothing to do with 9/11, the war on terrorism, the UN weapons inspections, weapons of mass destruction, Iraqi human rights, or any of the factors that the US government would like you to believe are the true motives for war.

The only people who will benefit from the war on Iraq are the elite wealthy oil men who finance Bush's election campaigns, and people like Bush who have huge personal investments in the oil industry. Oil company profits have already increased by fifty percent this year because of the war, and the invasion hasn't even started yet!


"Profits in the fourth quarter soared 50% to $4.09bn (£2.5bn),
beating analyst expectations."[2]
War-time propaganda tells you what you want to hear; that your politicians have noble motives for the war on Iraq.

Before you choose what to believe, have you considered the facts[3] for yourself?
__________________

[Psycho4Bud]

Can I ask what your news source is on that?

Have a good one!:s4:

[medicinal]

www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraqWAR ON IRAQ - IS OIL A MOTIVE FOR THE MILITARY CONQUEST OF IRAQ? READ THE EVIDENCE AND DECIDE FOR YOURSELF..asp This is just one of hundreds

[Psycho4Bud]

www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraqWAR ON IRAQ - IS OIL A MOTIVE FOR THE MILITARY CONQUEST OF IRAQ? READ THE EVIDENCE AND DECIDE FOR YOURSELF..asp This is just one of hundreds

No offense dude but isn't that blog just a bit to the left? Just a tad maybe....

Have a good one!:s4:

[fishman3811]

See whenever the right see,s something that is against there belief then its a left wing propoghanda piece.Everybody on this planet knows its about the oil except half or more of the population in America.This is how brainwashed Americans are LOL sad really.You see this is the reason why Americans are regarded soo highly throughout the world.Now if the rest of the world really believed that you guys invaded Iraq to liberate the country from an evil tyrant dont you think they would love you guys......