Quote:
Originally posted by highthief
So you suggest first France wants sanctions lifted because French companies would make money (Along with other private companies and governments on the security council). Then, failing that, they vote to maintain the status quo because they'd rather make a little money than take part in divding up the country militarily - even though they know their resolution will not change the US/UK approach. And the US now controls 100% of the country - did the US do it to oust an evil dictator or did they do it for oil, Haliburton and contracts?
|
Yes, the French government wanted to do what was in their best interests. If they can't lift the sanctions, they can at least maintain the status quo. Failing that (because of the US attacking anyway), they stand to gain politically by opposing the attack. After all, opponents of the US will now look more favourably at France. Besides, once they openly opposed the attacks, they simply couldn't turn around and support it - they'd have lost credibilty, and would have looked politically impotent. Furthermore, they'll be hoping the US caves in and calls in the UN, at which time they'll start to gain financially again...
The US invaded for a variety of reasons, as has been said time and time again. When you wrote that last line, did it occur to you that they may have done it for *all* those reasons, and many more besides those?
...but wasn't this threat about Sudan???
Okay, back on topic: the US and other countries will not help Sudan because of a variety of reasons. The possible end results simply aren't worth it, especially given the huge risks. That may sound brutal, but it's *their* money and *their* soldiers' lives that are on the line. Their own population wouldn't even support an intervention in Sudan, especially if it turns into another Somalia, which is quite likely.