Why not help in the Sudan

[mrbuck12000]

Louisville, Ky. - Kentucky Courier Journal
June 17, 2004

"More than 30,000 black Sudanese in the province of Darfur are believed to have been murdered or starved by Arab militias in the past year, and thousands have been raped or tortured. Nearly a million refugees have fled to camps in Darfur or in neighboring Chad. Now the rainy season is beginning, and a top U.N. official estimates that if significant aid does not arrive soon, the death toll may quickly jump to 300,000.

"The United States should insist that the Security Council demand unrestricted access for humanitarian missions and authorize a peacekeeping force, for which it should urge European and African nations to provide soldiers.

"The world has lived with guilt too often after rampages of mass murder that could have been prevented. Sudan should not be added to this shameful list."

These seem to be some of the reasons why we went into iraq to help out the people, why is it that we are not sending troops there to help out? We seem to be pushing the UN to help out here, but if they are taking there time, like we felt they did in Iraq, why don;t we go into the sudan to help them out?

p.s.....my apologies for the last thread, i was a little rattled. this one is edited for my flaming!!

mr b

[nanofever]

when i can add something worthwhile, i'll be allowed to speak.

[phredgreen]

much better.


i agree with your sentiment, something needs to be done, but the united states is stretched thin, militarily. it's gotten so bad that the army is involuntarily recalling deactivated troops, some after 3 years of deactivation, and they're begging air force and navy personnell to switch over to green army uniforms when their service is done.

our country has become the number one defender of other countries, but in doing so, it has left one crucial country behind. the United States. our interstate highways and utility infrastructures are crumbling, our schools are in dilapidated conditions, and crime rules the streets in many areas.

as much as the rest of the world needs us, we need our troops even more at home.



the political implications of our occupation in the middle east are another reasoning for the disregard of other areas of terrorist hotbeds. if saudi money funded terrorist attacks and a majority of the hijackers who crashed planes were saudi, why aren't we in saudi arabia right now? but i digress...


sudan has turned into another rawanda, another bosnia, and the world, as a whole, needs to do something. it can no longer be the united states coming to the rescue of every little country that falls into bad times. the united nations needs to step up and become a real world power unto itself.

[KMA-628]

I'm gonna have to agree with phredgreen, well sort of.

We can't be the only one to be relied on in times like this.

It is just as telling that the U.N. isn't doing anything. We can't be the only people appaled by this, why isn't anyone else offering to go in to help? Why must it always be us?

[djtestudo]

Wake me when France and Germany start to care.

[BigGov]

We're already in Iraq and Afghanistan, going into a third country right now would be unreasonable and just plain stupid. We're stretched too thin as it is, in order to solve everyone's problems we'd need a draft and huge war movement.

[Boo]

Originally posted by djtestudo
Wake me when France and Germany start to care.

Ditto... and others.

I really don't want my family and friends to be a world police force. I believe in doing our fair share, but the other countries are shirking in their assistance. Of course, we need to be a little less forceful and more diplomatic in our diplomacy.

[Pacifier]

Originally posted by djtestudo
Wake me when France and Germany start to care.

OK, WAKE UP!
Germany already cares.
Problem is, what can we (the western world) do? From what I read so far we are already quick to label one side of the conflict as "the evil" and the other as "the good. This is, as always, way too easy and simple.
I don't think that the west has enough "material" (germany has already troops in at least two other nations, and our army is officially a defence army and rather small!) and knowledge about the conflict to achieve a solution.

[gondath]

The reason for the US not sending troops involves gain. Unless this country, or any country for that matter, can get some sort of economic or diplomatic benefit from doing so, we do not get involved in the disputes of other countries. Nations are very choosy about which people in the world are worth helping. I hope some day this will change, but I seriously doubt it. The only way to really force the government to get involved is a huge public outcry over it. Good luck convincing the typical American to get that involved with people in need of another nationality.

[archer2371]

Somalia Redux anyone?

[mrbuck12000]

yes but is very easy to sway the american people that you need to invade another country if you first scare the be-jesus out of american people and then you tell them that the country you are going to invade has wmd's and they harbor terrorists. these are not proven facts. (just blame the cia though...bad intell...in the mean time 850 men are killed and 1000's wounded over bad intel....another thread!!!)

Personally i think that we should focus all of our attention on this country and get out of everyones business. But to me this administration is picking and choosing who gets to live and who gets to die. Do you have oil or dnn't you, because if you don't, well we really can't help you out.


mr b

[phredgreen]

Originally posted by djtestudo
Wake me when France and Germany start to care.

if this hadn't been replied to a few times, i would've removed it. it's a bullshit statement without any merit. don't do it again.

germany and france chose not to take part in an undertaking that wasn't condoned by the UN and was initiated under false pretenses. if that makes them bad people, then i want to be a bad person too. don't villify someone because they don't completely agree with you and your lofty ideals.

[cthulu23]

Originally posted by phredgreen
if this hadn't been replied to a few times, i would've removed it. it's a bullshit statement without any merit. don't do it again.

I'm relatively new to the political forum and the answer to my question may be apparent to everyone else here, but I didn't realize that posters could have their words removed because their argument is perceived as weak. It was my understanding that the rules of this forum demanded staying on topic and showing respect for each other, not intellectual relevance. Am I mistaken in my interpretaion of the forum rules?

I'm not alleging or accusing anyone of anything with this statement, I would just like some clarification on this point.

[Zamunda]

speaking with some sort of experience as I am half american and have grown up in places throughout Africa, like Rwanda, it is impossible for the US to either send troops or do any good. We can't send troops now for the same reasons we couldn't send any to Rwanda under Clinton, political suicide. While our memory of Somalia is not as fresh as it was then, we've had other wars to remind us and Sudan is a harsher environment than somalia. For those who haven't had the "pleasure" of visiting this desert wasteland I'll say this: no roads, no water, no food, lots of tribes, lots of guns. Only advantage is that Sudan is a lot bigger than Rwanda, so their problems aren't reaching a climax as fast. My second point is that US troops would do squat shit in Sudan, for the reasons stated above: hunger, no roads, and pissed off people. This debate is all pointless anyway because there's no way the US military could spare enough of a force to even establish a presence in Sudan
I know open the floor for anyone who wants to argue. After all thats why we are all on this site

[Dragonlich]

What is there to be gained from sending troops into Sudan? It's basically a low-level civil war there. Foreign troops will either have to do nothing (peacekeepers), and be useless; or they have to actively fight any and all armed groups (peace enforcers), and be open to a world of dead and wounded, and a lot of criticism for "human rights violations".

The situation in Iraq was different, in that there was a central government doing the killing. In Sudan it's random groups of people, blending into the population as a whole...

[Mojo_PeiPei]

Originally posted by phredgreen
if this hadn't been replied to a few times, i would've removed it. it's a bullshit statement without any merit. don't do it again.

germany and france chose not to take part in an undertaking that wasn't condoned by the UN and was initiated under false pretenses. if that makes them bad people, then i want to be a bad person too. don't villify someone because they don't completely agree with you and your lofty ideals.

That's complete shit phred. The reasons France and Germany and other countries such as Russia didn't get involved in Iraq wasn't because of the pretenses, it was because they were too busy being on the take from Saddam. Perhaps you should consider reading up on the oil-for-food scandal. Also not to help the French's case is the fact that they were also violating the Arm's embargo at the same time as they were taking illegal oil from Saddam.

I guess you are a bad person. Even if the US's motives are questionable for going into Iraq, removing Saddam from power is 100x better then the alternative of leaving him in power because you are on the take in shady deals.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

Also I'm fairly certain this issue is black and white, there is definitly evil afoot here, might be tough to assert there is a force of good. But judging by the fact that more then 2 million people have died, there is an active slave trade (comprised largely of children), and the government sanctions rape/execution squads that are largely responsible for the conflict, I must again say this is an issue of good and evil. Not to mention the fact that this is being done because those in the south are Christian and choose not to follow a cruel and repressive Sharia regime.

[brianna]

we're not going to the suddan because we're short on troops. personally i think that stopping the genocide that is going on there is a much more worthy cause then trying to force democracy in iraq -- but it's too late now.

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by Dragonlich
What is there to be gained from sending troops into Sudan? It's basically a low-level civil war there. Foreign troops will either have to do nothing (peacekeepers), and be useless; or they have to actively fight any and all armed groups (peace enforcers), and be open to a world of dead and wounded, and a lot of criticism for "human rights violations".

The situation in Iraq was different, in that there was a central government doing the killing. In Sudan it's random groups of people, blending into the population as a whole...

Agreed. In addition, the problems in Sudan are internally generated and are not a threat to our national security. Tragic as they are, we have no ability solve a civil war - unless we are willing to engage in imperialism and enforce martial law. Such an extreme solution would be temporary at best - and not at all palatable.

[phredgreen]

cthulu23, it's simple. if you're going to make a statement, do it intelligently. his wasn't, and it was treated as such.


Mojo_PeiPei, show me. let's see some articles that show what was going on behind the scenes. i'd be happy to change my stance if i have the facts.

wonderwench, i agree with your statement. i think it's high time that the world stop depending on the united states to solve its ills. i propose that if anyone is responsible for things like this, it needs to be the united nations as a whole, not one country.

[highthief]

Originally posted by djtestudo
Wake me when France and Germany start to care.

Germany has participated in the Afghanistan mission, and - in 1991 when they were constitutionally unable to send troops - provided billions of dollars to liberating Kuwait. I believe they have about 9000 troops deployed worldwide in peacekeeping and policing efforts, including in Afghanistan and Africa.

They chose not to participate this time. I guess all the other countries that did not send troops this time around must have been on the take as well, right?

[seretogis]

France, Germany, and Russia did not want us in Iraq because they were profitting from the Saddam regime and didn't want us to ruin a good thing (for them). It isn't incredibly diabolical for a country to want to beenfit from another, so the only reason it is a big deal is because they lied about their motives. I would have more respect for them if they had admitted, openly, that they had close trade ties to Iraq and so wouldn't assist to topple Saddam.

As for the Sudan, we have no reason to involve ourselves there and I would hope that we would keep out as well as withdraw our troops from South Korea, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and the other dozen countries they're spread out to. We are not the world's police force -- take it up with the UN.

Here ya go Phred:

LINK

Facts on Who Benefits From Keeping Saddam Hussein In Power
by Carrie Satterlee
WebMemo #217

February 28, 2003 - Updated, April 1, 2003 | |

France

* France controls over 22.5 percent of Iraq’s imports.[1] French total trade with Iraq under the oil-for-food program is the third largest, totaling $3.1 billion since 1996, according to the United Nations.[2]
* In 2001 France became Iraq’s largest European trading partner. Roughly 60 French companies did an estimated $1.5 billion in trade with Baghdad in 2001 under the U.N. oil-for-food program.[3]
* France’s largest oil company, Total Fina Elf, has negotiated extensive oil contracts to develop the Majnoon and Nahr Umar oil fields in southern Iraq. Both the Majnoon and Nahr Umar fields are estimated to contain as much as 25 percent of the country’s oil reserves. The two fields purportedly contain an estimated 26 billion barrels of oil.[4] In 2002, the non-war price per barrel of oil was $25. Based on that average these two fields have the potential to provide a gross return near $650 billion.
* France’s Alcatel company, a major telecom firm, is negotiating a $76 million contract to rehabilitate Iraq’s telephone system.[5]
* In 2001 French carmaker Renault SA sold $75 million worth of farming equipment to Iraq.[6]
* More objections have been lodged against French export contracts with Iraq than any other exporting country under the oil-for-food program, according to a report published by the London Times. In addition French companies have signed contracts with Iraq worth more than $150 million that are suspected of being linked to its military operations.[7] Some of the goods offered by French companies to Iraq, detailed by UN documents, include refrigerated trucks that can be used as storage facilities and mobile laboratories for biological weapons.
* Iraq owes France an estimated $6 billion in foreign debt accrued from arms sales in the 1970s and ‘80s.[8]
* From 1981 to 2001, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), France was responsible for over 13 percent of Iraq’s arms imports.[9]

Germany

* Direct trade between Germany and Iraq amounts to about $350 million annually, and another $1 billion is reportedly sold through third parties.[10]
* It has recently been reported that Saddam Hussein has ordered Iraqi domestic businesses to show preference to German companies as a reward for Germany’s “firm positive stand in rejecting the launching of a military attack against Iraq.” It was also reported that over 101 German companies were present at the Baghdad Annual exposition.[11]
* During the 35th Annual Baghdad International Fair in November 2002, a German company signed a contract for $80 million for 5,000 cars and spare parts.[12]
* In 2002, DaimlerChrysler was awarded over $13 million in contracts for German trucks and spare parts.[13]
* Germany is owed billions by Iraq in foreign debt generated during the 1980’s.[14]
* German officials are investigating a German corporation accused of illegally channeling weapons to Iraq via Jordan. The equipment in question is used for boring the barrels of large cannons and is allegedly intended for Saddam Hussein’s Al Fao Supercannon project.[15] An article in the German daily Tageszeitung reported that of the more than 80 German companies that have done business with Baghdad since around 1975 and have continued to do so up until 2001, many have supplied whole systems or components for weapons of mass destruction.

Russia

* Russia controls roughly 5.8 percent of Iraq’s annual imports.[16] Under the U.N. oil-for-food program, Russia’s total trade with Iraq was somewhere between $530 million and $1 billion for the six months ending in December of 2001.[17]
* According to the Russian Ambassador to Iraq, Vladimir Titorenko, new contracts worth another $200 million under the U.N. oil-for-food program are to be signed over the next three months.[18]
* Russia’s LUKoil negotiated a $4 billion, 23-year contract in 1997 to rehabilitate the 15 billion-barrel West Qurna field in southern Iraq. Work on the oil field was expected to commence upon cancellation of U.N. sanctions on Iraq. The deal is currently on hold.[19]
* In October 2001, Salvneft, a Russian–Belarus company, negotiated a $52 million service contract to drill at the Tuba field in Southern Iraq.[20]
* In April 2001, Russia’s Zaruezhneft and Tatneft companies received a service contract to drill in the Saddam, Kirkuk, and Bai Hassan fields to rehabilitate the fields and reduce water incursion. Together the deals were valued at $13.2 million.[21]
* A future $40 billion Iraqi–Russian economic agreement, reportedly signed in 2002, would allow for extensive oil exploration opportunities throughout western Iraq.[22] The proposal calls for 67 new projects, over a 10-year time frame, to explore and further develop fields in southern Iraq and the Western Desert, including the Suba, Luhais, West Qurna, and Rumaila projects. Additional projects added to the deal include second-phase construction of a pipeline running from southern to northern Iraq, and extensive drilling and gas projects. Work on these projects would commence upon cancellation of sanctions.[23]
* Russia’s Gazprom Company over the past few years has signed contracts worth $18 million to repair gas stations in Iraq.[24]
* The former Soviet Union was the premier supplier of Iraqi arms. From 1981 to 2001, Russia supplied Iraq with 50 percent of its arms.[25]
* Soviet-era debt of $7 billion through $8 billion was generated by arms sales to Iraq during the 1980–1988 Iran–Iraq war.
* Three Russian firms are suspected of selling electronic jamming equipment, antitank missiles and thousands of night-vision goggles to Iraq in violation of U.N. sanctions.[26] Two of the companies identified are Aviaconversiya and KBP Tula.

Footnotes:
[1]Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook 2002, at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook.
[2]Jon Talton, “French Ideals and Profits in the Iraqi Triangle”, The Arizona Republic, February 23, 2003.
[3]Jon Talton, “French Ideals and Profits in the Iraqi Triangle,” The Arizona Republic, February 23, 2003.
[4]Kenneth Katzman, Iraq: Oil-for-Food Program, International Sanctions, and Illicit Trade, Congressional Research Service, September 26, 2002.
[5]Evelyn Iritani, “Hussein’s Government Signs Lucrative Contracts, Especially with Nations that Oppose the U.S. Led Effort to Oust the Regime,” The Los Angeles Times, November 11, 2002.
[6] David Gauthier-Villars and John Carreyrou, “France Hopes to Use Old Ties to Land Role in Rebuilding Iraq”, The Wall Street Journal, March 26, 2003.
[7] Stephen Grey and Jon Ungoed-Thomas, “France’s $150m Deals linked to Iraq Arms”, Sunday Times-London, February 23, 2003.
[8] Faye Bowers, “Driving Forces in War-wary Nations: The Stances of France, Germany, Russia and China are colored by economic and national interests”, Christian Science Monitor, February 25, 2003.
[9]Information from Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), “Arms Transfers to Iraq, 1981–2001,” at http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/I...1982-2001.pdf.
[10]David R. Sands, “France, Germany Protect Iraq Ties,” The Washington Times, February 20, 2003.
[11]David R. Sands, “France, Germany Protect Iraq Ties,” The Washington Times, February 20, 2003.
[12]“Africa Analysis—Trade Points Way to Peace”, The Financial Times: Asia Africa Intelligence Wire, November 19, 2002.
[13]Faye Bowers, “Driving Forces in War-Wary Nations: The Stances of France, Germany, Russia and China Are Colored by Economic and National Interests,” Christian Science Monitor, February 25, 2003.
[14] Faye Bowers, “Driving Forces in War-wary Nations: The Stances of France, Germany, Russia and China are colored by economic and national interests”, Christian Science Monitor, February 25, 2003.
[15]“Helping Saddam Rearm,” The Wall Street Journal, October 11, 2002.
[16]Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook 2002, at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook.
[17]Testimony provided by Ariel Cohen to the House International Relations Committee, “Russia and the Axis of Evil: Money, Ambition and U.S. Interests,” February 26, 2003.
[18]Nelli Sharushkina, “Russia Plays the Field in Iraq—Mixed Signals Worry Baghdad,” Energy Intelligence Briefing, February 5, 2003.
[19]Dan Morgan and David B. Ottaway, “In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue,” The Washington Post, September 15, 2002.
[20]Dan Morgan and David B. Ottaway, “In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue,” The Washington Post, September 15, 2002.
[21] “Russia Angles to Protect Post-war Interests”, Energy Comapss, March 21, 2003
[22]Scott Peterson, “Russia’s Newest Tie to Iraq: Moscow Is Set to Sign a $40 billion Economic Pact with Baghdad Next Month,” Christian Science Monitor, August 20, 2002.
[23]“Mideast Tensions to Delay Iraq Iraqi–Russian Signing,” Energy Compass, April 19, 2002.
[24]Dmitry Zhdannikov, “Russian’s Grim About Working Under Saddam,” The Houston Chronicle, April 14, 2002.
[25]Information from Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), “Arms Transfers to Iraq, 1981–2001,” at http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/I...1982-2001.pdf.
[26] Peter Slevin, “3 Russian Firms’ Deals Anger U.S.”, The Washington Post, March 23, 2003.
[27]Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook 2002, at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook.

[highthief]

So conspiracy theories about France not joining in on the Iraqi fun are cool and accurate, conspiracy theories about the US wanting Iraqi oil are just paranoia?

That's a bit of a shakey platform isn't it?

[Pacifier]

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Also I'm fairly certain this issue is black and white

In most parts of Sudan is peace, the fighting is concentrated in the south part of the nation (the Darfur area). In this area a civil war is goin on between the arabic and african groups.
USAID claims that the famine will cause 100.000 deaths, the german goverment even estimates 350.000 are in danger.

The violence has increaded, reports claim that ~30.000 people have died in violent raids. Mostly the Janjawid militia (arabic) are blamed for this (reuters). Therefore most people who are in favor of an invention are already talking about "ethinical cleasing". One of the leader of the rebels even said that "this is our Srebrenica". This guy surely learned his "buzzwords" to trigger the intervention-reflex.

But most human rights groups claim that the situation is not that clear. Hans-Joachim Preuß, spokesman of the german "welthungerhilfe" (german oxfarm) declined that the Janjawid militia are responsible alone (although he calls them "monsters"). He says that the violence comes from all groups in this conflict "the Janjawid militia, criminals, too many unemployed with too many guns, regular troops and most certainly also the rebels".

It is undisputed that the rebels startet the conflict, the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) and Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) revolted in march 2003. Exactly when the peace negotiations stagnated. With this revolt the rebels, who are cooperating with the SLA, wanted to force the goverment to fullfill their requirements.

The miserable situation (food and medicine)in the southern region is not a fault of the goverment but also of the SLA and JEM who refused any help.
Also undisputed is the fact that the JEM is supported by Hassan al-Turabi, who offered Osama bin Laden shelter in the early 90. The current goverment disempowered Turabi in 1999. Turabi now hopes for his comeback with help of the JEM.

It is true that Sudan was a quite fundamentalist state, but this has slowly changed in the laste years (see disempowerment of Turabi). Conflicts in Sudan are quite common, since 1983 some 1.5 mio people died, those conflicts were mostly fueld by western Oil industries (Yes, Sudan has Oil) who mostly supported the Rebels.

(roughly translated from a german article http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/inhalt/co/17826/1.html)

Now, tell me who is the good guy? which group do you want to support? Who is black and who is white?

[theusername]

This sickens me to the core. Nations around the world and the UN don't even seem to care. If we were not in Iraq and Afghanistan im almost certain we would have intervened already, but we just don't have the resources. Does anyone else step to the plate?

Nah, let the world just condone genocide, call it horrible, say that no one knew how horirble it really was and how many innocents were being murdered. Sickening

[Mojo_PeiPei]

Originally posted by highthief
So conspiracy theories about France not joining in on the Iraqi fun are cool and accurate, conspiracy theories about the US wanting Iraqi oil are just paranoia?

That's a bit of a shakey platform isn't it?

What's shaky is that you refute clear and concise evidence provided by Seretogis without backing up your own claim. In fact it's almost upsetting that you label it "conspiracy theories" regarding France/Germany/Russia's blatant violation of the oil for food program and arms embargo against Iraq.

Not even that I would disagree with you that this war was largely about oil, just probably not under the pretenses you profess... it's a lot bigger then Bush or the current group power.

[cosmoknight]

Why no help for the Sudan? Look at the current UN it's not a military body as it can't enforce its own rules. Regardless of the total number of countries who are members the key players number less than 10. Out of those only 4 have enough military spending vs GDP to possess a military large enough to be self deployed. Of those 4 Great Britain and the US are over extended now in conflicts and commitments that stretch beyond Iraq and Afghanistan. That leaves just two others with large enough militaries. Russia has a large force on paper but most of it is rusting away and is being downsized and slowly upgraded. Even with the political will it would unlikely be able to deploy its forces properly and keep them supplied. Red China has the other forces that could be sent however it current leadership is only focused of the Taiwan issue and could care less past its borders at this point. In short Sudan will suffer from a inept organization who everyone wants to join just not contribute to one of its early goals the ending of persecutions like those in WW2

[roachboy]

regarding the comments about concerning france and germany, and particularly the post by seretogis.

gee, i thought that france and germany and the rest of the security council that did not vote to authorize bushwar did so because they believed the un inspectors had managed to do their work. and that there was not justification for war.

and gee, given what has been coming out over the past weeks--far too long after the fact--it turns out that american intelligance was at best "flawed"--maybe france and germany and russia and the others who did not support bushwar were right.

how about that.


of course, this kind of problem did not stop the heritage foundation.
and i expect nothing better from them than the kind of pseudo-documentary drivel posted above.

after all, this "thinktank" was a big part of the support system that legitimated the "wolfowitz doctrine", and a major source of what at best could be described as disinformation to support that kind of "thinking"....

if you do any research about the circulation of the ideological framework that underpins bushwar, much of it passes through heritage.

and if you look at the campaign of vacant bullshit that flowed to justify bushwar by trying to shift the argument away from what actually happened onto arbitrarily selected information about financial involvements with iraq only running in convenient directions, and never, ever talking about the complete story, you could always count on heritage being a source.

it is not surprising that the poster did not mention heritage in the body of the post.

i imagine that the assumption was the presence of footnotes, which always float about at the bottom of right thinktank position papers, would make the article appear other than problematic. and that the footnotes would preclude chasing the link. i am a bit surprised there even was a link---seems a bit of a break with conservative style. but i am pleased about that break.

if you are going to try to prove a point, use a serious information source.

the heritage foundation is a joke.

it is surprising to still see the uncritical use of neocon thinktank "information" to bolster cases that are otherwise without merit.
and it is a shame, sometimes, that there are not more strigent conventions in spaces like this such that the use of this kind of pseudo-information would get you laughed out of the proceedings.


as for intervention in the sudan....i was not aware that the americans were considering any unilateral action.

first because it would be a human rights action, and we have all now learned that the bush administration only uses human rights justifications when all others have turned out to be worthless.

second becaue of the logistical problems noted above.

third because it would require a concerted internationally-oriented, highly organized effort to do anything.
maybe bushwar is one reasoin why the international community is in disarray to the extent that nothing is happening.

maybe that is something for the right to think about.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed...1405-2593r.htm

First of two parts.
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry complains that President Bush pursued a unilateralist foreign policy that gave short shrift to the concerns of the United Nations and our allies when it came to taking military action against Saddam Hussein. But the mounting evidence of scandal that has been uncovered in the U.N. Oil For Food program suggests that there was never a serious possibility of getting Security Council support for military action because influential people in Russia and France were getting paid off by Saddam. After the fall of Baghdad last spring, France and Russia tried to delay the lifting of sanctions against Iraq and continue the Oil for Food program. That's because France and Russia profited from it: The Times of London calculated that French and Russian companies received $11 billion worth of business from Oil for Food between 1996 and 2003.
Most disturbing are Iraqi records that suggest Benon Sevan, the executive director of the Oil for Food office, received a voucher for 11.5 million barrels of oil from Saddam's manipulation of the program — enough to yield a profit of between $575,000 and $3.5 million.
In a series of articles published earlier this year, the Iraqi independent newspaper al Mada reported on a list of several hundred individuals, corporations and political parties that benefited from Saddam's oil vouchers and explained how the system worked. The intent of the program was to sell Iraqi oil to pay for food and medicine for the Iraqi people, who were suffering due to sanctions. Instead, vouchers were doled out as gifts or as payment for goods imported into the country in violation of U.N. sanctions. The recipient would then turn the voucher over to one of a number of firms operating in the United Arab Emirates, in exchange for commissions ranging anywhere from 5 cents to 30 cents per barrel, depending on market conditions. (This translates into a profit of $50,000 on the low end and $300,000 on the high end for every 1 million barrels worth of oil vouchers.)
The beneficiary list (found in the archives of the Iraqi Oil Ministry and translated into English by the Middle East Media Research Institute) should be deeply embarrassing to many prominent people. In the United States, those listed include Iraqi American businessman Shaker Al-Khaffaji, who put up $400,000 to produce a film by ex-U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, which aimed to discredit weapons inspections in Iraq. Also, British Labor MP George Galloway, a strident foe of taking action against Saddam, is listed as a recipient or co-recipient of 19.5 million barrels.
Other recipients include: former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua (12 million barrels); Patrick Maugein, CEO of the oil company Soco International and financial backer of French President Jacques Chirac (25 million); former French Ambassador to the United Nations Jean-Bernard Merimee (11 million); Indonesian President Megawati Sukarnoputri (10 million); and Syrian businessman Farras Mustafa Tlass, the son of longtime Syrian Defense Minister Mustafa Tlass (6 million). Leith Shbeilat, chairman of the anti-corruption committee of the Jordanian Parliament, received 15.5 million.
Right now, Claude Hankes-Drielsma, a British investigator, is auditing the program on behalf of the Iraqi government. His findings, and the records reported on in the Iraqi press, deserve serious scrutiny. If it turns out that prominent politicians and businessmen profiteered while Iraqis were deprived of basic necessities that the Oil for Food program was supposed to pay for, there should be serious consequences, up to and including criminal prosecution.

Whatever, people will believe what they want inspite of hard evidence that clearly proves one thing. I guess French firms gettin hundreds of billions of dollars in various contracts didn't skew their decision. I guess all those French produced and sold military hardware we found inspite of the arms embargo really weren't from France. I guess Saddam felt he had to much of an excess of oil to benefit his people, and that it would be better spent helping line the pockets of French ministers. Same goes for Russia. I wonder why they felt Iraq had a reason to get all those cool high tech gizmo's and illegal military hardware's, I however don't think the fact that Russian firms were recieving grants to the tune of BILLIONS of barrels of oil had any effect.

Get serious.

[roachboy]

a washington times article?
you quote a washington times article and tell me or anyone else to get serious?

please.....

[Mojo_PeiPei]

Where is any evidence to the contrary? Oh ok thats what I thought...

[Dragonlich]

roachboy, whether you dispute the source or not, fact is that Germany, France and Russia had a lot to lose if Saddam was removed from power. I don't buy all the info that was presented here because of the source, and it being mostly harmless things that any country could have done... BUT there was a lot of money to be made by supporting Saddam. Just as there is a lot of money to be made (eventually) by removing him from power.

I just ask you not to look at this issue with your black-and-white goggles. Both the opponents and supporters of the war in Iraq had financial interests to promote. The difference is the guy providing those interests - the opponents of the war supported a known murderer, the supporters of the war now support a (more or less) free Iraq.

As for Sudan: your "Bushwar" (annoying word) cannot be held responsible for the lack of action. It wasn't there in previous instances of genocide in Africa. There was no G.W. Bush during the wars in Congo and Rwanda. There was no G.W. Bush during the previous massacres in Sudan itself. I'd say it's not even relevant. What is relevant, is that there's preciously little to gain, and a lot to lose by going in to put a stop to this. This is a recurring pattern for Africa - nobody cares about them, apart from the occasional food aid. If African countries want peace and prosperity , *they* need to take action; they shouldn't cry for foreign intervention everytime they fuck up.

[highthief]

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
What's shaky is that you refute clear and concise evidence provided by Seretogis without backing up your own claim. In fact it's almost upsetting that you label it "conspiracy theories" regarding France/Germany/Russia's blatant violation of the oil for food program and arms embargo against Iraq.

Not even that I would disagree with you that this war was largely about oil, just probably not under the pretenses you profess... it's a lot bigger then Bush or the current group power.

Here's what I don't get. Some are saying it was ignoble for France to not join the war - presumably in the minds of some because they benefited from the status quo - yet it is either A) OK for America to take over for oil or B) America went in not thinking about oil at all, they went because they thought Saddam was a threat thereby saying that US morality is greater than the rest of the world -and somehow I don't think that's true.

As to refuting point by point, as soon as I saw the first item - that France received 22.5% of oil imports from Iraq under food for oil it was tough to keep a straight face. I think you'll find that number is high (for instance, I know that in 2001 France received 8% and were number 7 or 8 on the list), number one was always the US and US and Britain ran the program with some help from the rest of the security council. Like I said, when point one is blatantly wrong and biased, I had a feeling where the rest of the "Evidence" was heading...

Quite honestly, France was the one country that has always wanted to end the food-for-oil program and made no bones about it. If they were benefiting so much as a nation from food-for-oil, why did they agitate to end sanctions against the Iraqi people?

[Dragonlich]

Originally posted by highthief
Quite honestly, France was the one country that has always wanted to end the food-for-oil program and made no bones about it. If they were benefiting so much as a nation from food-for-oil, why did they agitate to end sanctions against the Iraqi people?

Quite simple really: without the oil-for-food program, French companies were going to make way more money then they ever had with the program in place.

Think for a moment... if the sanctions would have been lifted, who would have gained the most? Not US companies, that's for sure. It would have been France, Russia, Germany, China. Exactly those countries opposing the war, and promoting the lifting of sanctions. Saddam used to thank his friends by giving them money and lucrative contracts.

[ARTelevision]

Dragonlich, I've been following along but haven't posted here because your ongoing points echo my own view of things regarding this subject.

I believe your view of the real politics of the situation reflects much truth about how the world works.

[Strange Famous]

And so those who die shall at least lay down a life for the cause of realpolitik

[ARTelevision]

Yes. That is how it has always been - many millions of times over.

It has to do with the nature of human beings and the political power we create. The kinds of moral imperatives we want to believe we can live by as individuals can never apply to nations. Why? Becuause that is the nature of human groups. At some point one simply comes to accept this - perhaps distasteful - aspect of human reality. Human reality is the source of political reality.

[highthief]

Originally posted by Dragonlich
Quite simple really: without the oil-for-food program, French companies were going to make way more money then they ever had with the program in place.

Think for a moment... if the sanctions would have been lifted, who would have gained the most? Not US companies, that's for sure. It would have been France, Russia, Germany, China. Exactly those countries opposing the war, and promoting the lifting of sanctions. Saddam used to thank his friends by giving them money and lucrative contracts.

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?

[Dragonlich]

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.

[wonderwench]

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?

The U.S. did it because Saddam's regime was a reasonable threat to our national security.

France has an additional agenda item: It is a former world power in its twilight years. The only vestige of power it retains is the permanent seat on the UNSC. It has a strong desire to undermine the U.S. as the dominant world power.

One should be wary of friends who are consumed with envy.