Too bad Sudan doesn't have oil - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-12-2004, 01:44 PM   #1
The Fly
 
Zoorock Girl!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: New York Cares
Posts: 285
Local Time: 04:45 AM
Too bad Sudan doesn't have oil

Even Powell has called it genocide, but at the same time said the U.S. wouldn't be sending troops.

So I guess when it comes right down to it, African lives are just not worth as much as the rest of the world's. Of course I don't actually think that, but would you agree that's the way it seems?

Forgive me if there's another thread on this, but I looked and I didn't find any.
__________________

__________________
Zoorock Girl! is offline  
Old 09-12-2004, 06:32 PM   #2
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:45 AM
I disagree. The United States currently does not have enough military strength to go into every country where there is instability. Its resources are focused on the area's that have the greatest impact on the rest of the planet. France and Germany have done very little in Iraq and Afghanistan. They easily have resources that could be committed to a place like Sudan. While a thread like this typically would point fingers at the United States, it ends up pointing fingers at some European countries that are not heavily involved in any operation anywhere.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-12-2004, 06:34 PM   #3
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:45 PM
Why isn't France acting? The certainly are not tied up in other countries....
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-12-2004, 06:46 PM   #4
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 11:45 PM
Doesn't Germany have something in their constitution about not sending troops out of their country? I remember it being an issue during the war in the Balkans, because after WW2, Germany no longer wanted their armed military units outside their own borders, which is understandable.

I don't understand why France isn't there, but then again neither is Canada. The position Canada seems to be taking at the moment is that they will start by giving $20 million for peacekeeping and continue the financial support, but that it should be the African League of Nations which actually provides the troops.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 09-12-2004, 11:07 PM   #5
The Fly
 
Zoorock Girl!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: New York Cares
Posts: 285
Local Time: 04:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
I disagree. The United States currently does not have enough military strength to go into every country where there is instability. Its resources are focused on the area's that have the greatest impact on the rest of the planet. France and Germany have done very little in Iraq and Afghanistan. They easily have resources that could be committed to a place like Sudan. While a thread like this typically would point fingers at the United States, it ends up pointing fingers at some European countries that are not heavily involved in any operation anywhere.
Ultimately, I don't care who helps out, and I'm sure the Sudanese don't care either.

But it would be nice if someone did.
__________________
Zoorock Girl! is offline  
Old 09-13-2004, 12:41 AM   #6
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:45 PM
The Sudan does have oil, and here you may see the UN in action. China, Pakistan and France all have interests in Sudanese oil. Those blacks in the south have the bad luck of being in the way of the Arab governments intention to exploit the oil, the regime in Khartohm *has* to exterminate those blacks to keep its oil interests secure.

Those buyers have a vested interest in seeing the Africans wiped out so they will obfuscate any action and do their best to avoid intervention (for example opposing the sanctions and/or the use of the word genocide). Its the same game they played in Iraq, why on earth do the French (The French Government, not the people) whore themselves out for blood money, I know it shouldn't surprise me but I just want a freaking reason.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-14-2004, 06:30 AM   #7
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 04:45 AM
Quite frankly it angers me that France isn't doing anything. They can. They're not committed in Iraq. The EU is sitting on their asses. Meanwhile people are dying.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 09-14-2004, 08:29 AM   #8
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 05:45 AM
anitram
you're partially correct. There is a passage in the German constitution that troops are only allowed to go to foreign countries if it's under NATO or UN control.
But besides that Germany had, (less than the USA) the 2nd most Soldiers in foreign countries (for various peace missions). Don't know if that's still true today.
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 09-16-2004, 10:01 AM   #9
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Song of the week "sentimental" by Porcupine Tree
Posts: 3,854
Local Time: 04:45 AM
now dont blame US for the genocide in Sudan.............

please, talk sense
__________________
AcrobatMan is offline  
Old 09-17-2004, 02:06 PM   #10
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
RademR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington D.C.
Posts: 5,281
Local Time: 11:45 PM
I think what Zoorock Girl is trying to say is that since there are no weapons of mass destruction (which is the reasons why we went into Iraq, btw), now they are using the excuse "we have to liberate the Iraqi people." So shes saying why weren't we investing time in Africa before this Iraqi war. There's ethnic cleansing all over that continent, people getting slaughtered ever day. AIDS, poverty, corrupt leaders...but we go into Iraq?

Doesnt make sense and strategically it doesnt help the war on terror, Saddam didnt help Ossama (everyone who has a knowledge of this issue knows these two men HATED each other). Every 9-11 hijacker was Saudi Arabian, but we don't mention asking that government to accept any ultimatums. Saddam couldn't touch America and he was never a threat to this country, he was like a puppet who Bush sr. could have taken out with a snap of his wrist.

I grew up in the middle east for 12 years (father worked for the UN) and no one here knows the middle east more than me. Saddam was an awful leader who deserved to be hung out on the soccer fields like he did to so many people. However, the people that get tortured and executed are POLITCAL figures wrapped up in his world. 98% of Iraqis DONT CARE ABOUT SADDAM, they live ordinary lives, own shops, go to school, just like the children of this country. People have to realize that this is not a winable war in Iraq, Muslims are people with VERY strong beliefs. Many are willing to die for these beliefs, and there are SO many sects of Islam in Iraq. And guess what, one of the largest ones in the country feel they aren't getting a proper say in the new government. So their rebelling, violence, killing of our troops...and when they finally get a say, another sect will be pissed off and rebel. I dont think that people that watch the news in the States realize what a delicate situation this is.

I think the war on terror is very neccessary and it can be won. But it will take a long time, Afghanistan was a proper step that had to be taken, but I dont agree with Iraq at all. And btw, no im not a democrat or a republican, I'm a bi-partisan person who would have probably voted for Bush in 2000 (was a Dutch citizen back then) but I dont think hes made the right moves with Iraq. And also for the record, I wasnt a big fan of "Faranheit 9-11"
__________________
RademR is offline  
Old 09-25-2004, 09:34 PM   #11
The Fly
 
Zoorock Girl!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: New York Cares
Posts: 285
Local Time: 04:45 AM
RademR, I'd kiss you if I could. Thank you for expressing my thoughts perfectly.

And to make it quite clear, I'm not blaming the U.S. for the genocide in Sudan. That would be ridiculous. But why is there so little help? Why doesn't the world care?
__________________
Zoorock Girl! is offline  
Old 09-25-2004, 09:54 PM   #12
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:45 PM
The US has been trying to help, through the avenues of the UN. It gets a little difficult to make a difference when your resolutions are watered down by governments with a vested interest in seeing the "rebel" problem solved in Dafour.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-26-2004, 06:41 AM   #13
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 05:45 AM
Noone ever thought that (international) politics is an easy thing, that's why we need smart people in these offices
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 09-26-2004, 06:45 AM   #14
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:45 PM
In the realm of politics decisiveness is king. Intelligence is important but it doesnt matter unless you can outmaneuver your opponents. Especially when dealing with this situation, nothing will happen because the UN is a bunch of self-interested nations who dont give a fuck about human life.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-26-2004, 11:13 AM   #15
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 05:45 AM
Just an inteligent president without power is nothing. A dumb president with power is a danger to the mandkind.

Quote:
UN is a bunch of self-interested nations
Not only the UN, most (all?) nations are self-interested. Look every nation i know treat people from other nations worse than their own people with gives you a feeling how they care about human beeings. If you look at the free trade all nations are pro free trade as long as they get more than they loose - for the other things they start to restrict free trade or start to give government money to companies who aren't able to survive in the "free trade"

So.. getting severall (or even all) nations on one table allways will result in a bunch of self-interested nations who dont give a fuck about human life.
(Just look what all our noble governments do to ensure that their can continue to sell their weapons worldwide and that they can continue to supports terrorists who target regimes they disslike

In the end - the UN with "a bunch of self-interested nations..." is still better than no institution where governments can meet regularely. It's not an excelent but the only platform to enstrengthen international laws and act global (fighting terrorism)
__________________

__________________
Klaus is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com