Kofi Annan Nagging for More US Military

[jimmoyer]

Agreed Tracy.

 

[I think not]

No , I disagree with jim and tracy, it's not a matter of who does what, it's a matter of what shit you get after doing it, whether or not you did your best. And most countries always expect the US to step up to the plate, regardless of anything, they have short memory spans, sorry i don't buy it.

 

[jimmoyer]

Sheeezus, ITN, you are moody.

And I'm a Republican.

I oughta be whining more than you for American credit.

 

[Jay]

ITN is a closet Republican though...

 

[I think not]

No, i think it's inappropriate to dismiss sacrifices either by way of blood or American taxpayers money simply because we're expected to outperform everybody all the time. Canadians take credit for what they do and rightfully so, I expect Americans should take as much credit for what they have accomplished.

All I see though are bills we owe the UN, how about the UN fork over billions of dollars for the US Navy for 30 some odd years of running around the planet helping countries? Hmmmm?

Yep I'm moody.

 

[jimmoyer]

Jay, you're gonna piss ITN off. He ain't no closet Republican.

 

[Jay]

I haven't seen him get mad yet.....he's a softy.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Kofi Annan Nagging for More US Military

ITN is a closet Republican though...

Oh gawd. Why not go all the way Jay? I'm a NEO-CON

 

[jimmoyer]

Bullseye, Jay !!

 

[JoeyB]

RE: Kofi Annan Nagging fo

Shoot Bush now, ask questions later (let's see some republican aggro now !)

 

[jimmoyer]

Too weak. Not biting.

 

[I think not]

I'll give you a "magic bullet", it can go in and out of him several times, just to make sure he's dead.

 

[JoeyB]

RE: Kofi Annan Nagging fo

Better still, can someone Shoot Howard for us? More than half the country would like you to...

 

[jimmoyer]

Stop shooting off.

Grab a hold of yourself.

In private.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Kofi Annan Nagging fo

Better still, can someone Shoot Howard for us? More than half the country would like you to...

You'll just have to deal with him the way we deal with Bush, patience is a virtue

 

[jimmoyer]

Without which democracy just becomes mobocracy.

 

[Finder]

USA is not into peacekeeping. More into... the destorying aspects. I sure if the Sudan had oil the USA would be there, not in blue helmits but but as they are in Iraq, as a conqoring force. *shrugs*

 

[tracy]

No , I disagree with jim and tracy, it's not a matter of who does what, it's a matter of what shit you get after doing it, whether or not you did your best. And most countries always expect the US to step up to the plate, regardless of anything, they have short memory spans, sorry i don't buy it.

So it's better to allow genocide? If Americans are right and you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, I would rather err on the side of stopping a slaughter than allowing it to happen. I think it's wrong to let these people become political casualties because we think someone else will complain about us. Someone will always complain about us. Are we going to let them decide how we act in the world? There are a lot of things I don't like about Bush, but he's never been one to allow worldwide opinion to affect his actions before.

 

[Curiosity]

http://www.sudantribune.com/article.php3?id_article=9383

Some history for the people who seem to think Annan is making a legitimate request here.....

Blood for oil
Tuesday 3 May 2005 00:52.
Editorial, Investor’s Business Daily

May 2, 2005 — Geopolitics: Critics who claimed the war in Iraq was motivated by American lust for Mideast crude are strangely silent as China protects a murderous Sudanese regime to meet its own growing energy needs.

Darfur is actually Sudanese President Omar Hassan al Bashir’s second genocidal campaign against the people he rules. The first was waged against the Christian and animist peoples of south and central Sudan.

From the early 1990s to 2002, more than 2 million people were estimated to have perished and 5 million were displaced in an area centered on what is known as Block 5 before peace protocols were finally signed in 2004. Block 5 is an area designated for oil exploration.

The world did not pay as much attention then as it does now when the victims are the black, Sufi Muslims of Darfur in western Sudan. But lost in the carnage is perhaps the main reason for the atrocities and the main reason the United Nations has been ineffective in moving to stop the killing — China’s veto and its interest in Sudanese oil.

"It’s very clear what’s happening," said Georgette Gagnon, deputy director of the Africa desk at Human Rights. "China is the largest foreign investor in Sudan, so it has an economic interest in ensuring that the Sudanese government is not penalized too harshly. It has been opposed to sanctions from Day One..

When the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 1564, threatening Sudan with oil sanctions unless it curbed the violence in Darfur, China threatened to veto any effort to impose an embargo on Sudan, which supplies 7% of China’s oil imports.

China’s oil needs are expected to grow 10% a year for the foreseeable future, and it has invested $15 billion in developing Sudanese oil fields through its China National Petroleum Corp.

CNPC recently employed 10,000 workers to build a 900-mile long pipeline from an oil field in Kordofan province to Port Sudan on the Red Sea. Just outside Khartoum is a new $700 million oil refinery built with Chinese assistance.

CNPC owns 40% — the largest single share — of the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Co., a consortium that dominates Sudan’s oil fields in partnership with the national energy company and firms from Malaysia and India. It also owns the concessions for Block 6, an oil field partly located in southern Darfur.

Chinese oil workers work under the protection of Sudanese troops largely armed with Chinese-made weapons. Billboards in Khartoum carry pictures of smiling Chinese workers and the slogan: "CNPC — Your close friend and faithful partner..

China is Sudan’s largest supplier of arms, according to a former Sudan government minister. Khartoum uses Chinese-made tanks, aircraft, helicopters and other weapons to clear civilians and rebels from oil-fields rich in petroleum.

A report by the U.S.-funded Civilian Protection Monitoring Team, which investigates attacks in southern Sudan, said Sudanese government troops have "sought to clear the way for oil exploration and create a cordon sanitaire around the oil fields..

Rusthal Yackok, a survivor of an attack that wiped the town of Nhialdiu off the map on Feb. 26, 2002, an attack that killed his wife and six children and left him blind, is quoted as saying: "The Chinese want to drill for oil; that is why we were pushed out..

Thanks to China’s economic investment and military aid, Sudan’s military regime reaps roughly $2 billion a year in oil revenues. Without that, it probably couldn’t stay in power, let alone wage war against its own people.

My take on this is Annan is making the request to place Bush in a position of refusal - yet another U.N. smackdown of the U.S.
One can find the U.S. "financial debt" in an instant through the the U.N. channels such as Juan was able to provide, but did anyone even know the background to this story? It is top secret perhaps?

Can you see the U.S. military attempting to patrol "militarily" a Chinese "oil leasehold"??? I see Annan as trying to set yet another stage for punishing military action in which he expects the U.S. to participate. A stage for China and the U.S. to commence what could be the war to end all wars.

This is the SG of the United Nations? Hello? Is anyone home?How can people actually think this would be a peacekeeping mission? Does anyone research the news when things like this come up in the U.N.?

Any request for U.S. military means yet another country is going down - usually in Africa - by invading capitalism.....I thought you guys were against capitalist takeover. I guess you mean U.S. capitalism. And yes in this case "Blood for Oil" is en pointe.

My response to Annan? Pound Sand

My advice to Bush? Send Bono to sing

 

[I think not]

So it's better to allow genocide? If Americans are right and you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, I would rather err on the side of stopping a slaughter than allowing it to happen. I think it's wrong to let these people become political casualties because we think someone else will complain about us. Someone will always complain about us. Are we going to let them decide how we act in the world? There are a lot of things I don't like about Bush, but he's never been one to allow worldwide opinion to affect his actions before.

No, it woudn't be better to allow genocide, as I stated earlier in the thread. If we're damned if we do and damned if we don't, I've always been in favor of being damned if we do. I wasn't attempting to diminish the significance of sending troops, we should, and I'm sure we will. All I am saying is it will make no difference on the political stage in the end, we're damned anyway.

USA is not into peacekeeping. More into... the destorying aspects. I sure if the Sudan had oil the USA would be there, not in blue helmits but but as they are in Iraq, as a conqoring force. *shrugs*

I know the bad news is much more exciting to debate than the boring good news, but ignorance doesn't make the bad news typical of US humanitarian missiions, this is why I get annoyed when everybody rushes to to say we don't pay the UN bill, they neglect everything else that is done, I'm not saying we shoudn't be paying our bills, all I'm saying is don't jump all over something and not put things in perspective.