Yeah, Bailey, he's been ignoring all those pleas from the Dems to do something...oh, that's right, there's no political capital in this so they have been practicing their very best Marcel Marceau routines.
Spare me your all anti-Bush, all the time rhetoric, will you?
Yeah, I know, then why post when that's all you have.
Natural resources:petroleum; small reserves of iron ore, copper, chromium ore, zinc, tungsten, mica, silver, gold, hydropower.
Economy - overview:Sudan has turned around a struggling economy with sound economic policies and infrastructure investments, but it still faces formidable economic problems, starting from its low level of per capita output. From 1997 to date, Sudan has been implementing IMF macroeconomic reforms. In 1999, Sudan began exporting crude oil and in the last quarter of 1999 recorded its first trade surplus, which, along with monetary policy, has stabilized the exchange rate. Increased oil production, revived light industry, and expanded export processing zones helped sustain GDP growth at 8.6% in 2004.
They had a Resolution...no, TWO Resolutions on Darfur back in 2004.
That's exactly ten years after the UN helplessly watched 800,000 Tutsis slaughtered by the Rwandan Hutus in an astounding SIX MONTHS!
The UN passed two Resolutions (1502 & 1547) over Darfur, but never enforced either of them.
Just as they passed Resolution 1559 brokering a peace between Israel and Lebanon back in 2000, in which the UN promised to, among other things "disarm Hezbollah."
Whooops! They failed to follow through on that one as well.
In fact all of this history seems to show that Britain and America were right to enforce 1441 against Saddam's Iraq. I mean, given Iraq's track record, it's hardly likely that the UN would've ever gotten around to enforcing it.
Hell, they hadn't even enforced the sanctions against Saddam's Iraq!
France, Belgium, Germany, China and Russia all had "under the table deals" with Saddam's Iraq, most of them brokered by Annan's UN via the Oil-for-Food scam-uh-program.
So, why'd the U.S. enforce Resolution 1441 and not 1502 or 1547?
Probably because of Saddam's association with al Qaeda and its Ansar al Islam camps in northern Iraq, and its enmity against the U.S. That and the fact that the rewst of the world's Intelligence agreed with the CIA that Iraq had not disposed of all its previous WMDs.
The Sudan and Rwanda should've been taken care of by an Organization of African States contingent, via the UN.
Maybe the lesson here is that the UN is feckless and useless, at best, and downright corrupt and malevolent at worst.
A fair argument in favor of disbanding the UN, I'd say.
We invaded Iraq because it was on the neocon agenda before Bush ever took office. Afghanastan was a ruse, and quickly forgotten. Bush never even tried to capture Osama. I doubt if he wanted to, since Osama is a relative of his best friends, the slimy Saudi royal family.
Bush invaded a sovereign nation without agreement, coalition, or real cause. The congress went along based on the lies he told.
"We invaded Iraq because it was on the neocon agenda before Bush ever took office." (BH)
on the (NATIONAL) agenda before Bush ever took office."
In fact, John Kerry decried Clinton's 1998 bombing of Iraq as "Not nearly enough," claiming that a full scale invasion of Iraq should at least be considered.
That much is fact, so the invasion plans were INDEED on the desk in the Oval Office long before G W Bush ever took office, just not the way you mean.
The real sad thing is that war was declared on the U.S. by the global forces of Islamo-fascism way back in 1993, but we didn't enage the enemy for nearly a decade.
It took 9/11 to get us focused on this worldwide menace.
(2) The Saudi Royal family exiled OBL TWICE, the second time, in 1994, it froze all his Saudi assetts. They are no friends of OBL's and yes, they have cooperated with the U.S.
In 1996 OBL was exiled from the Sudan and his assetts frozen there, due to pressure put on that nation by America.
In 1998 he resurfaced in Iraq, where he took time out to declare war on the U.S. for crimes against the Islamic world.
There are idiots in this country (I'm sure you're NOT one of them) who (1) don't believe Islamo-fascism is really a global threat. (It is in fact a global threat, more dire than Communism ever was...it is nothing less than Nazism resurgent) and (2) that the U.S. cannot possibly lose to these "cave-dwellers." (They are NOT cave-dwellers and they CAN indeed win (or more aptly, WE can lose)...yes, unconditional surrender and all that. I'm pretty certain that had Al Gore been elected in 2000, we'd have already reached some sort of "Peace Agreement" with the Islamo-fascists and America would be already adopting "Modesty Laws" that would eventually have American women wearing something very similar to a burquas and gays and adulterers in the U.S. being stoned to death...or at least until they "cheer up," as the Brits used to say.)
That last prediction sound crazy?
Not nearly as crazy as your inane insistence that America invaded Iraq over oil and is waging war against a bunch of cave-dwellers who are no real threat to us.
Oooo nooooo! Looks like the neocons need a new boogeyman! The Evil Empire is gone! Let's try the Chinese!
Darn those Chinese, they won't do anything.
Who else do we have? That little Korean pipsqueak isn't very frightening ... hmmm.
Do you suppose people would be afraid of prehistoric sand people? Sure, they aren't really armed, and they don't have an army, but what if they did something real bad?
God Bless 9/11! The neocons cheer, and start to dismantle that pesky Constitution thing!
Where is the terrorist slaughter? Well, they don't seem to be capable of much, do they?
Oh, is it that GREAT SECURITY Bush has provided? NO. Agents crossed both borders, EVEN AT LEGAL CHECKPOINTS, with poorly faked documents.
Let's examine that, is Bush & Co. REALLY afraid of terrorism? They aren't bothering with the borders. In fact, they are inviting illegals to pour over and provide cheap labor for bloated corporations posting record profits. Drugs, criminals, all pouring over the borders without stop. What does Bush do? Is he REALLY afraid of terrorists?
Sure as hell doesn't look like it, eh?
The actual threat from raghead terrorists is neglible, and even cowardly Bush knows it, not that he took any chances when he hid for several days after 9/11.
There has been little threat from Islamo-fascists streaming across our southern border, to date.
Moreover, like the support for NAFTA, CAFTA, the expanded GATT and the H-1B Visa program, support for a relatively porous border has broad bi-partisan support.
The Democrats cynically and naively believe that millions of newand poor immigrants mean millions more Democrat votes. Of course Hispanics are already the ethnic group with the largest percentage of people in the workforce (80%) AND Catholics (Mexicans, like most Hispanics) tend to be devout Catholics, tend to be more Conservative, especially more socially Conservative.
At least the Moderate-Republicans support it for a sound reason - cheap labor. Yes, a porous border and millions of illegal immigrants means cheap labor.
Ironically enough its been the Democrats that have helped stymie real immigration reform, siding with the "Guest worker/Amnesty" first folks over the "enforcement first" Conservatives.
The current GOP has heavy fines for employers who hire illegal aliens and felonizes the use of phoney ID - doing those two things would force millions of illegals here to SELF-DEPORT.
America is oil dependent and will be for most of the 21st Century at least and as such has a vital and vested interst in the Mid-East.
The Islamo-fascists threaten our sattelite in the Mid-East (Israel) and our rightful interests there ("the free flow of oil at market prices") and we have a right and a duty to protect BOTH.
This was was begun against us back in 1993, but it was ignored until just after 9/11.
We NEED this war because of the current threat that Islamo-fascism poses to our economy.
Thank you for admitting that there is no real immediate threat from terrorism, and that Bush is not truly afriad of terrorism but instead started a war for money.
Wrong again Barely, the fact that The Islamo-fascists threaten our sattelite in the Mid-East (Israel) and our rightful interests there ("the free flow of oil at market prices") and we have a right and a duty to protect BOTH.
This war was begun against us back in 1993, but it was ignored until just after 9/11.
We NEED this war because of the current threat that Islamo-fascism poses to our economy, is no admission that "there is no terrorist threat"...our ECONOMY is ALL we have.
America's destiny is Walmart's, Microsoft's, Coke's and McDonald's destiny - nothing less than complete and total domination of the global economy.
Every righteous and justifiable war has been fought over economics and this one is no different...grab a helmet, it's probably gonna get rough.
Well, that proves only that you don't understand the current threat.
Islamo-fascism is a far bigger threat than German Nazism ever was, at least on a global level.
In fact, it is very close to the threat posed by the rise of post-WW II Communism.
The least culpable in the 9/11 attacks were the nineteen dupes who hijacked those planes and flew them into those buildings...the REAL enemies are all the countries that harbored, sponsored and assisted the Islamo-cultist movement - Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, the Sudan, etc.
Islamo-fascism had declared war on the U.S. as far back as 1993, thankfully, we finally engaged this well organized, well financed, global enemy. Better late than never.
Islamo-cultism is going to be hard to wipe out. The best estimates put it somewhere about twenty-five years out, with us, at that point, wiping out the last outposts somewhere in Sub-Saharan Africa.
You know, if you opposed this war on Libertarian grounds, something like, "I oppose both the welfare & warfare state and that we can't afford this kind of protracted expense for little if any assured gain," I'd respect that argument. I certainly wouldn't agree with it, but at least I could respect it, but denying reality, much like Michael Moore does, well that's not worthy of any respect at all.
I know, I know, what could I possibly expect from a guy who seems to believe that "wealth reverting back to the State upon the earner's death" and "workers controlling the means of production (access to their chosen fields) are consistent with Free Market principles?
Comments
Where's Bush? Here's a chance to fight Islamo-Fascism!
Oh wait, Sudan doesn't have any oil.
Posted by: Bailey Hankins | August 1, 2006 08:38 PM
Yeah, Bailey, he's been ignoring all those pleas from the Dems to do something...oh, that's right, there's no political capital in this so they have been practicing their very best Marcel Marceau routines.
Spare me your all anti-Bush, all the time rhetoric, will you?
Yeah, I know, then why post when that's all you have.
You're right.
My bad.
Posted by: mal | August 1, 2006 10:34 PM
> Oh wait, Sudan doesn't have any oil.
Well actually, they do.
Posted by: BNJ | August 1, 2006 11:16 PM
Barry's 100% right;
The Sudan
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/su.html
Natural resources: petroleum; small reserves of iron ore, copper, chromium ore, zinc, tungsten, mica, silver, gold, hydropower.
Economy - overview: Sudan has turned around a struggling economy with sound economic policies and infrastructure investments, but it still faces formidable economic problems, starting from its low level of per capita output. From 1997 to date, Sudan has been implementing IMF macroeconomic reforms. In 1999, Sudan began exporting crude oil and in the last quarter of 1999 recorded its first trade surplus, which, along with monetary policy, has stabilized the exchange rate. Increased oil production, revived light industry, and expanded export processing zones helped sustain GDP growth at 8.6% in 2004.
Posted by: JMK | August 2, 2006 07:13 AM
Moreover, wasn't Darfur the UN's province?
They had a Resolution...no, TWO Resolutions on Darfur back in 2004.
That's exactly ten years after the UN helplessly watched 800,000 Tutsis slaughtered by the Rwandan Hutus in an astounding SIX MONTHS!
The UN passed two Resolutions (1502 & 1547) over Darfur, but never enforced either of them.
Just as they passed Resolution 1559 brokering a peace between Israel and Lebanon back in 2000, in which the UN promised to, among other things "disarm Hezbollah."
Whooops! They failed to follow through on that one as well.
In fact all of this history seems to show that Britain and America were right to enforce 1441 against Saddam's Iraq. I mean, given Iraq's track record, it's hardly likely that the UN would've ever gotten around to enforcing it.
Hell, they hadn't even enforced the sanctions against Saddam's Iraq!
France, Belgium, Germany, China and Russia all had "under the table deals" with Saddam's Iraq, most of them brokered by Annan's UN via the Oil-for-Food scam-uh-program.
So, why'd the U.S. enforce Resolution 1441 and not 1502 or 1547?
Probably because of Saddam's association with al Qaeda and its Ansar al Islam camps in northern Iraq, and its enmity against the U.S. That and the fact that the rewst of the world's Intelligence agreed with the CIA that Iraq had not disposed of all its previous WMDs.
The Sudan and Rwanda should've been taken care of by an Organization of African States contingent, via the UN.
Maybe the lesson here is that the UN is feckless and useless, at best, and downright corrupt and malevolent at worst.
A fair argument in favor of disbanding the UN, I'd say.
Posted by: JMK | August 2, 2006 08:27 PM
We invaded Iraq because it was on the neocon agenda before Bush ever took office. Afghanastan was a ruse, and quickly forgotten. Bush never even tried to capture Osama. I doubt if he wanted to, since Osama is a relative of his best friends, the slimy Saudi royal family.
Bush invaded a sovereign nation without agreement, coalition, or real cause. The congress went along based on the lies he told.
Bush is simply a stooge and a traitor.
Posted by: Bailey Hankins | August 2, 2006 11:11 PM
"We invaded Iraq because it was on the neocon agenda before Bush ever took office." (BH)
on the (NATIONAL) agenda before Bush ever took office."
In fact, John Kerry decried Clinton's 1998 bombing of Iraq as "Not nearly enough," claiming that a full scale invasion of Iraq should at least be considered.
That much is fact, so the invasion plans were INDEED on the desk in the Oval Office long before G W Bush ever took office, just not the way you mean.
The real sad thing is that war was declared on the U.S. by the global forces of Islamo-fascism way back in 1993, but we didn't enage the enemy for nearly a decade.
It took 9/11 to get us focused on this worldwide menace.
(2) The Saudi Royal family exiled OBL TWICE, the second time, in 1994, it froze all his Saudi assetts. They are no friends of OBL's and yes, they have cooperated with the U.S.
In 1996 OBL was exiled from the Sudan and his assetts frozen there, due to pressure put on that nation by America.
In 1998 he resurfaced in Iraq, where he took time out to declare war on the U.S. for crimes against the Islamic world.
There are idiots in this country (I'm sure you're NOT one of them) who (1) don't believe Islamo-fascism is really a global threat. (It is in fact a global threat, more dire than Communism ever was...it is nothing less than Nazism resurgent) and (2) that the U.S. cannot possibly lose to these "cave-dwellers." (They are NOT cave-dwellers and they CAN indeed win (or more aptly, WE can lose)...yes, unconditional surrender and all that. I'm pretty certain that had Al Gore been elected in 2000, we'd have already reached some sort of "Peace Agreement" with the Islamo-fascists and America would be already adopting "Modesty Laws" that would eventually have American women wearing something very similar to a burquas and gays and adulterers in the U.S. being stoned to death...or at least until they "cheer up," as the Brits used to say.)
That last prediction sound crazy?
Not nearly as crazy as your inane insistence that America invaded Iraq over oil and is waging war against a bunch of cave-dwellers who are no real threat to us.
Posted by: JMK | August 2, 2006 11:39 PM
Oooo nooooo! Looks like the neocons need a new boogeyman! The Evil Empire is gone! Let's try the Chinese!
Darn those Chinese, they won't do anything.
Who else do we have? That little Korean pipsqueak isn't very frightening ... hmmm.
Do you suppose people would be afraid of prehistoric sand people? Sure, they aren't really armed, and they don't have an army, but what if they did something real bad?
God Bless 9/11! The neocons cheer, and start to dismantle that pesky Constitution thing!
Where is the terrorist slaughter? Well, they don't seem to be capable of much, do they?
Oh, is it that GREAT SECURITY Bush has provided? NO. Agents crossed both borders, EVEN AT LEGAL CHECKPOINTS, with poorly faked documents.
Let's examine that, is Bush & Co. REALLY afraid of terrorism? They aren't bothering with the borders. In fact, they are inviting illegals to pour over and provide cheap labor for bloated corporations posting record profits. Drugs, criminals, all pouring over the borders without stop. What does Bush do? Is he REALLY afraid of terrorists?
Sure as hell doesn't look like it, eh?
The actual threat from raghead terrorists is neglible, and even cowardly Bush knows it, not that he took any chances when he hid for several days after 9/11.
Admit it, these terrorists are a joke.
Posted by: Bailey Hankins | August 3, 2006 08:20 PM
There has been little threat from Islamo-fascists streaming across our southern border, to date.
Moreover, like the support for NAFTA, CAFTA, the expanded GATT and the H-1B Visa program, support for a relatively porous border has broad bi-partisan support.
The Democrats cynically and naively believe that millions of newand poor immigrants mean millions more Democrat votes. Of course Hispanics are already the ethnic group with the largest percentage of people in the workforce (80%) AND Catholics (Mexicans, like most Hispanics) tend to be devout Catholics, tend to be more Conservative, especially more socially Conservative.
At least the Moderate-Republicans support it for a sound reason - cheap labor. Yes, a porous border and millions of illegal immigrants means cheap labor.
Ironically enough its been the Democrats that have helped stymie real immigration reform, siding with the "Guest worker/Amnesty" first folks over the "enforcement first" Conservatives.
The current GOP has heavy fines for employers who hire illegal aliens and felonizes the use of phoney ID - doing those two things would force millions of illegals here to SELF-DEPORT.
America is oil dependent and will be for most of the 21st Century at least and as such has a vital and vested interst in the Mid-East.
The Islamo-fascists threaten our sattelite in the Mid-East (Israel) and our rightful interests there ("the free flow of oil at market prices") and we have a right and a duty to protect BOTH.
This was was begun against us back in 1993, but it was ignored until just after 9/11.
We NEED this war because of the current threat that Islamo-fascism poses to our economy.
Posted by: JMK | August 4, 2006 08:11 AM
Thank you for admitting that there is no real immediate threat from terrorism, and that Bush is not truly afriad of terrorism but instead started a war for money.
Posted by: Bailey Hankins | August 4, 2006 06:28 PM
Wrong again Barely, the fact that The Islamo-fascists threaten our sattelite in the Mid-East (Israel) and our rightful interests there ("the free flow of oil at market prices") and we have a right and a duty to protect BOTH.
This war was begun against us back in 1993, but it was ignored until just after 9/11.
We NEED this war because of the current threat that Islamo-fascism poses to our economy, is no admission that "there is no terrorist threat"...our ECONOMY is ALL we have.
America's destiny is Walmart's, Microsoft's, Coke's and McDonald's destiny - nothing less than complete and total domination of the global economy.
Every righteous and justifiable war has been fought over economics and this one is no different...grab a helmet, it's probably gonna get rough.
Posted by: JMK | August 4, 2006 11:33 PM
There is no war. Let's be serious, there is no war. The other side has no army, no weapons, nothing.
This is a pork project to benefit Bush & Cheney (Big Oil and Halliburton).
Posted by: Bailey Hankins | August 5, 2006 01:07 PM
Well, that proves only that you don't understand the current threat.
Islamo-fascism is a far bigger threat than German Nazism ever was, at least on a global level.
In fact, it is very close to the threat posed by the rise of post-WW II Communism.
The least culpable in the 9/11 attacks were the nineteen dupes who hijacked those planes and flew them into those buildings...the REAL enemies are all the countries that harbored, sponsored and assisted the Islamo-cultist movement - Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, the Sudan, etc.
Islamo-fascism had declared war on the U.S. as far back as 1993, thankfully, we finally engaged this well organized, well financed, global enemy. Better late than never.
Islamo-cultism is going to be hard to wipe out. The best estimates put it somewhere about twenty-five years out, with us, at that point, wiping out the last outposts somewhere in Sub-Saharan Africa.
You know, if you opposed this war on Libertarian grounds, something like, "I oppose both the welfare & warfare state and that we can't afford this kind of protracted expense for little if any assured gain," I'd respect that argument. I certainly wouldn't agree with it, but at least I could respect it, but denying reality, much like Michael Moore does, well that's not worthy of any respect at all.
I know, I know, what could I possibly expect from a guy who seems to believe that "wealth reverting back to the State upon the earner's death" and "workers controlling the means of production (access to their chosen fields) are consistent with Free Market principles?
Posted by: JMK | August 5, 2006 02:48 PM