Sudan

[1Shot-Paddy]

It's terrible what's happening there what are everyones thoughts on it?
I personally think America should have went into this country and took out the government there and quelled the Janjas.

[Kirk-Cocaine]

At 7/22/04 09:11 AM, 1Shot-Paddy wrote: It's terrible what's happening there what are everyones thoughts on it?
I personally think America should have went into this country and took out the government there and quelled the Janjas.

Why? Why should America go in, they're not in charge of the world.

[Thanatos-DTH1]

Yeah, that'd be nice. I'm sure if there were any way for Bush & Co. to make money off of it, we'd be kicking Sudanese butt already.

[antiklaus]

At 7/22/04 09:19 AM, Thanatos_DTH1 wrote: Yeah, that'd be nice. I'm sure if there were any way for Bush & Co. to make money off of it, we'd be kicking Sudanese butt already.

Natural resources in Sudan include:

petroleum; small reserves of iron ore, copper, chromium ore, zinc, tungsten, mica, silver, gold

mind you, Iraq has a hella lot more oil. but let us get desperate - we will go in guns a blazin to spread democracy and capitolism to those godless Sudanese.

[bumcheekcity]

At 7/22/04 09:42 AM, antiklaus wrote: Natural resources in Sudan include:

petroleum; small reserves of iron ore, copper, chromium ore, zinc, tungsten, mica, silver, gold

Yeah, but they're in plentiful supply already.

[1Shot-Paddy]

At 7/22/04 09:16 AM, Kirk_Cocaine wrote:

At 7/22/04 09:11 AM, 1Shot-Paddy wrote: It's terrible what's happening there what are everyones thoughts on it?
I personally think America should have went into this country and took out the government there and quelled the Janjas.

Why? Why should America go in, they're not in charge of the world.

Because America claims to be a liberator of countries under dictatorship and was one of the reasons that America gave to invade Iraq. So if America wants to back this policy up they would not only gain much need support from the UN but also it's just a good thing to do.

[TurkM938]

The UN has reacted too slowly tot he ravagings that have been occuring in Sudan.This though is the spearhead of a rebel/bandit problem that has been occurring int hat region for several years. Notably between three nations, Sudan, Chad, and the Central African Republic. Small instances of these events are sadly to say, tolerable. But the lives affected by this particular crisis and the world community's haste to send resources to these people is nothing short of atrocious. But then again, how long did it take for the world community to react to Sierra Leone and the 1994 Rwandan genocide?

[Metal69hed]

We contribute humanitarian resources to Sudan. Not everything is about blood and guts, even soldiers do more than kill.

[bumcheekcity]

At 7/22/04 05:34 PM, Metal69hed wrote: We contribute humanitarian resources to Sudan. Not everything is about blood and guts, even soldiers do more than kill.

The United Nations has appealed for almost US$350 million to cover urgent needs this year for all its agencies working on the crisis. Yet, according to latest UN figures, this appeal has so far received just one third of the money needed, with contributions totaling only around US$114 million.

In terms of bilateral contributions to the 2004 appeal, France has given just $3.45 million, Spain $600,000, Germany $7.14 million, Japan $3.29m, Italy $2.4million, Saudi Arabia $204,000, and United Arab Emirates $82,000.

By comparison, the US has given $89.5 million and the UK has given $52.1 million.

Source: Oxfam

Interesting, the US and UK gave more than I thought they'd give. Pretty poor show oof giving aid by other European Countries, actually. I post this purely for informatice purposes.

[Metal69hed]

Do you understand how many other nations we help support with money as well? Even North Korea.

[bumcheekcity]

At 7/22/04 05:49 PM, Metal69hed wrote: Do you understand how many other nations we help support with money as well? Even North Korea.

http://www.peacenowar.net/Palestine/News/US%20aids.htm

Well, the US gives $3bn to Isreal, which is 30% of it's budget, so it must give out $10bn in Aid (military AND economic) in total.

http://www.vexen.co.uk/USA/foreign_aid.html

Over 50% of its [Americas] aid budget is spent on middle-income countries in the Middle East, with Israel being the recipient of the largest single share.

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp

The US gives 0.14% of its GDP in Aid. The UN Target is 0.7%.

[Metal69hed]

Thank you for the information, I didn't know all that. But the only information I'll absorb from that is the Global Issues site. The other two was incredibly bias that I would never believe what they say. I feel that way because they will twist their words to encourage you to believe everything they say, and leave all the rest out of the picture. I like to get the whole story.

[fli]

Why? Why should America go in, they're not in charge of the world.

Because America claims to be a liberator of countries under dictatorship and was one of the reasons that America gave to invade Iraq. So if America wants to back this policy up they would not only gain much need support from the UN but also it's just a good thing to do.

Unless there is an incentive, US isn't going to do something about it... Sad...

[Rabindarath]

At 7/22/04 09:42 AM, antiklaus wrote:

At 7/22/04 09:19 AM, Thanatos_DTH1 wrote: Yeah, that'd be nice. I'm sure if there were any way for Bush & Co. to make money off of it, we'd be kicking Sudanese butt already.

Natural resources in Sudan include:

petroleum; small reserves of iron ore, copper, chromium ore, zinc, tungsten, mica, silver, gold

Yeah, but alot of it is already been parcelled off to other concerns, especially the oil. Nothing new for Haliburton to sink its teeth into.

It's the same old geopolitical game again. Iraq has bill-e-yuns of barrels of oil and a shit army stacked with rusted 1970s era Soviet equipment. And it's surronded by neighbours who wouldn't mind seeing that Hussein fucker gone. Ergo, invasion = good

North Korea has a shitload of mineral wealth and has that same rusted equipment, but a couple of million brainwashed soldiers arming them. And enough foxholes and tunnels that would make the Ho Chi Minh trail seem like a latrine trench. And China doesn't like having hostile Yankees on their borders. Ergo, invasion = bad.

Sudan. Middle of fucking nowhere. Intractable political climate. Neighbours are already US friendly (Egypt) or irrelevant (Chad). And the resources have been divvied up already. Plus, Black Hawk Down will nicely remind everyone of the Somalia fuck-up. Ergo, bribe Christiane Amanpour to quit covering it for CNN and hope it slips of the radar screens of the public.

Not that I'm cynical or anything ;)

[mabzie]

At 7/22/04 09:16 AM, Kirk_Cocaine wrote:
Why? Why should America go in, they're not in charge of the world.

we should go, because people are being mass murdered.

[bumcheekcity]

At 7/23/04 07:58 AM, mabzie wrote: we should go, because people are being mass murdered.

The American government are threatening SANCTIONS! I mean, WHAT!? What these people ned is MORE food and water. However, I woud not oppose the installation of a new government, or at least some butt-kicking by Western Governments of the preent one, because they seem to be very happy with the present situation.

[1Shot-Paddy]

Firstly I looked at the contributions and I'm disgusted at Saudi Arabias contribution. They pay billions to major business but can't even lend a couple million (they didn't even send 1 million). That's a pure disgrace and what we should expect from the Saudis now.

I don;t agree with giving aid like that because like what has happened before, the government and/or the janja will just take the aid by force once the UN peackeepers leave. This can only be solved by an invasion to quell the crisis. The janjas are scum and should be locked in prison forever, if this happened in some Western European country in the middle of nowhere like Poland then the tone would quickly change.

We've already exploited the African people and put them into this position of poverty, we should at least help their children live.

[fli]

After three weeks, and over 30,000 murdered black Muslim Sudanese by Arabian Muslim Janjaweed, Congress has finally called the genocide a genocide. Good to know that they're so quick and nimble on their toes...

US humanitarian efforts have started by Red Cross. But no mention of sending soilders to Sudan...

I am HIGHLY critical of my nation now since a few months ago we took a stance to squash out "evil doers" and "tyrant leaders" and yet this is occuring under our noses! These people NEED help and the longer we WAIT, the less hope they have.

Come on Bush, let's keep our word. Do something right this time. Save these people and I SWEAR that I will make fun of you.

[fli]

Opps, a correction...

Come on Bush, let's keep our word. Do something right this time. Save these people and I SWEAR that I will stop makeing fun of you.

[TurkM938]

It may be economically worthwhile to work to stabilize Sudan, enought o build infrastructure. Chad is due this year to begin pumping 800,000 barrels per day of crude oil onto the worldmarket, and Oil has been found in the Sudan. I know I have said the word OIL, but if there is incentive, this should be it. A tentative peace in Sudan could mean shorter pipelines to the Indian Ocean and/or Red Sea from both of these nations...

[Thanatos-DTH1]

Just out of curiosity, if the situation in Sudan is so bad why aren't all the people attacking America for the whole Iraq charlie-fox screaming at their governments to go help these people out, and show us colonial philistines how it's done?

[JMHX]

At 7/22/04 09:11 AM, 1Shot-Paddy wrote: It's terrible what's happening there what are everyones thoughts on it?
I personally think America should have went into this country and took out the government there and quelled the Janjas.

We will spread Democracy so long as it coincides with the re-election of the President of the United States. So just hold out a little longer, you crazy Sudanese, we'll be there in four to eight years.

[bumcheekcity]

Strange really, because sending troops into Sudan could really help Americas standing in the world. Liberals now wouldn't despise Bush, it would be more like dislike.

[fli]

At 7/24/04 12:21 PM, Thanatos_DTH1 wrote: Just out of curiosity, if the situation in Sudan is so bad why aren't all the people attacking America for the whole Iraq charlie-fox screaming at their governments to go help these people out, and show us colonial philistines how it's done?

People don't know yet. It's been very discreetly tucked inside the newspapers, and unless things are on the front page, then it isn't read. Just barely we have called this situation a crisis, after three weeks, and I haven't read anything on how we're going to help these people.

[Metal69hed]

Fighting three wars and most everyone is bitching that we've got to help out Africa again. Yeah, why don't we do that, with the stretched out military we have at the moment.

Just my two cents.

[witeshark]

At 7/22/04 10:24 PM, spanishfli wrote: Unless there is an incentive, US isn't going to do something about it... Sad...

How do you know that? Isn't the US a bit busy just now?

[1Shot-Paddy]

At 7/24/04 11:12 PM, Metal69hed wrote: Fighting three wars and most everyone is bitching that we've got to help out Africa again. Yeah, why don't we do that, with the stretched out military we have at the moment.

Just my two cents.

Your a sad excuse for a human if that is your two cents.

[Metal69hed]

It's all that is needed my good man. Coming from a guy that says: we've already exploited the African people and put them into this position of poverty, we should at least help their children live, I'll take that as a compliment.

[fli]

At 7/25/04 12:21 AM, witeshark wrote:

At 7/22/04 10:24 PM, spanishfli wrote: Unless there is an incentive, US isn't going to do something about it... Sad...

How do you know that? Isn't the US a bit busy just now?

If so, why busy ourselves with Iran then?

[Metal69hed]

What do you mean about Iran?