This appears about to get very ugly very quickly ....
Turkey sends more troops to Iraq border (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071022/ap_on_re_mi_ea/turkey;_ylt=Ai7zPntJ.1uxOX8Qf.WrNlGs0NUE)
SIRNAK, Turkey - Dozens of Turkish military vehicles streamed toward the Iraqi border with heavy artillery and ammunition Monday after Kurdish guerrillas killed a dozen soldiers and claimed to have captured eight in an intensifying crisis threatening to spill into Iraq.Arab nations joined the U.S. and Europe in urging Turkey's government not to attack suspected guerrilla bases in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq, while Turkish citizens rallied across the country demanding action against the rebels.
America sanctioned Israels attack on Lebanon last year to retrieve its 2 soldiers from Hezbollah , so the US should have no problem in helping its NATO Ally Turkey in kind here .
Iraq's Kurds demand U.S. defense against Turkey (http://wpherald.com/articles/6036/1/Iraqs-Kurds-demand-US-defense-against-Turkey/quotUS-mandated-by-UN-to-protect-Iraqquot.html)
Kurdish leaders said yesterday the United States is obliged by a U.N. resolution to defend them in the event that Turkish forces invade northern Iraq in pursuit of members of a Kurdish rebel movement.
Sorry Kurds you are about to get a dose of " Your on your own " from America here . America will not lift a finger to protect you in the advent of a Turkish onslaught . Hopefully Americas backstabbing will make the Kurds join the Iraqi Liberation Army's struggle against the US .

If the Kurds fight against the US they will die faster than if they fight against Turkey. Face it, Turkey wants Kurd land and we all know the big kid on the block makes the rules...

If the Kurds fight against the US they will die faster than if they fight against Turkey. Face it, Turkey wants Kurd land and we all know the big kid on the block makes the rules...

and the big kid on the block is Turkey? and not US?

Oh and how hilarious it is for Turkey to denounde massacre to kurdistan people and armenians...and than right on go and kill some more.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071025/ap_on_re_mi_ea/turkey_iraq

Turkish planes pound rebels along border

By VOLKAN SARISAKAL, Associated Press Writer 35 minutes ago

CIZRE, Turkey - Turkish warplanes and helicopter gunships reportedly pounded Kurdish rebel positions along the Turkey-Iraq border Wednesday, broadening military operations against insurgents amid persistent fears Turkey will launch a major offensive inside Iraq.
ADVERTISEMENT

Turkish Cabinet members and military generals held a six-hour meeting in Ankara to discuss a possible operation in northern Iraq, but decided to recommend the government take economic measures first to force cooperation by Iraqis against Kurdish rebels.

The state-run Anatolia news agency reported that Turkish warplanes and attack helicopters bombed mountain paths used by rebels to cross the porous border from Iraq and stage hit-and-run attacks against soldiers in southeastern Turkey.

Residents in the Iraqi Kurdish village of Derishkit told an Associated Press reporter that two Turkish jet fighters struck a target on the banks of the Zey-Gowra River about four miles inside Iraq. They were unable to offer any more details about the apparent attack.

An AP Television News cameraman also saw eight F-16s loaded with bombs and attack helicopters take off after nightfall from a base in the southeastern city of Diyarbakir. The cameraman also saw about a dozen transport helicopters fly along Mount Cudi near the border with Iraq and at least one warplane fly past Cizre, a town close to the border.

The Anatolia news agency report said the warplanes and helicopters took off from Diyarbakir and "are reported to have bombed and destroyed bases of the terrorists."

Pentagon officials declined to confirm reports of airstrikes.

"I don't know of any Turkish airstrikes in that area today," Maj. Gen. Richard Sherlock, Joint Chiefs of Staff operational planning director, told a Defense Department press conference.

The reported airstrikes come after days of Turkish shelling in the region. On Sunday, Turkish helicopter gunships penetrated Iraqi territory after Kurdish rebels ambushed a Turkish military convoy near the border, killing 12 soldiers and leaving eight others missing.

U.S.-made Cobra and Super Cobra attack helicopters also chased Kurdish rebels three miles into Iraqi territory on Sunday before returning to their bases in Turkey, a government official said Wednesday on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

Turkey, which has moved troops to the Iraq border, warned Iraq and Western allies on Tuesday that a large-scale incursion was imminent unless the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad takes action against the rebels. The Turkish government said there would be no cease-fire with the fighters, who seek autonomy in Turkey's heavily Kurdish southeast.

After the meeting Wednesday, Cabinet officials and military leaders decided to recommend the government "to first take necessary economic measures against those groups directly or indirectly supporting the separatist terrorist organization in the region," a statement said.

The target of the economic measures was not made clear in the statement, but Turkey has been pondering sanctions to force the Iraqi Kurds to cooperate in its fight against the separatist rebels of PKK, the acronym of Kurdistan Workers' Party.

The self-ruling Kurdish administration in Iraq's north has benefited from Turkish investment for construction works, including airports and housing projects. Ankara is also selling electricity to northern Iraq, and much of the imported food and other supplies comes from Turkey.

In the Netherlands, Pentagon chief Robert Gates also said he saw little sense in airstrikes or major ground assaults by U.S., Turkish, or other forces against rebels in northern Iraq until more is known about their locations along the border.

"Without good intelligence, just sending large numbers of troops across the border (from Turkey) or dropping bombs doesn't seem to make much sense to me," Gates said.

Turkey's military and civilian leaders face growing demands at home to stage an offensive in northern Iraq, where the PKK rebels rest, train and get supplies in relative safety before heading to Turkey to conduct attacks.

Turkey has long pressed Iraq to capture and extradite Kurdish rebel leaders.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki also has ordered the closure of all PKK offices in Iraq and said they would not be allowed to operate in Iraqi territory. In addition, the U.S. on Tuesday issued its most direct demand yet for anti-rebel measures from the government of Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region.

About 100 members of the official defense forces of Iraq's Kurdish region were headed Wednesday for a camp near the border city of Dahuk, 260 miles northwest of Baghdad.

One of them, who would only identify himself as Capt. Ziad, said his troops had been mobilized from Irbil, capital of the autonomous Kurdish region. "We want to prevent the conflict in Turkey from coming across the border," he said.

Interesting that the U.S. says we don't know of any airstrikes up there today..

- N

You know, the US is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. If we interfear in the affairs of Turkey, we're meddling in YET another country and if we ignore what Turkey does, then we're aiding and abetting genocide.

You know what? Humans aren't going anywhere. It may sound harsh, but I'm not worried about the Kurds. It's time that the USA got out of the business of moralizing the world and just started taking care of its strategic needs (starting with an exit from the Middle East). If Turkey wants to be nasty to its people, well then, that's for Europe to deal with. As far as we're concerned, the Turks have been good allies and we need to ensure that it stays that way.

~String

So you think allowing Turkey to potentially destabilize northern Iraq, will help a U.S exit strategy?

Could it be any worse than it is now? And, if the US was smart, it would have split the northern portion of Iraq apart and given it to the Kurds to form a homeland. That would have made a whole lot more sense than what's going on now.

Turkey can take care itself.

~String

So you think allowing Turkey to potentially destabilize northern Iraq, will help a U.S exit strategy?

It is funny that you blame Turkey for destabilizing Northern Iraq, me I would blame the PKK, they are the ones who continue the war, make cross border raids and put the stability of the area in jeopardy.

Saddam pretty regularly laid the smackdown on the Kurds when they began to get uppity. You remember, all of the business about how he "Used WMD on his own people"? So Saddam's massacres of the Kurds were one of the stated reasons for the burning need to invade and depose him.

But we've been allowing the Turks to fly into Iraqi airspace and bomb them since the mid 90's.

One would have had to be a fool to ever have believed that any of this was done for the benefit of any of the people of Iraq. This just makes it that much more obvious.

and the big kid on the block is Turkey? and not US?

Oh and how hilarious it is for Turkey to denounde massacre to kurdistan people and armenians...and than right on go and kill some more.

The US is fighting a war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and soon Iran. With Turkey as one of a few allies the US has in the region, it is a big player. With Kurds picking fights what should they expect? Besides, if Turkey takes over northern Iraq then the US won't have to pacify that area anymore. It won't be our problem...

Could it be any worse than it is now? And, if the US was smart, it would have split the northern portion of Iraq apart and given it to the Kurds to form a homeland. That would have made a whole lot more sense than what's going on now.

Turkey can take care itself.

~String

Sorry to have to point something out to you String but that wouldn't have stopped this, the PKK wants parts of Turkey too, they insist on a Kurdish homeland, but things seems to be falling apart, the PKK support among the Kurds on both side of the border has fallen, and there are only about 1500 PKK fighters left, the People want peace and the prosperity that goes with it, and don't want Communism.

In 1992 Turkey was in the midst of a war with the PKK, whose forces were credibly estimated to be 10,000 strong.

By the summer of 1999, however, senior officers of the Turkish military and militarized police estimated the PKK's total strength inside Turkey at 1,500 and declining rapidly.

The simple answer is that the degree of PKK support is a matter of definition. While some Kurdish clans actively backed Ocalan's party, others rejected it and joined the government's efforts to combat it. Clearly, then, the
widespread impression of the PKK as a grassroots movement with broad popular support is becoming obsolete.

Marxism, not Kurdish nationalism, has always defined the PKK. Given that the founders of the PKK included ethnic Turks as well as Kurds, their common interest was never based on ethnicity.

This is why Foley is in Love with the PKK, it's a Communist Front Originization, and claims that the U.S. is selling out the Kurds, but as Paul Harvey says now the rest of the story.

So the U.S. isn't selling out the Kurds, it just isn't supporting the PKK.

The Kurdistan Workers Party (Kurdish: Partiya Karkerên Kurdistan or PKK, Turkish: Kürdistan İşçi Partisi, also called KADEK, Kongra-Gel, and KCK) is an armed militant group founded in the 1970s and led, until his capture in 1999, by Abdullah Öcalan.[4] The PKK's ideology was founded on revolutionary Marxism-Leninism and Kurdish nationalism. The PKK's goal has been to create an independent socialist Kurdish state in a territory which it claims as Kurdistan, an area that comprises parts of south-eastern Turkey, north-eastern Iraq, north-eastern Syria and north-western Iran; those states oppose any such change.[5][6] It is an ethnic secessionist organization that uses force and the threat of force against both civilian[7] and military targets for the purpose of achieving its political goal.

The PKK is listed as a terrorist organization internationally by a number of states and organizations, including the USA, NATO and the EU.[1][3] More than 37,000 people have been killed in the Turkey-PKK conflict since 1984. [8]

Question: Where the hell are they getting they're arms ? these rebels.. Maybe the US can copy was Israel did with HAMAS.. FUND Them..

Question: Where the hell are they getting they're arms ? these rebels.. Maybe the US can copy was Israel did with HAMAS.. FUND Them..

Iran

Hang on, Didn't US invade Iraq to protect the kurds ? Something about liberating the people of Iraq ?
By the same token this could be seen as a reward to turkey for its silence on Iraq.

As far as we're concerned, the Turks have been good allies and we need to ensure that it stays that way.

~String
So have the Kurds. I agree it's a shit situation. I think Turkey has a right to strike back against groups crossing into Turkey and perhaps even to pursue them into Iraq. But any broad offensive against the Kurds should not be allowed.

The Kurds need to stop fucking with Turkey, but we should not allow Turkey to wipe out the Kurds. This needs to be settled, dare I say it, diplomatically. We need to tell Turkey to back off and tell the Kurds to cut the crap. We should not allow any country to go invading Iraq while we're still there. It's rude. One invasion at a time. At least one per country.

So the U.S. isn't selling out the Kurds, it just isn't supporting the PKK.
You seem pretty well informed on this issue. So what about the government of the area of Iraq controlled by the Kurds? How do they feel about the PKK? Would they support a crackdown on them? If all Turkey wants to do is wipe out some fringe group, they should be able to work something out. Perhaps Turkey could send some advisors to assist the Kurds in wiping out the PKK?

Hang on, Didn't US invade Iraq to protect the kurds ? Something about liberating the people of Iraq ?

Of course only when US interests had been met with the occupation of Iraq that is .
Kurdish autonomy is the product of mutual understanding (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2004/01/16/2003091626)
By William Safire
NY TIMES NEWS SERVICE
Friday, Jan 16, 2004,
Paul Bremer told Kurdish leaders brusquely last week to forget the past US autonomy policy and get with the unity program .
Then the Kurds became a pain in their ass .
By the same token this could be seen as a reward to turkey for its silence on Iraq.
A big decider for Turkey was the US recognising the Armenian slaughter as Genocide that was to please the EU . I got a feeling Turkey is doing this to get an American turn around on that idea .

You know, the US is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't.

Maybe.

But what if the USA would just take the position that

1. genocide is bad.
2. invading countries is bad.
3. murdering citizens is bad.

just apply these at will.

Turkey:
breaking all of the above rules. The USA reprimands turkey and stops all economic traffic and such between turkey and the USA.

You can't go wrong.

Unless you confuse liberate with invade.

Dear All,


Hoepfully this situation is not as dangeorus as it appears...

And as for the US selling out.................yeah so whats new!!!

~~~~~~~
cheers
zak

If the Kurds fight against the US they will die faster than if they fight against Turkey. Face it, Turkey wants Kurd land and we all know the big kid on the block makes the rules...

But that land belongs to Iraq so in truth Turkey is stealing the oil rich lands of the Iraqies aren't they?

It is funny that you blame Turkey for destabilizing Northern Iraq, me I would blame the PKK, they are the ones who continue the war, make cross border raids and put the stability of the area in jeopardy.

The situation with the Peshmurga is this:

"He who fights with monsters for too long, risks himself becoming a monster". They do not know how to make peace, only war. Turkey is all too willing to oblige and Shittites are all too willing to oblige, thus (to themselves at least) they are fully justified in being "willing to die" for any cause.

I actually agree with SuperS, break Iraq into 3 parts - Kurds in the north(with American bases so they can pull their usual clandestine blackops bullshit from relative safety and give pentagon pinheads the hardons they desperately need(speaking of fighting monsters for too long...). Give Sunnis the west, including the southern port city of Mosel(?). Give Shittites Ragdad proper and some other oilfields. Try earnestly, to set up an alliance of necessity for Sunni and Kurds.

You seem pretty well informed on this issue. So what about the government of the area of Iraq controlled by the Kurds? How do they feel about the PKK? Would they support a crackdown on them? If all Turkey wants to do is wipe out some fringe group, they should be able to work something out. Perhaps Turkey could send some advisors to assist the Kurds in wiping out the PKK?

From what I have found the Government of the Iraqi Kurds don't support the PKK, they want a semi autonomous region, but they don't want a war with Turkey, and from what I can see from Turkeys position they don't want to wipe out the Kurds, they just want the PKK out of the way, it is the PKK that is the problem, and the communist agenda that they want to implement.

The Kurds in northern Iraq have a very prosperous economy, and peace, and don't want that to end, and it would end if the PKK ever took power, the PKK would start a full scale war and the Iraqi Kurds would lose everything.

Turkey has a whole different agenda today, they want to be part of the EU, and to go after anybody besides the PKK will screw up the chance to join Europe.

I do agree that there has been genocide in Turkeys past, but that was 90+ years ago, time to let it go, remember it, and use that remembrance to make sure that it don't happen again, but it is long past the time to move on, and move into the future.

The situation with the Peshmurga is this:

"He who fights with monsters for too long, risks himself becoming a monster". They do not know how to make peace, only war. Turkey is all too willing to oblige and Shittites are all too willing to oblige, thus (to themselves at least) they are fully justified in being "willing to die" for any cause.

I actually agree with SuperS, break Iraq into 3 parts - Kurds in the north(with American bases so they can pull their usual clandestine blackops bullshit from relative safety and give pentagon pinheads the hardons they desperately need(speaking of fighting monsters for too long...). Give Sunnis the west, including the southern port city of Mosel(?). Give Shittites Ragdad proper and some other oilfields. Try earnestly, to set up an alliance of necessity for Sunni and Kurds.

That would not work, Sunnis in Saudi who want to get rid of the present fundamentalist regime (and who supported Saddams Sunnis and hate Americasn) will make an alternate base there. It will be a mistake.

That would not work, Sunnis in Saudi who want to get rid of the present fundamentalist regime (and who supported Saddams Sunnis and hate Americasn) will make an alternate base there. It will be a mistake.

But the current situation is the right thing? Look, when the USA leaves (sooner than later, I hope), the whole place is going to go to shit, anyways, and it will split up in quite an explosive manner. We should have done it when we could have in a peaceful manner.

~String

But the current situation is the right thing? Look, when the USA leaves (sooner than later, I hope), the whole place is going to go to shit, anyways, and it will split up in quite an explosive manner. We should have done it when we could have in a peaceful manner.

~String

The current situation was also created by you, whether putting Saddam in power or deposing him. It's like Pandora's box; the answer is not to open another one. I think whatever happens now, the US should not have a role in it. That alone will cause the solution to be unacceptable.

The current situation was also created by you, whether putting Saddam in power or deposing him. It's like Pandora's box; the answer is not to open another one. I think whatever happens now, the US should not have a role in it. That alone will cause the solution to be unacceptable.

By me? I did it? I wasn't even born when Saddam rose to power and I wasn't even of voting age when my governmental juggernaut set sail for Saddamland.

Second off, I think that the US should have never been there to begin with, so how about altering your choice of pronouns.

So, if the US shouldn't have a role in it, SAM, what should the US do now... in all your infinite wisdom? If the US stays it's a brutal imperialist dictatorship... if it goes, then the nation is a heartless beast.

~String

By me? I did it? I wasn't even born when Saddam rose to power and I wasn't even of voting age when my governmental juggernaut set sail for Saddamland.

Second off, I think that the US should have never been there to begin with, so how about altering your choice of pronouns.

So, if the US shouldn't have a role in it, SAM, what should the US do now... in all your infinite wisdom? If the US stays it's a brutal imperialist dictatorship... if it goes, then the nation is a heartless beast.

~String

Hmm to me, with the current state of Iraq, there is only one viable solution.

1. Talk to Iran and garner their support (they will give it, regardless of all the BS you hear in US media)

2. Engage Russia or China or some other third party with a better record in the ME than the US (China has improved infrastructure in every country it has invested in, and may be a better bet, the Chinese are also more pragmatic and already have good relations with both Iran and Iraq)

3. Hand over the reins to Iran and China

4. Pull out.

However, it will involve eating crow and giving up the oilfields, so it will never happen. But if the US is really concerned with Iraq and its stability or future, this is quite simply, the only workable solution.

Hmm to me, with the current state of Iraq, there is only one viable solution.

Yeah, perhaps, but then you're just one person, and a biased person at that, who has little or no experience in international politics or diplomacy.

Asking you to solve an international problem is akin to asking a ten-year old to solve the problems of global warming! You can ask, and you might get an answer, but is it one that anyone would want to implement? :D

Baron Max

Yeah, perhaps, but then you're just one person, and a biased person at that, who has little or no experience in international politics or diplomacy.

Asking you to solve an international problem is akin to asking a ten-year old to solve the problems of global warming! You can ask, and you might get an answer, but is it one that anyone would want to implement? :D

Baron Max


Hey Maximus

hows it going man:D

who would be a great diplomat out of us lot???:D

~~~~~~
cheers
zak

who would be a great diplomat out of us lot???


None, of course. And that's why we should all be a little more careful about what we propose as solutions for or about any-fuckin'-thing.

In essence, we're all just ignorant savages spouting off before the tribe and pounding our chests like Tarzan. None of it means anything, and thankfully, no one in power listens to any of us!

Baron Max

1. Talk to Iran and garner their support (they will give it, regardless of all the BS you hear in US media)

Iran will support the Shia, that's it. They would probably slaughter the Sunnis or completely disinfranchise them. Whichever is the case, the Sunnis won't take that and they will get support from the Saudis and the Jihadists...

2. Engage Russia or China or some other third party with a better record in the ME than the US

Russia suddenly has a good record in the ME? I guess your ignoring its behavior as the USSR, then?

3. Hand over the reins to Iran and China

You obviously have no understanding of the situation or the US interests in the region — or, and this is more probable, you just want to see the US suffer a major setback. Handing Iraq over to Iran would be a disaster. It would destabilize the entire region by creating a Shia/Persian arc of power that the other powers in the region are terrified of. And letting China in essentially lets another player on an already cluttered chessboard. What would that achieve? It also seems counterproductive to your implicit goals of getting the superpowers to leave the ME alone...

Yeah, perhaps, but then you're just one person, and a biased person at that, who has little or no experience in international politics or diplomacy.

Asking you to solve an international problem is akin to asking a ten-year old to solve the problems of global warming! You can ask, and you might get an answer, but is it one that anyone would want to implement? :D

Baron Max

Well, this is a political discussion page, so the very point of it is for us to express opinions. If everybody observed your advice, then there would be no discussion.

1. Talk to Iran and garner their support (they will give it, regardless of all the BS you hear in US media)

Sure... they'd give it, and then what would happen to all those non Muslim minorities in Iraq, let alone the Sunni 35% of the population? They'd all just work together in peace and harmony like we all know Muslims do?

2. Engage Russia or China or some other third party with a better record in the ME than the US (China has improved infrastructure in every country it has invested in, and may be a better bet, the Chinese are also more pragmatic and already have good relations with both Iran and Iraq)

China's track record is better because it hasn't exerted its will militarily yet. Give them another two decades and you'll be caviling about their imperialistic presence.

3. Hand over the reins to Iran and China

Yes... that would make it all peaceful and happy. One-- the Chinese don't have the cash to manage the situation and the Iranians are just as duplicitous in their maneuvering to create a power block.

~String

Iran will support the Shia, that's it. They would probably slaughter the Sunnis or completely disinfranchise them. Whichever is the case, the Sunnis won't take that and they will get support from the Saudis and the Jihadists...



Russia suddenly has a good record in the ME? I guess your ignoring its behavior as the USSR, then?



You obviously have no understanding of the situation or the US interests in the region — or, and this is more probable, you just want to see the US suffer a major setback. Handing Iraq over to Iran would be a disaster. It would destabilize the entire region by creating a Shia/Persian arc of power that the other powers in the region are terrified of. And letting China in essentially lets another player on an already cluttered chessboard. What would that achieve? It also seems counterproductive to your implicit goals of getting the superpowers to leave the ME alone...

1. There are Sunnis in Iran and Iraqi Sunnis (read Saddam and Co) do not have such a great rep either.

2. Please look up their economic and political relations AT PRESENT

3. :roflmao: reference current situation in Iraq

Sure... they'd give it, and then what would happen to all those non Muslim minorities in Iraq, let alone the Sunni 35% of the population? They'd all just work together in peace and harmony like we all know Muslims do?

Considering that the Shias have been oppressed by them since the last 800 plus years and still it is the Sunnis who are depopulating villages in Iraq? Let them fight it out, its gonna happen anyway.

China's track record is better because it hasn't exerted its will militarily yet. Give them another two decades and you'll be caviling about their imperialistic presence.

China has a far far better record than the US, even in Tibet.
In Africa, they have built infrastucture and aided the local peoples and farmers rather than dump their excess cheap stuff and destroy local economy.

Yes... that would make it all peaceful and happy. One-- the Chinese don't have the cash to manage the situation and the Iranians are just as duplicitous in their maneuvering to create a power block.


Don't worry, the US is putting all its cash into killing them; they'll be happier with any alternative. Wouldn't you?

Forget Tibet, Sam. How about China's record against its own people?

Handing Iraq over to Iran would be a disaster. It would destabilize the entire region by creating a Shia/Persian arc of power that the other powers in the region are terrified of.

Mission accomplished. Look, we can't stay there forever, and Iranian Shias are natural allies to Iraqi Shias.

Considering that the Shias have been oppressed by them since the last 800 plus years and still it is the Sunnis who are depopulating villages in Iraq? Let them fight it out, its gonna happen anyway.

As long as we're writing off anything that's inevitable, why are you complaining about America managing said situation? It's going to happen anyway.


China has a far far better record than the US, even in Tibet.

That's either grossly ignorant or just included to be provocative and insulting. Either way, I'm not impressed, and neither are the Buddhists.


In Africa, they have built infrastucture and aided the local peoples and farmers rather than dump their excess cheap stuff and destroy local economy.

Not true: China's entire economy is based on dumping cheap stuff on other people. Many African nations have seen what little manufacturing they had go up in smoke after signing deals with China. Moreover, I don't see how handing no-strings-attached money to dictators engaged in the genocide of their own people amounts to "aiding the local peoples and farmers."

Frankly, China behaves in the exact ways that America's most reactionary critics like to pretend we do: uncritical support for violent authoritarian dictators in exchange for natural resources to pillage and markets to saturate. Usually I write off the lesser criticism of China as a matter of expectations: Beijing being an authoritarian power with no respect for human rights itself, it's not surprising that they'd act in such a way. People expect better out of America, though, and so get disappointed when we don't deliver. That's fine. But to suggest that China is actually behaving better than the United States is ridiculous. Again, you're either ignorant or you're behaving childishly.

It's time that the USA got out of the business of moralizing the world and just started taking care of its strategic needs (starting with an exit from the Middle East).

I can't think of any reasonable definition of America's strategic needs that includes abandoning the Middle East.


If Turkey wants to be nasty to its people, well then, that's for Europe to deal with. As far as we're concerned, the Turks have been good allies and we need to ensure that it stays that way.

Here's the thing: our treaty with Turkey (which also includes most of Europe) says that we will consider any attack on Turkey as an attack on the United States and respond as such. So if they launch an attack on the Kurds in the face of attacks on Turkey, and we don't take their side, we'll be putting a lot of strain on said treaty. There's no way to simultaneously promote Kurdish interests (let alone independence) and keep Turkey on-side. We have to clamp down on Kurdish guerillas to the extent we can, in the hopes of forstalling Turkish action for long enough that the AKP has a chance to achieve political concilliation with the mainstream Kurdish population.


Could it be any worse than it is now?

Yes, it could be much, much worse.


And, if the US was smart, it would have split the northern portion of Iraq apart and given it to the Kurds to form a homeland. That would have made a whole lot more sense than what's going on now.

Yeah, great, violate the territorial integrity of a UN member (which is now a sovereign state again, since everyone seems to have forgotten) in order to create a tiny ethnic enclave which will inevitably provoke a war with both Turkey (a NATO member) and Iran. Sounds like a recipe for success.

Turkey can take care itself.


Funny, weren't you just insisting that we need to keep them as tight allies?

As long as we're writing off anything that's inevitable, why are you complaining about America managing said situation? It's going to happen anyway.



That's either grossly ignorant or just included to be provocative and insulting. Either way, I'm not impressed, and neither are the Buddhists.



Not true: China's entire economy is based on dumping cheap stuff on other people. Many African nations have seen what little manufacturing they had go up in smoke after signing deals with China. Moreover, I don't see how handing no-strings-attached money to dictators engaged in the genocide of their own people amounts to "aiding the local peoples and farmers."

Frankly, China behaves in the exact ways that America's most reactionary critics like to pretend we do: uncritical support for violent authoritarian dictators in exchange for natural resources to pillage and markets to saturate. Usually I write off the lesser criticism of China as a matter of expectations: Beijing being an authoritarian power with no respect for human rights itself, it's not surprising that they'd act in such a way. People expect better out of America, though, and so get disappointed when we don't deliver. That's fine. But to suggest that China is actually behaving better than the United States is ridiculous. Again, you're either ignorant or you're behaving childishly.

Probably your idea of sound foreign policy is different from mine. All the info I have seen on Chinese investment is always positive about Chinese involvement.

Like this:

China and the African continent are currently celebrating the renewal of their partnership. For China Africa is a source of coal and oil, and for the African states China is an ideal commercial partner that imposes no special political conditions upon its suppliers, and even gives them diplomatic backing. But Sino-African relations come into conflict with the interests of the United States , itself concerned about diversifying the sources of its oil imports.

http://www.cefc.com.hk/uk/pc/articles/art_ligne.php?num_art_ligne=6101


And this:
China is popular with African governments. “There is something refreshing to China’s approach,” said a Nigerian diplomat who asked not to be identified. “They don’t attach all those conditionalities that accompany Western loans.” Adds Justin Fong, executive director of the Chinese NGO, Moving Mountains: “Whether accurate or not, the image Africans have of the Chinese is that they get things done. They don’t waste their time in meetings. They just go ahead and build roads.”


http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4065

Or this:
Chairman of the African Union Commission Alpha Oumar Konare told Chinese Vice-Premier Huang Ju in Tunis Wednesday that Africa is proud of the rapid progress China has made in the past decades and maintains the belief that China's development is beneficial to Africa's well-being.


http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200511/17/eng20051117_221858.html

Americans are bad luck in the Middle East

As for the Buddhists and Tibet, don't get me started.

Probably your idea of sound foreign policy is different from mine. All the info I have seen on Chinese investment is always positive about Chinese involvement.


Yes, the GOVERNMENTS in Africa are very positive about these deals with China. That's a very different thing than being good for the *people* in Africa. The "special political conditions" are things like respect for human rights, not committing genocide, democracy, etc. These states can't get deals with Western countries because they're violent, repressive, backwards regimes that abuse their own people. Western countries rightly refuse to deal with them, hoping to induce them to change their ways, but China steps in and says "here, give us your resources, and we'll give you needed cash and cover you in the UN so you can avoid sanctions for repressing your population."

For example, in Sudan, America invested huge amounts of money in developing modern infrastructure, only to walk away from it as the human rights situation worsened. During the years of ongoing genocide, however, China simply stepped in, bought up all the American-built infrastucture on the cheap, and in return provided the necessary political cover for Sudan to get away with, literally, rape and murder.

It's one thing to be critical of American foreign policy, but when you become so fixated on the United States that you start to praise craven neocolonialist policies carried out by authoritarian states, you do real damage to your credibility.


As for the Buddhists and Tibet, don't get me started.

I suppose they're supposed to be thankful for having their sovereignty, religion and culture destroyed, being swamped with Han settlers and having their natural resources strip-mined because they got better roads and sewers out of the deal? Someone should tell the Palestinians and native Americans about that...

A separate Kurdish region split off from the rest of Iraq is not an option, but an established fact. They have their own flag, their own army, their own government, etc.

The installation of an Iranian-allied Shia government in Baghdad is not an option, but an established fact.

The separation of Iraq into sectarian enclaves capable of defending themselves is not an option, but an inevitable reality. .

its time...

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/smart-bomb-6.jpg

That airforce App come back yet?

Yes, the GOVERNMENTS in Africa are very positive about these deals with China. That's a very different thing than being good for the *people* in Africa. The "special political conditions" are things like respect for human rights, not committing genocide, democracy, etc. These states can't get deals with Western countries because they're violent, repressive, backwards regimes that abuse their own people. Western countries rightly refuse to deal with them, hoping to induce them to change their ways, but China steps in and says "here, give us your resources, and we'll give you needed cash and cover you in the UN so you can avoid sanctions for repressing your population."

For example, in Sudan, America invested huge amounts of money in developing modern infrastructure, only to walk away from it as the human rights situation worsened. During the years of ongoing genocide, however, China simply stepped in, bought up all the American-built infrastucture on the cheap, and in return provided the necessary political cover for Sudan to get away with, literally, rape and murder.

It's one thing to be critical of American foreign policy, but when you become so fixated on the United States that you start to praise craven neocolonialist policies carried out by authoritarian states, you do real damage to your credibility. .

Sudan is I agree, a pit, but thats not due to Chinese policy, they are just not interested in cleaning it up; I actually agree with that, the situation in Sudan is much like the situation in Sri Lanka, divisions created due to differential treatment of groups which has then erupted into civil war, much like what happened in India after partition and what will happen in Iraq. These divisions are created for political purpose and usually by people on the outside. Maybe the Chinese could be hypocritical and pretend they are looking out for the people of Sudan, but they are pragmatic and businesslike, without interference.



I suppose they're supposed to be thankful for having their sovereignty, religion and culture destroyed, being swamped with Han settlers and having their natural resources strip-mined because they got better roads and sewers out of the deal? Someone should tell the Palestinians and native Americans about that..


As for Tibet, the people under the Dalai Lamas have been subject to much atrocity and oppression; the man himself is a supreme hypocrite and blocks all development in the region for his personal gain. Although I disagree with the Chinese methods, I disagree with the Lamas more.

In the Dalai Lama's Tibet, torture and mutilation---including eye gouging, the pulling out of tongues, hamstringing, and amputation of arms and legs--were favored punishments inflicted upon thieves, runaway serfs, and other "criminals." Journeying through Tibet in the 1960s, Stuart and Roma Gelder interviewed a former serf, Tsereh Wang Tuei, who had stolen two sheep belonging to a monastery. For this he had both his eyes gouged out and his hand mutilated beyond use. He explains that he no longer is a Buddhist: "When a holy lama told them to blind me I thought there was no good in religion." [19] Some Western visitors to Old Tibet remarked on the number of amputees to be seen. Since it was against Buddhist teachings to take human life, some offenders were severely lashed and then "left to God" in the freezing night to die. "The parallels between Tibet and medieval Europe are striking," concludes Tom Grunfeld in his book on Tibet. [20]

Some monasteries had their own private prisons, reports Anna Louise Strong. In 1959, she visited an exhibition of torture equipment that had been used by the Tibetan overlords. There were handcuffs of all sizes, including small ones for children, and instruments for cutting off noses and ears, and breaking off hands. For gouging out eyes, there was a special stone cap with two holes in it that was pressed down over the head so that the eyes bulged out through the holes and could be more readily torn out. There were instruments for slicing off kneecaps and heels, or hamstringing legs. There were hot brands, whips, and special implements for disembowling. [21]

The exhibition presented photographs and testimonies of victims who had been blinded or crippled or suffered amputations for thievery. There was the shepherd whose master owed him a reimbursement in yuan and wheat but refused to pay. So he took one of the master's cows; for this he had his hands severed. Another herdsman, who opposed having his wife taken from him by his lord, had his hands broken off. There were pictures of Communist activists with noses and upper lips cut off, and a woman who was raped and then had her nose sliced away. [22]
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles9/Parenti_Tibet.htm


A 1999 story in the Washington Post notes that the Dalai Lama continues to be revered in Tibet, but

[F]ew Tibetans would welcome a return of the corrupt aristocratic clans that fled with him in 1959 and that comprise the bulk of his advisers. Many Tibetan farmers, for example, have no interest in surrendering the land they gained during China's land reform to the clans. Tibet's former slaves say they, too, don't want their former masters to return to power.

"I've already lived that life once before," said Wangchuk, a 67-year-old former slave who was wearing his best clothes for his yearly pilgrimage to Shigatse, one of the holiest sites of Tibetan Buddhism. He said he worshipped the Dalai Lama, but added, "I may not be free under Chinese communism, but I am better off than when I was a slave." [51]



But thats a different thread.

Sudan is I agree, a pit, but thats not due to Chinese policy, they are just not interested in cleaning it up;

More than that, they're interested in ensuring it never gets cleaned up so that they can continue to extract resources. The Chinese pay via diplomatic cover as much as money. You may recall that they have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council?

Maybe the Chinese could be hypocritical and pretend they are looking out for the people of Sudan,

To be hypocritical they'd have to pretend to care about the people of Sudan in the first place. If they have, this is the first I've heard about it.


but they are pragmatic and businesslike, without interference.


Noninterference is only a virtue when it comes to states that aren't badly in need of interference to save millions of innocent lives. The principle of non-interference, when it comes to China, boils down to the idea that governments should be free to oppress, torture and kill their own citizens without other governments interfering with the process. If this is the kind of thing you support, that's fine, but at least be honest about what it is you're advocating.


As for Tibet, the people under the Dalai Lamas have been subject to much atrocity and oppression; the man himself is a supreme hypocrite and blocks all development in the region for his personal gain. Although I disagree with the Chinese methods, I disagree with the Lamas more.

I never said that the previous Tibetan regime was pretty. But weren't you just praising China for their non-interference approach, which is so respectful of sovereignty? How does colonizing a country, outlawing their religion, settling your own people there and ransacking their natural resources fit into that?

This would also be the appropriate time to ask whether you think Saddam's methods were preferable to America's. Or the methods of the various parties that would be likely to come to power if America vacated Iraq. However, I'm starting to get the idea that consistency and consideration are too much to expect from you...

More than that, they're interested in ensuring it never gets cleaned up so that they can continue to extract resources. The Chinese pay via diplomatic cover as much as money. You may recall that they have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council?

Considering how much money they pour into ensuring infrastructure, I don't agree; as one of the Chinese diplomats said in the second link above: you must invest or you will be poor. Perhaps the Africans could gain more by a closed economy, I don't know, but do they have the infrastructure for it? If China is able and willing to invest in infrastructure, that is a much bigger step forward than the Americans haphazard habits of arming both sides of the conflict.


To be hypocritical they'd have to pretend to care about the people of Sudan in the first place. If they have, this is the first I've heard about it.


Economic clout is essential for political influence.


"China's economic clout in Africa has grown over the years, putting it in a significant position to help end the genocide in Darfur, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in a press interview in Paris.


Noninterference is only a virtue when it comes to states that aren't badly in need of interference to save millions of innocent lives. The principle of non-interference, when it comes to China, boils down to the idea that governments should be free to oppress, torture and kill their own citizens without other governments interfering with the process. If this is the kind of thing you support, that's fine, but at least be honest about what it is you're advocating.

At least they don't deliberately install and support and arm dictators. What they are doing is building a base, on which they will develop. You'll see more Chinese influence in Africa, not less, and you'll see decrease in violence, not increase.


I never said that the previous Tibetan regime was pretty. But weren't you just praising China for their non-interference approach, which is so respectful of sovereignty? How does colonizing a country, outlawing their religion, settling your own people there and ransacking their natural resources fit into that?


Chinese non interference has nothing to do with respect for sovereignty.

I'd say its pragmatism; they realise that political and economic clout is more useful 20 years hence and they wont repeat the mistakes of the west. Tibet is more of a desire for socialism over feudalism. Spreading their own brand of liberty. Compared to what it was and how much money they are investing there, plus the political reforms and land reforms; I'd have to say it is much better to the medieval system that was forced on the locals. The history of Lamaism in Tibet is an ugly one, not the Shangri-La it is purported to be in western media.


This would also be the appropriate time to ask whether you think Saddam's methods were preferable to America's. Or the methods of the various parties that would be likely to come to power if America vacated Iraq.


Given a choice between his form of government and the one in the offing? I'd have to say Saddam's was better. There was education, freedom to work and worship; that he was a pawn of the West is perhaps something he could not avoid and he used extreme measures to suppress fundamentalists. But better than everyone being bombed out of existence by liberators or submerged into oppression by fundamentalists

However, I'm starting to get the idea that consistency and consideration are too much to expect from you...

I'm no idealist, I'm a realist; when considering any outcome, I prefer the best case scenario, with an emphasis on do no harm. I won't kill everyone just to get my own way.

Considering how much money they pour into ensuring infrastructure, I don't agree;

Eh, that only amounts to a couple of billion dollars a year (and it mostly consists of loans, so it's not exactly "pouring in").

Perhaps the Africans could gain more by a closed economy, I don't know, but do they have the infrastructure for it?

Never suggested a closed economy. What I did suggest is that residents of Darfur are unlikely to share your enthusiasm for infrastructure developments. They're preoccupied with bigger concerns, such as not being hunted down and butchered like animals while China uses its Security Council veto to prevent anyone from "interfering."


If China is able and willing to invest in infrastructure, that is a much bigger step forward than the Americans haphazard habits of arming both sides of the conflict.

I'm sure the people in Darfur are thrilled that China is selling arms only to the government that is trying to murder them.


At least they don't deliberately install and support and arm dictators.

Sure they do. What planet are you on? From North Korea to Burma to Zimbabwe, China is the tyrant's best friend.


What they are doing is building a base, on which they will develop. You'll see more Chinese influence in Africa, not less, and you'll see decrease in violence, not increase.

Yeah, right. If you were a bit older, you might know that China undertook a similar investment/outreach push in Africa about 20 years ago, only to abandon them as soon as other priorities emerged. You're a sucker if you think China is in Africa for anything other than their own advantage.

Given a choice between his form of government and the one in the offing? I'd have to say Saddam's was better. There was education, freedom to work and worship; that he was a pawn of the West is perhaps something he could not avoid and he used extreme measures to suppress fundamentalists. But better than being bombed out of existence by liberators.

Well, there you have it. More apologies for genocidal dictators.

I won't kill everyone just to get my own way.

No, but you'll stand by and applaud anyone who does kill to get their own way, as long as they aren't the United States.

Eh, that only amounts to a couple of billion dollars a year (and it mostly consists of loans, so it's not exactly "pouring in").


Oops sorry, I forgot about the trillions the US is POURING into Iraq! :D


Never suggested a closed economy. What I did suggest is that residents of Darfur are unlikely to share your enthusiasm for infrastructure developments. They're preoccupied with bigger concerns, such as not being hunted down and butchered like animals while China uses its Security Council veto to prevent anyone from "interfering."

What does a UN Security Council meeting mean? All it means is that the US and its allies will arm someone else or maneuver into Sudan to steal the oil.:shrug:

Saving the Sudanese will be a very low priority, if past actions are anything



I'm sure the people in Darfur are thrilled that China is selling arms only to the government that is trying to murder them.

As compared to arming both sides?:rolleyes:

http://www.aqoul.com/archives/2006/10/sudans_east_sou.php

Perhaps China can profit from Sudan's isolation, but it won't prolong the conflict for political reasons.


Sure they do. What planet are you on? From North Korea to Burma to Zimbabwe, China is the tyrant's best friend.
We must have different news sources.


Yeah, right. If you were a bit older, you might know that China undertook a similar investment/outreach push in Africa about 20 years ago, only to abandon them as soon as other priorities emerged. You're a sucker if you think China is in Africa for anything other than their own advantage.

I don't. But I think the Chinese are more long term thinkers than short term self gratifiers.

Well, there you have it. More apologies for genocidal dictators.

I'm not the one putting them in power, or arming them or supporting them (and in the case of the absolute weirdness in Iraq, supporting and arming local militias against the elected government)

No, but you'll stand by and applaud anyone who does kill to get their own way, as long as they aren't the United States.

I'll support the one who does not kill everyone to get their own way. Thats what the US always does. Its not what the Chinese are doing. Perhaps I am mistaken in what they will achieve, but I would rather take that chance, the US will be a disappointment in any case. We have a longer history with China and there is a possibility to meet halfway; Americans are disloyal friends in the international arena.

Oops sorry, I forgot about the trillions the US is POURING into Iraq! :D

Which has what to do with Africa again? Is it possible for you to go more than 1 post without trying to work in some catty, irrelevant comment about Iraq?


What does a UN Security Council meeting mean? All it means is that the US and its allies will arm someone else or maneuver into Sudan to steal the oil.:shrug:

Uuuuhhh... you do understand that China and Russia are veto-holding members of the Security Council, right?


Saving the Sudanese will be a very low priority, if past actions are anything

Even still, it would be an improvement on China's priorities, which do not include saving the Sudanese at all.


As compared to arming both sides?:rolleyes:

America isn't arming any sides of the Darfur conflict.

Perhaps China can profit from Sudan's isolation, but it won't prolong the conflict for political reasons.

Given that Sudan's isolation is a direct consequence of the conflict, I'm left to wonder if you even noticed what you were writing before posting this...


We must have different news sources.

The more likely explanation is that you don't pay any attention to international news that does not cater to your obsession with America.

I'm not the one putting them in power, or arming them or supporting them

Neither am I. Can I have a cookie?


I'll support the one who does not kill everyone to get their own way. Thats what the US always does.

Yeah, America always kills everyone to get their own way. I'm stunned by the penetrating insight on display here...


Its not what the Chinese are doing.

No, they're sponsoring African (and Asian) governments who kill everyone to get their own way. I guess that's somehow preferable, but the difference doesn't seem to show up in the body count.


Perhaps I am mistaken in what they will achieve, but I would rather take that chance, the US will be a disappointment in any case.

Why do you imagine that there is some choice between China and the US in this matter?


We have a longer history with China and there is a possibility to meet halfway; Americans are disloyal friends in the international arena.

Who's "we?" I have no idea what this is supposed to be about.

Even still, it would be an improvement on China's priorities, which do not include saving the Sudanese at all.


No they don't play world police.

America isn't arming any sides of the Darfur conflict.


You mean they stopped arming the SPLA "freedom fighters" (notice how its insurgents in Iraq)?

Given that Sudan's isolation is a direct consequence of the conflict, I'm left to wonder if you even noticed what you were writing before posting this...

Sudan's isolation is a direct result of the US not getting its own way. Notice how there are other genocides sponsored actively by the US that do not suffer isolation.

The more likely explanation is that you don't pay any attention to international news that does not cater to your obsession with America.



Or maybe I don't get all my news from the US media.


Yeah, America always kills everyone to get their own way. I'm stunned by the penetrating insight on display here...

Its ancient history (http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html)

Fool me once etc



No, they're sponsoring African (and Asian) governments who kill everyone to get their own way. I guess that's somehow preferable, but the difference doesn't seem to show up in the body count.


Sponsoring? You mean it is a requirement of their support that the government kill the people? Chinese CIA death squads training in torture techniques?:eek:

Why do you imagine that there is some choice between China and the US in this matter?

Why do you think the US cares about what happens in Sudan when it so obviously has never cared what it wrought elsewhere? And is still doing in various parts of the world?


Who's "we?" I have no idea what this is supposed to be about

Sorry, I was talking about India and China. Just ignore it.:)DynCorp, one of the fair’s sponsors, has almost $40 million in U.S. State Department contracts to build barracks, provide telecommunications and training to the former rebel Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA).

"The U.S. government has decided that a stable military force will create a stable country," Rigney said.

He denied the contracts included any arms deal with southern Sudan’s government, which donors say has funnelled the biggest chunk of its 2006/07 budget — some 40 percent — into defence.

"This contract does not involve sending arms to the SPLA. The idea is not to help them in offensive purposes," he said.[/quote]

:rolleyes:
http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article17052

No they don't play world police.

Indeed, they play world gangster instead. Some improvement...


Sudan's isolation is a direct result of the US not getting its own way.

If by "the US" you mean "most every Western country" and by "getting its own way" you mean "insisting that the Sudanese government not mass-murder defenseless women and children," they okay...


Notice how there are other genocides sponsored actively by the US that do not suffer isolation.

Such as?


Or maybe I don't get all my news from the US media.

Neither do I. What's more, I'm able to go 2 posts without suggesting that people who disagree with me are brainwashed media puppets. Meanwhile, there are plenty of non-American news sources that will tell you all about China's support of dictators if you care to look (not that I accept the proposition that America's news is particularly biased on this matter).

Sponsoring? You mean it is a requirement of their support that the government kill the people?

Not explicitly, but it works out that way. If Sudan were to clean up its act, Western countries would be falling all over themselves to invest there, and China would never be able to compete.


Why do you think the US cares about what happens in Sudan when it so obviously has never cared what it wrought elsewhere?

First off, the troubles in Sudan weren't "wrought" by America. Secondly, I know that the United States cares about Sudan for a number of reasons: there's vibrant popular support for the Darfur cause amongst the American population, which has led America to use its international political clout to press for resolution (including getting European allies on board) and also walk away from the numerous investments we'd already made there. Criticize our actions or our forsight all you want, but don't try to tell us what we do or don't care about.

Sorry, I was talking about India and China. Just ignore it.:)

So you apparently feel more comfortable with an unaccountable dictatorship that you've already been to war with than a liberal democracy that's never harmed India in any way (and is, in fact, eager for closer relations). Hey, it's your country, but these sentiments seem to me to derive more from Cold War/post-colonialism rhetoric than any rational considerations about reality.

DynCorp, one of the fair’s sponsors, has almost $40 million in U.S. State Department contracts to build barracks, provide telecommunications and training to the former rebel Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA).

"The U.S. government has decided that a stable military force will create a stable country," Rigney said.

He denied the contracts included any arms deal with southern Sudan’s government, which donors say has funnelled the biggest chunk of its 2006/07 budget — some 40 percent — into defence.

"This contract does not involve sending arms to the SPLA. The idea is not to help them in offensive purposes," he said.

Uh, you do realize that the civil war involving the SPLA is over, and that these efforts are undertaken with the consent of the Sudanese central government, no? This has nothing to do with Darfur or the conflict there.

Uh, you do realize that the civil war involving the SPLA is over, and that these efforts are undertaken with the consent of the Sudanese central government, no? This has nothing to do with Darfur or the conflict there.

Yeah I know, its the Darfur Liberation Front fighting now. But they're using the arms from the Sudanese government.

SPLA/M has since had representatives in the Government of Sudan, as well as being the main constituent of the Government of the semi-autonomous Southern Sudan

Before in the civil war (before US supplied weapons to SPLA, they were using arms from previous supplies)

It does not matter which side is fighting, the arms industry always wins.

First off, the troubles in Sudan weren't "wrought" by America. Secondly, I know that the United States cares about Sudan for a number of reasons: there's vibrant popular support for the Darfur cause amongst the American population, which has led America to use its international political clout to press for resolution (including getting European allies on board) and also walk away from the numerous investments we'd already made there. Criticize our actions or our forsight all you want, but don't try to tell us what we do or don't care about.

That explains Clinton’s 1998 bombing of Al Shifa, a pharmaceutical plant that produced 90 percent of Sudan's major pharmaceutical products, causing untold number of Sudanese children to die from treatable diseases.:rolleyes:

Tell me, what is the difference between Sudanese government or militia killing people and the US intervening to kill people? Or killing the government and then bombing the people anyway?

Can you tell me?

How does the US itself going there to kill people show the compassion of the Americans?

The Sudanese government has suppressed information by jailing and killing witnesses since 2004 and tampered with evidence such as mass graves to eliminate their forensic values.[8][9][10] In addition, by obstructing and arresting journalists, the Sudanese government has been able to obscure much of what has gone on.[11][12][13][14] The mass media once described the conflict as both "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide," and now do so without hesitation.

How is this any different from Iraq and Afghanistan and Abu Gharaib and Gitmo?

Whats the difference between the US arming Sunni militias who are against the Shia majority and the Sudanese government crushing resistance using the Janjaweed?

How does the US itself going there to kill people show the compassion of the Americans?
We are compassionate by sparing ourselves from relentless whiny noise by killing all serial bitchers where we find them; because we can; because we'd otherwise get really, really pissy and take everyone out because no one seems capable of shutting their neurotic traps for their own good?

Where's your own display of compassion for Americans having to listen to you like we're being constantly waterboarded?

Where's your own display of compassion for Americans having to listen to you like we're being constantly waterboarded?
Christ this from a country which gave the World Justin Timberlake !

Christ this from a country which gave the World Justin Timberlake !
We didn't give him to the world. We let him seek his own level.

That explains Clinton’s 1998 bombing of Al Shifa, a pharmaceutical plant that produced 90 percent of Sudan's major pharmaceutical products, causing untold number of Sudanese children to die from treatable diseases.:rolleyes:

Tell me, what is the difference between Sudanese government or militia killing people and the US intervening to kill people? Or killing the government and then bombing the people anyway?

Can you tell me?

How does the US itself going there to kill people show the compassion of the Americans?



How is this any different from Iraq and Afghanistan and Abu Gharaib and Gitmo?

Whats the difference between the US arming Sunni militias who are against the Shia majority and the Sudanese government crushing resistance using the Janjaweed?

Yeah, you got me. America is the new Evil Empire. Our plan is simple: kill everybody.

Is your discernment really that lacking, or does this type of rhetoric just hold some special appeal for you?

That airforce App come back yet?

like I said...I was a fool to think of anything like this.

Yeah, you got me. America is the new Evil Empire. Our plan is simple: kill everybody.

Is your discernment really that lacking, or does this type of rhetoric just hold some special appeal for you?

4 million Afghan refugees, 4 million Iraq refugees.

Where is the love?

But that land belongs to Iraq so in truth Turkey is stealing the oil rich lands of the Iraqies aren't they?

Why do you think the US is there?

4 million Afghan refugees, 4 million Iraq refugees.

Where is the love?

Your posts are the equivalent of placards at a protest march. Has this approach ever resulted in what you could honestly call a useful conversation?

Your posts are the equivalent of placards at a protest march. Has this approach ever resulted in what you could honestly call a useful conversation?

You're the one pretending its all about the people. I'm the one saying its not.

So if its about the people, tell me how much of the trillions had been spent on helping the people? And how much of it on killing them?

As an example of what one may expect from the outpourings of compassion for the Sudanese people.