America sell the Kurds out .......Again

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. .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

its time...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That airforce App come back yet?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

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.

But thats a different thread.

 

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?

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.

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.

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...

 

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.

Economic clout is essential for political influence.

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.

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.

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

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.

 

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").

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."

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

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

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.

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

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.

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

As compared to arming both sides?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.

We must have different news sources.

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

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)

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.

 

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?

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

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

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

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...

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

Neither am I. Can I have a cookie?

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

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.

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

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

 

No they don't play world police.

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

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.

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

Its ancient history

Fool me once etc

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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?

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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]

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

 

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

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...

Such as?

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).

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.

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.

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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?

 

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?

 

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.

 

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?

 

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

 

4 million Afghan refugees, 4 million Iraq refugees.

Where is the love?