I read today in an Associated Press story that the islamic arabs in sudan have so far killed 30,000. It said the U.N. says there are 1000 people dying each day. Now, where are the thousands of euroweenies protesting, like the massive anti-U.S. demonstrations? There's alot more being killed than in Iraq, and probably tens or hundreds of thousands more to die because the aid is getting to the refugee camps too late. Hello? Hello? What are you euroweenies doing, sucking your croissants in the cafe again? Oh wait a minute .... I get the difference .... there's no euro zillion dollar arms contracts involved, am I right? OK. Nevermind.
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 28,209
You want to protest against a grup of arabs who don't seem to care much people in there own courtry think? And then you wan't to compare the US to them?. OF coarse the US has never been involed in it's share of dodgy arms deals over the years?
Charlie Monoxide
Wag
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2003
- Messages
- 2,760
Too bad there's no oil in Sudan .....
Charlie (useless cynicism) Monoxide
Charlie (useless cynicism) Monoxide
crimresearch
Alumbrado
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 10,600
Too bad there's no Chinese troops in Sudan
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Too bad you're wrong.Charlie Monoxide said:
If it was just oil in Iraq the US wanted, we could have just bought it, don't you think? The whole "war for oil" cry of the critics is just mind-numbingly stupid.
Although John Kerry did want to actually steal it (read his explanation of the whole "I actually voted for the $80 million before I voted against it" fiasco to see what I mean), Bush never did.
But don't worry about Darfur, Jesse Jackson is on the case. It's as good as resolved now.
If it was just oil in Iraq the US wanted, we could have just bought it, don't you think? The whole "war for oil" cry of the critics is just mind-numbingly stupid.
I've had the same thought all along. Before the war, the U.S. bought oil from Saddam, right up to the invasion. Now that the main part of the "war for oil" is over, the U.S. is buying oil from Iraq. In exactly what sense then, was it "war for oil"? Whatever tinhorn dictator ran the place, they would have sold the west oil, since only then does it realize any value.
I've had the same thought all along. Before the war, the U.S. bought oil from Saddam, right up to the invasion. Now that the main part of the "war for oil" is over, the U.S. is buying oil from Iraq. In exactly what sense then, was it "war for oil"? Whatever tinhorn dictator ran the place, they would have sold the west oil, since only then does it realize any value.
The real reason behind most of these "human rights protests" is narcissim. The protestors are there, not because they care about the victims, but in order to feel they are better and more moral than the "opressor du jour". They aren't protesting for somebody's human rights, only against somebody's violations of it.
This is why the protestors are almost invariably protesting against the human right abuses (real or alleged) of israel and/or the USA and/or "western imperialism": it gives them a "rush" to feel they are better than their neighbors, those poor suckers who might even vote Republican.
Naturally, the protestors couldn't care less about atrocities committed in Dafur or Kenya or Iran, say; they already feel they are infinitely superior to those they see as third-world savages who run those countries, so what's the point? Why bother to protest when all it will show toi the world is that you are morally superior to some insane thug in a backwater country? Why spend energy on something that doesn't prove you are a better person that people you might actually meet? What's the fun in that?
The one thing that doesn't matter in the whole "protest" racket is the actual victims of opression. They must be victims of someone the protestors would love to hate, and thus make them feel good and moral and humane and (above all) better than the average joe who just doesn't care. Otherwise, they might as well not exis.
This is why the protestors are almost invariably protesting against the human right abuses (real or alleged) of israel and/or the USA and/or "western imperialism": it gives them a "rush" to feel they are better than their neighbors, those poor suckers who might even vote Republican.
Naturally, the protestors couldn't care less about atrocities committed in Dafur or Kenya or Iran, say; they already feel they are infinitely superior to those they see as third-world savages who run those countries, so what's the point? Why bother to protest when all it will show toi the world is that you are morally superior to some insane thug in a backwater country? Why spend energy on something that doesn't prove you are a better person that people you might actually meet? What's the fun in that?
The one thing that doesn't matter in the whole "protest" racket is the actual victims of opression. They must be victims of someone the protestors would love to hate, and thus make them feel good and moral and humane and (above all) better than the average joe who just doesn't care. Otherwise, they might as well not exis.
aerocontrols
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2001
- Messages
- 3,444
Patrick said:
I would like to see an Associated Press story that quotes a UN official saying that there were 1,000 people dying in Darfur every day.
MattJ
Tmy
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2002
- Messages
- 6,487
How about the flip side. The righties go on and on about "Iraqi Freedom" and "taking out a murderous Saddam who does XYZ to his own people." Well if the righties are so sincere about helping the downtrodden why arent they pushing for military action in Sudan??? BECAUSE THEY ARENT SINCERE. They dont give a crap aout the Iraqi people and they sure dont care about Sudan.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Lots of lefties have been supporting action in Darur, not that there will be any. The president seems to have his hands full.
aerocontrols
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2001
- Messages
- 3,444
Tmy said:
Which Righties?
Patrick said:
Thanks. Let me offer you a re-write of your statement:
Is my addition objectionable to you? It seems to me that the added bit is crucial for showing how credible the information is.
You'll forgive me if UN/EU numbers by way of Jesse Jackson aren't that credible with me, especially when the number is '1000 people dying every day' and yet the article still says there have been '30,000 people dead total' - a number that hasn't changed in months.
Here's your link
Edit: Patrick, you might want to see this thread, if you haven't already.
Corwyn
Unregistered
C
I'm going to preface this by saying that I do not believe that Bush invaded Iraq for oil, or more precisly not JUST for oil.
But this typical willfull ingorance by the shrub appoligists ( am being kind) just baffles me!
____________________________________________________
If it was just oil in Iraq the US wanted, we could have just bought it, don't you think? The whole "war for oil" cry of the critics is just mind-numbingly stupid.
I've had the same thought all along. Before the war, the U.S. bought oil from Saddam, right up to the invasion. Now that the main part of the "war for oil" is over, the U.S. is buying oil from Iraq. In exactly what sense then, was it "war for oil"? Whatever tinhorn dictator ran the place, they would have sold the west oil, since only then does it realize any value.
____________________________________________________
I suppose it is just PURELY a coincidence that both the pres and veep just happen to have ties to - OH MY GOD WHAT A SHOCK-
oil companies.
They OF COURSE wouldn't have a clue ( well in shrubs case I can believe it, but in Cheneys? ) that not a single US firm has had a dime worth of the multi-Billion dollars worth of contracts in Iraq for oil processing.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.c_.shtml
And yes, in light of the oil for food scandles this is probably due to bribes etc. But isn't it kind of funny how their decision to invade Iraq just HAPPENS to solve this problem for them and allow them to make billions at tax dollars expense. And of course the shrubs family has ZERO history in using the govt/tax dollars to further their personal profits.
But this typical willfull ingorance by the shrub appoligists ( am being kind) just baffles me!
____________________________________________________
If it was just oil in Iraq the US wanted, we could have just bought it, don't you think? The whole "war for oil" cry of the critics is just mind-numbingly stupid.
I've had the same thought all along. Before the war, the U.S. bought oil from Saddam, right up to the invasion. Now that the main part of the "war for oil" is over, the U.S. is buying oil from Iraq. In exactly what sense then, was it "war for oil"? Whatever tinhorn dictator ran the place, they would have sold the west oil, since only then does it realize any value.
____________________________________________________
I suppose it is just PURELY a coincidence that both the pres and veep just happen to have ties to - OH MY GOD WHAT A SHOCK-
oil companies.
They OF COURSE wouldn't have a clue ( well in shrubs case I can believe it, but in Cheneys? ) that not a single US firm has had a dime worth of the multi-Billion dollars worth of contracts in Iraq for oil processing.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.c_.shtml
And yes, in light of the oil for food scandles this is probably due to bribes etc. But isn't it kind of funny how their decision to invade Iraq just HAPPENS to solve this problem for them and allow them to make billions at tax dollars expense. And of course the shrubs family has ZERO history in using the govt/tax dollars to further their personal profits.