Sudan Genocide = Excuse to Invade?

[Tamyrlin79]

I have no doubt that there is some nasty stuff going on in Sudan. However, for most Americans, I don't think Sudan registers as a security problem.

But, considering Bob Graham's recent revelation that Sudan was on Tommy Franks' list of countries the US should go after after Afghanistan (I think it went 1) Afghanistan, 2)Yemen, 3)Sudan...), then it seems somewhat...fortuitous that genocide, something that would play on American's moral scruples ala the Balkans, is suddenly occurring in a region that we clearly have listed for invasion? I'm not saying that Americans are in Sudan committing genocide. But what if the cabal helped arm the ones who are doing it behind the scenes or helped create the political conditions that led to genocide?

Just something to think about before rushing into Sudan...

[amber dog democrat]

1. Is there any oil ?

If so then we need to invade STAT. Otherwise let the UN handle it.

[seemslikeadream]

6. YES Sudan Says West After Country's Oil, Gold

By Nima Elbagir
KHARTOUM (Reuters) - Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir on Thursday accused Western nations of interfering in its troubled western Darfur region to try to exploit Sudan's gold and oil resources.

Sudan is under intense international pressure to rein in Arab militias, accused of looting and burning African farming villages, and provide security for more than 1 million people displaced by the fighting in the remote area bordering Chad.

If not, the U.N. Security Council in a July 30 resolution says Khartoum could face unspecified sanctions. There has also been talk of possible foreign troop intervention in Darfur.

Bashir on Thursday said Western nations, especially Britain, were inflaming the Darfur fighting to destabilize wider Sudan.


http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=5955941

[Randers]

7. Sudan, Oil, and Human Rights

http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/11/sudan112503.htm

Sudan, Oil, and Human Rights
Report, November 2003

" (London, November 25, 2003) The Sudanese government's efforts to control oilfields in the war-torn south have resulted in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of civilians, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Foreign oil companies operating in Sudan have been complicit in this displacement, and the death and destruction that have accompanied it...

"Oil development in southern Sudan should have been a cause of rejoicing for Sudan's people," said Jemera Rone, Sudan researcher for Human Rights Watch. "Instead, it has brought them nothing but woe."

The report documents how the government has used the roads, bridges and airfields built by the oil companies as a means for it to launch attacks on civilians in the southern oil region of Western Upper Nile (also known as Unity state). In addition to its regular army, the government has deployed militant Islamist militias to prosecute the war, and has armed southern factions in a policy of ethnic manipulation and destabilization."


AND NOW-

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2004/593/593p17.htm

SUDAN: Oil profits behind West's tears for Darfur

Norm Dixon

For at least 18 months now, Western governments have quietly stood by as the non-Arabic-speaking black farmers of the Darfur region in western Sudan have borne the brunt of a vicious ethnic-cleansing campaign carried out by state-sponsored bandits known as the janjaweed.

Refugees report that attacks on farming villages are often preceded by raids by Sudanese air force fighter-bombers and attack helicopters. The janjaweed, recruited from Arabic-speaking pastoralist tribes, then routinely murder any male villagers they can get their hands on, systematically rape or kidnap the women, and plunder and destroy the villages and crops. The attacks and their consequences have resulted in the deaths of up to 50,000 people and the displacement of 1.5 million; aid agencies warn that hundreds of thousands may die from disease or starvation in the coming months.

Why then have the governments of the United States and the European Union (EU) only now begun to express concern over the fate of the people of western Sudan and demand that the Islamist military regime in Khartoum bring the janjaweed under control? The answer ? as it most often is when rich countries threaten to intervene in the Middle East and Africa ? is access to invest in and extract profits from Sudan's burgeoning oil export industry." <more>

[Wickerman]

2. October Surprise?

Great distractor.

[IrateCitizen]

3. Sudan is a genuine humanitarian concern

There IS actual genocide and ethnic cleansing taking place within Sudan as we speak. The potential victims in all this could rise into the millions, if left unchecked.

Problem is, the US has used up all its international political capital with the debacle in Iraq. Now, EU nations are hearing the US talk about intervening and saying, "Oh no, you're not going to drag us down with you...."

Sudan is a real and immediate humanitarian concern, don't let anything else fool you. The idea of it being a security concern or not for Americans doesn't alter its current state.

[seemslikeadream]

4. So is Congo

3.5 million dead since 1998

[RivetJoint]

5. So was (and still is) Brundi and Rwanda

[IrateCitizen]

10. You're absolutely right. But we were talking about Sudan.

Personally, I don't much like the idea that we didn't do anything in Rwanda. Not that I'm one for the application of violent force, but there should have been some kind of multinational effort to stop the atrocities taking place in Rwanda.

I also think that the international community should act in Sudan before it becomes another Rwanda.

[IrateCitizen]

8. And I'm not discounting that. But we were talking about Sudan. (nt)

[seemslikeadream]

11. Sorry I didn't mean to be short

just that the administration has said nothing about Congo as a matter of fact George Bush Sr.'s Barrick Mining is raping the land there so maybe that's why.


Big problem

International arms trade $800 billion annually - largest business in the world.


Twice the second placed - illegal sale of drugs $400 billion a year


82 armed conflicts between 1989-1999 - 79 took place within national borders - arms not needed for self defense.


Reality is most arms are used on ordinary people by forces in the government or close to it.


159 wars fought since WWII - 9 out of 10 in developing world - more than 20 million people - were civilians.


War brings starvation - Biafra, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Chad, Sudan, Liberia and Somalia.


Until there is a radical reassessment of the arms trade and its consequences, millions more will be directly or indirectly killed by this lethal business.


The bottom line is that there is a lot of money to be made in weapons, and this motivates arms manufacturing.


To add to high profit margins, all arms manufactures are heavily subsidised and protected by their governments.


Free trade agreements - nearly always exempt from military spending


Industrialised countries will always be able to subsidise their corporations through defense contracts and grants for weapons research.

[wtmusic]

9. The biggest casualty of the Iraq war

our political standing in the world