Quote:
Originally posted by Agamemnon@Oct 26 2004, 04:48 PM
I believe the situation in the Darfur region of Sudan was called by Secretary of State Colin Powell a 'genocide' over a month and a half ago. He also implied that the majority of the blame for the situation could be placed squarely on the shoulders of the Sudanese government for failing to act.
Should the US be dealing with a state like this, that condones violence against it's own citizens? The US (and the Western nations) basically financed the government in its intense civil war against the African ethnic groups in the country in an attempt to drive them out and establish Arab control over every province.
There is a NY Times article here in which women are still being treated pretty poorly in the region, and little is being done to prevent it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/26/internat...artner=homepage
This crazy leftist seems to think that oil and China are two main reasons for US involvement in Sudan (declaration of genocide) than any actual empathy for the deaths of 100,000's.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/GOW407B.html
So it begs the question, why the hell is the US dealing with this country? Under it's current strategic mandate, shouldn't this place be up for invasion pretty soon? At least some kind of sanctions? What aside from greed could possibly perpetuate American tolerance of crimes against humanity?
|
Blocking Chinese oil deals in Iraq, scuppering the Shanghai Five, and working to undermine Chinese oil field development in Sudan serves a strategic goal of the US: to limit the rise of a great power rival. Keeping China (along with the European Union and Japan) dependent on the US for access to oil, is one way of ensuring US primacy remains unchallenged.
You know . . . . that's pretty stupid. Desperate too.
In this world, anyone who wants to buy oil can do so. Can we agree on that?
The USA can't stop that. Can we agree on that?
China's oil imports are up 40% in the last 12 months and a few other supply related issues (strikes in Nigeria and Norway, declining production in Venezuela, leal issues in Russia) has sent prices staggering higher. Can we agree on that?
The USA is a slave to oil. Can we agree on that?
Further to that, the USA is a slave to oil and vastly dependent on foreign sources for about 60% of its consumption I think. Can we agree on that?
Since the price of oil is based on a global market, can we agree that removing Chinese demand from the global equation via Sudan supplies would actually decrease demand elsewhere?
In that light, can we agree global prices would fall?
Can we agree the global oil prices would decline from the development of Sudanese oil reserves, even in China imports those new reserves all for its own use?
Can we agree the USA economy would benefit from lower oil prices?
Can we also agree that China is sniffing around Canadian resource companies as a way to secure supplies as well? And is interested in a fair-sized investment in the Athabasca oil sands?
Can we therefore agree that China's interest in global commondities is just that - global?
China imports inflation and exports deflation. That is the equation you need to think about as a threat to the USA. It refuses to allow its currency to float. That's a problem.
If China wants to develop oil reserves in Sudan, more power to them. If the USA wants to destroy China maybe it should remove it from "most favoured nation status" as a trading partner.
Cowperson