"And obviously it didn't please the Bush administration to do anything about the Darfur genocide. Could it be because the Chinese already have control over the Darfur oil fields and Bush doesn't feel ready to get into a brouhaha with the Chinese at this point? If we went in with strictly humanitarian reasons as our goal, along with a coalition of other concerned nations (a coalition that would be a lot easier to put together than the "coalition" that joined us in invading Iraq, and would have received world-wide approval rather than condemnation) that wouldn't be an issue."


You obviously have not read the threads on Darfur. The Bush Administration DID go to the UN, who refused to declare it "genocide" and basically did nothing. For all our disagreements about what this administration has done, IMO you are trying blaming them even when they do the "right " thing by your own standards.

Subject: RE: The Horrors of Darfur
From: beardedbruce - PM
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 04:10 AM

thread.cfm?threadid=73826&messages=97

From Sunday's Washington Post:

"the admnistration will continue to press other countries to press the United Nations to press Sudan's government. The uncertainty of this strataegy was immediately apparent after Mr Powell spoke. Brushing aside the evidence, France and Germany declined to call the killings genocide. ... China, the leading foreign investor in Sudan's burgeoning oil fields, said it might veto a tough Security Council resolution."


thread.cfm?threadid=69879&messages=48



A true pity, Amos, that when the Bush adminstration called it genocide, and the UN disagreed, you felt it was nothing to be concerned over. "