BS: Sudan

Subject: BS: Sudan
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 11:02 AM

Please note:

BS: When will the U.N. go into Iraq? 15 08 Jun 04 - 04:09 AM Trace
BS: Iraqi women and the Koran 136* d 07 Jun 04 - 09:45 PM Trace
Lyr Add: Iraqi War Song 1 31 May 04 - 07:09 AM Trace
BS: Iraqis Beheading Americans 341* d 30 May 04 - 06:46 PM Trace
Innocent private contractors in Iraq? 26 22 May 04 - 03:17 AM Trace
BS: Bush's Exit Strategy for Iraq Revealed!! 9 17 May 04 - 02:47 AM Trace
BS: American Soldiers Torturing Iraqis 306* d 13 May 04 - 11:56 AM Trace
BS: Photos here of Iraqi prisoner abuse 83* d 12 May 04 - 11:15 AM Trace
BS: Meet the new US ambassador to Iraq 18 11 May 04 - 12:38 AM Trace
BS: Interesting article on Iraq War/Oil/Etc. 23 08 May 04 - 06:49 PM Trace
BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq 163* d 06 May 04 - 04:55 PM Trace
BS: Corporations fleeing Iraq 8 01 May 04 - 02:56 PM Trace
BS: Reconstruction in Iraq 9 25 Apr 04 - 11:01 PM Trace
BS: Iraqi Puppet leader embezzled millions 9 23 Apr 04 - 04:39 PM Trace
BS: Iraq Not Becoming Another Vietnam 60* d 13 Apr 04 - 07:25 PM Trace
BS: What?!?... As Iraq explodes... 69* d 13 Apr 04 - 02:06 PM Trace
BS: Iraqi Battalion Refuses to Fight Iraqis 56* d 13 Apr 04 - 01:09 PM Trace
BS: Iraq = Bush's Vietnam? 48 12 Apr 04 - 12:43 PM Trace
Lyr Add: The Price of Oil (anti iraqi war song) 5 06 Apr 04 - 04:03 PM Trace
BS: Iraq Ennui 2 26 Mar 04 - 06:50 PM Trace
BS: Media admits bungling Iraq coverage 18 25 Mar 04 - 05:11 PM Trace
BS: Most Iraquis better off 66* d 20 Mar 04 - 01:29 PM Trace
BS: The buildings NOT burning in Iraq 21 10 Mar 04 - 01:50 PM Trace
BS: Why did USA attack Iraq? 13 14 Feb 04 - 11:05 AM Trace
BS: Iraq,did you know? 14 22 Jan 04 - 05:09 PM Trace
BS: Latest Excuse for Invading Iraq.... 30 22 Jan 04 - 02:43 PM Trace
BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? 147* d 18 Dec 03 - 11:54 AM Trace
BS: What the HELL is going on in Iraq?? 53* d 18 Dec 03 - 09:48 AM Trace
BS: The Good Things about the Iraq Occupation 170* d 17 Dec 03 - 09:36 AM Trace
Alternative Christmas songs: Iraq 3 17 Dec 03 - 12:11 AM Trace
BS: Bush in Iraq : The rest of the Story 6 03 Dec 03 - 02:07 PM Trace
BS: Iraq Xmas carol 5 02 Dec 03 - 12:35 AM Trace
BS: US soldiers wed Iraqis? 20 04 Nov 03 - 04:01 PM Trace
BS: Iraqathon cartoon 7 29 Oct 03 - 01:24 PM Trace
BS: Operation Give - Toys for Iraqi Children 5 07 Oct 03 - 05:39 AM Trace
Anyone familiar with an Iraq dulcimer? 17 28 Sep 03 - 10:40 PM Trace
BS: W.O.M.D. Evidence Found In Iraq 11 28 Sep 03 - 06:50 PM Trace
BS: Iraqi War with apologies to Dr Seuss 11 13 Sep 03 - 12:24 AM Trace
BS: Iraq War Lies 100* d 30 Jul 03 - 04:00 AM Trace
BS: Today in Iraq 6 25 Jul 03 - 06:58 PM Trace
BS: Letter from Iraq 22 24 Jul 03 - 11:09 AM Trace
BS: Cheney's Energy Task Force & Iraqi Oil 4 22 Jul 03 - 10:50 AM Trace
New topical Iraq war song - yr comments? 12 23 Jun 03 - 01:47 AM Trace
BS: First Iraq, now Iran. Then North Korea 24 20 Jun 03 - 01:53 PM



A lot more Sudanese have been killed...

BS: Muslim genocide in Sudan 43 03 Jun 04 - 01:55 PM Trace
BS: Mass rapes in West Sudan 10 21 Mar 04 - 10:22 AM Trace

All of 53 entries, in the last year.... And where is the humanitarian outcry?

Should the US send troops in as peacekeepers to corrct the situation? If not, why not?

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 11:24 AM

ok, to be fair... When I go back to the beginning of the threads< I do find one more...

Lyr Req: The Sands of Sudan 4 04 Sep 02 - 08:22 AM

Should I go back beyond 1 year for Iraq, to balance this?

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 12:47 PM

beardedbruce, why don't you tell us what your understanding of the situation in Sudan is? I'm curious to know what you think you know about the situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 01:02 PM

Bearded Bruce, where are the threads on the subject that you started?

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 01:58 PM

This one- I have never claimed to be the humanitarian- I am just upset about the hypocracy of all of you.

See my posts in other threads about it. That is what I know.

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 02:18 PM

If you don't know anything about it, how do you know anyone is being hypocritical about it? Sounds kind of hypocritical of you to adopt a posture of righteous indignation on a subject about which you admit you know very little.

Maybe you ought to spend some time learning more about what's going on there so you can have an informed opinion. Then we can talk about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 02:53 PM

Here's some stuff to get you started:

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/sudan1103/8.htm#_Toc54492553

"The large-scale exploitation of oil by foreign companies operating in the theatre of war in southern Sudan has increased human rights abuses there and has exacerbated the long-running conflict in Sudan, a conflict marked already by gross human rights abuses—two million dead, four million displaced since 1983—and recurring famine and epidemics.

Forced displacement of the civilian population, and the death and destruction that have accompanied it, are the central human rights issues relating to oil development in Sudan. The government is directly responsible for this forced displacement, which it has undertaken to provide security to the operations of its partners, the international and mostly foreign state-owned oil companies. In the government's eyes, the centuries-long residents of the oilfields, the Nuer, Dinka, and other southern Sudanese, pose a security threat to the oilfields because control and ownership of the south's natural resources are contested by southern rebels and government officials perceive the pastoral peoples as sympathetic to the rebels. But the Sudanese government itself has helped to create the threat by forging ahead with oil development in southern territory under circumstances in which its residents have no right to participate in their own governance nor share the benefits of oil development. Brute force has been a key component of the government's oil development strategy.

The oil in the ground and flowing through the pipeline to the Red Sea supertanker port has driven expulsions from Western Upper Nile/Unity State, the area of the main oil production today. In earlier campaigns in the 1980s government troops and horsebacked militia of the Baggara, Arabized cattle nomads of Darfur and Kordofan, invaded from the northwest, destroying communities and expelling much of the population from the initial exploration areas, in Blocks 1, 2, and 4, dangerously situated on the north-south border of Sudan. (Map B)

In the 1990s the government embarked upon a more sophisticated displacement campaign, through the use of divide-and-conquer tactics: it bought off rebel factions and exacerbated south-south ethnic differences with arms supplies. Mostly Nuer factions with political and other grievances against the Dinka-officered rebel Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A, referred to as SPLA when discussing the military wing), emerged and a bloody south-south war ensued, concentrated in the oilfield areas. Campaigns of killing, pillage, and burning, enabled by government troops and air support for their southern allies who served as front troops, cleared the way for Western and Asian oil corporations to develop the basic infrastructure for oil extraction and transportation: rigs, roads, pumping stations, and pipelines.

The relationship of the war and displacement campaign to oil development is evident: the oil areas targeted for population clearance are those where a concession has been granted and a pipeline is imminent and/or nearby. The availability of the means of transport of oil to the market makes the nearest undeveloped block economically viable. The agro-pastoralists living there then become the target of forced displacement. Since 1999, when the pipeline was nearing completion and Blocks 1, 2, and 4 came on line with 150,000, then 230,000 barrels of crude oil produced daily, the main military theatre has been in the adjacent Block 5A. Oil revenues enable the government to increase its military hardware: it tripled its fleet of attack helicopters in 2001 with the purchase abroad of twelve new helicopters—used to deadly effect in the killing of twenty-four civilians at a relief food distribution site in early 2002, to cite only one example."

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/sudan1103/8.htm#_Toc54492561

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: greg stephens
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 03:34 PM

Well, I've read through the above oil-fired account of what is going on. The Sudanese people I have talked to recently(quite a few) make an equally crude one-issue analysis, but it is quite different. They describe the Sudanese situation as a racial assault by Arab northeners against "African" (or, as we might say"black") southerners, I dont know much of the history of this, but the current results are horrendous.
    I get a very interesting and direct view of global conflicts here in Stoke, England, as I do musical work with refugees . So, for example, a few years ago a lot of Afghans were making it as far as England, fleeing from the Taliban and other local feuding. Following the American entry into Afghanistan, the situation settled down, and hardly any Afghan refugees arrived. The same happened after the Yanks and Brits went into Iraq last year. Till then, the largest numbers of refugees arriving in Stoke were Iraqis (mainly. but not exclusively, Kurdish). After the Anericans took over, the supply of refugees arriving here dried up, following the Afghhan pattern. It is easy to imagine that the situation in Iraq is terrible, if you take your picture from the BBC, the Guardian, or the anti-Bush media. The number of refugees suggests the opposite: that the situation, though hardly stable and peaceful, is infinitely less dangerous to the man in the street than in Saddam's time.
    Currently in Stoke, the people who are arriving in greatest numbers are from Somalia and Sudan. An intereting barometer of world politics can be observed in the Newcastle-under-Lyme Barracks Band, which goes out for the carnival every May, and for the Christmas lights turn-on every November.. last year, as for many years, Kurds were the largest non-English group among the drummers, with Zimbabwe second. (Only one Afghan, in contrast to previous years when there were more). This year, no Afghans, and more Sudan and Somali drummers are appearing, and also Congolese people. Another interesting change, which I feel may indicate something in the wind, is a sudden increase in the number of people getting out of Iran(they tend to be of the progressive,educated, secularist tendency, as far as I can judge).I presume the religious fundamentalists are tightening the screw there a bit in Iran, having observed what has happened to their eastern and western neighbours who may both start to elect governments shortly.
   WEll, someone in an earlier post suggested writing from what we know about. This is my own personal experience of these questions.

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: GUEST,Blackcatter
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 03:52 PM

I for one, have posted only a few times to any of the Iraqi threads.

Currently, I am working for aid programs in Haiti and South Africa. (not counting local charities, of course) I am also the director of a non-profit in the history field.

We all have to pick and choose what issues we will give our attention to. It is not just the U.S. who is ignoring the issue in Sudan. Most other first world nations are doing so, I believe. Same thing as the genocide that happened in Rawanda where the U.N. pullout actually enabled that to happen.

The first world nations are quietly hoping that the poor around the world will just simply die. AIDS is doing that, but it also helps to have a few small wars here and there.

Remember the Black Death well, not literally) it was partially responsible for the Renaissance. That's probably what first world nations are hoping for again.

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 04:18 PM

two million dead, four million displaced since 1983

two million dead since 1983

1983 was over twenty years ago. This conflict has been going on, with massive casualties and displacements, for more than twenty years. Why is it that the news media in the US is only just now beginning to report on it? Where have they been hiding since 1983? What hidden agenda has brought them out of the woodwork only recently with all of their righteous indignation? Taking potshots at the UN and spreading more hatred toward Arabs perhaps? Maybe the US wants all of that oil for itself. Pardon me for being cynical, but this pattern looks familiar to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: pdq
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 04:32 PM

...Carol C...here is another quote from your link (2:53):

"The African non-Muslim citizens who populate the south have been at war with the central government, dominated by an Arabized Muslim elite, since independence in 1956. State power remains in the hands of this elite, which dominates the officer corps of the army, security agencies, and other implements of power—although poverty-stricken Africans from the Nuba Mountains, west and south of Sudan make up the bulk of the soldier class."

Is there a reason you chose 1983 as a starting date for the hostilities?

Clearly the big change is the money provided by selling the oil, not the oil itself. The Muslim elite now have enough money to buy arms and do a more effective job of genocide.

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 05:53 PM

Is there a reason you chose 1983 as a starting date for the hostilities?

That was the starting date given for the genocides and the displacements. It is an incredibly complicated situation involving ethnic rivalries between Arabs and "Africans" (those who consider themselves to not be Arabs), as well as between different "African" (non-Arab) ethnic groups. But almost all of it has been in service to oil. In the early days, before oil became a part of the equation, most of the friction between Arabs and Africans had to do with grazing land, and most of the expression of that conflict was in the form of cattle raids.

Here is some more information on the history of the conflict in Sudan:

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/sudan1103/index.htm

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/sudan1103/9.htm#_Toc54492563

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/sudan1103/10.htm

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/sudan1103/11.htm

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/sudan1103/12.htm

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/sudan1103/13.htm

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/sudan1103/14.htm

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/sudan1103/15.htm

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/sudan1103/16.htm

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/sudan1103/17.htm

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/sudan1103/18.htm

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/sudan1103/19.htm

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/sudan1103/20.htm

The government of Sudan was using divide and conquer tactics with great success, even getting some of the different "African" ethnic groups to fight amongst each other, and thereby making it easier to get access to oil through displacement of the local populations. I really don't see any difference between what the government of Sudan was doing to the people of that country and what the governments of some "Western" countries are doing to many different peoples around the world as a way of gaining access to oil. Divide and conquer. It works.

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: Blackcatter
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 06:03 PM

But it is not a complicated issue. War never is. Some group of people either hates another group of people, or wants their land and resources and and does the "natural" thing and attacks. Unfortunately, in a few conflicts those two requirements for war exist on BOTH sides.

But it's the conflict between the have and have nots. That was the issue in Iraq before we got involved. The problem is that Americans and Europeans want what Iraq has as well. That is why we will try our best to make sure that whatever Iraq government is set up will brown-nose the U.S. as much as possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 07:06 PM

I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying, Blackcatter, except to me, it looks more like most of the time it's a clash between two sets of "haves" with the "have-nots" getting caught in the crossfire, or being used as tools by one set of "haves" against the other.

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: Gareth
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 07:33 PM

I take it CarolC, from your posts, that you approve of "Genocide" as long as the victims are black non arabs.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 07:51 PM

I never approve of "Genocide", Gareth, no matter who the victims are. But I don't happen to trust the government of the US, or even the government of Britain, for that matter, to straighten these kinds of situations out on their own. They seem to have a tendency to make situations worse for those who are the most vulnerable, rather than better, and their actions are pretty much always motivated by greed and/or lust for power.

We need an international court, of which the US is a member, to deal with these kinds of issues. That's the only way I can see to keep $econdary agenda$ out of the equation.

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 08:43 PM

all these posts, and reasons I should not be asking.... but no-ona has answered my question:

Should the US send troops in as peacekeepers to corrct the situation? If not, why not?

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 09:41 PM

The UN shouild send troops if anyone is going to.

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 09:54 PM

Whose troops? Arab?

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 10:04 PM

beardedbruce, do you really think that all Arabs are exactly like all other Arabs? If someone were to suggest something like that about, say, Black people, or maybe even White people, wouldn't that sound a bit racist?

I would suggest a coalition that would have enough nations and ethnicities represented that there wouldn't be any question of anyone trying to promote any one-sided agendas. And they would be a coalition of the truly willing and not of the coerced. And they would not be under the command of the US or Britain.

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 10:08 PM

I do not think that Arab troops of any nationality would be welcomed by the black moslims being killed by Arabs. Would you send Israeli troops into Palestine???

ANd I would love to see such a coalition- but I doubt the UN will do anything until it is too late to make any difference.

But at least you are willing to support some action.

Any other humanitarians out there?

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 10:20 PM

I do not think that Arab troops of any nationality would be welcomed by the black moslims being killed by Arabs. Would you send Israeli troops into Palestine???

You're probably right about that. I guess that would have to be taken into consideration.

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: Blackcatter
Date: 09 Jun 04 - 12:59 AM

Umm - Israeli troops are in Palestine - that's the problem.

When the U.N. does "peace-keeping" ala Bosnia and Lebanon, they get it done pretty well. Maybe not enough, but if the U.N. decided to go into Sudan, it would get individual soldiers from different counties to be part of its police force. The problem is that the U.N. usually only goes into countries that have no recognized government. Unfortinately, Sudan still has a governmental structure, as far as I know.

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jun 04 - 01:12 AM

So: Yes or no to sending US troops?

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: GUEST,freda
Date: 09 Jun 04 - 03:13 AM

I have worked with refugees from Sierra Leone and Guinea. Does this make me a hypocrite because I've never contributed to a thread on the Sudan? Ive also worked with Iraqi refugees. But this is not the reason I have contributed to the threads on Iraq.

My country's government has sent troops to Iraq, thats why people in australia are debating the Iraq issue - and will for years to come, because we are involved. reading/commenting is a way of getting more informed.

I don't think its wise to line people up and to dismiss their views according to some negative, sweeping generalisations. The world is too complex.

But I'm glad to hear that you're interested in the Sudanese, Bruce, and will be interested to hear what your doing about it.

best wishes

freda

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: greg stephens
Date: 09 Jun 04 - 04:00 AM

Sure the UN should get into Sudan. The big question, as it was in Iraq, is: what happens if the UN refuses? Does someone(US or whoever) go in alone? This is perceived as immoral by a lot of people, but letting millions die is not that moral either.
    And,on the initial question, yes there is an element of hypocrisy in the selective indignation of devoting pages of self-righteous anger to one set of abuses, while happily ignoring a much larger set of abuses somewhere else.

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jun 04 - 04:04 AM

thank you for seeing that.

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jun 04 - 04:06 AM

hy·poc·ri·sy    ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-pkr-s)
n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies
The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
An act or instance of such falseness.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English ipocrisie, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, play-acting, pretense, from Greek hupokrisis, from hupokrnesthai, to play a part, pretend : hupo-, hypo- + krnesthai, to explain, middle voice of krnein, to decide, judge; see krei- in Indo-European Roots.]

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Jun 04 - 08:42 AM

Should the US send troops in as peacekeepers to corrct the situation? If not, why not?

Yes or no to sending US troops?

The short answer to beardedbruce's question is no they should not. Now should the United Nations do something about the situation in the Sudan, apart from electing Sudan onto the UN Human Rights Commission for a three year term, then yes it should. Unfortunately, the UN would have to undergo some major changes before that would be possible.

CarolC, who I note completely choses to ignore some very interesting insights provided in greg stephens post (thanks for those Greg), is of the opinion that should the UN put troops into Sudan they should not be under the command of either the US or the British - great pity that for a number of very sound reasons.

From reading what a lot of people state about the UN, and what that organisation should, or shouldn't do. It is rather obvious that very few of you know what the UN can and cannot do, rather briefly it's as follows:

Point 1:
And this is a major one. The UN is forbidden by it's Charter from interfering with the internal affairs, politics or conflict situations within any recognised member state.

Point 2:
The UN will only ever deploy peace-keeping troops, by invitation, once the various warring factions have agreed to resolve their differences by negotiation, and a ceasefire exists. The task of the UN peace-keeping troops is to establish and monitor the ceasefire lines, nothing else. Should those negotiations fail and the ceasefire collapses, the UN peace-keeping troops are withdrawn.

Point 3:
It is not the task of the UN peace-keeping forces to "set things right". They are generally barely equipped to protect themselves let alone impose a settlement in any given situation, having neither heavy support weapons or tactical air support.

Point 4:
Another very important one. The UN has no troops, it relies on contributions from member states. If you exclude the support and command and control capabilities of the US military, this normally results in a hotch-potch of penny-packets from a variety of nations whose armed forces are not used to working together, their equipment is incompatible and their command and control structure is shakey to put it mildly. There exists only one cohesive, multi-national military capability on this earth today, and that is the NATO military alliance. I make the distinction between NATO and the NATO military alliance, because France is a member of one but not the latter. Any multi-national force mustered and put under French Operational Command would result in a complete and utter shambles, purely by dint of the fact that the French, although NATO members, withdrew from the military alliance in 1960, and have remained isolated ever since. They do conduct exercises bi-laterally with other NATO members but those exercises are always "tailored" to make them appear to work, in practice it would be very different.

CarolC in one of her posts above, gave a start date of 1983, which pdq corrected to 1956. CarolC also seems to support the contention that:

"Maybe the US wants all of that oil for itself. Pardon me for being cynical, but this pattern looks familiar to me."

That seems rather at odds from what has happened:

"Exploration activity began at the end of the 1950s in the coastal waters of the Red Sea and Sudanese continental shelf. Internal political unrest caused many companies to withdraw from Sudan and the deterioration in security conditions on the oil fields caused the oil companies to suspend all operations in 1984. Since the early 1990's however, foreign oil companies began to return. In December 1996 the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company (GNPOC) was formed comprising the China National Petroleum Corporation, Petronas, Sudapet and Araxis which provided a much needed injection of capital, especially into developing the Unity and Heglig fields. In November 1997 the United States imposed sanctions against Sudan on the basis that profits from oil were being used to fuel the civil war. The pressure of sanctions has kept American firms out of Sudan, although Canadian company Talisman Energy is still operating in the Sudan. Talisman Energy has also purchased Araxis' share in GNPOC. Current players in Sudan include GNPOC, Lundin Oil (IPC Sudan Ltd), Petronas, Sudapet, Gulf Petroleum Corporation (GPC), China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), National Iranian Gas Company, OMV, Royal Dutch / Shell, and Talisman Energy. TotalFinaElf are reportedly looking to return to their concession in the Bor Basin and are listed as being the most likely partners to Petronas in their permit for Block 5B."

Source: Mbendi Site - Sudan Oil

Where are all those American Oil Companies Carol? I see the Sudanese themselves; Malaysia; China; Iran; Canada; The Dutch and the French looking to get back into the action.

The oil companies stopped operations in 1984, only returning in the early 1990's, as stated in the article - what part were the oil companies playing in the mayhem between 1984 and 1990 Carol?

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Jun 04 - 08:53 AM

From recent reports it would appear that Talisamn is withdrawing from operations and interests in Sudan. It's shares in GNPOC are being taken over by India's ONGC.

One question I did forget to ask CarolC, "who was it that in 1997 imposed sanctions on Sudanese oil and for what reason?"

Did China; Malaysia; Iran; or any of the others - Hell as like!!

But it's still the good ol' US's fault is it CarolC? You must be joking.

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Jun 04 - 10:18 AM

CarolC, who I note completely choses to ignore some very interesting insights provided in greg stephens post

greg stephens' post raises more questions for me than it answers. I'd like to see some statistics to go along with his anecdotes. Including statistics about where refugees were going (if any) during the times he mentions, as well as in between, besides the part of the world where he lives, as well as some other statistics, before I use what he has said to help me form any opinions about where my country ought to send troops.

Where are all those American Oil Companies Carol? I see the Sudanese themselves; Malaysia; China; Iran; Canada; The Dutch and the French looking to get back into the action.

Precisely, Teribus. You make my point for me. The US can't use the oil there right now because of the sanctions. But if the US installs a puppet regime who will do what they say, it can lift the sanctions and get all the oil it wants, without ever letting the local populations have any say about who gets any benefits from the oil money.

One question I did forget to ask CarolC, "who was it that in 1997 imposed sanctions on Sudanese oil and for what reason?"

It was Bill Clinton. Maybe because he still had a shred of humanity back then.

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: Blackcatter
Date: 09 Jun 04 - 10:30 AM

Teribus,

Thanks for your info. Nice to see that my general understanding of the U.N. and it's peace-keeping actions is pretty close to their official stance.


Should the U.S. go to Sudan? - troops? No.

The U.N. needs to figure out that any "recognized" government that is bent of killing or displacing a large number of its population, basically abdicated it's right to rule. Of course, the U.N. will never agree to that, because many of the most powerful nation in the U.N. do that as well, and they wouldn't want to leave that door open.

that is why the U.N. will never have any real teeth - those nations that control what goes on, are little better than the "evil" countries such as Iraq, Sudan, North Korea, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jun 04 - 11:52 AM

I am not going to get into the details and dates that some of you quote, as I have limited time to follow all the links and eyesight that will not currently let me read at great length on the screen, but I will offer a comment on the broader issue that seems to get ignored (or perhaps just buried) in the wealth of detail available in this new age of technology.

   In many ways, nothing is different now than it was 50, 100, 200 years ago. All over the world there were and are injustices, hate, bigotry, murder, greed,....and indifference. Tyrants, rival ethnic groups, and just plain evil greedy men wreak havoc on others for various reasons, and often NOTHING is done about it. What has changed in the last 50 years? Communication & technology & access to modern weapons has made it not only easier to engage in genocide and pillage, but easier to hear about it and be appalled.......but very little progress has been made in human mechanisms to deal with it. The U.N., as noted, had legal limits to what it can do, and the ages-old habits of countries and ethnic groups to simply protect extoll and enhance their own interests still prevails.

The very concept of one, or a group, of countries going to the aid of another on humanitarian grounds is relatively new, and there are VERY few rules about how & when it should be done. We are still territorial animals, and with world population growing and resources shrinking, "territory" is at a premium, and water, grazing land and access to resources are big issues, even without the desire for 'modern' conveniences like medicine, plumbing..... and video games.

It is possible to write a 'plan' which will solve, theoretically, issue "X", but almost IMpossible to write one which will please both sides, because the overriding concept in most disputes is "I want mine--my way."

"Should" US troops (or ANY troops) be sent into Sudan?..or Mollucca?..or Northern Ireland?...or Palestine?...or The Congo?...or Venezula?.......why, sure.."Now, you guys just stop this silly bickering and killing and behave, or we righteous ones will spank you!" ....ummm...just as soon as we figure out how to get 75% or our citizens into the military and devote 90% of our budget and time to the process!

Should we ignore the whole thing and let the idiots sort it out themselves and just sell arms to the warlords who can raise the most money" ...why, sure! "Go, on, kill, pillage and rape...just don't bother OUR citizens who are trying to make deals for what natural resources you have....and DON'T get outside your borders! Oh, and we are getting a bit overburdened with your refugees who have sense enough to try to LEAVE the insanity...except for those who have skills we can use, and who won't cause any political turmoil."

Folks, you can debate until you are blue in the face, but **ANY** action or solution you propose is only defensable from one viewpoint, and given different premises (read "prejudices"), another solution or action is equally defensable.

I could type for another hour or two, giving examples and explicating the reasoning, but my eyes hurt and you KNOW the examples and you oughta know the reasoning....the answer is, there IS no 'ultimate' answer...except "change human nature"...and that makes me terribly sad.

Ok...I've sounded off...(mostly to see it in print and clarify what I think to myself, I suppose)...if you have read this far, you can all go back to your interminable re-hashing of minutæ and calling each other narrow, inaccurate and illogical....at least there'll be some truth in THAT.

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: greg stephens
Date: 09 Jun 04 - 01:07 PM

My anecdotes are anecdotes. They are not big statistical samples. Make what you will of them. I dont feel they lend any particular help to a Teribus type position myself, but it is always possible to interpret the same thing in many ways. They dont lend any help to a CarolC type line either. Actual peoples' experiences often dont help any party line at all till they've been processed a bit!

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Jun 04 - 01:26 PM

The problem with anecdotes is that they don't really address the larger picture or what the most effective and least damaging solutions might be for certain problems.

For instance, if we look at anecdotal information about Northern Ireland, we would probably get anecdotal perspectives indicating that the Protestants feel beset upon by Catholics, and also, conversely, that Catholics feel beset upon by Protestants. That doesn't really address the actual causes of the problem (which in my opinion, have more to do with British imperialism than anything else), and it also doesn't give us any idea of how best to address the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 09 Jun 04 - 01:29 PM

I don't usually defend the oil companies as I so often have to write out violation cases against them, but it seems that they are being unfairly blamed for "causing" the situation. This is much different from what they are actually doing which is profiting from the situation. Shame on them of course but they didn't cause the situation. The oil companies don't need to evacuate anyone. If you live in Texas or Louisiana you know that overnight the empty lot, backyard, or frontyard of a piece of property can sprout an oil or natural gas rig. It doesn't even necessarily impact the ecology with the exception of noise and the occasional accident. Why would they choose to have the locals evacuated? It took a guy with a high powered rifle nearly thirty shots (in the same one inch area) to put a small hole in the trans-alaska pipeline.

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Jun 04 - 01:34 PM

CarolC - 09 Jun 04 - 10:18 AM

I do not think for one minute that I make any point on your behalf. Your, "But if the US installs a puppet regime.....etc,etc." is nothing short of laughable - "BUT IF...." lists are as endless as they are meaningless, as they are pointless. An example:

"But if my Aunt had bollocks, she'd be my Uncle."

My apologies to Greg Stephens, I did not mean to damage his "street cred", only wished to point out that I found his post interesting. I did not mean to use anything he said in it to reinforce any point I was trying to make.

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Jun 04 - 01:44 PM

I do not think for one minute that I make any point on your behalf. Your, "But if the US installs a puppet regime.....etc,etc." is nothing short of laughable - "BUT IF...." lists are as endless as they are meaningless, as they are pointless.

To you, maybe. But these are the brave servicemen and women of my country we are talking about sending in there (at least in terms of beardedbruces initial question), and we were saying all of those same "ifs" back before the US attacked Iraq last year, and many of my own "ifs" proved to turn out exactly as I anticipated. As a responsible citizen of the US, something that you are not, it is my responsibility to look at all of the angles in situations like this one. That's what democracy is all about. But maybe you don't have much use for democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: Wolfgang
Date: 09 Jun 04 - 02:44 PM

The problem with anecdotes is that they don't really address the larger picture (Carol)

You're so right, may I quote you in the next thread about experiences with the paranormal?

Wolfgang (grin)

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Jun 04 - 03:23 PM

I guess so, Wolfgang. But I make no claims that what I experience has or ought to have any meaning for anyone other than myself when it comes to spiritual matters, so I don't quite see the point in doing so.

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Jun 04 - 03:25 PM

Oops. I missed your little parenthetical grin. You made a joke and I missed it. Damn.

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Jun 04 - 10:17 AM

Chief Chaos, I didn't see your post until just now. Maybe it isn't necessary for oil companies to remove people so they can access the oil, but that fact doesn't seem to stop them from doing it. It's happening right now in parts of South America, and here is a case of it happening right here in the US (in this case, it is oil as well as other interests who are responsible)

THE 10 MOST FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE NAVAJO - HOPI LAND DISPUTE WITH A REBUTTAL BY AL SWILLING FOUNDER OF SENAA

You need to read the rebuttal to get to the part I'm talking about. And in this case, the US government has been using exactly the same kind of divide and conquer tactics that the government of Sudan has been using... creating conflict between peoples that either didn't exist before, or that the different parties were able to resolve on their own prior to government interference.

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Jun 04 - 12:32 PM

I don't think anyone anywhere has been calling in the USA to send troops in to the Sudan. The US military machine has shown itself to be very effective in certain types of conflict situations, but not this sort.

It's a horrible war, one of a number of horrible wars taking place in Africa, out of the limelight. I doubt if there's any way of solving things through outside intervention. Cutting off supplies of arms to the people who are backing the killing, and making sure that relief supplies get through are worth doing, together with intelligently applied sanctions. And keeping an eye out for any governments or companies who are stirring things for their own reasons.

But the implication of bearded brucie's lists and comments seem to be that we should stop worrying about the war that we are involved in, and focus attention on wars that we aren't involved in. I suppose if people believed that a US or UK invasion of Sudan would help matters, rather than make things even worse, that might make sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: pdq
Date: 10 Jun 04 - 01:28 PM

...Carol C... thanks for the link to the American Indian's problems. Interesting reading even if a bit tangential to the Sudan situation. I own 80 acres in Navajo County (Arizona) and try to pay some attention to activities there.

Here is a quote from the site you provided:

"The U'wa's opposition to the oil project is so strong that they have vowed to commit mass suicide if Occidental Petroleum drills for oil on their land.
We will in no way sell our Mother Earth, to do so would be to give up our heritage."

Interesting that Al Gore has millions invested in Occidental Petrolium.

Also recall Teapot Dome? That was the scandal concerning the Naval Strategic Oil Reserve in Elk Hills, Calif. It is commonly sited as the reason why President Harding is descredited. Well guess who helped to arrange the sale of Elk Hill to the Occidental Petroleum Company while he was vice president? Yes. Al Gore.

What a country!

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Jun 04 - 02:11 PM

You're welcome, pdq. It wouldn't surprise me very much if what you have said about Al Gore is true. But can you show me some sources for your information? I'd like to check it out for myself.

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Jun 04 - 05:22 PM

UN thinks about acting...

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jul 04 - 10:32 AM

note: last paragraph- 5000 disappear

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: beardedbruce
Date: 24 May 05 - 10:41 PM

refresh

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: dianavan
Date: 25 May 05 - 12:15 AM

beardedbruce - You asked, "Should the US send troops in as peacekeepers to corrct the situation? If not, why not?

Yes or no to sending US troops?

Canada has offerred and they have declined. They want logistical support only but they want the troops to be from the African Union. Maybe what is really going on is that Africans are tired of being controlled by Arabs. Maybe Africans want to benefit from the resources of their own country.

The U.S. won't send troops or any real support to the A.U. because the Sudanese govt. (Arabs) are U.S. allies in the war against terrorism. They provide the U.S. with valuable information.

No, the U.S. won't send troops because they support the Sudanese govt. who hires the Janjaweed to commit murder and rape. They probably supply the guns, too.

No, the U.S. won't send troops because they need buddies who control the oil supply.

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 25 May 05 - 10:47 AM

Dianavan, Africa is not a country. The African Union consists of countries that include Arabs as well as other kinds of Africans. The Arabs of Egypt are just as much Africans as are the "Sub-Saharan Africans".

beardedbruce, the African Union has made its decision. They do not want any troops who are not from African Union countries.

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 25 May 05 - 10:54 AM

I should have included this in my last post...

Maybe what is really going on is that Africans are tired of being controlled by Arabs.

I would rephrase this to say, "Maybe what is really going on is that Africans are tired of being controlled by Europeans (and North Americans of European ancestry)".

I think this is probably much closer to the truth of the matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: dianavan
Date: 25 May 05 - 08:23 PM

Carol C. - You are right when you say that Arabs are also Africans however...

There is a very big power imbalance. Arabs are in control politically and economically.

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: CarolC
Date: 25 May 05 - 09:51 PM

Arabs are in control politically and economically where, dianavan? In Sudan? Yes, they are in control there. But it's not Sudan who made the decision to not allow non-African Union troops in Darfur. It was the African Union who made that decision.

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jul 05 - 11:40 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/07/08/sudan.darfur.ap/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jul 05 - 11:43 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/08/AR2005070801677.html

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 03:38 PM

refresh

Subject: RE: BS: Sudan
From: dianavan
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 04:33 PM

How many threads do you need about Sudan, bb? What is your point? What do you think would be a solution?