Seems like everyone except France and China want to put a stop to the genocide in the Sudan. China is by far the biggest trading partner of the Sudan... oil I assume. So I'm sure that has to do with that. What's France's motivation though? Because its a majority muslim country and the non-muslims are the ones being killed? I guess they only get excited about things if an Israeli kills someone.

France has a large Arab population, especially in the South. That might have a little to do with it.

Hey look - it's the Anti-Arab crowd.
Who cry about people being Anti-semetic one moment, and then turn around and do the same things to Arab the next.

Contradiction, Next Stop. Contradiction, anyone?

Now let's shred your arguments apart.

Sudan doesn't have oil. So that can't be the case. America has an almost equal Arab population to France, so that can't be the case.

When you wake up and realise there are left wing, sometimes socialist governments around the world that don't believe military force is always required (you know, those governments that haven't invaded two countries within 2 years..) and would rather resort to diplomatic needs.

In this case? I do believe the troops need to go in - only because it's so fucking late before we're actually considering the crisis. Genocide is on the horizon, as it once was in Africa, and we're almost in danger of completely ignoring it again.
If we had more consideration and decency, this is something we would have nipped straight in the bud. But no, now thousands are dead.

If France or China doesn't wanna get involved, fine. There are a lot of countries that wont, and I'm sure those countries will continue to fledge masses amount of aid - as they are. And I'm sure countries that won't send troops to Sudan already have many across the world - which they do.

I know you've become brainwashed and accustomed to using utter military solution at any bend, but not everyone has, or ever will.
Don't forget the old American policy of isolationism, too quick.

But indeed, I hope Blair sticks to his word and sends the 8, 000 troops.
I myself have given as much money as my ickle pay-cheque allows me, in donations. I hope people here have done the same.

Hmm you don't mind posting a link Winterworg?

I only found http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3935257.stm with the list of countries from Security Council which disagree with the term "sanction" in the resolution text.

But seven council members - Pakistan, China, Russia, Algeria, Angola, the Philippines and Brazil - want the reference to sanctions to be removed because they believe Khartoum needs more time to act.
I don't see France here... And I didn't find an article saying some countries don't want to stop the genocide. Enlight me please?

Hey its the low IQ crowd joining in.

Geez you really are as stupid as you seem, I thought maybe you were just in a funk. Every time someone says something you make something else up to create you little retard arguments.

Now lets shred your arguments apart.

Sudan doesn't have Oil? Are fucking mental Halo? Yeah its only 90 percent of their exports... they must be empty barrels.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/images/sudanmap.jpg



I wonder what that little red line is. Hrm. Another example of how completely ignorant you are. Like I keep saying, the more you talk the dumber you look... it makes my work so much easier. The US has been sanctioning Sudan since 1997 since we couldnt get the UN to do shit as usual. Now it comes to this and still they won't do anything. You have Islamic extremists whiping out tribal people to the tune of 20,000 or more.... and France denies that its occurring.

The US Arab population is approximately 0.5 percent (1.2 million), while the French population is about 15 percent Muslim... I'm not sure how many are Arabic. Thanks for continuing your string of fantasy facts Halo. Just pointing out that if 2 Palestinians are killed France is banging the drum for Israeli heads, but you have tens of thousands being slaughtered in the Sudan by a fascist Islamic government and France wants to pussyfoot around again... probably hoping to continue looking like a friend to the Islamic world.

I said nothing about socialism... again you invent shit. I said nothing about military force. Again you invent shit. See how steeped you are in your own smelly shitpile? Who said anything about military but you?

So now you say its so fucking late now that you think we need to send troops in. Well welcome to the party shit for brains. Maybe you should have joined in back in 1997 when we tried to do something diplomatically but couldn't get you fucks to join us in opposing a dangerous, fascist, radical government. Why? Because the UK was up to their asscheeks in the oil business in the Sudan. So since you failed to act diplomatically you want to send troops in. Bravo well done. All the UN is considering is sanctions and can't even get that done because of the greed of France and China. The development of the pipeline by Western European countries including France, Sweden, and the UK was made possible by the brutal murder of anyone who happened to live in the path of the thing... not new news here.

http://www.ennonline.net/fex/04/ne20.html
Congrats on all of our aid thats going there. As usual... just another weapon in the hands of the fascists.


I know you've become brainwashed and accustomed to using utter military solution at any bend, but not everyone has, or ever will.
Don't forget the old American policy of isolationism, too quick.

Again... are you fucking mental? You're the only moron talking about sending troops in. Well you and China who are volunteering 700,000 troops to help the Islamic government crush the "rebels." Looks like if you want to talk about brainwashing... you better start checking your own self out. You're just programmed with this shit... I'm actually awfully embarassed for you.

C'mon... you really really are this stupid?

I just hope the US doesn't send one single troop to Sudan. Id like to see someone else send the troops(like the caliber of the number of troops in Iraq..100k+ citizens of your own country sent). Well send some $$ and move on to improving things with in our own country and clean up of Iraq. Lets get back to basics and critque other countrys. I agree Halo lets not get any sort of military intervention in this Sudan attrocity..after all these murders and rapists will surely come around sooner or later with out any sort of brute force..ha.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3875277.stm

http://www.afrol.com/articles/13617

http://victoria.indymedia.org/news/2004/07/27678.php
Are you educated now?

"In Darfur, it would be better to help the Sudanese get over the crisis so their country is pacified rather than sanctions which would push them back to their misdeeds of old," junior Foreign Minister Renaud Muselier told French radio.

France led opposition to US moves at the UN over Iraq. As was the case in Iraq, it also has significant oil interests in Sudan.

Mr Muselier also dismissed claims of "ethnic cleansing" or genocide in Darfur.



Its the most clear case of genocide you could possibly find... but the UN wont call it that because then they would be obligated to act, so its called a civil war.

I guess they change their mind, as they didn't disagree with the text proposed yesterday.

Hey look - it's the Anti-Arab crowd.
Who cry about people being Anti-semetic one moment, and then turn around and do the same things to Arab the next.


While I don't particulary care about Halo's point, one thing to note, the word semite covers more than just Jewish people. Actually the semitic tribes where most arabs came from as well.

So just as a matter of correctness, you can not call arabs anti-semitic. They are anti-zionist.

Reading all the other threads about the middle east on this board I had to write this down somewhere :D

Yeah how about the point that he wants to send troops down there... not me. But he calls me anti Arab. Interesting. /boggle

It looks like France has changed their mind which is cool. All I really started this for was to try and figure out what in the world could possibly be in their minds. Maybe they were eating the same brain altering propaganda that Halo gobbles that makes them think that sanctioning a country to stop the inflow of weapons to commit genocide with is against his socialist doctrine.

Of course in his world Sudan's huge oil industry doesn't exist, the 0.5 percent Arab population in the US is equal to the 10 percent at least Arab population in France, the Israelis have killed 10 times as many Palestinians as vice versa, he's been sending money to the Sudan, I don't want to pursue a diplomatic solution because I support UN sanctions stopping weaponization of genocidal maniacs in the Sudan, but he thinks they should send 8000 British troops there even though there's already hundreds of thousands of chinese, British people are all Scottish... bah thats enough for now. I'm sure glad my ICU beeper didn't go off tonight, I'm not sure if I could explain to my R4 why I couldnt stop giggling.

Yeah how about the point that he wants to send troops down there... not me. But he calls me anti Arab. Interesting. /boggle
.

So now you say its so fucking late now that you think we need to send troops in. Well welcome to the party shit for brains.
.

I agree Halo lets not get any sort of military intervention in this Sudan attrocity..after all these murders and rapists will surely come around sooner or later with out any sort of brute force..ha.
;


Of course in his world Sudan's huge oil industry doesn't exist, the 0.5 percent Arab population in the US is equal to the 10 percent at least Arab population in France,

.

France: 60,424,213
America: 293,027,571

.

http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1430_A_1172382_1_A,00.html

"significantly increasing France's Muslim population and making it easily the largest in Europe with 5 million. "

,

http://www.islam101.com/history/population2_usa.html

"Muslim social scientists and researchers have spent a great deal of time trying to determine the number of Muslims in the United States. Most accept the estimate of from 5 million to 8 million."

...


the 0.5 percent Arab population in the US is equal to the 10 percent at least Arab population in France,

You're Right!!

;

I said nothing about socialism...
.


When you wake up and realise there are left wing, sometimes socialist governments around the world

I believe that was his point.

;

I said nothing about military force.
this ones a lbit more of a stetch to realise.

:

Seems like everyone except France and China want to put a stop to the genocide in the Sudan
Now, :

from worg


So since you failed to act diplomatically you want to send troops in. Bravo well done. All the UN is considering is sanctions and can't even get that done because of the greed of France and China.

Now, to clarify my argument, Winterworg seems to be in favour of military action in the paragraph above, no?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3875277.stm - link doesnt work for me :(


So, what is it winter? You want there to be more than just sanctions? "All the UN is considering is sanctions..." That suggests to me you are in favour of military action, thus on halo's side. Now:


In this case? I do believe the troops need to go in - only because it's so fucking late before we're actually considering the crisis.

Again on halos side, i dont know what the fuck you'er arguing about?

as a side note:

"In Darfur, it would be better to help the Sudanese get over the crisis so their country is pacified rather than sanctions which would push them back to their misdeeds of old," junior Foreign Minister Renaud Muselier told French radio.

Does that quote suggest to everyone else that the speaker is against the sanctions, and not a stop to the crisis?

to finish with my oh so loved quotes for this post:

Geez you really are as stupid as you seem,
another example of how completely ignorant you are. Like I keep saying, the more you talk the dumber you look

shit for brains.

:D Think Grumblin summed that up pretty well.
Perhaps I'll respond when I get home from work.

Don't bother with Halo Winterworg. I know his total obtuseness is exasperating, but please refer to my "mentally retarded puppy shitting on your floor" comment in the ICJ thread. We're considered anti-arab to him, while he tries to play this game of impartiality. In the face of unarguable heinous acts on the parts of Palistinians, or when he is named "anti-israeli" he backpeddles and says both sides are greatly at fault, yet I've yet to see a single pro-israel post or comment on his part . He's on the board a split second following the death of self-proclaimed and world recognized baby-killer and terrorist though. See, didn't you know that the fanatics swarming around said terrorist leader so they can bathe in his radiance are innocents? Don't worry though, when they get consumed in the firebomb of his assasination, they get to go to heaven and get their 72 virgins promised by their terrorist man-god as well as joining the ranks of 2600 Palistinian "innocents" killed to be used in Halo's misguided interpretation of what innocent really means.


ycore

'I agree Halo lets not get any sort of military intervention in this Sudan attrocity..after all these murders and rapists will surely come around sooner or later with out any sort of brute force..ha.'

- Uhm... read Grumblins post.
He was nice enough to quote my arguing for military intervention. But it's OK, if you quickly run off, I'll pretend you didn't say anything.

Though I do agree with one thing you said, the burden for this region should go to us, seen as the country has been in turmoil since its independence from the Anglo-Egyptian rule. I hope Blair sticks to his 8, 000 number, and perhaps this will convince that twat Hoon to stop making military cuts in the middle of wars.

Althought I don't agree with my government on this issue, you need to stop thinking that because there are 5 millions of muslim in france its somehow pro arab on everything. There are almost no muslim in any important post of power in france. Most of them live in crappy cities right now called HLM ( its not ghetto but its flats that are paid by the town because the people can't pay their own flat alone). Anyhow after reading post I m enclined to agree that greedyness is blinding some people. Will actually read the articles before commenting any more tho.

Lame Halo. The best you can do is try and insinuate that a comment made by someone else completely and not to mention long after your stupid gibberish had anything to do with what you said. Grumblin's extremely confusing word play is entertaining but.... also just a smokescreen. You Halochanter... have made the top of the dumbfuck list once again. Congratulations... toddle along now.

Now for Grumblin.

You try to string 4 quotes together in a confusing way to try to make it look as if I was contradicting myself by saying I didn't propose to send troops into the Sudan, when in fact I did. You know fromt he context, and from the fact that Halo was responding to my first post... from which you chose not to quote. (Not to mention you forgot to address his fallacies) You use one quote which was not made by me, and also was subsequent to Halo's post, and therefore to which he could not have been responding. Your most convincing deception is taking one of my sentences out of context, though I admit the wording is confusing, so I'll give the win on that one, though with an asterisk.

You go on to make a nice point about the fact that I made as stupid mistake in addressing Halo's fallacious statement about the numbers of "Arabs" in the US and France. My first error was in not looking far enough to find an actual number or Arabs for France, and instead settled on a good source for number of "Muslims" instead. However lets just continue along the Muslim road since we're there now rather than address the fact that the numbers would be more in my favor if we took the Arab road. My second error was in not making more of a point that raw numbers in this circumstance are completely and utterly irrelevant, since the issue at hand is not how many exist, but rather, their relative influence within that country. If we settle on a number of Muslims for the US and France I hope its acceptable if we just say 6 million each (though census data for the US shows only 1.2 million are of Arab decent.) So 6 million Muslims in France is 10 percent of their population, while 6 million Muslims in the US is... 2 percent? So your argument is correct in that I was unclear and perhaps in error, but your argument is also only weakly relevant.

I like your play on words about the socialist thing. I hope you're not dumb enough to think its any more than a cute joke though. Well done.

Next you try to insinuate that by saying "put a stop to the genocide in the Sudan" I must have meant sending troops. Clearly the context was in reference to France's opposition to the UN Security Council vote on sanctions, unless Halo was completely and utterly ignorant of events that have been transpiring over the past month concerning something he cares about so deeply to have sent his paychecks to them as he claims. Hrm... so yeah I guess I can see that one.

In this case? I do believe the troops need to go in - only because it's so fucking late before we're actually considering the crisis.
Just to make this clear since its completely unclear from your gibberish, this is Halo's quote not mine. You leave out the fact that my point against this was that the US has been pushing for action for years on this issue and and for specific sanctions especially since the end of June. And France has stopped it at every turn.

So since you failed to act diplomatically you want to send troops in. Bravo well done. All the UN is considering is sanctions and can't even get that done because of the greed of France and China.
Now that's my quote. If you can't see from the sentence itself and especially from the context that "Bravo well done" was sarcasm, then I apologize for being unclear. Bravo well done.

The quote you use only part of from French Foreign Minister Muselier, I used the whole of because I didn't want to be seen as leaving out his full point of view, rather than just the part that suited me... as you did. If you go on you'll see that he denies the fact that genocide is taking place, and that the author of the article makes the point that there is a common theme to French resistance to sanctions against this government and that of Iraq... Oil.

And to finish with my oh so loved quotes from your post

i dont know what the fuck you'er arguing about?
That's my point... you dont know anything about the issue.

this ones a lbit more of a stetch to realise.
If I have deciphered that correctly... that's a big understatement.


I agree Halo lets not get any sort of military intervention in this Sudan attrocity..after all these murders and rapists will surely come around sooner or later with out any sort of brute force..ha.
Quote you tried to attribute to me as justification for Halo's stupidity but solely responsible for clarifying your own lack of character.

way to defend yourself, hehe.

in a confusing wayGrumblin's extremely confusing word playAnd you comment on other peoples' IQ?

Now for your post. "come sir, your passado!"

You use one quote which was not made by me,this is the


Quote you tried to attribute to me as justification for Halo's stupidity but solely responsible for clarifying your own lack of character.
right?
You do realise that to quote from someones post, i select the text from inside their post, so its likely that i'll catch the name on the way past? Well, yes i did use a quote that was not from you, and that particular quote was addressed to soledorin, who seemingly picked up on the exact opposite of what halo wrote - good work sole. It fit in where i put it because both posts were expressing halo's opinion to send troops there. yes?

Now.

You know fromt he context, and from the fact that Halo was responding to my first post... from which you chose not to quote.and


Next you try to insinuate that by saying "put a stop to the genocide in the Sudan" I must have meant sending troops. Clearly the context was in reference to France's opposition to the UN Security Council vote on sanctions
I'll explain, these both refer to my post that was "a bit* more of a stretch* to realise" and i did totally butcher that sentence, sorry :) - My point here, was to link your first post to your true opinion. Let me elaborate: I quoted your first post, and put emphasis on "put a stop to" - my reasoning behind this was to expand on why this could be taken as military action in the next part of my post. Which i believe i did. Didn't I?

Let's see...

I like your play on words about the socialist thing. I hope you're not dumb enough to think its any more than a cute joke though. Well done.
Right over your head, and you accuse me of being dumb? please wipe the egg off your face, sir. - It was not a pun at all, Halo accused you of not thinking of "more socialist" governments, why would you include such a thing in your post as you suggest should have been the only justification of him bringing it up? So therefore his pointing that out to you was indeed justified. I'll change it to baby talk for you next time if that confuses you.

Next:


Just to make this clear since its completely unclear from your gibberish, this is Halo's quote not mine.
Really? oh dear i stepped in it there lolololol. Well, I was comparing your view, which i expressed in the rest of the post above that point, to halo's view, which was contained in that quote - and alack! they were the same! Hence my "i dont know what the fuck you'er arguing about" comment.

How about:

Now that's my quote. If you can't see from the sentence itself and especially from the context that "Bravo well done" was sarcasm, then I apologize for being unclear. Bravo well done.
Sorry for not spelling out to everyone your "witty sarcasm", but a) it didnt really deserve the credit, and b) it wasnt a factor in what i wanted from that quote, my reason for selecting that quote was totally contained in this sentence: "All the UN is considering is sanctions" with my emphasis on "all". Suggesting its not enough, and going a way to recognising your "pro-troops" opinion, which was my objective, so i could compare it with halos, yes?

The quote you use only part of from French Foreign Minister Muselier, I used the whole of because I didn't want to be seen as leaving out his full point of view, rather than just the part that suited me... as you did. If you go on you'll see that he denies the fact that genocide is taking place, and that the author of the article makes the point that there is a common theme to French resistance to sanctions against this government and that of Iraq... Oil.
Now if you read my post, you'll find the only opinion i gave on the actual subject was my side note (which was just as a matter of interest, i don't know a lot about the sudan situation, and thats why i'm keeping decidedly out of the real debate)

That's my point... you dont know anything about the issue.
ohno you got me. the issue has nothing to do with both people arguing against each other for the same side, or did i miss something (invitation for a snide reply! woot woot)

, i was really trying to point out your blatant hypocrisy, which was substantiated by:

Hey its the low IQ crowd joining in.Followed by one valid point (sudan's oil exports) amid many invalids which i pointed out, as you saw.

I respect your apparent "look at both sides of the story" personality, **edit** i just realised you don't have one, i respect that you tried to force it on me, though! **edit** i believe thats the only way to go in life. But when you started trash talking the other view's vessel? *looks for my respect for you* - Where did it go?? It may have been acceptable if it was an especially retarded post, but it wasnt, and you followed that thought up with a pearl of a post.

So thanks for my time, winter i just *cant wait* for your response.

Hey I am happy I could supply you with a handy quote to use over a few times. The fact I was saying, "I agree with you halo..." is that I am predicting Halos flip flop on this 1-2 years down the road when we go in and mow the place down. Well all of a sudden become the bad guy once again(because we are militarily supreme and wont be using horse back and rocks) and be blammed for all the problems when we could of diplomatically just settled this with some sit downs with tea.

I stand by my feelings though...send some $$$, drop some corn to feed the hungry, and let the rest of the world solve the problem. We should mind our own buisness and quit wasting lives on this totally out of our control "problem". Let the EU handle it..good starter job for those boys. Step up Frenchys,Swedes,Germans, ect..send your brothers and sisters to war.

Ibudin

Grumblin you have some kind of weird twisted mind. It's entertaining though.


It fit in where i put it because both posts were expressing halo's opinion to send troops there. yes?


No... It doesn't fit because it's out of place. The quote came AFTER Halo's ignorant assumption, and was irrelevant to the discussion.

Let me elaborate: I quoted your first post, and put emphasis on "put a stop to" - my reasoning behind this was to expand on why this could be taken as military action in the next part of my post. Which i believe i did. Didn't I?

I didn't say that you didn't. You showed that if someone was completely ignorant of the situation, and did not know that France has been blocking the diplomatic solution proposed by the UN, that there is a small chance that they could have misconstrued my meaning. I admitted that in my response. What more are you looking for?

It was not a pun at all, Halo accused you of not thinking of "more socialist" governments, why would you include such a thing in your post as you suggest should have been the only justification of him bringing it up?
Huh? I guess you really are that dumb. His comment had nothing to do with accusing me of thinking of "more socialist" governments. I'm not sure why you put quotes around that... he didn't put those two words together. He was accusing me of not looking for a diplomatic solution like socialist governments would do. The thing is... as I was pointing out... it was only due to his extreme ignorance of the topic at hand that led him to say that. That and his severe indoctrination.


Well, I was comparing your view, which i expressed in the rest of the post above that point, to halo's view, which was contained in that quote - and alack! they were the same!

I know what you were trying to do, which is apparent in my reply to you but which you choose to ignore because you want to make an argument to defend your girlfriend. I was simply pointing it out because the way you put it (hence the confusing gibberish comment) made it hard to figure out what you were trying to say and who had said it. About the point itself... it's no point. It's clear from all the context that I am not saying I'm in support of sending troops in. You're just taking one sentence that you and I and everyone else knows is simply a miswording and trying to make a point with it because you disagree with me. If you want to keep harping on it... fine go for it. "All" in that context is not referring to the entire UN. It's referring to the totality of what the UN is considering. Another example would be "All I want to do is have some fun." The totality of what I want to do is have some fun. The totality of what the UN is considering is sanctions. Do you see? I never called any of what I said "witty sarcasm" as you did and put in quotes as if I had said it. You know it was sarcasm. You know the sentence was not a pro troops opinion. Again... just your disingenous way of trying to confuse it and gain some lame victory for your little buddy who made himself look stupid once again.

Now if you read my post, you'll find the only opinion i gave on the actual subject was my side note (which was just as a matter of interest, i don't know a lot about the sudan situation, and thats why i'm keeping decidedly out of the real debate)

What does the fact that it was just a side note have to do with the fact that you used only half of the quote because it was the half that suited your opinion? Your opinion was wrong because what you chose not to recognize is that the speaker went on to say that the genocide did not exist. Therefore if the genocide didn't exist in his mind how could he want to put a stop to it (miltarily or ortherwise?) I appreciate your childlike ignorance but its pretty annoying.


has nothing to do with both people arguing against each other for the same side

We weren't. I was arguing that France had been opposing the UN sanctions for its financial reasons. He was arguing that we need to go in militarily now because we have failed at diplomacy and the US needs to be more like the socialist countries. After his comments I was arguing that he was completely wrong on all counts, and due to the facts he was wrong... and ignorant. Your sole defense of your point we were both wanting to go in militarily is to take a couple of sentences out of context, and incidentally subsequent to Halo's ignorant rant, and try to make it look as if I was arguing for a military solution, when it was clear from my own statements that this was not my opinion.


Followed by one valid point (sudan's oil exports) amid many invalids which i pointed out, as you saw.


Are you arguing that the 2percent Muslim population of the US has as much influence as the 10 percent Muslim population of France? Are you arguing that Halo's sermon about socialism was not completely wrong, misplaced, and ignorant? Your only point, weak as it is, is to try and confuse the issue in order to take heat off of his ignorance.

Wow... that was really funny. Edit... oh no it was stupid sorry.

I respond like that always to Halo because he does the same to me. If you don't like it... oh well cry to someone else. I could care less. The "other view" as you call it was not what I was trashing. If your post was at all honest and you really thought we were arguing for the same thing, then you wouldnt have said you lost respect for me because I was trashing him for having a different point of view. But when you started trash talking the other view's vessel? *looks for my respect for you* As if I care if you have respect for me. LOL... oh I'm hurt. You're obvously a dipshit. No not because you have a different point of view... because you're a disingenous prick.


It may have been acceptable if it was an especially retarded post, but it wasnt,

That I have to agree with you on. For Halo, it wasn't especially retarded. It was about average retarded.

Grumbling, try not to engage.
Winterwang is one of those hopeless cases. He's a mere extension of Crist0's logic. Depressing and backward.
HARHAR I MADE A FUNNY

'... I am predicting Halos flip flop on this 1-2 years down the road when we go in and mow the place down.'

- When have I ever flip flopped? Never really expressed my willingness for war with Iraq or Afghanistan, and disagreed with the - now fully known - made up reasons for invading those countries.
On this case, however, we *have* to go in, because the time for diplomacy was about 50, 000 deaths ago. Sudan has - like another famous case in Africa - been largely sidelines and its importance never realised. We must send military forces to Sudan. And now. Flip flop in a few years? Well, unless we end up carpet bombing every inch of Sudan or drop a nuke, I'm not likely to change my mind.

'I stand by my feelings though...send some $$$, drop some corn to feed the hungry, and let the rest of the world solve the problem. We should mind our own buisness and quit wasting lives on this totally out of our control "problem". Let the EU handle it..good starter job for those boys. Step up Frenchys,Swedes,Germans, ect..send your brothers and sisters to war.'

- Sarcasm aside, I fully agree. The EU, Asia, the rest of Africa.. all need to help.
But Africa, and Sudan especially, needs to fall on the shoulders of the EU, and more specifically, Britain and our Commonwealth. We carved Africa up, we owe it the aid it needs, as does Egypt (especially). I am very much in favour of sending the troops in Blair has suggested, and more, with hope. And I'll be supporting Blair in that idea.
Just as long as he doesn't go in on the grounds that Sudan supported Bin Laden and has an active WMD programme, then I'm sure it will be a positive move.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3940547.stm

Tick-tock, Khartoum, tick-tock.

Yeah Grumblin don't engage. You'll get your ass handed to you like Halo does. I have to admit it's amazing how he just ignores his ignorance and toddles along.

So Halo you start out arguing that there is no Oil in the Sudan. Then you make an extremely... weird point about how we need to be more like the socialist countries who consider diplomacy first. (Of course it has been mainly a communist and a socialist country in China and France who have blocked diplomatic pressure on Sudan and denied that there was genocide going on) Now you're arguing your ass off that your country should send troops in and forget diplomacy because its too late. When you get down there say hi to the thousands of Chinese troops in the Sudan... aiding the Sudanese government.

In fact, the government started the conflict by murdering thousands and displacing more than a million in order to build their oil pipeline, with western european companies looking the other way. Why not US companies? Because we had a boycott on them to try to produce a diplomatic solution to the humanitarian problems in the country.

The US for more than 2 months has been on a hard push to try and get something done through the UN... and guess who has been blocking it. The US for years has been addressing this problem diplomatically... but Europe, China, India, and Canada chose money over diplomacy.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0906-04.htm

"Certain countries like the U.K. and the Netherlands are more willing to criticize openly and call for change," he said. "France and Belgium in particular have felt that they can be more efficient in maintaining good relations ... particularly in the Arab world."

"Macram Gassis, the Catholic Bishop of Sudan, links the survival of his people with the cessation of oil production. "If the oil is pumped, we are finished. The Sudanese government will then be able to buy the weapons to wipe us out completely. Why are Western companies aiding in this pipeline project? No human life - no innocent Sudanese life- should be sacrificed to the pursuit of this oil money."

The U.S. government banned trade with Sudan in 1997 because of human rights violations, but Talisman is still openly traded on the New York Stock Exchange. Talisman and the other companies are doing more than providing cash to the government. They are also providing incentive for the genocide."

The US will be awfully hesitant to get into hostilities with another Muslim country given the venom brewed up amongst you all the last time. So good luck down there I hope you are successful you imperialist. Next time you the socialist should pay attention when we try to promote diplomacy instead of the "do nothing until its a crisis then do nothing more for awhile til the crisis is over" approach that they usually take.

'So Halo you start out arguing that there is no Oil in the Sudan. '

- Actually, that was sort of my bad. Well, let me show you what I mean..

'As was the case in Iraq, [France] also has significant oil interests in Sudan. '

- France isn't even a major exporting partner of Sudan. Infact, they aren't even purchasing above 3% of Sudan's exporting commodoties, certainly not in oil. As for China? You'll find China constituted the largest exporting partner for Sudan before it even discovered its oil reserves.
So your tin-foil-hat conspiracy theories are pretty much in shambles old boy.

Now let's see about that beloved oil. Sudan exports petroleum goods, and it isn't even their main industry - having only been launched in late 2000, failing to take over their agricultural products and commodoties.

'Then you make an extremely... weird point about how we need to be more like the socialist countries who consider diplomacy first'

- Again, wrong. As Grumblin has explained to you tirelessly, and thus you show your inability to actually *read* what people type, I said:

'When you wake up and realise there are left wing, sometimes socialist governments around the world that don't believe military force is always required (you know, those governments that haven't invaded two countries within 2 years..) and would rather resort to diplomatic needs...'

- I put that in bold, just so you couldn't miss it, but I'm sure in some way you'll manage it.

'In fact, the government started the conflict by murdering thousands and displacing more than a million in order to build their oil pipeline, with western european companies looking the other way. Why not US companies? Because we had a boycott on them to try to produce a diplomatic solution to the humanitarian problems in the country.'

- Yeah, uhm, well done? I guess it only took 3, 500 to build yours in Afghanistan.

'"Macram Gassis, the Catholic Bishop of Sudan, links the survival of his people with the cessation of oil production. "If the oil is pumped, we are finished. The Sudanese government will then be able to buy the weapons to wipe us out completely. Why are Western companies aiding in this pipeline project? No human life - no innocent Sudanese life- should be sacrificed to the pursuit of this oil money."

- Replace "Western Companies" with "US troops" and "Sudanese life" with "Iraqi life", and you've got the Iraq war. Wahey!

'The US will be awfully hesitant to get into hostilities with another Muslim country given the venom brewed up amongst you all the last time. So good luck down there I hope you are successful you imperialist. Next time you the socialist should pay attention when we try to promote diplomacy instead of the "do nothing until its a crisis then do nothing more for awhile til the crisis is over" approach that they usually take.'

- A bit like Rwanda then, eh? :D

Sometimes, this is almost *too* much fun.

Ugh, jesus. No wonder you believe yourself to be such a great internet debator. You completely ignore and write off everything anyone says against you, which basically has you debating with yourself alone.


Let me put it into words that you know.

You: "I think two plus two is five"

Anyone else: "No actually sir, if you take two zeros ( "0", "0" ) and add on top of that two more zeros ( "0", "0" ) you'll find, if you count them, you get four zeros ( "0", "0", "0", "0" )

You: I don't understand! three times three is nine! hahah dont you see! im right and you're stupid!

Writing those two huge posts was almost utterly pointless on my part. You claim to be informed, but you are, from the conclusion i drew just from your posts on these boards, just an opinionated retarded nothing. I think i've said it before.

Step down winter.

Of course, this will be falling on blind eyes (so to speak) so. bubu.

At least he is contributing to the topic at hand Grumblin while all you do is blow halos balls and have quote wars with other peoples posts. Contribute or stfu?

So your tin-foil-hat conspiracy theories are pretty much in shambles old boy.

The irony of that is inescapable. I'm glad that I have educated you as to the fact that there is Oil in the Sudan. The fact that you didn't know pretty much disqualifies you from opening your mouth any more on the subject.


France isn't even a major exporting partner of Sudan. Infact, they aren't even purchasing above 3% of Sudan's exporting commodoties, certainly not in oil.
Now let's see about that beloved oil. Sudan exports petroleum goods, and it isn't even their main industry - having only been launched in late 2000, failing to take over their agricultural products and commodoties.

Congratulations on digging up the 1999 statistics. Their oil exports topped 300,000 barrels per day this year. It has far overtaken agriculture as the major export and is the one factor that provides revenue for the continued armament of troops to continue the genocide. France's Total Elf Fina owns a large portion of the country's oil rights and it provides more that 50 percent of France's Oil imports. It has shut down its supply from Sudan under international pressure... I couldn't find a firm reference but one sourse said since December of 2003. They were one of the companies involved in development of the pipeline and indicted by Amnesty International for having full knowledge of what was going on in terms of human rights abuses.

As I stated before... its not just about the Sudan. It's about French politicians wanting to maintain a shiny image in the eyes of the Arab world.


'When you wake up and realise there are left wing, sometimes socialist governments around the world that don't believe military force is always required (you know, those governments that haven't invaded two countries within 2 years..) and would rather resort to diplomatic needs...'



I left it in bolds so you couldnt miss it. You're the one talking about sending your military in so wtf are you talking about. We've been trying to address it diplomatically for years and have been unable to put pressure on the Sudanese government because of the greed of others. So you have no point. France has refused to address it diplomatically for years. You're a socialist I presume, and you're calling for military intervention... I'm not. You have no fucking point you're just relying on confusing the argument.


Yeah, uhm, well done? I guess it only took 3, 500 to build yours in Afghanistan.


You want to compare the two? Your stupidity continues to impress me. You want to compare it to 10s of thousands murdered, millions displaced, humanitarian aid completely denied to what we're doing in Afghanistan? You're a real peach.


Replace "Western Companies" with "US troops" and "Sudanese life" with "Iraqi life", and you've got the Iraq war. Wahey!


Excellent example of your stupidity. Again you want to compare apples and oranges to try and muddy the argument which you can't win. We're talking about the Sudan here. Wahey! If you want to change the subject because you're so completely ignorant and wrong about this one then keep doing it. It's just an admission that you lost this one.

A bit like Rwanda then, eh? :D"The inquiry was prompted by media reports suggesting that France had continued to arm and support Rwanda's French-speaking, Hutu-led government even after the genocide of a half million Tutsis and moderate Hutus began in April 1994."

So yeah... a bit like Rwanda http://forums.ayonae.ro/images/icons/icon10.gif
http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/News/0,,2-11-1447_1498820,00.html

""It's up to Rwanda not to let others forget they are criminally responsible for the genocide," he said, singling out France, Britain and the United States."

Whats the difference between Rwanda and Sudan? The difference is that the US has been trying to produce a diplomatic solution, having learned our lesson. Meanwhile France especially has not. Just like in Rwanda, they deny that its even going on. Why? Because they want to look like heroes in to the Arab world, and their largest Oil importer still owns a huge chunk of Sudan's oil rights.

On the subject of your desire to send in the military...


Nobody can fail to be moved by the tragic plight of the suffering Darfur population. But those who argue for western military intervention to protect the aid agencies against attacks by the Janjaweed militia are in effect calling for a force to take on the Sudanese government. Whatever the intentions, such an operation would be nothing but a cover for the US and British governments who would welcome a justification to oust the Khartoum regime and install their own stooges. Sudan has a key strategic position in relation to the Middle East and North Africa and is now producing some 250,000 barrels of oil per day—a figure expected to double over the next four years.
Guess what. Thats from an article on the World Socialist Website. Looks like your buddies disagree with your war mongering.


European interest was sparked by a report by Christian Aid published in March which described the clearing of villages along an 80-km road in a concession area operated by Sweden’s Lundin Oil and the use of corporate airstrips and oil roads to transport government troops


An Instapundit post (http://instapundit.com/archives/016474.php#016474) drew my attention to the BBC story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3875277.stm): "France says it does not support US plans for international sanctions on Sudan if violence continues in Darfur."

A recent update to that post points out that France has the single largest foreign oil concession in Sudan.

So, how are the French media covering their country's position on what the U.N. calls the most serious humanitarian crisis in the world today? Well, the two big French papers are Le Monde (http://www.lemonde.fr/) and Le Figaro (http://www.lefigaro.fr/). Le Figaro currently has no stories at all on its website concerning the ethnic cleansing in Sudan.


http://www.thegantelope.com/archives/000127.html
Notice the date on the article... more than 3 weeks ago.



Sudan's blood-soaked oil business is a multinational affair, with major involvement of oil companies from China, Malaysia, Sweden, Canada, Italy, France, the Netherlands, and Qatar. Chevron did the initial oil exploration in the early 1980S, but U.S. sanctions currently bar U.S. oil companies from operating in Sudan.



http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Africa/Sudan_Oil_Blood.html


Christian Aid's briefing lists companies from Austria, France, Sweden and the UK, which have significant investments in Sudan. The charity is calling on companies to suspend their operations and make no further investment in the region until a just and lasting peace is achieved. But the briefing also makes a plea for a new, global regulation authority to enforce the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in business.
http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/0/1796d5b2a9c1085f85256a4f005b115b?OpenDocument

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0315-01.htm

Other oil companies involved in Sudan are Agip (Italy) who signed an agreement with Petronas in December, Elf-Aquitaine (France), Gulf Petroleum Company (Qatar), National Iranian Gas Company (NIGC) and TotalFina (France). In addition,Royal Dutch Shell (The Netherlands) owns a refinery in Port Sudan.

The Minister of Energy Awad Ahmed Eljaz announced in November that oil companies from Britain, India, Italy, New Zealand and Pakistan are competing for new concessions around the town of Bor, further south of the present oil extracting areas. In March this year the government signed a new oil exploration agreement with a consortium comprised of a joint venture between Gulf Oil Company (Qatar) and al-Ghanawa (Sudan) with a 46% stake, three unnamed Canadian and European companies with a 46% stake and state-owned Sudapet with an 8 % stake. The new concession area covers 70,000 square kilometres reaching from Upper Nile to the eastern border with Ethiopia.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engAFR540012000

Keep going though, its fun watching you toddle around innocently.

You're dismissed Grumblin. Thanks for the laughs.

Nice to see France, Libya and a bunch of Muslim nations working together to get UN supervision in the Sudan relaxed in 2003.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32098

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/26/173346.shtml

Don't you love it when they bail out mid argument as the realization sets in that they're losing?

I like when he tries to argue about an issue which revolves 100 percent around oil rights when he didn't even know they had oil.

France has 600 soldiers in chtad/sudan right now to secure humanitary help. I m sure more will be sent if the ultimatum come to an end, kind of sad we have to wait one month to actually go at it.

Le monde had 2 pages on it on saturday edition. I read it daily since it come every day in my mailbox.

The problem hasn't been getting humanitarian aid to them in Chad. The problem has and continues to be that the government of Sudan refuses to let humanitarian aid get into the region itself. All they are doing in Chad is helping the Sudanese government to accomplish its goal of getting the people out of the Darfur region. They have to become refugees to get to the humanitarian aid which is only needed because the government has completely destroyed their lives.

France's TotalElfFina (imports more than 50 percent of France's oil) which owns the rights to an area projected to have reserves in the billions of barrels stands to benefit greatly by the death or movement of these people out of the area they have the rights to. Which happen to be in the south. The oil rights in the Darfur region itself are owned by China.

http://www.africafocus.org/docs03/sud0311.php

I'm glad they finally allowed the watered down resolution to pass though.

Oil business like usual. Just like irak but different countries in the bad spot. France doesn't have the choice but to agree with the resolution anyway, as much as china doesn't care ( well communist /shrug) France does and blocking a resolution that would force the mass killing to stop in the area would be badly perceived by the french people which mean kicked out of power next round of vote :p

http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/216

'According to the Investor Responsibility Research Center, the world's leading provider of impartial information to the markets, approximately 300 publicly traded firms are doing business in or with these [Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, and North Korea] terror sponsors. Approximately 20 percent of these firms are based in the United States and are some of the largest companies in the world.
According to media reports, companies such as Total Fina Elf of France, Royal Dutch/Shell, Siemens AG of Germany, Mitsubishi of Japan, and American firms Conoco and General Electric all have business ties to terrorist-sponsoring governments.'

'More than just human rights concerns are involved here. The University of Texas's—and likely other universities'—heavy involvement in Sudan and Syria raises serious security concerns. Two primary security concerns are associated with universities and companies partnering with terrorist-sponsoring states.
First, many companies are providing billions of dollars in revenues to "bad actor" governments that may be used in any manner. Due to the fungibility of money, these revenues could be helping to fund terrorist groups or to develop weapons of mass destruction...
Second, these American firms are, in many cases, providing advanced technology and equipment to these governments through their business operations. In the context of the war on terrorism, isn't it appropriate for Americans to know that certain of their companies are providing militarily useful equipment that may be used against our own troops in the future? Or in another, even more horrific, terrorist attack on the United States?'

- OH NOZ, COMPANIES ARE HELPING TO FUND TEH EVIL PEOPLZ0R.
Are you as certain that the French conduct international policy based upon the whims and interests of their oil companies, as you are that the US government aparantly takes no heed of the interest of theirs that, it seems, constitute the largest percentage of business with terrorist-supporting governments, like Sudan?
Or, do such tin-foil conspiracies retain themselves only to the Frogs and Dutch, the Chinks and Limeys?
Of course, invade oil rich countries such as Iraq on what is proven to be false claims of terrorism and WMD, and aparantly there is NO WAY it can be done for oil!
If you want to argue twisted international affairs on the account of oil - you may want to look closer to home, Skippy. Say, isn't that president of yours and his family heavily involved in the oil industry, with partnerships that extend to certain Middle Eastern families? Gee whiz!

'As I stated before... its not just about the Sudan. It's about French politicians wanting to maintain a shiny image in the eyes of the Arab world.'

- I'm sorry, what is? That they cut ties with Sudan a year ago now, or that they are agreeing and participating in the pressure upon Sudan, and even an ultimatum to military action if the government fails to comply within a month?
Oh, wait, they did object to that, didn't they? But oops.. aparantly they *just* changed their mind, didn't they? Silly rabbit.

'You're the one talking about sending your military in so wtf are you talking about.'

- Aparantly sending my military in. Do try to keep up.

'We've been trying to address it diplomatically for years and have been unable to put pressure on the Sudanese government because of the greed of others. So you have no point.'

-Indeed, what point of mine are you addressing? You don't seem to know exactly what it is you're arguing for. One moment you're yelling because I'm aparantly saying we should all be socialists, and the next you've put on your tin-foil hat and accuse the world of funding projects that harm people, when it would appear your own country does the exact same thing only - as always - in bigger quantities and on a more diverse scale.

'You're a socialist I presume...'

- Not even remotely.

'...and you're calling for military intervention... I'm not. You have no fucking point you're just relying on confusing the argument.'

- Oh, so you're not calling for military action?
Then colour me dazzed, WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU BITCHING ABOUT?
Oh, that's right, the French. Inane, useless, senseless anti-French bullshit, because they didn't wave the American flag at the onset of an invasion that appeared utterly fake in every one of its justifications.

I don't use this phrase often, but I'm feeling a little crazy: You cock-tit.

'It's up to Rwanda not to let others forget they are criminally responsible for the genocide," he said, singling out France, Britain and the United States.'

- You just killed your own argument.
It makes me sad, sometimes.

'Guess what. Thats from an article on the World Socialist Website. Looks like your buddies disagree with your war mongering.'

- Your buddies, it appears, what with you not agreeing with military action.
And they're entitled to think that. But if the growing-genocidal urges weren't impending on the horizon, then we wouldn't need to go in. This isn't a case of making up claims of WMD stockpiles to invade a country, this is a case of too late, so let's not make it too little.

There are times and places for military action. This most certainly is one.

'Christian Aid's briefing lists companies from Austria, France, Sweden and the UK, which have significant investments in Sudan. The charity is calling on companies to suspend their operations and make no further investment in the region until a just and lasting peace is achieved. But the briefing also makes a plea for a new, global regulation authority to enforce the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in business. '

- Well, I guess those countries just don't have puppet-controlled-countries full of oil to fall back on, like oh say... Iraq.
Or the lovely crumbling country of Afghanistan and it's up-and-coming pipeline that Mr.Bush has so conveniently "managed" to have installed.

As for the rest - it doesn't make sense. Both Italy and Britain have major interests in oil both within Sudan and other Arab countries, and both committ fully to invasions and sanctions of Arab countries past and present.
Perhaps, then, Sudan oil is some magical oil, more like Opium in its attraction than perhaps the Iraqi oil? Maybe it's Faerie oil! Wahey!

'Don't you love it when they bail out mid argument as the realization sets in that they're losing?'

- Don't you love it, Crist0 old boy, when some people actually have jobs they need to turn up at, and are *sometimes* unable to spend 10 hours in the day on the forums, waiting on the end of every pointless debate with Winterwang?

In Next Weeks' Reply: Winterwang posts more links to benevolent US intervention in Suda, fighting against the Evilz0r 0il Companize of Le France!1

Keep replying Halo you're sinking deeper and deeper into it. I'll reply later when I have more time.

Are you really as confused as you seem? They ought to put a suicide watch on you... emotionally unstable obviously.

Oil business like usual. Just like irak but different countries in the bad spot.
/chuckle

Actually it's the same countries, France in particular seems to get caught with its hand in the cookie jar every time you turn around.


Don't you love it, Crist0 old boy, when some people actually have jobs they need to turn up at, and are *sometimes* unable to spend 10 hours in the day on the forums, waiting on the end of every pointless debate with Winterwang?
Does your job miraculously allow you to respond to some threads but lock others to you?

I'm just asking, because here you are with a lengthy post on this topic proving you have time to hit the boards..yet other threads you avoid when the argument goes against you.

Just a few examples from the top of the first page:

http://forums.ayonae.ro/showthread.php?t=5309

http://forums.ayonae.ro/showthread.php?t=5189

Actually it's the same countries, France in particular seems to get caught with its hand in the cookie jar every time you turn around.


No actually its not, irak that would have been usa.

The University of Texas Investment Management Company (UTIMCO) manages the University of Texas's investment portfolio. A review of the UTIMCO's portfolio reveals that the UT System owns stock in a number of these companies that provide money and advanced technology to terrorist-sponsoring governments. These companies include Total Fina Elf and Royal Dutch Petroleum.


Thanks for proving my point for me. Oh my gosh the university of Texas owns stock in the company! How terrible. Funny, last reply you made you claimed that France had no interest in the Sudan's oil. Rather than reply to how wrong you were on that you try to change the subject again. Good show old boy. We're talking about the Sudan here, we can talk about other countries on other threads if you want.


Are you as certain that the French conduct international policy based upon the whims and interests of their oil companies, as you are that the US government aparantly takes no heed of the interest of theirs that, it seems, constitute the largest percentage of business with terrorist-supporting governments, like Sudan?


I don't believe that US foreign policy is innocent in all respects. I've never claimed that. What you are trying to do is completely ignore (partially due to your demonstrated ignorance on the subject) that the US has taken an active role in trying to produce reform within the government of Sudan to change their policy of Genocide which France has condoned on behalf of its largest oil importer. This didn't start a few days ago, or even a few weeks ago, but many years ago. The Canadian people have been the only others joining in this struggle to get their government to stop fostering this massacre.


I'm sorry, what is? That they cut ties with Sudan a year ago now, or that they are agreeing and participating in the pressure upon Sudan, and even an ultimatum to military action if the government fails to comply within a month?
Oh, wait, they did object to that, didn't they? But oops.. aparantly they *just* changed their mind, didn't they? Silly rabbit.


Cut what ties? Explain. France's position up until international pressure was focused on them was that there was no genocide going on and we were overreacting to the situation. They wouldn't agree on a resolution until they got all their Muslim buddies to agree with them so they could once again appear to be a hero to Muslim world. Meanwhile people have been dying. If the US hadn't taken charge once again and forced it, the French and UN would still have their thumbs up each others asses pretending nothing was going on. It's a pity that you all still haven't learned anything from Rwanda. Ignorant dung beetle.


Aparantly sending my military in. Do try to keep up.


War monger. Why didn't you try diplomacy first? Try to keep up? You're 7 years too late. When will you wake up and realize that there are Republics like the US who look ahead and try to deal with things diplomatically rather than exploiting a situation as far as possible then sending in the military. By the way... that's at least twice in this thread you've misspelled apparently.


'We've been trying to address it diplomatically for years and have been unable to put pressure on the Sudanese government because of the greed of others. So you have no point.'

-Indeed, what point of mine are you addressing? You don't seem to know exactly what it is you're arguing for. One moment you're yelling because I'm aparantly saying we should all be socialists

Okay thats 3 times. If you would take a moment to remove the implant from your brain, you could see what point I was addressing. It comes right after I quote your saying that there are socialist governments that believe in diplomacy first unlike me. Unfortunately for you, on this subject you have no fact, just froth and subject changing as a weapon. The US has been addressing this problem for years and years without any action from the UN or these mythical socialist philanthropists you're talking about. On the contrary, those countries including your own have allowed their oil countries to supply the government with the funds necessary to escalate their genocide and mass displacement of innocent people. Where do I yell that you're saying we should all be socialists? You brought the socialist issue into it out of nowhere... again... take the implant out of your brain, the socialists have you on remote control apparently.


Oh, so you're not calling for military action?
Then colour me dazzed, WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU BITCHING ABOUT?
Oh, that's right, the French. Inane, useless, senseless anti-French bullshit, because they didn't wave the American flag at the onset of an invasion that appeared utterly fake in every one of its justifications.


Well at least we got that through the fatty layer that surrounds your brain and keeps you in a continuous unreachable fog. What's so inane about pointing out that the French have opposed sanctions and any UN action against 2 countries in which they have significant oil interests? Whats so inane about pointing out that France and Libya have conspired together to remove the Sudan from the human rights watch and relax UN monitoring of them, leading to this crisis? Step away from the Iraq and Afghanistan situation for a minute and focus on the Sudan dumbdick. People's have been dying there under Arab oppression for years... glad to have you finally awake to it. The fact that you didn't even know the Sudan had oil reserves funding their war or that the UN was considering sanctions finally shows that you are just now aware of the crisis. Funny you wake up one day and decide... oh no a crisis lets send the military. At least you've taken one small step since Rwanda.


'It's up to Rwanda not to let others forget they are criminally responsible for the genocide," he said, singling out France, Britain and the United States.'

- You just killed your own argument.
It makes me sad, sometimes.


How did that kill my argument? Explain. I'm pointing out that we have been fighting for years to not let the same thing happen in Rwanda. We've been warning and comparing it for years to Rwanda. Therefore we learned a lesson. It's obvious that France and the UK have not. You make baby Mohammed cry :(


'Guess what. Thats from an article on the World Socialist Website. Looks like your buddies disagree with your war mongering.'

- Your buddies, it appears, what with you not agreeing with military action.
And they're entitled to think that. But if the growing-genocidal urges weren't impending on the horizon, then we wouldn't need to go in.


Impending on the horizon? Lol. Maybe I was wrong in saying you'd woken up to the problem. It's been going on for years dipshit. What makes it suddenly so bad now that you have to send in your military? Explain to me please. You need to wait until displaced persons exceeds 2 million? 30,000 murdered and you decide okay enough is enough?

Well, I guess those countries just don't have puppet-controlled-countries full of oil to fall back on, like oh say... Iraq.
Or the lovely crumbling country of Afghanistan and it's up-and-coming pipeline that Mr.Bush has so conveniently "managed" to have installed.

To paraphrase you... okay let me change the subject again and make a lame justification of the genocide that has been allowed in the Sudan by China and western Europe. There is a thread for discussion of the Afghanistan situation if you want to continue to get owned over there. Feel free.

As for the rest - it doesn't make sense. Both Italy and Britain have major interests in oil both within Sudan and other Arab countries, and both committ fully to invasions and sanctions of Arab countries past and present.
Perhaps, then, Sudan oil is some magical oil, more like Opium in its attraction than perhaps the Iraqi oil? Maybe it's Faerie oil! Wahey!

? ummm huh? My only criticism of Britain and Italy which I don't remember really addressing strongly is that they like other WE countries have ignored and augmented the problem by not acting sooner... as the US did. You're cracking under the pressure.

In next weeks reply:
Halo continues to try and confuse the situation in order to divert attention from the fact that up until a couple days ago he had no idea what was going on in the Sudan at all although he claims to be sending his paychecks there.

No actually its not, irak that would have been usa.Allegations of wrongdoing in the programme are nothing new; Britain and America complained of this before the war. But the breadth and depth of the alleged fraud now go far beyond what was thought at the time. In January, an independent Iraqi newspaper, al-Mada, published a list of 270 names (of individuals, companies and institutions) it claimed to have found in Iraqi oil ministry documents. Those named were said to have received oil contracts under the programme, either as thanks for political support for Saddam’s regime, for turning a blind eye to corruption or in payment for illegal imports. Those who were handed these contracts could then sell them on to legitimate oil traders. The scheme appeared to allow its beneficiaries to say they had never taken money from the Iraqi government. The list of alleged beneficiaries includes a senior UN official and top French, Indonesian and Russian politicians.

Moreover, opponents pin a number of abject humanitarian failures, from Rwanda to Bosnia, on the UN. Just this week, a report on a “reign of terror” by the Sudanese government in the western region of Darfur was kept out of a meeting of the Commission on Human Rights. This was because the UN has only just been given permission to visit Darfur. Human-rights groups accuse Sudan of manipulating the world body to play for time.

Who led the charge to keep the Sudan issue out of the Commission on Human Rights? Libya and France. They also led the charge before that to keep the UN from forcing the Sudan to allow monitoring in the area. Thus their complicity in the genocide. Which France has denied continuously to exist.

Your point beeing? I never said france were the good guy in this case. I said its just the same shit all the time with different countries.

/sigh
Now I have to spend half an hour answering a retarded American on his tin-foil hat European conspiracy theories, instead of eating a bowl of cornflakes and going to bed :(
*another sigh*

'Does your job miraculously allow you to respond to some threads but lock others to you?'

- Excuse me? A debate where you backtrack in trying to suggest Scots don't like being called Brits, 'cause you worked with one, so that's that? And one in which you believe doing better than Bin Laden means everything is OK in Afghanistan? I stopped after 3 pages for a reason.

'last reply you made you claimed that France had no interest in the Sudan's oil. Rather than reply to how wrong you were on that you try to change the subject again. Good show old boy. We're talking about the Sudan here, we can talk about other countries on other threads if you want.'

- Unfortunately not. I replied that France is not a major exporting partner of the Sudan, that its international policies are dictated by oil just as much as Americas, and that evilz0r oilz0r companize are just as much a part of USA's life as it is European's.

'I don't believe that US foreign policy is innocent in all respects. I've never claimed that.'

- Then it's quite hard to condemn other governments when you acknowledge - as do we all - that yours, and mine, and most others, are not innocent in any of these subject matters. It's what we call hypocritical.

What you are trying to do is completely ignore (partially due to your demonstrated ignorance on the subject) that the US has taken an active role in trying to produce reform within the government of Sudan..'

- Which is the right move, never said anything different to that.

'...to change their policy of Genocide which France has condoned on behalf of its largest oil importer.'

- On behalf of its largest oil importer? Funny, didn't know it did that. Any link?
Are.. you...just...making....things...up...again?
France and this oil thing, is becoming old. French international policy is dictated as much by its oil as America's, I've said it time and time again. Unless you deny that America's stance in the Middle East, with, say, Saudi Arabia, has had nothing to do with its oil importing?

'The Canadian people have been the only others joining in this struggle to get their government to stop fostering this massacre.'

- What? A few posts ago you were blaming them...

'The US for years has been addressing this problem diplomatically... but Europe, China, India, and Canada chose money over diplomacy.'

- Come on, which is it? You change your story more than Cristofalof 0.o

'Cut what ties? Explain. France's position up until international pressure was focused on them was that there was no genocide going on and we were overreacting to the situation. They wouldn't agree on a resolution until they got all their Muslim buddies to agree with them so they could once again appear to be a hero to Muslim world. Meanwhile people have been dying. If the US hadn't taken charge once again and forced it, the French and UN would still have their thumbs up each others asses pretending nothing was going on. It's a pity that you all still haven't learned anything from Rwanda. Ignorant dung beetle.'

- Ignorant dung beetle?
Are you like...11?
The US isn't some shinning star in this crisis, get that out of your head. The UN maintained sanctions on Sudan for five years, finally relinquishing them in 2001. Blowing up a chemist building and sanctioning Sudan isn't some sort of overwhelming, star-beacon like act to make Sudan crumble. Since the crisis has more and more come in to international light, not only has Britain pledged military support of up to 8, 000 troops - along with other European countries - but other counries, and France especially, have been aiding the victims for a long time. I do believe France has nearing 1000 troops on the Chad borders, providing protection and aid for the refugees. Damn them EVIL BASTARDS!
Now the international community are committing massive aid, with the EU deciding on military action and the UN delivering a sanction-based ultimatum that would - unlike the American one - cripple Sudan.
We're not learning from Rwanda? How are you? Why haven't you guys gone in to Sudan and put a stop to it all? Oh, right...you're bogged down in Iraq.
I mean...it's not a genocide, anyway, is it?
That's right, we're not "allowed" to use that term yet, are we?

'War monger. Why didn't you try diplomacy first? Try to keep up? You're 7 years too late. When will you wake up and realize that there are Republics like the US who look ahead and try to deal with things diplomatically rather than exploiting a situation as far as possible then sending in the military.'

- Was that... sarcasm?

'By the way... that's at least twice in this thread you've misspelled apparently.'

- Oh dear god. You've called me a dung-beetle and attacked my spelling. Hello Wayfarer, ran out of arguments?

'It comes right after I quote your saying that there are socialist governments that believe in diplomacy first unlike me.'

- It's so repetitive, it's almost tragic.
Never once did I say "unlike you". The entire socialist comment, in which you are unable to grasp, was brought up in the context that sometimes, countries object to war because they are socialist, in people and government, ala France. Not necessarily because of oil conspiracy theories. If that were so, the US would sure be a great debate in that section. Except with the "going to war" part.

'The US has been addressing this problem for years and years '

- You mean.. with all the sanctions?

' On the contrary, those countries including your own have allowed their oil countries to supply the government with the funds necessary to escalate their genocide and mass displacement of innocent people.'

- I know, it's terrible. Almost as bad as....invading a country for oil. Let's see.. 10, 000 dead Iraqi's, almost catching up with those naughty Sudan-milita. I'm pretty sure the injured and homeless list makes it even.
By the way, "those countries...have allowed their oil countries" makes no sense and makes baby jesus weep.
Also, did I not show you the link that credits the US with the exact same funding of violent and oppressive countries throughout the world through such oil companies, yet on a larger scale? Naugthy Winterwang! Naughty!

'What's so inane about pointing out that the French have opposed sanctions and any UN action against 2 countries in which they have significant oil interests? '

- You mean the sanctions and UN action they have agreed to?
"Against 2 countries"? You just said stick to Sudan. Now you wanna bring up Iraq. You're confused, baby?

'How did that kill my argument? Explain'

- Your attempt to thumb Rwanda off on everyone else sort of back-fires when US is as much to blame. Sanctions hardly constitutes having learnt a lesson. Will US sanctions save the population of Sudan?

'We've been warning and comparing it for years to Rwanda. Therefore we learned a lesson.'

- ROFLMAO!!
So as long as you know its going on, it's OK. Roger.

'the genocide that has been allowed in the Sudan by China and western Europe.'

- And Australasia, and North and South America, and Asia, and every country on the face of the Earth, US included.
Oh wait, you didn't allow it, 'cause you compared it to Rwanda.

Now my fav part...

'You're cracking under the pressure.'

Observe:

'Ignorant dung beetle.'

'remove the implant from your brain'

'the fatty layer that surrounds your brain '

'dipshit.'

You make me cry.

Well, he stole my thunder.

The point is simple:

Oil for food ring a bell?

That is the only "oil business" that's gone on under the table I'm aware of. How many millions of barrels did French officials receive from Iraq again?



If you know of other shady deals involving the oil and the US, as you claim, then please by all means bring them to my attention(Shady does not mean helping Iraq to rebuild its oil industry so it can help fund rebuilding itself btw).


Excuse me? A debate where you backtrack in trying to suggest Scots don't like being called Brits, 'cause you worked with one, so that's that?
Excuse me?

I didn't backtrack an inch on the Scots issue, you simply stopped replying after multiple people pointed out the error with the assumptions you were trying to start an argument over.

If you would like to start up again as to how you are right in the face of several people telling you just how wrong and moronic you are ..by all means, the thread is that way.


And one in which you believe doing better than Bin Laden means everything is OK in Afghanistan? I stopped after 3 pages for a reason.
I said that eh?

Your entire point was that Afghanistan was completely forgotten and left to rot. I then linked dozens of weekly reports telling exactly how much the US alone had been doing in Afghanistan, which you promptly ignored because they completely blew your argument out of the water.

As for "after three pages"..there are 15 posts in the thread. You responded to the it *1* time.

Of course there was a reason why, you got your ass completely and totally trounced by the facts, which any chimp could have found for themselves in 2 minutes - if they cared to. Just another example of your willful ignorance of the topics at hand because you despise the current administration over here.

Unfortunately not. I replied that France is not a major exporting partner of the Sudan, that its international policies are dictated by oil just as much as Americas, and that evilz0r oilz0r companize are just as much a part of USA's life as it is European's.



You did say that France is not a major exporting partner of the Sudan which the day before you believed had no oil at all. What you internet search did not show you... which is what I'm correcting you on... is that France holds the rights to the largest block of the Sudan's oil reserves. It just so happens that the haven't been able to tap into them yet because the government of the Sudan has had enough time yet to wipe out all of the people in that region. Which is probably why France continuously tries to handicap monitoring of the situation and had to be forced to join the majority of the western world in trying to do something about it. Please show me where you admit that France's international policies are at all dictated by oil. I must have missed that.

Then it's quite hard to condemn other governments when you acknowledge - as do we all - that yours, and mine, and most others, are not innocent in any of these subject matters. It's what we call hypocritical.

No... that's what we call fuck me, fuck you. You've been condemning the US for as long as I've been on this board for it's oil motivated politics. Now when you're getting your ass reamed on the subject you beg for mercy and call me hypocritical for exposing your hypocrisy. That what we call hypocritically hypocritical and pansy assing. You sir... are a pansy asser.

On behalf of its largest oil importer? Funny, didn't know it did that. Any link?
Are.. you...just...making....things...up...again?
France and this oil thing, is becoming old. French international policy is dictated as much by its oil as America's, I've said it time and time again. Unless you deny that America's stance in the Middle East, with, say, Saudi Arabia, has had nothing to do with its oil importing?

Sorry I don't have a link of them admitting it. Only the evidence of their actions which is readily apparent and beaten into the ground on this thread. Have I ever denied that America's foreign policy is influenced by oil? No, but your assertion and many others on this board, has been that America has been motivated by oil in everything it has done, and that we were all wrong. Now you defend France and other WE countries who are doing precisely that. You grasp for every shred of evidence against the US and you grasp for every shred of denial when presented with the same evidence on France, Sweden, and really most of Western Europe, with the US leading the way on the humanitarian front.


'The Canadian people have been the only others joining in this struggle to get their government to stop fostering this massacre.'

- What? A few posts ago you were blaming them...

'The US for years has been addressing this problem diplomatically... but Europe, China, India, and Canada chose money over diplomacy.'

- Come on, which is it? You change your story more than Cristofalof 0.o

Try to keep up. The Canadian people have opposed their government's policy of ignoring the brewing crisis commendibly. There have been large demonstrations and civil pressure put on the government, the oil company, and on the Sudanese consolate. If these issues are too complicated for you, I'm happy to continue to explain them. I'm not always in agreement with Canadians, but I don't think there's anything wrong with giving the Canadian people the props they deserve. It doesn't weaken my point, it serves both to demonstrate that I recognize what they have done, and to demonstrate that I'm not alone in observing that their government and Talisman Oil company were complicit in the genocide.

Ignorant dung beetle?
Are you like...11?



No, just responding to Silly Rabbit. Are you like 11?

Now the international community are committing massive aid, with the EU deciding on military action and the UN delivering a sanction-based ultimatum that would - unlike the American one - cripple Sudan.
We're not learning from Rwanda? How are you? Why haven't you guys gone in to Sudan and put a stop to it all? Oh, right...you're bogged down in Iraq.
I mean...it's not a genocide, anyway, is it?
That's right, we're not "allowed" to use that term yet, are we?



How was the original draft which threatened sanctions weaker than the draft that we had to compromise on which suggests future reconsideration of sanctions? Sorry if this comes out in bold face... cant seem to turn bold off. You're not learning from Rwanda because it had to become a massacre once again before you finally joined the US in addressing it. We've been trying to address it diplomatically for years, with the UN ignoring it until it became not only 10s of thousands dying, but the real possibility of 100s of thousands dying. You're right we're bogged down in Iraq... and if we had decided to address it militarily you and your buddies would have been leading the bandwagon and yelling oil oil oil. Oh that's right you had no idea they had oil in the Sudan, but you're suddenly an expert on the situation.

I mean...it's not a genocide, anyway, is it?
That's right, we're not "allowed" to use that term yet, are we?


Let me spell this out for you so you can't miss it AGAIN. France and Western Europe have led the charge in keeping the UN from recognizing this as genocide. The body of the UN that deals directly with these humanitarian issues is headed by Libya, is majority African and Muslim in its makeup, and has attempted to whitewash the problem at every turn.

In April, a U.N. team investigating human rights abuses in the far western Darfur region of Sudan found “disturbing patterns of massive human rights violations in Darfur, many of which may constitute war crimes and/or crimes against humanity.” Based on interviews with refugees along the Chad-Sudan border, the report of this team (along with similar reports from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch) was available during the annual meeting of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in Geneva that recently adjourned. But scandalously, as the commission debated what to do about Sudan and Darfur, the U.N team’s damning report was suppressed.



The circumstances of this suppression are murky. But the end result was that the commission released an innocuous and meaningless statement that failed to condemn the government of Sudan for its role in orchestrating the vast human destruction in Darfur. This continues a pattern of callous failures that have rendered the U.N. Commission on Human Rights hopelessly irrelevant in fulfilling its nominal mandate. But willful ignorance can do nothing to diminish what U.N. aid officials are now describing as “the world’s greatest humanitarian crisis.”




The U.S. and Australia were among the minority opposing the weak U.N. measure, which called for further investigation of the situation in Sudan.






France led opposition to US moves at the UN over Iraq. As was the case in Iraq, France also has significant oil interests in Sudan.

Mr Muselier also dismissed claims of "ethnic cleansing" or genocide in Darfur.

"I firmly believe it is a civil war and as they are little villages of 30, 40, 50, there is nothing easier than for a few armed horsemen to burn things down, to kill the men and drive out the women," he said. Human rights activists say the Janjaweed are conducting a genocide against Darfur's black African population.






France is teaming with Libya on the U.N. Human Rights Commission to lift international restrictions on Sudan. The commission, chaired by Libya, is scheduled to meet in Geneva on Thursday and the first item on its agenda is to give Sudan a passing grade on human rights.

France, a leading member of the commission, indicated that it would support Libya's move to change the human rights status for Sudan. The deputy press counsel for the French Embassy in Washington, D.C., confirmed the report.

"There are no more sanctions against Sudan," stated the French Embassy press spokeswoman, Agnes Vondermuhal. "Sanctions were lifted by the U.N. in 2001. The U.S. still maintains sanctions against Sudan," she stated.






"The United States has reviewed the report released February 9, 2003, by the Civilian Protection Monitoring Team demonstrating that the Sudanese army and their allied-militia forces deliberately targeted and displaced civilians during operations in the oil-rich Western Upper Nile region of southern Sudan in December and January. We condemn these unconscionable attacks and abuses against civilians," said Richard Boucher, the official U.S. State Department spokesman. The Bush administration opposed Libya becoming chair of a U.N. human rights commission, citing extensive human rights violations by the Tripoli government. The consequences of Libya teaming with France will allow Sudan to seek U.N. financial support.




"This of course serves the political agenda of Libya, which chairs the commission. It also serves the commercial interests of France, with its huge but inaccessible oil concessions in southern Sudan," stated Eric Reeves, a U.S. advocate against human rights abuses in Sudan.


http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/0/f8bda97d1665e9d7c1256d0100592cfa?OpenDocument


Oh dear god. You've called me a dung-beetle and attacked my spelling. Hello Wayfarer, ran out of arguments?

No, just meeting you at your level. I just thought since you spelled it wrong over and over maybe you could use some instruction so you could correct it, since you spelled it wrong the same way each time. It was obviously another gap in your knowledge. Ran out of arguments? Against you? lol. You've been schooled at every turn on this subject. The only reason you're still here arguing is because you're desperately clawing to try and save face. It's too late boyo.


Never once did I say "unlike you". The entire socialist comment, in which you are unable to grasp, was brought up in the context that sometimes, countries object to war because they are socialist, in people and government, ala France. Not necessarily because of oil conspiracy theories.

It was brought up in what context? LOL ... what you're doing is called revisionist history. You brought it up in the context of going to war because you HAD NO IDEA WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT. The UN was not considering "going to war." You jumped into a subject to which you were completely ignorant and immediately started spouting your socialist versus capitalist blather which was completely out of context and useless. You did this because you are preprogrammed to, and because you had no idea what you were talking about with this subject. You had no clue what the UN was considering doing about the Sudan. You had no clue that the US has been spearheading an attempt for years to get the UN to do something diplomatically about their human rights abuses which include genocide, human slavery, and oppression. You had no idea that the conflict has revolved around Sudan's oil reserves. You had no clue that the Sudan had oil. Yet somehow you felt the great need to lecture me about how socialist countries don't like war....???? It's irrelevant and somehow.... robotic.

You mean.. with all the sanctions?

We've been addressing it with our own sanctions, with the attempt to get other countries to join us by sanctioning them. With attempts to get the UN to not drop their sanctions in 2001 (made possible by Sudan that year being elected to the Human Rights Commission.) Trying to get the UN to monitor the problem (opposed by France and others.) Bringing attention to Sudan's support of terrorism (which has produced results.) Wakey wakey little boy.

I know, it's terrible. Almost as bad as....invading a country for oil. Let's see.. 10, 000 dead Iraqi's, almost catching up with those naughty Sudan-milita. I'm pretty sure the injured and homeless list makes it even.
By the way, "those countries...have allowed their oil countries" makes no sense and makes baby jesus weep.

Yep you're right you got me with a typo. Look harder I'm sure you can find more. Again you try to change the subject. It's an admission that you have no counterpoint. Thank you. You want to get owned on the Iraq or Afghanistan issue? Take it to those threads, owning you on the Sudan issue is enough for this one.

You mean the sanctions and UN action they have agreed to?
"Against 2 countries"? You just said stick to Sudan. Now you wanna bring up Iraq. You're confused, baby?

They agreed to no sanctions. They agreed only to a threat of further resolutions if Sudan didn't meet the demands of the UN.
Yeah I made an allusion to the Iraq situation in regards to the Sudan situation by saying "2 countries." However I hardly think that compares to the fact that you answer half the questions by bringing up Iraq. Why not just make your answer to every question... "yeah I know but you have Iraq." It would make this all far less painful for you. Baby want his binky?

Your attempt to thumb Rwanda off on everyone else sort of back-fires when US is as much to blame. Sanctions hardly constitutes having learnt a lesson. Will US sanctions save the population of Sudan?

First of all your saying I attempt to thumb Rwanda off on everyone else is amateurish. I never tried to thumb Rwanda off on anyone else. In fact as you so stupidly pointed out, I provided a quote which specifically reminds everyone that the US was guilty in the case of Rwanda as much as anyone. The point is (geez this is like explaining physics to a 3 year old) the US has BEEN TRYING TO GET SOMETHING DONE THROUGH THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY IN THE SUDAN for YEARS. The problem in Rwanda was complete neglect by all parties until it was too late. Will US sanctions save the oppressed population of Rwanda? Maybe, maybe not, but its a stronger step than the French allowed to go through. After this resolution it will require another and possibly another to get something done. Meanwhile the Sudanese government still has oil revenue coming in to continue to fund it's military operations if it chooses. Colin Powell went down there and he's not down there like the French Ambassador denying that any significant oppression is being conducted. He's down there saying shape up or else. Why is he only down there now? Because only now have we been able to pressure the UN into backing us.

'We've been warning and comparing it for years to Rwanda. Therefore we learned a lesson.'

- ROFLMAO!!
So as long as you know its going on, it's OK. Roger.

No its not okay. But it's better than denial, suppression of information, and complete ignorance of it as you've demonstrated. Obviously the BBC must have been focusing on things it could attack the US on because you had a complete ignorance of the crisis. We've been trying to address the situation to prevent another Rwanda... and the others I mentioned as being guilty in Rwanda have not taken the same steps we have. If these issues are to complex for you, try to find some friends to help you. This is embarassingly easy.


And Australasia, and North and South America, and Asia, and every country on the face of the Earth, US included.
Oh wait, you didn't allow it, 'cause you compared it to Rwanda.


Now try to think really hard because this involves expansionary thinking. What if others had joined the US in putting pressure on the Sudan or at very least had not allowed their oil companies to fund the mass murder perpetrated on the non-Arab Sudanese? Keep trying you might grasp the concept.


Now my fav part...

'You're cracking under the pressure.'

Observe:

'Ignorant dung beetle.'

'remove the implant from your brain'

'the fatty layer that surrounds your brain '

'dipshit.'

You make me cry.

I could go back and pull out the jabs that you make that I was responding to, but I don't really care to. You perpetuate this stuff more than anyone else on this board and if you don't like getting it back... here's a thought... don't give it. I think the insult department is the only place you're winning on this one.

So, 2 firemen were outside this burning house arguing whose job it was to turn on the hose...

Your point beeing? I never said france were the good guy in this case. I said its just the same shit all the time with different countries.

That's a valid point. I don't think it was what you said but it's a valid point. I'm glad we can finally get some admissions that Western European policy is dictated by their oil interests and not just by the moral high ground.

Winterwang summed up: "When we go to war with oil-rich countries, it's because of the moral issues. When others oppose wars in oil-rich countries, it's not because of the moral issues."

*puts on his tin-foil hat and does the tango*

When others oppose wars in oil-rich countries, it's not because of the moral issues.
Halo, the topic at hand is over this way.

Stick to it instead of inventing things to argue.

Alternatively, you could go back to the topics you ran away from screaming like a little girl.

damn those posts are way to wordy. no fun.

Huh? lol. You couldn't fight your way out of a paper bag with that weak junk.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/184584_focus08.html