World Court Issues Warrant For Sudan's President

Discussion in 'Africa' started by sealybobo, Mar 5, 2009.

  1. sealybobo
    Offline

    sealybobo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    50,453
    Thanks Received:
    3,186
    Trophy Points:
    1,845
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +10,136
    Pat Robertson's son works in Darfur. Yesterday he said that President Bashir is an evil man, but it would be too costly and unwise to remove him from power.

    We knew this to be true with Saddam/Iraq too, yet we still invaded? Maybe if Darfur had oil???

    Sudan's Bashir Faces Arrest On Darfur Charges : NPR
     
  2. Epsilon Delta
    Offline

    Epsilon Delta Jedi Master

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Messages:
    2,687
    Thanks Received:
    363
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Central America
    Ratings:
    +364
    Good news.
     
  3. Godboy
    Offline

    Godboy Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    6,844
    Thanks Received:
    1,356
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,461
    Its too bad people like you make it almost impossible to remove evil dictators. Bush removed Saddam, yet the liberals demonized him for it, and continue to do so. Maybe if people would be pleased when evil men are removed, instead of using the situation to make your political opposition look bad, other evil dictators might have second thoughts about murdering thousands of innocent people, but because of people like you, its extremely rare when these monsters have to face justice.

    ...and for the life of me, im still ba
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2009
  4. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    Sudan DOES have oil. That's why China has blocked most attempts for the UN to intervene.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  5. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    Removing Saddam from power was a strategic mistake. He was a nonsecular leader sitting squarely between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shia Iran. The result has been mostly uncontrolled infighting between religious and tribal factions in Iraq.

    And make no mistake ... it behooves the leaders of these factions to lay low right now or they'd be carrying on as usual and we'd STILL be stuck in the middle. My opinion only, but I think they figure it'd be a lot easier to take control with us gone. Something they should have thought of in 03.

    Point is, evil dictator or no, there's a much bigger picture going on geographically and limiting yourself from seeing that has can have worse consequences than the status quo.

    Having said that, I have said for years we should be intervening in Sudan. Not to depose anyone, but to stop the genocide.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. Gurdari
    Offline

    Gurdari Egaliterra

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,019
    Thanks Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    the West
    Ratings:
    +40
    Haha

    "World Court finally respected when it's THEM not US."
     
  7. sealybobo
    Offline

    sealybobo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    50,453
    Thanks Received:
    3,186
    Trophy Points:
    1,845
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +10,136
    That is a nice little spin you put on the situation.

    Can Obama take us into every country where he feels an evil dictator is ruling?

    Remember you guys bitched about Clinton going into Kosovo? Hypocrites.

    Was it worth it in terms of costs? Money and lives? We bankrupted our own country to remove Saddam Hussain? $10 billion a month for 6 years and still going? Had you knew that would be the cost, would you have been all for it? No. That's why Chaney lied and said Iraq oil would pay for it.

    We were already getting cheap food for oil from Iraq.

    I think Gunny said something that is important and true. We don't really know the real reasons why we invaded Iraq. It has to do with a new world order. I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, so I can only tell you to read PNAC to learn what I am talking about. It is Project for the Next American Century. It is the neo con's plan on how the US will stay relevant in the 21st century. Part of the plan is to control the middle east.

    Muslims don't believe in loaning money and charging interest. We want to install our banks and oil companies in their countries. Same with Venesuela. But Hugo Chavez kicked us out. And we tried to demonize him.

    He is not our enemy. He is the Conservatives enemy. He is Corporate America's enemy. He is an enemy to capitalism.

    But he is not my enemy. Same exact story in Viet Nam.

    No, I think from now on, Conservatives and rich people need to fund and fight in all these wars. They are the ones pushing for all the conflict.

    I'd rather the USA be like Canada or Australia. Just stay out of it.
     
  8. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617
    There's oil revenues but the people of the land are starving.

    How unusual!
     
  9. sealybobo
    Offline

    sealybobo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    50,453
    Thanks Received:
    3,186
    Trophy Points:
    1,845
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +10,136
    And typical, no reply to my response to your obsurd post. YOu are insane!!!
     
  10. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    You're putting words in my mouth. You could have just said that without attributing it to me. I don't believe for a minute Bush did not believe he was doing the right thing. IMO, he thought after 9/11, he had carte blanche, and it's not too much of stretch to call Saddam a terrorist.

    Then there is the fact Saddam WAS a thorn in our sides from 91 to 03. Legally, Clinton could have and possibly should have done something about him the FIRST time he violated the terms of the ceasefire HE agreed to.

    There ARE two sides to the story, and for the US, it was a lose/lose deal. How quickly the left is willing to forget all those years of dishonestly accusing Bush I of "not finishing the job." Bush II does, and y'all go into spin overdrive about THAT.

    I will reiterate what I previously posted, and clarify it. It was not some political ideology that formed/forms the basis of my opinion that we should have left Saddam alone. He was a murdering scumbag and a liar and deserved to pay for his transgressions against the people of Iraq.

    STRATEGICALLY, he was the joker in the deck in the Middle East. He kept the Shia and Sunni off balance. Big picture-wise, better to leave him in place than create the chaos we have by removing him from power.

    What I DO blame on Bush, his administration, and anyone so geographically naive, is having a great plan for removing Saddam from power, and NO plan for the aftermath. Saddam DID have one thing right: he kept the religious fanatics contained, until they eventually had to hide in the no-fly zones. Americans assuming Arabs would be grateful for that need to pull their heads out of their asses. They've been fighting over real or imagined slights and this sand dune or that for centuries. Knocking off Saddam just allowed them to resume business as usual.
     

Share This Page