China, Russia and Cuba say it's OK to kill fags

[ToadBrother]

Seriously, just because China is funding annd fueling the tribal hatreds in Africa doen't mean you have to pretend that Mugabe isn't a criminal...true he isn't as bad as mao was....

Mugabe isn't blessed with such a large population to starve to death. He's been doing his best, mind you.

[TimG]

The Chinese are so ruthless in Zimbabwe and elsewhere in Africa the Blacks are now thinking "damn we had it good under white rule, this yellow rule sucks"

You have any sources to back that up? Everything I have heard is Africans love dealing with the Chinese cause they don't moralize. They just want to do business.

[bjre]

Seriously, just because China is funding annd fueling the tribal hatreds in Africa doen't mean you have to pretend that Mugabe isn't a criminal...true he isn't as bad as mao was....

Why Mugabe is a so called "criminal"? Just because he return the land the colonist robbed from native people to its original owner?

Why Mao is bad? Just because he drive the western robbers away from China?

Those robbers killed 100 million aboriginals in Americas, 10 minutes kill one for 150 years. What a shame to blame others.

[bjre]

Mugabe isn't blessed with such a large population to starve to death. He's been doing his best, mind you.

It is the sanctions that create the disaster there. US and Europe did that.

[bjre]

You have any sources to back that up? Everything I have heard is Africans love dealing with the Chinese cause they don't moralize. They just want to do business.

China's business help the economy there, it helps more people get rid of poverty, that is the most moralize thing. That is the real very basic human right. Not the lies west nations talked about.

Edited November 27, 2010 by bjre

[Guest TrueMetis]

Why Mugabe is a so called "criminal"? Just because he return the land the colonist robbed from native people to its original owner?

Why Mao is bad? Just because he drive the western robbers away from China?

Those robbers killed 100 million aboriginals in Americas, 10 minutes kill one for 150 years. What a shame to blame others.

That's about 60 million more than the estimated amount of aboriginals that existed in the Americas, so you obviously wrong because there are still aboriginals today.

[bjre]

That's about 60 million more than the estimated amount of aboriginals that existed in the Americas, so you obviously wrong because there are still aboriginals today.

Those are lies just to deny the fact the 100 million aboriginals were killed.

There are too many sources for the 100 million, one of those is as following:

Unfortunately, what occurred was neither beautiful nor heroic. Just as Columbus could not, and did not, "discover" a hemisphere that was already inhabited by nearly 100 million people, his arrival cannot, and will not, be recognized as a heroic and celebratory event by indigenous peoples.

From http://www.dickshovel.com/colum.html

[Guest TrueMetis]

Those are lies just to deny the fact the 100 million aboriginals were killed.

There are too many sources for the 100 million, one of those is as following:

Unfortunately, what occurred was neither beautiful nor heroic. Just as Columbus could not, and did not, "discover" a hemisphere that was already inhabited by nearly 100 million people, his arrival cannot, and will not, be recognized as a heroic and celebratory event by indigenous peoples.

From http://www.dickshovel.com/colum.html

There's very few sources that say 100 million the majority conclude somewhere around 40 million, and what you linked isn't a source it's agenda filled crap.

[Moonlight Graham]

China do business in a much more fair style. Often let others take more interest. China did that for thousands years. It is a culture the west nations lack of.

China goes for oil over principle in the Sudan. I guess China likes to keep the oil flow going in the name of blood just as the west does.

[bjre]

China goes for oil over principle in the Sudan. I guess China likes to keep the oil flow going in the name of blood just as the west does.

How about oil in middle east where US invade lead to million people death?

Using the genocide charge to militarize Sudan’s oil region

Genocide was the preferred theme, and Washington was the orchestra conductor. Curiously, while all observers acknowledge that Darfur has seen a large human displacement and human misery and tens of thousands or even as much as 300,000 deaths in the last several years, only Washington and the NGO’s close to it use the charged term “genocide” to describe Darfur. If they are able to get a popular acceptance of the charge genocide, it opens the possibility for drastic “regime change” intervention by NATO and de facto by Washington into Sudan’s sovereign affairs.

The genocide theme is being used, with full-scale Hollywood backing from the likes of pop stars like George Clooney, to orchestrate the case for a de facto NATO occupation of the region. So far the Sudan government has vehemently refused, not surprisingly.

The US Government repeatedly uses “genocide” to refer to Darfur. It is the only government to do so. US Assistant Secretary of State Ellen Sauerbrey, head of the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, said during a USINFO online interview last November 17, "The ongoing genocide in Darfur, Sudan – a 'gross violation' of human rights – is among the top international issues of concern to the United States." The Bush administration keeps insisting that genocide has been going on in Darfur since 2003, despite the fact that a five-man panel UN mission led by Italian Judge Antonio Cassese reported in 2004 that genocide had not been committed in Darfur, rather that grave human rights abuses were committed. They called for war crime trials.

Merchants of death

The United States, acting through surrogate allies in Chad and neighboring states has trained and armed the Sudan Peoples’ Liberation Army, headed until his death in July 2005, by John Garang, trained at US Special Forces school at Fort Benning, Georgia.

By pouring arms into first southern Sudan in the eastern part and since discovery of oil in Darfur, to that region as well, Washington fuelled the conflict that led to tens of thousands dying and several million driven to flee their homes. Eritrea hosts and supports the SPLA, the umbrella NDA opposition group, and the Eastern Front and Darfur rebels.

There are two rebel groups fighting in Sudan's Darfur region against the Khartoum central government of President Omar al-Bashir – the Justice for Equality Movement (JEM) and the larger Sudan Liberation Army (SLA).

In February 2003 the SLA launched attacks on Sudan government positions in the Darfur region. SLA Secretary-General Minni Arkou Minnawi called for armed struggle, accusing the government of ignoring Darfur. "The objective of the SLA is to create a united democratic Sudan.” In other words, regime change in Sudan. The US Senate adopted a resolution in February 2006 that requested North Atlantic Treaty Organization troops in Darfur, as well as a stronger U.N. peacekeeping force with a robust mandate. A month later, President Bush also called for additional NATO forces in Darfur. Uh huh... Genocide? Or oil?

The Pentagon has been busy training African military officers in the US, much as it has for Latin American officers for decades. Its International Military Education and Training (IMET) program has provided training to military officers from Chad, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Cameroon and the Central African Republic, in effect every country on Sudan’s border. Much of the arms that have fuelled the killing in Darfur and the south have been brought in via murky, protected private “merchants of death” such as the notorious former KGB operative, now with offices in the US, Victor Bout. Bout has been cited repeatedly in recent years for selling weapons across Africa. US Government officials strangely leave his operations in Texas and Florida untouched despite the fact he is on the Interpol wanted list for money laundering.

US development aid for all Sub-Sahara Africa including Chad, has been cut sharply in recent years while its military aid has risen. Oil and the scramble for strategic raw materials is the clear reason. The region of southern Sudan from the Upper Nile to the borders of Chad is rich in oil. Washington knew that long before the Sudanese government.

Chevron’s 1974 oil project

US oil majors have known about Sudan’s oil wealth since the early 1970’s. In 1979, Jafaar Nimeiry, Sudan head of state, broke with the Soviets and invited Chevron to develop oil in the Sudan. That was perhaps a fatal mistake. UN Ambassador George H.W. Bush had personally told Nimeiry of satellite photos indicating oil in Sudan. Nimeiry took the bait. Wars over oil have been the consequence ever since.

Chevron found big oil reserves in southern Sudan. It spent $1.2 billion finding and testing them. That oil triggered what is called Sudan’s second civil war in 1983. Chevron was target of repeated attacks and killings and suspended the project in 1984. In 1992, it sold it's Sudanese oil concessions. Then China began to develop the abandoned Chevron fields in 1999 with notable results.

But Chevron is not far from Darfur today.

Chad oil and pipeline politics

Condi Rice’s Chevron is in neighboring Chad, together with the other US oil giant, ExxonMobil. They’ve just built a $3.7 billion oil pipeline carrying 160,000 barrels/day of oil from Doba in central Chad near Darfur Sudan, via Cameroon to Kribi on the Atlantic Ocean, destined for US refineries.

To do it, they worked with Chad “President for life,” Idriss Deby, a corrupt despot who has been accused of feeding US-supplied arms to the Darfur rebels. Deby joined Washington’s Pan Sahel Initiative run by the Pentagon’s US-European Command, to train his troops to fight “Islamic terrorism.” The majority of the tribes in Darfur region are Islamic.

Supplied with US military aid, training and weapons, in 2004 Deby launched the initial strike that set off the conflict in Darfur, using members of his elite Presidential Guard who originate from the province, providing the men with all terrain vehicles, arms and anti-aircraft guns to Darfur rebels fighting the Khartoum government in the southwest Sudan. The US military support to Deby in fact had been the trigger for the Darfur bloodbath. Khartoum reacted and the ensuing debacle was unleashed in full tragic force.

Washington-backed NGO’s and the US Government claim unproven genocide as a pretext to ultimately bring UN/NATO troops into the oilfields of Darfur and south Sudan. Oil, not human misery, is behind Washington’s new interest in Darfur.

The “Darfur genocide” campaign began in 2003, the same time the Chad-Cameroon pipeline oil began to flow. The US now had a base in Chad to go after Darfur oil and, potentially, co-opt China’s new oil sources. Darfur is strategic, straddling Chad, Central African Republic, Egypt and Libya.

US military objectives in Darfur – and the Horn of Africa more widely – are being served at present by the US and NATO backing of the African Union troops in Darfur. There NATO provides ground and air support for AU troops who are categorized as “neutral” and “peacekeepers.” Sudan is at war on three fronts, each country – Uganda, Chad, and Ethiopia – with a significant US military presence and ongoing US military programs. The war in Sudan involves both US covert operations and US trained “rebel” factions coming in from South Sudan, Chad, Ethiopia and Uganda.

From: Darfur? It’s the Oil, Stupid…

By F. William Engdahl, May 20, 2007

Edited November 27, 2010 by bjre

[Michael Hardner]

Just to point out - 36 years is a long time in recent history. By the 1990s, the Cold War had ended and the US pulled back from supporting every terrible anti-Communist regime. That's not to say that the US isn't culpable for their deeds of the past, but it isn't justification for any country's misbehavior in 2010.

[bjre]

Just to point out - 36 years is a long time in recent history. By the 1990s, the Cold War had ended and the US pulled back from supporting every terrible anti-Communist regime. That's not to say that the US isn't culpable for their deeds of the past, but it isn't justification for any country's misbehavior in 2010.

US and west nations misbehavior isn't end and won't end because of its greedy nature.

[Michael Hardner]

US and west nations misbehavior isn't end and won't end because of its greedy nature.

But they have adjusted their approach to their greediness. Even if this is happening because they're watched more closely, wouldn't you say it's a good thing ?

[eyeball]

But they have adjusted their approach to their greediness. Even if this is happening because they're watched more closely, wouldn't you say it's a good thing ?

I would tend to agree on the face of things with regards to how western governments now seem to advance the economic interests of their constituencies but I think it's fair to conclude corporations operating out of places like China might approach their greediness in an even more destructive manner. How many of these corporations have connections to western ownership and or administration is probably anyone's guess in the wake of globalization and de-regulation.

[bjre]

But they have adjusted their approach to their greediness. Even if this is happening because they're watched more closely, wouldn't you say it's a good thing ?

No. They just want to do robbery for their own interest. When they can not, they make disaster by make people poverty (sanctions) and make people kill each other. That is totally different with Chinese style, China do fair business only, with the region getting more and more wealth by doing business with China, all people in the region get benefit from that eventually. Just like inside China hundreds of millions of people get rid of poverty in the last 30 years by focus on economy only. That is the best human right improvement in the whole world. When Africa country deal with western countries, so many of them are still in poverty, although lots of them have already take the western advice for so long time and become "democracy". It is clearly most western nation's advice or suggestion are simply lies if not traps. Because fairness is never what west want, the greedy nature makes the west shameless for any of its ugly evilness. Did Canadian cops feel shameful for their killing of the Robert the polish guy? No, never will them, because that is not their culture.

[Michael Hardner]

I would tend to agree on the face of things with regards to how western governments now seem to advance the economic interests of their constituencies but I think it's fair to conclude corporations operating out of places like China might approach their greediness in an even more destructive manner. How many of these corporations have connections to western ownership and or administration is probably anyone's guess in the wake of globalization and de-regulation.

The figure I see quoted is one half. That is a significant number, as it means that they have the ability to influence the agenda, if not set it.

[Argus]

You have any sources to back that up? Everything I have heard is Africans love dealing with the Chinese cause they don't moralize. They just want to do business.

You mean the way Americans did in the fifties? Buy whoever you need to, and arrange for anyone in the way to die?

Yes, you can be sure the Chinese don't complain when the African dictators are abusing human rights. But you're failing to differentiate between the dictators in charge and the people at the bottom of the pyramid of power. so to speak.

[Jack Weber]

US and west nations misbehavior isn't end and won't end because of its greedy nature.

'Cause the coporate crypto-Fascist Chinese are'nt greedy...They're the paradigms of human altruism,right?

[bjre]

Just to point out - 36 years is a long time in recent history. By the 1990s, the Cold War had ended and the US pulled back from supporting every terrible anti-Communist regime. That's not to say that the US isn't culpable for their deeds of the past, but it isn't justification for any country's misbehavior in 2010.

Start from 2000, which wars lead to most people killed? Who launch it? Western nations did not know there will be people so many people killed before launched it? Where is the human right of the killed people? Do they have the human right to live in the world? Western nation's human right is nothing but LIE.

[bloodyminded]

Mugabe isn't blessed with such a large population to starve to death. He's been doing his best, mind you.

True, he's made some disciplined effort, expertly practicing Statesmanship as he understands the concept.

[Michael Hardner]

Start from 2000, which wars lead to most people killed? Who launch it? Western nations did not know there will be people so many people killed before launched it? Where is the human right of the killed people? Do they have the human right to live in the world? Western nation's human right is nothing but LIE.

The Taliban launched a pretty huge war around then. Who else ?

[bjre]

The Taliban launched a pretty huge war around then. Who else ?

Lie, US military involvement directly and indirectly killed most people in the world since 2000. Iraq has no Taliban.

[M.Dancer]

Lie, US military involvement directly and indirectly killed most people in the world since 2000. Iraq has no Taliban.

Lie, Communist China involvement kill 50,000 most people in Darfur since 2003. China has no MSG.

China win

[Michael Hardner]

Lie

What's the lie ? The attack happened, didn't it ?

[M.Dancer]

What's the lie ? The attack happened, didn't it ?

Lie, Sri Lanka attack Tamils. Tamils have no MSG. China Win.