Could history be repeating itself??

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Vintage @ Aug 5 2008, 11:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>People generally don't like to see thousands upon thousands of people being slaughtered with machetes.

They tend to view that as crimes against humanity.

So when a country (say, China) does business with them.... there is going to be negative criticism of China. Its EXPECTED. Don't like being criticised for policy actions, China? Well, then don't become a superpower. Because you will get criticised left and right....</div>

So you would rather see thousands of people being mow down by machine guns instead?

I am not necessarily agreeing with what China is doing there or not doing there. It's difficult to say. There is certainly a lot of accusation because it has business interests in that country. However don't for one second think that the moment China move out and the country has been installed with an American friendly government, American oil companies such as Chevron won't move in to tap into its oil reserves and start shifting those supplies back to the US. This is what the whole conflict is all about. ie American's desire to see off a competitor so it can secure vital resources for itself. Meanwhile unfortunately the people caught in the middle of this tug of war is the Sudanese. Let me ask you a question do you think the US government and the rest of the western international community would take as much interest in Darfur if it didn't have oil reserves?

Anyway, here is some more reading if you're interested.

http://www.sudantribune.com/IMG/pdf/Oil_in...ry_in_Sudan.pdf

BTW I don't expect you guys to agree with me. I just hope that through discussion you guys can see how complex the situation is and depending where you sit and who you talk to the role of the good and bad guys are interchangeable. It's not clear cut like the mainstream media would have you believe. It's a complex situation and it would serve people to know more than just the bias view that you have been constantly bombarded with in the mainstream media.

Everyone deserves better human rights and freedom of speech BUT only for the RIGHT PURPOSE. Securing oil supply is NOT one of them.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Aug 5 2008, 11:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>What do you mean "not inline with the US policies"?

Etan was on ESPN. I know that for sure. There have been scattered articles in newspapers and online about it. It's not like they're hard to find, and it's not my fault you haven't seen him. Also, he is against China. He's also behind Ira's cause, and therefore against China.</div>

I meant that Luol Deng may not want to be used as a political pawn by the US government in its battle to win control of the oilfields in Sudan.

So Etan Thomas an America is backing Ira Newble a fellow American against another country's foreign policy, that gives it legitimacy right? That's how it works, I see.

I'll say it again countries with soldiers on foreign soil and engaging in a battle based on a lie, going to another country and telling them about human rights is like a rapist coming into your home and lecturing you on how its wrong to sexually assault anyone.

I don't anticipate anything happening, but I think this could be the most volatile atmosphere since '72, and that includes Atlanta where the bombings occurred.

I think that giving China the Olympic games was a horrible idea. I'd rather hold them in Antarctica, Chicago, Iceland, Jersey City or any other place.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Claud @ Aug 5 2008, 02:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>In the next 5-10 years China will replace the United States as the most powerful nation in the world. FACT.</div>

[Vizzini has just cut the rope The Dread Pirate Roberts is climbing up]
Vizzini: HE DIDN'T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE.
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

^

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tang Man @ Aug 5 2008, 07:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Aug 5 2008, 11:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>What do you mean "not inline with the US policies"?

Etan was on ESPN. I know that for sure. There have been scattered articles in newspapers and online about it. It's not like they're hard to find, and it's not my fault you haven't seen him. Also, he is against China. He's also behind Ira's cause, and therefore against China.</div>

I meant that Luol Deng may not want to be used as a political pawn by the US government in its battle to win control of the oilfields in Sudan.

So Etan Thomas an America is backing Ira Newble a fellow American against another country's foreign policy, that gives it legitimacy right? That's how it works, I see.

I'll say it again countries with soldiers on foreign soil and engaging in a battle based on a lie, going to another country and telling them about human rights is like a rapist coming into your home and lecturing you on how its wrong to sexually assault anyone.
</div>

Your way of thinking sounds foolish, not gonna lie.

To anyone who wants to understand US inaction regarding Sudan, you need to look farther than China. There's another major player involved that the US has been taking into account, and that's the OIC which controls the dominant bloc in the UN General Assembly, and is comprised of some powerful players in Mid-East/African politics. Look into the OIC (and it's core component the Arab League) statements regarding the ICC and Bashir and it'll give a clue.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Aug 5 2008, 08:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Your way of thinking sounds foolish, not gonna lie.</div>

Whatever just as along you are now aware that the issue is not black and white rather its a complicated matter. There are other forces at work that most Americans choose to convienently ignore while pointing the finger at other people. In short don't just blindly hate. It won't solve anything. So if you have at least taken that onboard then these discussions have been worthwhile.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tang Man @ Aug 5 2008, 09:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Aug 5 2008, 08:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Your way of thinking sounds foolish, not gonna lie.</div>

Whatever just as along you are now aware that the issue is not black and white rather its a complicated matter. There are other forces at work that most Americans choose to convienently ignore while pointing the finger at other people. In short don't just blindly hate. It won't solve anything. So if you have at least taken that onboard then these discussions have been worthwhile.
</div>

It's more about the way you put words in my mouth that's foolish.

Doesn't make a discussion all that worthwhile when you're doing that.

Wait, how come this is in the Nets Forum, and not in the Politics and Religion Forum, anyway?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Aug 5 2008, 08:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>To anyone who wants to understand US inaction regarding Sudan, you need to look farther than China. There's another major player involved that the US has been taking into account, and that's the OIC which controls the dominant bloc in the UN General Assembly, and is comprised of some powerful players in Mid-East/African politics. Look into the OIC (and it's core component the Arab League) statements regarding the ICC and Bashir and it'll give a clue.</div>

Only problem is that the US are involved just not directly. Like you have alluded to, the US are trying to avoid another military showdown with a Muslim/Arab country. This will only intensive the hate and mis-trust of the US amongst Muslim/Arab nations, who already see the US as being anti-Muslim. So any military intervention would be a PR disaster for the US. However it's using other cleverer means such as human 'rights' and 'genocide' in hope that would come into the international spotlight and be sufficient to force a regime change. While at the same time the US is seeking to strengthen it's allies in Ethiopia, Uganda by provided financial aids etc. So the US are very much involved in the political game in Sudan.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Aug 5 2008, 09:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Wait, how come this is in the Nets Forum, and not in the Politics and Religion Forum, anyway?</div>

It started off as a breath of fresh air that no Nets were in danger, before someone changed the thread title to make it less offensive (I presume).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tang Man @ Aug 5 2008, 09:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Aug 5 2008, 08:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>To anyone who wants to understand US inaction regarding Sudan, you need to look farther than China. There's another major player involved that the US has been taking into account, and that's the OIC which controls the dominant bloc in the UN General Assembly, and is comprised of some powerful players in Mid-East/African politics. Look into the OIC (and it's core component the Arab League) statements regarding the ICC and Bashir and it'll give a clue.</div>

Only problem is that the US are involved just not directly. Like you have alluded to, the US are trying to avoid another military showdown with a Muslim/Arab country. This will only intensive the hate and mis-trust of the US amongst Muslim/Arab nations, who already see the US as being anti-Muslim. So any military intervention would be a PR disaster for the US. However it's using other cleverer means such as human 'rights' and 'genocide' in hope that would come into the international spotlight and be sufficient to force a regime change. While at the same time the US is seeking to strengthen it's allies in Ethiopia, Uganda by provided financial aids etc. So the US are very much involved in the political game in Sudan.
</div>

While true to an extent, the US isn't trying to avoid another military showdown, but a political showdown with the OIC. Obviously, if Sudan were more of a strategic asset, the balance would be different, and the US would have acted by this point. But it's not fear of a military battle that's at issue. Moreover, it's not an issue of being perceived 'anti-Muslim' that affects policy so much as the very real political reprisals that Washington knows will ensue as the result of American action.

Considering all of that, the US is indeed using a classic democratic strategy, by attempting to escalate the public element of the horrific situation so that the balance of interests shifts once more. Whether that's really possible here considering the players is somewhat doubtful, though possible. Unfortunately, the US simply isn't as involved politically as it could be in the Sudan. Then again, if you consider that the US' rhetoric regarding the Sudan is far ahead of its pre-Pearl Harbor foreign policies regarding Nazi Germany, perhaps there has been some progress.

As far as a US-led action that would really accomplish something, it could well entail a radical restructuring of the OIC/African Union alliances, as well as the G-77 bloc itself. I'm not that optimistic about the chances of that occurring anytime soon, however.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga @ Aug 5 2008, 10:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Aug 5 2008, 09:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Wait, how come this is in the Nets Forum, and not in the Politics and Religion Forum, anyway?</div>

It started off as a breath of fresh air that no Nets were in danger, before someone changed the thread title to make it less offensive (I presume).
</div>

Ah, ok. Breath of fresh air? Not in China! (couldn't resist the awful smog joke)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Aug 5 2008, 08:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's more about the way you put words in my mouth that's foolish.

Doesn't make a discussion all that worthwhile when you're doing that.</div>

What words did I put in your mouth? At the end of the day what you decide to take on board is up to you. If I hadn't posted on this thread it would be a one way China and Olympic bashing thread. My hope is that at least people who have part taken in this discussion is a little more wiser on these types of issues and not to jump to conclusion just because they heard something on CNN or what some celebrity said. The information is out there look it up and try to understand things from both sides. The huge volume of negative reporting out there on China in the mainstream media is doing nothing but incite hate. Little progress will be achieve that way IMO.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Aug 5 2008, 08:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Wait, how come this is in the Nets Forum, and not in the Politics and Religion Forum, anyway?</div>


Because we are the walmart of the internet

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tang Man @ Aug 5 2008, 11:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Educating people about what bro? That the US need more secure oil supply to keep it's economic ticking and will do anything to ensure it gets its hand on these supplies?</div>
Yeah that's why gas cost $4+ per gallon and we have one of the worst economies in decades. That war cost this country an obscene amount of money. The US is not getting rich off it.

That's not to say that some corporations aren't getting rich off it, but the vast majority of Americans are the ones paying the bill and the resulting economic meltdown. No one here is seeing the benefit of any oil.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Claud @ Aug 6 2008, 08:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Aug 5 2008, 08:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Wait, how come this is in the Nets Forum, and not in the Politics and Religion Forum, anyway?</div>


Because we are the walmart of the internet
</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted @ Aug 6 2008, 08:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Yeah that's why gas cost $4+ per gallon and we have one of the worst economies in decades. That war cost this country an obscene amount of money. The US is not getting rich off it.

That's not to say that some corporations aren't getting rich off it, but the vast majority of Americans are the ones paying the bill and the resulting economic meltdown. No one here is seeing the benefit of any oil.</div>

Oil prices is a global problem and not just confine to the US. It's a thing call supply and demand. The war on Iraq had not bought as much benefit as the Americans had hope for because up until recently Iraq was actually producing less oil than it's pre-war days due to the lack of secruity in the country. So you could say the move backfire and considering the secruity situation there, the war a total failure.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tang Man @ Aug 6 2008, 08:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted @ Aug 6 2008, 08:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Yeah that's why gas cost $4+ per gallon and we have one of the worst economies in decades. That war cost this country an obscene amount of money. The US is not getting rich off it.

That's not to say that some corporations aren't getting rich off it, but the vast majority of Americans are the ones paying the bill and the resulting economic meltdown. No one here is seeing the benefit of any oil.</div>

Oil prices is a global problem and not just confine to the US. It's a thing call supply and demand. The war on Iraq had not bought as much benefit as the <u>Americans</u> had hope for because up until recently Iraq was actually producing less oil than it's pre-war days due to the lack of secruity in the country. So you could say the move backfire and considering the secruity situation there, the war a total failure.
</div>
I'm not going to get into all the reasons that impact the price of oil including it being traded in declining US dollars, but I wish you would stop acting like all Americans were in on this grand conspiracy to steal Iraq's oil. The decision to invade was made by a select few that manipulated the post 9/11 circumstances to gain support.

You keep generalizing all Americans based on what a few media outlets or a few government leaders do. Americans are not one big collective that all feel responsibility for what every idiot does. That's the difference between democracy and communism... freedom to disagree with authority and the media. Occasionally some people try to manipulate the support of the people by wrapping their views in the term "unpatriotic" when they are opposed, but that's just their way of making their views appear like the only correct choice. Just because they posture it that way it doesn't mean we all believe it.