Re: Its OK to sell arms if you're White
- From: PaPaPeng <PaPaPeng@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 09:56:51 GMT
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 00:21:08 -0700 (PDT), pg <penang@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
It's not a white thing or a yellow thing. It's who you are selling
your arm to.
What happened to the leg that is supposed to be sold with the arm?
Libya has no part in the Darfur killing. Sudan, on the other hand, has
murdered millions of innocent Christians in the Darfur area, and CCP
is helping them on that task !
Aw. Do read more outside the mainstream American media. They have
been so infiltrated with neocon owners and their tame writers that
even the Americans don;t read them anymore. Most are facing
bankruptcy from falling circulation. Read the story below on Dafur.
In the 70's, CCP helped the Khmer Rouge (Red Khmer) to massacre more
than 3 millions of Cambodian. The "Killing Fields" campaign was
actually part of the military aid of PLA to the Khmer Rouge.
China provided the exiled Prince Norodom Sihanook sanctuary and
continued to accord him all the privileges of his rank. It would
hardly be proper to recognize let alone support the Khmer Rouge at the
same time.
HM King-Father Norodom Sihanouk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sihanouk
Norodom Sihanouk's actual period of effective rule over Cambodia was
from November 9, 1953 (full independence granted to Cambodia) to March
18, 1970 (Lon Nol and the National Assembly depose Sihanouk).
I have friends and relatives from Cambodia, and they all have said
that in every so-called commune, the top leaders are assigned
"advisers" from PLA. Those "advisers" were the one teaching the Khmer
Rouge team leaders the tactic of terror, compartmentalization, psy-
ops, and techniques of efficient killing.
I knew a high ranking university-development miniatry contact there
too before the KR took over. He applied for and was given quick
admission to Canada and I last heard he was in Montreal. His parents
refused to leave saying they were already too old. His parents
disappeared.
Now CCP is helping that black monkey Mugabe in oppressing the people
of Zimbabwe.
The people there are starving. The only way to mitigate this disaster
is to work through the existing government machinery. The Zimbabwian
people know this and have not accused China of anything. If and when
Mugabe falls the Chinese will work through the new government. The
people and the opposition know that too, that China will not interfere
in their internal politics. Existing contracts continue to be honored
whoever becomes the next president. The basics of life, the supplies
must continue to be available regardless of whether you like the men
who hold the political power.
CCP is formed by a bunch of MURDERERS. CCP exports terrorism. CCP is a
terrorist organization !!
The CCP has more than 70 percent approval in polls from many sources.
If you disagree do your own search to provide poll data to rebut me.
I am calling you a liar in case you misunderswtand the intent. It is
up to you to provide data to prove me wrong.
You can't even solve the racial tensions and political divide in your
Malaysia "Penang" and you take upon yourself to solve the even more
intractable problems of a country and a people you know nothing about.
That's ambition.
====================================
Darfur? It's the Oil, Stupid…
China and USA in New Cold War over Africa's oil riches
By F William Engdahl, May 20, 2007
http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Geopolitics___Eurasia/Oil_in_Africa/oil_in_africa.html
To paraphrase the famous quip during the 1992 US Presidential debates,
when an unknown William Jefferson Clinton told then-President George
Herbert Walker Bush, “It’s the economy, stupid ,” the present concern
of the current Washington Administration over Darfur in southern Sudan
is not, if we were to look closely, genuine concern over genocide
against the peoples in that poorest of poor part of a forsaken section
of Africa.
No. “It’s the oil, stupid.”
Hereby hangs a tale of cynical dimension appropriate to a Washington
Administration that has shown no regard for its own genocide in Iraq,
when its control over major oil reserves is involved. What’s at stake
in the battle for Darfur? Control over oil, lots and lots of oil.
The case of Darfur, a forbidding piece of sun-parched real estate in
the southern part of Sudan, illustrates the new Cold War over oil,
where the dramatic rise in China’s oil demand to fuel its booming
growth has led Beijing to embark on an aggressive policy of –
ironically – dollar diplomacy. With its more than $1.3 trillion in
mainly US dollar reserves at the People`s Bank of China, Beijing is
engaging in active petroleum geopolitics. Africa is a major focus, and
in Africa, the central region between Sudan and Chad is priority. This
is defining a major new front in what, since the US invasion of Iraq
in 2003, is a new Cold War between Washington and Beijing over control
of major oil sources. So far Beijing has played its cards a bit more
cleverly than Washington. Darfur is a major battleground in this
high-stakes contest for oil control.
China Oil diplomacy
In recent months, Beijing has embarked on a series of initiatives
designed to secure long-term raw materials sources from one of the
planet’s most endowed regions – the African subcontinent. No raw
material has higher priority in Beijing at present than the securing
of long term oil sources.
Today China draws an estimated 30% of its crude oil from Africa. That
explains an extraordinary series of diplomatic initiatives which have
left Washington furious. China is using no-strings-attached dollar
credits to gain access to Africa’s vast raw material wealth, leaving
Washington’s typical control game via the World Bank and IMF out in
the cold. Who needs the painful medicine of the IMF when China gives
easy terms and builds roads and schools to boot?
In November last year Beijing hosted an extraordinary summit of 40
African heads of state. They literally rolled out the red carpet for
the heads of among others Algeria, Nigeria, Mali, Angola, Central
African Republic, Zambia, South Africa.
China has just done an oil deal, linking the Peoples Republic of China
with the continent's two largest nations - Nigeria and South Africa.
China's CNOC will lift the oil in Nigeria, via a consortium that also
includes South African Petroleum Co. giving China access to what could
be 175,000 barrels a day by 2008. It’s a $2.27 billion deal that gives
state-controlled CNOC a 45% stake in a large off-shore Nigeria oil
field. Previously, Nigeria had been considered in Washington to be an
asset of the Anglo-American oil majors, ExxonMobil, Shell and Chevron.
China has been generous in dispensing its soft loans, with no interest
or outright grants to some of the poorest debtor states of Africa. The
loans have gone to infrastructure including highways, hospitals, and
schools, a stark contrast to the brutal austerity demands of the IMF
and World Bank. In 2006 China committed more than $8 billion to
Nigeria, Angola and Mozambique, versus $2.3 billion to all sub-Saharan
Africa from the World Bank. Ghana is negotiating a $1.2 billion
Chinese electrification loan. Unlike the World Bank, a de facto arm of
US foreign economic policy, China shrewdly attaches no strings to its
loans.
This oil-related Chinese diplomacy has led to the bizarre accusation
from Washington that Beijing is trying to “secure oil at the sources,”
something Washington foreign policy has itself been preoccupied with
for at least a Century.
No source of oil has been more the focus of China-US oil conflict of
late than Sudan, home of Darfur.
Sudan oil riches
Beijing’s China National Petroleum Company, CNPC, is Sudan’s largest
foreign investor, with some $5 billion in oil field development. Since
1999 China has invested at least $15 billion in Sudan. It owns 50% of
an oil refinery near Khartoum with the Sudan government. The oil
fields (see graphic) are concentrated in the south, site of a
long-simmering civil war, partly financed covertly by the United
States, to break the south from the Islamic Khartoum-centered north.
CNPC built an oil pipeline from its concession blocs 1, 2 and 4 in
southern Sudan, to a new terminal at Port Sudan on the Red Sea where
oil is loaded on tankers for China. Eight percent of China’s oil now
comes from southern Sudan. China takes up to 65% to 80% of Sudan’s
500,000 barrels/day of oil production. Sudan last year was China’s
fourth largest foreign oil source. In 2006 China passed Japan to
become the world’s second largest importer of oil after the United
States, importing 6.5 million barrels a day of the black gold. With
its oil demand growing by an estimated 30% a year, China will pass the
US in oil import demand in a few years. That reality is the motor
driving Beijing foreign policy in Africa.
A look at the southern Sudan oil concessions shows that China’s CNPC
holds rights to bloc 6 which straddles Darfur, near the border to Chad
and the Central African Republic. In April 2005 Sudan’s government
announced it had found oil in South Darfur whoich is estimated to be
able when developed to pump 500,000 barrels/day. The world press
forgot to report that vital fact in discussing the Darfur conflict.
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.
Chad’s Deby looks to China too
The completion of the US and World Bank-financed oil pipeline from
Chad to the Cameroon coast was designed as one part of a far grander
Washington scheme to control the oil riches of central Africa from
Sudan to the entire Gulf of Guinea.
But Washington’s erstwhile pal, Chad’s President for Life, Idriss
Deby, began to get unhappy with his small share of the US-controlled
oil profits. When he and the Chad Parliament decided in early 2006 to
take more of the oil revenues to finance military operations and beef
up its army, new World Bank President, Iraq war architect, Paul
Wolfowitz, moved to suspend loans to the country. Then that August,
after Deby had won re-election, he created Chad’s own oil company,
SHT, and threatened to expel Chevron and Malaysia’s Petronas for not
paying taxes owed, and demanding a 60% share of the Chad oil prieline.
In the end he came to terms with the oil companies, but winds of
change were blowing.
Deby also faces growing internal opposition from a Chad rebel group,
United Front for Change, known under its French name as FUC, which he
claims is being covertly funded by Sudan. This region is a very
complex part of the world of war. The FUC has based itself in Darfur.
Into this unstable situation, Beijing has shown up in Chad with a full
coffer of aid money in hand. In late January, Chinese President Hu
Jintao made a state visit to Sudan and to Cameroon among other African
states. In 2006 China’s leaders visited no less than 48 African
states. In August 2006 Beijing hosted Chad’s Foreign Minister for
talks and resumption of formal diplomatic ties cut in 1997. China has
begun to import oil from Chad as well as Sudan. Not that much oil, but
if Beijing has its way, that will soon change.
This April, Chad’s Foreign Minister announced that talks with China
over greater China participation in Chad’s oil development were
“progressing well.” He referred to the terms the Chinese seek for oil
development, calling them, “much more equal partnerships than those we
are used to having.”
The Chinese economic presence in Chad, ironically, may be more
effective in calming the fighting and displacement in Darfur than any
African Union or UN troop presence ever could. That would not be
welcome for some people in Washington and at Chevron headquarters, as
they would not find the oil falling into their greasy bloody hands.
Chad and Darfur are but part of the vast China effort to secure “oil
at the source” across Africa. Oil is also the prime factor in US
Africa policy today. George W. Bush’s interest in Africa includes a
new US base in Sao Tome/Principe 124 miles off the Gulf of Guinea from
which it can control Gulf of Guinea oilfields from Angola in the south
to Congo, Gabon, Equitorial Guinea, Cameroon and Nigeria. That just
happens to be the very same areas where recent Chinese diplomatic and
investment activity has focussed.
“West Africa’s oil has become of national strategic interest to us,”
stated US Assistant Secretary of State for Africa, Walter Kansteiner
already back in 2002. Darfur and Chad are but an extension of the US
Iraq policy “with other means” – control of oil everywhere. China is
challenging that control “everywhere,” especially in Africa. It
amounts to a new undeclared Cold War over oil.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- It is not OK to sell guns to dictators.
- From: Jim Walsh
- Re: Its OK to sell arms if you're White
- From: Jim Walsh
- It is not OK to sell guns to dictators.
- References:
- Its OK to sell arms if you're White
- From: PaPaPeng
- Re: Its OK to sell arms if you're White
- From: pg
- Its OK to sell arms if you're White
- Prev by Date: CCP to change name to Chinese Nazi Party
- Next by Date: Re: Its OK to sell arms if you're White
- Previous by thread: Re: Its OK to sell arms if you're White
- Next by thread: Re: Its OK to sell arms if you're White
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
