[statecom] Our position on Sudan (re: jturner)

[Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com]

Jeff - again not sure why you won't reply to David's reasoned approach but 
your last paragraph seems to agree with him:
"No doubt. The neocons had grandiose delusions. They didn't always
get their way, and there's no reason to conflate their fantasies with
American foreign policy nor to adopt them as our own."

In other words, this implies, since they were after Sudan, we should not make 
that our foreign policy- meaning that the Green-Rainbow party is right to 
oppose US foreign policy objectives of setting up Sudan for attack?

I think we need to remember there is oil, there is money, there is world 
power, there is also a twisted pseudo-religious ethic of attacking in the middle 
east in the tradition of the cruisades - Grace
In a message dated 4/8/07 2:55:48 PM, jturner at alum.rpi.edu writes:


> >The anti-Sudan propaganda campaign at this point is largely also
> >focused against China and Chinese oil companies. The proposed
> >divestment from Sudan is mainly divestment from Chinese oil
> >companies. Many of the anti-Sudan speakers at the state house
> >hearing were accusing the Sudanese government of using Chinese oil
> >money to fund the alleged "genocide". Zionist anti-Sudan groups
> >organized a protest outside the Chinese Mission to the UN in New York
> >last month. Anti-Sudan activists are even now calling for a boycott
> >of the 2008 Olympics in China. It seems clear that an aim of the
> >campaign is to deny oil to China.
> 
> That would explain it. Except for Russia/Central Asia and the Midddle
> East - not to mention Venezuela - I'm sure keeping Sudanese oil out
> of China's hands is a major priority for the Zionist-American empire.
> 
> >Sudan is now producing 500,000 barrels of oil per day. That isn't
> >that high. But serious production and export has only been going on
> >since around 2000. Production and exploration could be expanded. We
> >don't know how much oil there will end up being in Sudan. Oil is not
> >an insignificant factor. George W Bush on October 13 2006 signed an
> >executive order against Sudan in which he said that the "pervasive
> >role played by the Government of Sudan in the petroleum and
> >petrochemical industries of Sudan" is a "threat to the national
> >security and foreign policy of the United States." http://
> >www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061013-14.html
> 
> He needed some serious-sounding excuse.
> 
> > There are also other reasons besides oil for US imperialist
> >interest in Sudan. There are other resources like uranium and other
> >minerals; gum arabic and other agricultural resources; a large
> >strategic location bordering the Red Sea and Egypt. Then besides
> >the reasons for the anti-Sudan campaign that are about Sudan, there
> >are also domestic American reasons for the anti-Sudan propaganda
> >campaign here, that it diverts attention away from Palestine and Iraq.
> 
> 
> Of course, most nations have mineral resources. You need a better
> explanation for singling out Sudan.
> 
> But oil does play a big role in Darfur. There's oil under that land and
> the
> gov't of Sudan is arming the Janjawid in order to get rid of the people
> of
> the region and give the gov't a clear shot at exploiting that oil.
> 
> >Sudan has been named by people in the Bush administration as a target
> >for invasion. Wesley Clark in an interview on Democracy Now last
> >month said that in 2001 a general in the Pentagon Joint Staff told
> >him about a memo from Rumsfeld detailing a plan to "take out" seven
> >countries in five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan,
> >Iran.
> 
> They had all sorts of bizarre "plans" in 2001. You remember, killing all
> the "evildoers" all over the world. The five years are up, by the way.
> 
> > The Project for the New American Century (a neo-conservative
> >think tank with close ties to the Bush administration and that
> >advocated for the invasion of Iraq) published a paper on Sudan in
> >September 2004 predicting that whoever wins the US presidential
> >election - Bush or Kerry - would eventually send US troops and a
> >"coalition of the willing" into Sudan. http://
> >www.newamericancentury.org/darfur-20040922.htm
> 
> No doubt. The neocons had grandiose delusions. They didn't always
> get their way, and there's no reason to conflate their fantasies with
> American foreign policy nor to adopt them as our own.
> 
> --Jeff
> _______________________________________________
> StateCom mailing list
> StateCom at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom
> 
> 




**************************************
 See what's free at http://www.aol.com.