The world we live in

[Informant]

Where to start...
I got a call from an old friend of mine...works in the Pentagon.We started talking about the world and whats happening. We specifically started talking about Darfur, I asked(Ignorantly)..."Why can't we just help these guys out? Its like Rwanda". After a brief bit of silence, he says "Its nothing like Rwanda-its worse". It turns out that back in the 90's we had the capability to help we just didn't want to get involved.The problem now is...........

China

Yes sir, China, It turns out that the Chinese offered Sudan a deal to pull the oil out of the ground at no risk to them. You see Sudan would be getting money, China, would be getting its oil and, the innocent people would be getting killed in the countries own civil war/genocide/whatever you want to call it.
Now the reason why we cant go in there isn't because we would be spread to thin, its because we don't want to start a war, or worse ruin our economic ties with the country. There are over 50,000 Chinese troops in the country and if you ask China what kind of soldiers are there, they will say its their engineering core, but really who needs 50,000 Engineers in a country thats in the middle of a war?

The other day a group of rebels beheaded four oil workers to protest the foreign presence, How did China cope? How did they replace those lost workers? By sending in over 100 more workers the next day, sending two messages, 1) They won't be stopped, and 2) They have something that the rest of the world doesn't, an unlimited workforce.

Its bad out there...

[Nonstop2AUH]

Very good points made here. Shows how Darfur, like everything else today, is connected to global economics. We 'need' inexpensive Chinese products, China needs low cost, steady oil supply to run the economy that produces these products, and Sudan provides the oil to the Chinese. In MBA-speak, this would be a win-win-win of globalization. Except for the atrocious human rights situation in Sudan and for that matter, the not so great one in China either. Of course, if the Chinese were compelled to buy their oil elsewhere, like on more mainstream world markets, it would drive up the prices on those markets and therefore probably the cost of those Chinese goods. So yes, the world we live in, and with no easy answers either.

[Informant]

And you shouldn't believe this new 9/11 tape from Osama either...we lost contact with him soon after his family left.The truth is no-one knows where he is.

[emshighway]

we lost contact with him soon after his family left.

Yes, the only plane allowed in the air immediately after 9-11.

[PhilDernerJr]

Why shouldn't we believe it? Is that sarcastic? I can't tell if you're serious.

[T-Bird76]

There's a very good reason we're not involved in Darfur and it has to do with our policy of involvement in other nations. Darfur does not present a threat to our national interests and based off that policy we have no leagal right to put troops on the ground there. We've followed that policy for over 230 years and I believe we should still follow it. I'm not saying what is happening in Darfur is acceptable, it’s not by any stretch but they don't present a risk to our nation's safety.

We have something called the U.N, and if the U.N did what they're mission states, a collective group of nations would be helping Darfur. The U.S has no interest in Darfur and therefore we should not have to solve the problem on our own.

Ok now I'm ready to hear all the BS examples you'll try to counter the "National Interest" example I've given. Oh and don't use Iraq because you'll just look stupid.

[adam613]

We do have an extremely powerful national interest in helping in Darfur. It's called the moral high ground. And we need it more now than we have ever needed it in our history, mostly due to our actions in Iraq.

The neo-conservative tendency to ignore the UN when it tries to stop their crusade and then blame the UN for not doing anything never ceases to amaze me...I'll agree that the UN is pretty useless, but you can't have it both ways...

[T-Bird76]

We do have an extremely powerful national interest in helping in Darfur. It's called the moral high ground. And we need it more now than we have ever needed it in our history, mostly due to our actions in Iraq.

The neo-conservative tendency to ignore the UN when it tries to stop their crusade and then blame the UN for not doing anything never ceases to amaze me...I'll agree that the UN is pretty useless, but you can't have it both ways...

Then we should invade China, Iran, Cuba, and most other African nations that have horrible human rights. You're example is poor, baseless, and without any good merit. Our actions in Iraq...? Please explain? Are you saying our troops lack morals and ethics? I really hope you're not saying that because as I said you'll just look stupid. This has nothing to do with a NeoCon's view at all. Our founding fathers were not Neocon's but outlined that our country would not involve itself in the business of other nations unless our own national interests were at stack.

[adam613]

Then we should invade China, Iran, Cuba, and most other African nations that have horrible human rights. You're example is poor, baseless, and without any good merit. Our actions in Iraq...? Please explain? Are you saying our troops lack morals and ethics? I really hope you're not saying that because as I said you'll just look stupid. This has nothing to do with a NeoCon's view at all. Our founding fathers were not Neocon's but outlined that our country would not involve itself in the business of other nations unless our own national interests were at stack.

What's happening in Darfur goes far beyond "horrible human rights". They were literally begging for outside intervention, and since nobody intervened, there was a genocide on a scale not seen since World War 2.

Your argument that we don't intervene in the affairs of other nations has very little basis in fact or history, given our involvement in Vietnam, and the first Iraq war. Neither of those had anything to do with us before we got involved. This isn't a comment on what we should have done, but there isn't any question that we did it.

Also, while it is debatable what the Founding Fathers intended with regard to our foreign policy, even if they thought as you state, it's irrelevant. They were building a developing government for a small country with no power outside its own borders, and even they didn't expect it to last 100 years. It wasn't until almost 200 years later that intervening in the affairs of other countries was even a possibility. And after the Cold War, we became the world's only superpower and lost the option of NOT intervening in certain situations. Like Darfur.

Third, you will never hear me criticize our troops as a whole. Under any circumstances. Every current or former member of the military I've ever had the pleasure to meet has been an extremely upstanding citizen. However, there are a few bad apples (just as there are a few bad computer programmers, a few bad lawyers, a few bad photographers, a few bad construction workers, etc). And due to the actions of our elected officials, the actions of those few bad apples now reflect on our country as a whole (see Abu Gharib and Guantanamo).

Finally, my comment on neoconservatives was limited to reaction towards the UN. But while we're on the subject, Irving Kristol was a huge supporter of the idea of exporting democracy by force, which by definition requires intervening in things that are none of our business.

[PhilDernerJr]

I read a lot of American History, and when it comes to our Founding Fathers' intentions on what our foreign policy should be, I think that what they hoped did not keep in mind their fathoming us "shrinking the world" as we have in regards to how fast people, cargo and information can travel. It is impossible for a successful nation to not have some tie to a country, no matter how small, far, or antedilluvian they might be.

Adam is right in two respects I think. One, that the situation in Darfur is differeny from many other "atrocities" in other countries....as it is very blatant genocide. The other point being that the US could certainly use some positive PR. Whether Iraq was justified or not, we have few fans around the world.

But this is certainly a catch 22 for us. If we stand back like we are, we are heartless and uncaring of a place with supposedly few "interests" of ours. On the other hand, if we flex ANY muscle, we're expanding our "empire" no matter how vicious the enemy might be.

The thing is that "those who oppose" have a tendency to not only make sure that the underdogs of conflicts are heard, but many even will SIDE with them, regardless if logic in doing so is backwards.

As for Vietnam, that does not compare, because we sent troops there because of the Truman Doctrine....where we were to help any country trying to fend off the threat of Communism.

When it comes to Darfur, politically, financially, socialing, logistically, the US is just unable to send troops to Darfur or activate any plan to save them.

I'm not exactly sure where is came from that the Founding Fathers only expected the country to last a century. Quite the contrary. I think they intended and could clearly see our potential to become a superpower just as fast as we did.

[T-Bird76]

Your argument that we don't intervene in the affairs of other nations has very little basis in fact or history, given our involvement in Vietnam, and the first Iraq war. Neither of those had anything to do with us before we got involved. This isn't a comment on what we should have done, but there isn't any question that we did it.

Given our involvement in Vietnam? The involvement in Vietnam was based on our policy to contain the spread of Communism which was threat to our national interest. Our involvement in Iraq the first time was a response to them invading Kuwait, which was a friend to the U.S. Iraq controlling most of the oil coming out of the MidEast was a huge threat to the economic interests of the U.S.

Third, you will never hear me criticize our troops as a whole. Under any circumstances. Every current or former member of the military I've ever had the pleasure to meet has been an extremely upstanding citizen. However, there are a few bad apples (just as there are a few bad computer programmers, a few bad lawyers, a few bad photographers, a few bad construction workers, etc). And due to the actions of our elected officials, the actions of those few bad apples now reflect on our country as a whole (see Abu Gharib and Guantanamo).

In no way shape or form do the actions of a few "bad apples" reflect on our country as a whole. That is a narrow minded ignorant statement. Simply because you believe what the media states on TV of what the rest of the world thinks of us doesn't mean its fact. The fact is the U.S is the most giving nation from a Gov't standpoint and the private citizens of this country give more then any other nation on earth. You're first statement never said anything about "bad apples" it was a general and sweeping statement reflecting you're view of actions of all our troops, please don't try to change you're stance at this point.

As for "PR" that's the last reason we should set on troop on the ground in Darfur. Our Gov't has given tens of millions to the refugee's of Darfur, why do we need troops on the ground? Answer this simple question...What threat does Darfur have on our National Interest? Adam have you heard of the African Union? Perhaps they should step up and do something about it; it is their continent now isn't it.

[bonanzabucks]

My friend's mother is judge for the UN and works in Tanzania. I learned a lot through him about what goes on in Africa. Everyone, including those who work at the UN, know that China is responsible for what goes on in Darfur, directly or indirectly. The genocide there, which is among the world's worst, is solely about oil. Basically, the Sudanese Government is wiping out the population there because they happen to be on rich oil reserves. Sudan doesn't have the means extract the oil from there, so they rely on China for the weapons, machinery, knowledge and money to get the oil my any means necessary. The UN doesn't act because China is a member of the Security Council and would block every Darfur-related motion, which they have been doing. Also, China is treated kind of like a vase and gets away with a lot of things for economic reasons mostly.

Why this hasn't gotten more press is beyond me. It is getting some, but not as much as it should. If Beijing wasn't getting the Olympics next year, you wouldn't hear a word of their involvement there.

As for our economic ties with China, it's common knowledge in the business world that the vast majority of foreign companies lose a fortune in their foreign investments for a plethora of reasons. Mostly because they're screwed over and because the consumer market isn't as good as it's perceived to be. The only corporations that make money there are the fast food joints like McDonalds, Coke and KFC. Cisco did well, but only because they helped the PRC build their internet firewall. Everyone else is losing a lot of money there. This also isn't reported much in the press because companies have invested (and lost) so much there and negative press will send their stocks plummeting. "Potential growth" in "emerging markets", like China, is the only thing that is keeping the stock market at it's level now since the US economy is tanking.

As for the comment about the "unlimited workforce", that's starting to change. At least with foreign companies. Some have gotten so fed up with the garbage they must deal with in the PRC that they've dropped their investments and are building up factories in India and Vietnam, which actually have lower labor costs and less bureaucratic messes. Also, Russia has lower labor costs than China, but political uncertainty with Putin has prevented a lot of foreign investment there aside from oil and gas. If Russia was more stable politically, then you'd see more money go there than in China.

Finally, I want to mention something about oil. Oil really shouldn't be hitting $80 a barrel. There's plenty of supply. Every year, oil-producing countries like Saudi and Venezuela keep revising their reserves upwards. Demand might be growing, but it's been growing at a slower rate the last three years. And Europe's demand has been decreasing the last two years! It's actually concerned OPEC that they had a meeting with EU members. The main thing, and I don't really believe in conspiracy theories, but I kind of see this through my job and some friends who work in the oil industry, is that traders and hedge funds have bet a lot of money on oil for the long-term. Every little excuse the can come up with to drive up the price, they'll use. Kidnapped workers in Nigeria (which doesn't affect supply), Iran being uncooperative (again, doesn't affect supply), problems in Iraq, hurricanes (Hurricane Dean was nowhere close to the oil-producing parts of the Gulf of Mexico, yet oil went up a lot because of this), etc. There is plenty of supply, but geopolitical factors that have little to do with demand add a good $20+ to the price.

Of course, if the Chinese were compelled to buy their oil elsewhere, like on more mainstream world markets, it would drive up the prices on those markets and therefore probably the cost of those Chinese goods. So yes, the world we live in, and with no easy answers either.

China might have money, but not that much money and they're unwilling to pay market rates for oil, which is why they go to countries like Sudan and why they won't buy from the Mid East. They actually tried to buy a piece of the Alberta Oil Sands, but what they offered was way too low that it was insulting. They assumed that just because they're China, everyone "must" do business with them. That attitude put a lot of people off, especially in Canada, where they don't have to beg for money.

[Tom_Turner]

There's a very good reason we're not involved in Darfur and it has to do with our policy of involvement in other nations. Darfur does not present a threat to our national interests and based off that policy we have no leagal right to put troops on the ground there. We've followed that policy for over 230 years and I believe we should still follow it. I'm not saying what is happening in Darfur is acceptable, it’s not by any stretch but they don't present a risk to our nation's safety.

I agree with you Tommy -
If only we followed that policy in spirit as well.

But instead Bush Sr., a closet "nation builder" sent troops into Somalia. What was that national interest? [I know - it was humanitarian in concept]

And, Clinton, pulls them the troops when we are faced with savagery..... a lesson not lost on Bin Laden and company.

Then we have to go the Balkans to solve that mess? The Germans and Russians well connected to the Croats and Serbs (our WW2 allies) respectively and we have to go to save the Bosnians? It gave us some good political capital with them (and Albanians etc), but we are hated throughout much of Europe for this bombing campaign - Europe has standing armies don't they? They should have been able to resolve that.

We suppress the Haitian General who led a military coup in Haiti - to support "Democracy" in the form of a "priest" who likes to advocate the great smell of tires burning on his enemy's bodies...?? who, in turn, blames the US when he cannot maintain control of Haiti?

We're NOT going to "succeed" in Iraq if we can't protect the lives of those that work with us...and it seems we cannot. And, they cannot protect themselves. Of course we can continue to water down our definition of success.

I suspect the poster is correct - China will not be stopped. Pity they won't solve the Sudan problem and still get their oil . They probably could do so.

[Tom_Turner]

Our involvement in Iraq the first time was a response to them invading Kuwait, which was a friend to the U.S. Iraq controlling most of the oil coming out of the MidEast was a huge threat to the economic interests of the U.S.

I think the conversation at the upper echelons of the US Govt in the immediate aftermath of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was do we care if the "name on the gas station has changed" or not?

Presumably not. Which sort of falls in line with the ambiguous American Embassy response to Iraq when they put out feelers before invading Kuwait. There were large underground oil fields in dispute along their border weren't there?

From what I can recall reading, Bush Sr. was understood to have more or less said "hey, waittaminute, it does matter".... to which I would not disagree on the face of it.

[T-Bird76]

Tom a case can be made for our national interest in almost every one of those cases with the exception of Somalia. Any instability on the European continent is a threat to our economic interests there, Haiti is in our own backyard and even though we did a piss poor job at Haiti it is our business to step in. The problem with Haiti was we did it ass backwards just like the Bay of Pigs.