quote:

I would support a military intervention in sudan, just not an american one. I would support the deployment of a large UN task force under the command of the European Union because it couldn't hold partisan political interests as it would have to respond to the 25 member states. I think stationing a large military force in some regions of sudan could improve the situation, but an american force would only use the humanitarian crisis as a pretext to pursue a political agenda: Obtaining control of Sudan's oil.

A UN incursion is esentially an American incursion. What countires would make up the UN force (under the auspices of the EU). The UN has proven on numerous occasions that it is incappable of doing anything military. In fact thier "peacekeepers" have proven that in Africa all they can do is rape.

Would you support a NATO lead invasion?

Speed, your arguments are shocking and absurd. I have already addressed the issues you have brought up and it appears you are trying to play game of "run around the flag pole." Thank you for providing ?proof?, but please do so with my original comments in mind. Try to stick to the topic.

quote:

Please prove this.

Gazprom is the biggest extractor of natural gas in the world. With sales of US$31 billion in 2004, it accounts for about 93 percent of Russian natural gas production; with reserves of 28,800 km³, it controls 16 percent of the world's gas reserves (as of 2004, including the Shtokman field.) After acquisition of the oil company Sibneft, Gazprom, with 119 billion barrels of reserves, ranks behind only Saudi Arabia, with 263 billion barrels, and Iran, with 133 billion barrels, as the world's biggest owner of oil and oil equivalent in natural gas.

By the end of 2004 Gazprom was the sole gas supplier to at least Bosnia-Herzegovina, Estonia, Finland, Macedonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova and Slovakia, and provided 97 percent of Bulgaria's gas, 89 percent of Hungary's, 86 percent of Poland's, nearly three-quarters of the Czech Republic's, 67 percent of Turkey's, 65 percent of Austria's, about 40 percent of Romania's, 36 percent of Germany's, 27 percent of Italy's, and 25 percent of France's. The European Union as a whole gets about 25 percent of its gas supplies from this company.

Apart from its gas reserves and the world's longest pipeline network (150,000 km), it also controls assets in banking, insurance, media, construction and agriculture.

As measured by its market capitalization as of December 2007 (US$345 billion), Gazprom is the world's third largest corporation following this measure.

Sourced from wikipedia, and by extension from the following links: Links

quote:

Having relations with a government is not detrimental as almost all oil companies have ties to their native country.

Except Gazprom's chairman is Dmitry Medvedev, Russia's deputy prime minister; the rough equivalent to our vice president Dick Cheney.
Also, if you read up on Russia's political scene and the state of it's "democracy" you'll find out that Vladimir Putin has designated Medvedev as his succesor at the head of the United Russia(the ruling party), and current surveys give United Russia above 70% of the vote in the 2008 elections.

I'll let you draw your own conclusions from all of this; personally I think the incumbent president being the ex-chairman of Russia's largest corporation(he will be forced to give up his position when he takes office), and the third largest oil producer in the world, is a little too close.

quote:

We bargain with ex-communists all the time. How would he have any relations with Russia if we didn't want to bargain with the Kremlin?

You completely missunderstood my argument. Of course we bargain now, but we do so from a position of superiority. In a future scenario where we actually depend on a few select providers to the extreme we wont be in a position to bargain. If Russian/Gazprom or South American oil providers know that we are desperate because we suffer a shortage the prices at which they sell us our product will skyrocket, simply because there will be no alternative and we will be obliged to purchase oil at high prices to maintain our economy afloat.

quote:

So no one else in South American produces oil? And when the oil in the middle east dries up so will oil in Venezuala and Russia?

Dude are you just plain stupid? I've said this I dont know how many times.
When the oil in the middle east dries up we will be forced to purchase from less friendly sources, which will in turn increase the price at which we buy, which will damage our economy.
And that is in the event that the oil in the middle east should dry up any time soon, our acces to Saudi oil could be cut off by a large scale crisis in the region without actual oil reserves running out.
There are other oil producers in South America, Brazil and Chile if I recall correctly, but their proven reserves are negligible in comparison to Venezuela's, which are the 6th largest in the world. Aside from that both Brazil and Chile are rapidly growing economies, which gives them much more leverage while bargaining than Nigeria or Sudan, which do not hold a good position to bargain because they lack the necessary infrastructure to succesfully exploit their oil reserves.

quote:

I have never, not once, heard this argument. Please provide proof.

Construction and maintenance costs of mechanical equipment are much higher in adverse climates. When the temperature is below freezing level for long periods machinery becomes much more susceptible to damage and deterioration.
It's a fundamental concept in engineering.
This may not be a huge issue, but costs are effectively higher.
Also, another thing that would raise the costs is the ammount of money spent by the government through beauracracy to eliminate all the restrictions and protections that currently prohibit drilling. The process of passing law's costs money, the more complex it is higher are the costs. Alaska also lacks a broad enough transportation network to become our main oil producer; building the necessary infrastructure to move people, materials, and the oil itself would cost a lot of money and time.

quote:

Right, so by your theory the rest of the world, when the middle east runs out of oil, will suddenly stop exporting oil to the greatest consumer of oil? Give me a break. People want to make money.

Of course they will, we just won't have a preferential deal with the Saudi's anymore, so it will be quite a bit more expensive.

quote:

You have thrown out a lot of "facts" with no proof, lets see some. Provide proof that China will catch up the united States within 50 years from the end of the Cold War that include the American projections for American growth.

First, good job throwing the cold war in there for no apparent reason. When economists say that China may overtake the US in 50 years they mean 50 years from NOW. Not 50 years since the end of the Cold War.
Here is one of the many sources you can find if you take the time to read economic blogs and use google.
Don't look at the website itself, scroll down to the bottom of the article and check it's sources, I think you'll find they are quite credible.
Chinese Economic Growth
Chinese Economic Growth 2
Chinese Economic Growth 3
There are also tons of skeptics that say that China's growth rates will eventually drop, maintaining the US as #1, but enough highly respected economists and organizations have made similar predictions to give this scenario atleast some credit. Remember America's economy seems to be entering a recession and this will undoubtedly influence our margin as first economic power.

quote:

Because you think when the Middle East runs out of oil the rest of the world will stop selling oil to the greatest consumer of oil in the world.

No I don't, I've said it many times and I'll say it again. If we want oil we'll have oil, but the price will be higher.
You seem intent on putting words I've never said in my mouth. Maybe instead of trying to discredit what I say you should try to credit your own arguments, because so far the only thing you've done is disqualify what me and others propose, without providing any reasons or backing as to why you opose our postures.

quote:

the majority of Americans supported it.

You seem to forget the key issue that at the time the majority of americans believed that Iraq held weapons of mass destruction. When this was revealed to be false sentiments towards the war changed rapidly, and now most people don't even want to hear about Iraq.

quote:

Kosovo intervention was NATO backed. I would have a thought a genuine political scientist would now that.

You're right, that was a fuck up. The current peacekeeping force is mandated by the UN so I must have confused terms.
However, it is undeniable that establishing permanent military bases in the area was in the US's interest. You can check the Pentagon's official base listing yourself, I'm sick of having to source everything I say when I know it's true and you dont even present any validly sourced counter-arguments.

quote:

Where did Bushsupporter ever say he believed in manifest destiny?

I am concerned that America, the world's police, is allowing genocide to occur.

quote:

Do not put words in peoples mouths.

How about you apply that to yourself?

quote:

Do you understand what the European Union is? It is not a military force.

Neither is the United States of America, atleast the last time I checked. Both of you seem to believe it is for some reason. And if it was, wouldn't that be unconstitutional?

quote:

where is your proof.

It's called connect the dots. You analize american foreign policy, american energy expenditure, economic growth estimates, global geopolitics, and historical precedent and it's obvious waht you get. America needs to greater oil reserves to secure it's position as first world power. There have been tons of precedents where military interventions where masqueraded as humanitarian and their real purpose was economic.


And now, I think it's time you brought up some good counter-arguments, with respectable sources, and actually posted your own opinion on the matter. Everything you've said so far leads me to believe you disagree with me because you're a mindless patriot who simply cannot accept america's global dominance being questioned.
I think I've done enough proving, do your share or get the fuck out of this discussion.

quote:

You sound a lot like Joey Dauben.

Irony.

quote:

Russian oil is mostly controled by Gazprom which is run by the famous russian oligarchs, who happen to be very closely tied to the kremlin.

Please prove this. Having relations with a government is not detrimental as almost all oil companies have ties to their native country. Meaning we negotiate with companies that have ties to government we hate and guess what - there is no problem because each side is benefiting.

quote:

The US government doesn't want to have to bargain with the kremlin over it's energetic needs as Russian-American relations have never been good after the Cold War.

We bargain with ex-communists all the time. How would he have any relations with Russia if we didn't want to bargain with the Kremlin?

quote:

South America's largest oil producing country is Venezuela, which is governed by Hugo Chavez. Chavez is openly hostile towards the US and has threatened with stopping oil exports if there was any sort of conflict of interests.

So no one else in South American produces oil? And when the oil in the middle east dries up so will oil in Venezuala and Russia?

quote:

Alaska's climate and topography greatly difficult the construction of the necessary infrastructure to extract the oil

I have never, not once, heard this argument. Please provide proof. We built the Alaskan pipeline, no problem.

quote:

American oil consumption is growing rapidly, and

Right, so by your theory the rest of the world, when the middle east runs out of oil, will suddenly stop exporting oil to the greatest consumer of oil? Give me a break. People want to make money.

quote:

That is why the US is interested in African oil, and that is why chinese advancements in the region can pose a threat to out future energetic policy.

So you don't think China will want to sell oil to the largest consumer of oil? I guess this doesn't fit into your doomsday plan.

quote:

If china continues to grow at the current rate it could easily threaten our position as first world power in a 30 to 50 year timeframe.

You have thrown out a lot of "facts" with no proof, lets see some. Provide proof that China will catch up the united States within 50 years from the end of the Cold War that include the American projections for American growth.

Can China catch up to the United States? Maybe, but you have to remember that as china moves forward so will the United States. Do you not understand that the stronger China is the better it is for the United States in the current global economy?

quote:

China is allready the world's first producer of manufactured goods

Who cares? The US used to hold that "title" but exported all of those jobs as our economy developed. Producing the most manufactured goods is not a compliment, it means your economy is less advanced as the USA and Japan.

quote:

I probably understand free trade better than you do; I have a few posts on the subject, look them up if you want.

Then copy and posts those comments here or at least provide us with a way to view them. I doubt you understand the global economy as you think the United States would favor undermining the economic strength of China when they do so much for our economy, and will continue to do so.

quote:

It's a hypothetic future scenario, and the currently growing crisis in the middle east could very well make it a reality.

Because you think when the Middle East runs out of oil the rest of the world will stop selling oil to the greatest consumer of oil in the world.

quote:

Sure there might be an undercurrent of support towards a military intervention, but people wouldn't accept killing to be able to pay for their gasoline.

Once again, prove it. You liberal types said we only went to war with Iraq for Oil and guess what, the majority of Americans supported it. We only went to war to liberate Kuwait because Sadam would have controlled too much oil (That is how the war was presented to the American people). Americans did, and still do, support that war. You are simply wrong on this issue.

quote:

The Kosovo intervention was UN backed, and along with the strategical objective of establishing operative bases near the former eastern block, there was a genuine humanitarian objective.

Kosovo intervention was NATO backed. I would have a thought a genuine political scientist would now that. The startegic objective was not to put bases near the Eastern bloc to control former Soviet states, it was to prevent the slaughter of muslims. Like I said, I'm glad you weren't making decisions when thousands of people were killed for what they believed in.

quote:

He started this because he believe's in manifest destiny, and he thinks america is divinely entitled to be the world's police force, and since his ideology stems from the divine it is ultimately unquestionable and correct.

Where did Bushsupporter ever say he believed in manifest destiny? Do not put words in peoples mouths.

quote:

I would support the deployment of a large UN task force under the command of the European Union because it couldn't hold partisan political interests as it would have to respond to the 25 member states

Because the UN is so sucseful at these things? Kind of like Somalia? A major success. Do you understand what the European Union is? It is not a military force.

quote:

I think stationing a large military force in some regions of sudan could improve the situation, but an american force would only use the humanitarian crisis as a pretext to pursue a political agenda: Obtaining control of Sudan's oil.

I'll agree, an American presence would stop the genocide. You have created a pretty outlandish theory on this Sudan oil grab that the ?neocons? are pushing for, but where is your proof. You sound a lot like Joey Dauben.

quote:

Originally posted by Canvas:

quote:

Originally posted by Bushsupporter:
So you agree with me and have no new arguments on this board? Fair enough.

No I don't agree with you at all; your ideas are just very, very closed-minded and I'll have better luck arguing with a wall.

I'll respond to the other posts in this thread in due time, have some homework to do now.

I am not closed minded. I don't know how to make it clear to you that I really am interested in other ideas on this subject.

quote:

No, bushsupporter started this thread knowing beforehand that most people on here would disagree with a military intervention in sudan because of the reasons I've posted.

False. Read above. And based on the silly definition of a neocon you gave, I am not one.

quote:

So by your rationale, China will one day hold all the oil in the world, and keep it all for themselves. Do you not think they would sell it? What about when the middle east dries up? Will Russia and South America suddenly stop pumping oil to? What about untapped reserves in Alaska, will they suddenly dry up too?

Russian oil is mostly controled by Gazprom which is run by the famous russian oligarchs, who happen to be very closely tied to the kremlin. The US government doesn't want to have to bargain with the kremlin over it's energetic needs as Russian-American relations have never been good after the Cold War.
South America's largest oil producing country is Venezuela, which is governed by Hugo Chavez. Chavez is openly hostile towards the US and has threatened with stopping oil exports if there was any sort of conflict of interests.
That leaves us Alaska, which does have untapped resources, but these probably won't be enough to foot the bill in the future if this hypothetic crisis scenario came to pass.
American oil consumption is growing rapidly, and obtaining oil from one location, with the added inconvenience that Alaska's climate and topography greatly difficult the construction of the necessary infrastructure to extract the oil makes dependance on alaska the worst case scenario possible.
That is why the US is interested in African oil, and that is why chinese advancements in the region can pose a threat to out future energetic policy.

quote:

Why would we want to undercut the economy of one of the largest importers of American good and the country that receives a major portion of our exports? Do you not understand free trade in the current global economy? An economically strong China will inevitably mean an economically stronger United States.

Wrong, we want China to be economically strong but not too strong. If china continues to grow at the current rate it could easily threaten our position as first world power in a 30 to 50 year timeframe.
China is allready the world's first producer of manufactured goods, and with a rapidly growing middle class with higher adquisitive power and acces to better education the this trend will continue into the future.
I probably understand free trade better than you do; I have a few posts on the subject, look them up if you want.

quote:

Yeah, Northern Africa really restricts our economic wellbeing seeing as they import nothing we export and we import nothing they export.

This isn't a present case scenario. It's a hypothetic future scenario, and the currently growing crisis in the middle east could very well make it a reality.

quote:

Prove it. You don't think is gas was $6.00 a gallon people would favor war to improve their own economic condition? If you do think that, you are truly out of touch.

Most people would reject killing for gasoline, likewise most people reject killing unless it's to preserve their own life. Sure there might be an undercurrent of support towards a military intervention, but people wouldn't accept killing to be able to pay for their gasoline.

quote:

And genocide, in your opinion, is not a reason to go to war? Wow, I the Muslims in Kosovo are happy you weren't making decisions when they were getting slaughtered.

The Kosovo intervention was UN backed, and along with the strategical objective of establishing operative bases near the former eastern block, there was a genuine humanitarian objective.

quote:

Clearly Bushsupporter is open to other ideas as he started this thread as a way to open dialauge on the issue.

No, bushsupporter started this thread knowing beforehand that most people on here would disagree with a military intervention in sudan because of the reasons I've posted. He started this because he believe's in manifest destiny, and he thinks america is divinely entitled to be the world's police force, and since his ideology stems from the divine it is ultimately unquestionable and correct.
That's why I included the neocon's in this discussion, because he is a clear example of neocon arrogance.

And you know what? I would support a military intervention in sudan, just not an american one. I would support the deployment of a large UN task force under the command of the European Union because it couldn't hold partisan political interests as it would have to respond to the 25 member states. I think stationing a large military force in some regions of sudan could improve the situation, but an american force would only use the humanitarian crisis as a pretext to pursue a political agenda: Obtaining control of Sudan's oil.

quote:

Originally posted by Bushsupporter:
So you agree with me and have no new arguments on this board? Fair enough.

No I don't agree with you at all; your ideas are just very, very closed-minded and I'll have better luck arguing with a wall.

I'll respond to the other posts in this thread in due time, have some homework to do now.

quote:

The presence of our military might temporarily stop one group from actively slaughtering the other.

Agreed. What are other solutions?

quote:

Originally posted by clpo13:
The presence of our military might temporarily stop one group from actively slaughtering the other. However, it would not do anything about the ethnic hatred that fuels the genocide. Once we leave, the killing will start right back up. Our presence would be a temporary solution at best, unless we resorted to eliminating one of the groups, which would be genocide in its own right.

You may be right about that. If we left the Balkans, the killing would resume. As I said, I am not supporting a massive invasion. I am simply saying that invasion is one way to stop the genocide. No one else on here has come up with any other ideas that would work.

The presence of our military might temporarily stop one group from actively slaughtering the other. However, it would not do anything about the ethnic hatred that fuels the genocide. Once we leave, the killing will start right back up. Our presence would be a temporary solution at best, unless we resorted to eliminating one of the groups, which would be genocide in its own right.

Clpo13, you are correct, I meant wouldn't. Do you honestly believe that a US presence in the Sudan would not diminish the genocide?

I don't think anyone here, expect speed, has stated how they feel about Sudan; however, you asked if our presence would accomplish anything and I doubt anyone would argue that our presence in the Sudan would not stop genocide.

quote:

Originally posted by clpo13:

quote:

Do you honestly believe that a massive US presence in the Sudan, would diminish the genocide?

I'll assume you meant "wouldn't". And I have not yet stated what I do or do not believe in this situation. I simply asked how our presence would stop the killing. No one has yet provided an answer.

I will pose a situation to you. Keep in mind that I am not supporting this, it is simply a hypothetical situation. I would simply like you to address this situation, not anything that I amy or may not support.

Say the US invaded the Sudan with 150,000 Marines and soldiers. This force was authorized to use deadly force to stop any genicide that is currently occuring. Do you beleive that this would curb the genocide? I am not interested in any of the other consequences that might take place. I am only interested in whether or not you think this would have any effect on the genocide.

quote:

Do you honestly believe that a massive US presence in the Sudan, would diminish the genocide?

I'll assume you meant "wouldn't". And I have not yet stated what I do or do not believe in this situation. I simply asked how our presence would stop the killing. No one has yet provided an answer.

quote:

because china has greatly expanded it's sphere of influence in northern africa through deals with Nigeria, and friendly business relations with other nations including Sudan.

No one cares if China builds relations with Northern Africa - a political and economic black hole. No one feels less safe because China has allies in Northern Africa.

quote:

Since african oil reserves are largely untapped due to underdeveloped infrastructure the US is obliged to plan ahead in case a middle eastern crisis where to cut off the oil supply from the Saudis, and in the future from Iraq.

So by your rationale, China will one day hold all the oil in the world, and keep it all for themselves. Do you not think they would sell it? What about when the middle east dries up? Will Russia and South America suddenly stop pumping oil to? What about untapped reserves in Alaska, will they suddenly dry up too?

quote:

Through prioritary exploitation rights to african oil fields the US also aims to undercut China's amazing economic growth

Why would we want to undercut the economy of one of the largest importers of American good and the country that receives a major portion of our exports? Do you not understand free trade in the current global economy? An economically strong China will inevitably mean an economically stronger United States.

quote:

and will act as a counter balance in global geopolitics

China already does, and there is no hell you claim the ?neocons? argue.

quote:

america's ability to act however is best for it's own economic wellbeing.

Yeah, Northern Africa really restricts our economic wellbeing seeing as they import nothing we export and we import nothing they export. If you are talking about China, please refer to my early explanation of the current global economy.

quote:

With this in mind the neocon think tanks and lobbyists need a good excuse to convince the population that a military intervention in Sudan is necessary and, luckily enough, Darfur happened(not to mention the civil war which lasted untill 2005, and is still smoldering).

Do live in America? Do you listen to the news? Do you read the newspaper? Where are the legitimate war cries to go into the Sudan?

quote:

when questioned on this most americans don't feel that oil reserves are a good enough reason to justify the killing that war implies.

Prove it. You don't think is gas was $6.00 a gallon people would favor war to improve their own economic condition? If you do think that, you are truly out of touch.

quote:

when in reality the only reason the US has any interest in Sudan is because of oil and the Chinese-North Africa relations.

And genocide, in your opinion, is not a reason to go to war? Wow, I the Muslims in Kosovo are happy you weren't making decisions when they were getting slaughtered.

quote:

You should also consider being open about these things and admiting that the only reason we should go there is oil, you'd get a lot more respect than you gather with the whole bullshit-humanitarian act.

There is no need for foul language, especially when it is targeted at another NOISEmaker. Clearly Bushsupporter is open to other ideas as he started this thread as a way to open dialauge on the issue.

quote:

No you don't, you have proven repeatedly to be completely unfamiliar with basic concepts of international politics. I doubt you even went to college.

Grow up. I feel your personal attacks are the result of you being unable to make a reasonable argument. I am shocked that your college education has taught you to be so condesending and closed to new ideas. That is very sad. What kind of program teaches you to debate by calling people theories "bullshit" and calling your counter part "garbage"? Your university would be ashamed to see you debating like this. What college do you attend?

quote:

Yeah, a lot of ?neocons? in the New York Times building.

I was actualy referring to the 'Save Darfur' lobby/humanitarian group, which feeds stories