BUSH:dispatching troops to Darfur would rightly be viewed as an invasion.

[gatorboy]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/27/world/africa/27diplo.html?ex=1303790400&en=88f1530b61f52e5e&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss

WASHINGTON, April 26 — As the violence in the Darfur region of Sudan grows ever more deadly, Bush administration officials now acknowledge that they have few if any promising policy options for containing the carnage.

If there is no agreement by Sunday on a way to resolve the crisis, the long-running peace talks are to be disbanded. But hopes for an agreement are low.

One proposal, to send 20,000 United Nations peacekeepers to Sudan, has been stymied by Khartoum's adamant opposition. Without the government's agreement, the Bush administration acknowledges, dispatching troops to Darfur would rightly be viewed as an invasion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ironic, considering this excuse is coming from the king of invaders.

I guess Darfur better hit oil quick. :puke:

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

1. No oil there, I am guessing?

hmmmm.

[Mnemosyne]

6. Unfortunately it does.

snip>
The first export of crude oil from Sudan in August 1999 marked a turning point in the country’s complex civil war, now in its twentieth year: oil became the main objective and a principal cause of the war. Oil now figures as an important remaining obstacle to a lasting peace and oil revenues have been used by the government to obtain weapons and ammunition that have enabled it to intensify the war and expand oil development. Expansion of oil development has continued to be accompanied by the violent displacement of the agro-pastoral southern Nuer and Dinka people from their traditional lands atop the oilfields. Members of such communities continue to be killed or maimed, their homes and crops burned, and their grains and cattle looted.

The large-scale exploitation of oil by foreign companies operating in the theatre of war in southern Sudan has increased human rights abuses there and has exacerbated the long-running conflict in Sudan, a conflict marked already by gross human rights abuses—two million dead, four million displaced since 1983—and recurring famine and epidemics.

Forced displacement of the civilian population, and the death and destruction that have accompanied it, are the central human rights issues relating to oil development in Sudan. The government is directly responsible for this forced displacement, which it has undertaken to provide security to the operations of its partners, the international and mostly foreign state-owned oil companies. In the government’s eyes, the centuries-long residents of the oilfields, the Nuer, Dinka, and other southern Sudanese, pose a security threat to the oilfields because control and ownership of the south’s natural resources are contested by southern rebels and government officials perceive the pastoral peoples as sympathetic to the rebels. But the Sudanese government itself has helped to create the threat by forging ahead with oil development in southern territory under circumstances in which its residents have no right to participate in their own governance nor share the benefits of oil development. Brute force has been a key component of the government’s oil development strategy.

snip>

More at link.
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/sudan1103/8.htm

[gatorboy]

9. Damn. You know, I just remembered.

Chad was threatening just last week to lower it's oil production if the country was forced into providing humanitarian help. Were they referring to Darfur?
Which makes the opposite of my argument true. Bush wants to appease a neighboring oil buddy and just stay out of it.

[Mnemosyne]

16. We can be sure that whatever he does "decider" to do

he will completely fuck it up.

My heart aches for the people of Sudan. Can you imagine how they would be treated if * goes in? It's not hard if we look at Iraq.

[Igel]

19. I don't think Chad was referring to Darfur.

Chad has its own problems, and the dispute was over what it would do with its oil profits. The World Bank ponied up the money for some of the infrastructure Chad required for oil production, and required that a hefty amount go into poverty relief/health care/education for its population, not to subsidize the government's on-going, long-standing programs.

For a long time Paul Wolfowitz insisted the World Bank agreement be honored. Chad said no, and made its threat. They ironed out a sort of compromise.

The Fur weren't part of it.

But there's oil in south Darfur.

[Contrary1]

14. And just where

would he get the troops in the first place?

[Mnemosyne]

15. Who knows what that moron will do? He certainly didn't care

if he had enough troops in Iraq.

[annabanana]

17. That means Big Oil is the CAUSE of the disruption.

The world will have to stop these soulless murderers.

[Mnemosyne]

18. nail.on.the.head! n/t

:hi:

[joemurphy]

2. So we do nothing, I guess. They're brownish looking people, so

their kind of genocide isn't that big a deal.

[billybob537]

3. The puppet master speaks

you must obey! Just drink the koolaide/

[CrazyOrangeCat]

4. Asshole!!!

like the critter said . . .

[TheCowsCameHome]

5. Nothing for Halliburton to do there, so to hell with Darfur.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

7. And we know he's totally against invasions.

As long as they help dark-skinned people as opposed to killing lots of them.

[IndianaGreen]

8. Our troops can die for oil, not for poor and defenseless Black Africans!

I think I got it now.

[Yupster]

13. So let's say we go in there, and

we start getting hit by suicide bombers and IED's and we know it's coming from the Sudanese government in Khartoum and we know there are thousands of Egyptian radicals flooding into the Sudan to fight us.

What are we there for?

Are we there to defend the Black Africans in the south from the Muslims in the north? For how long? Will we just bring more misery on the people there. Will Chad be overwhelmed with Darfur?

Do we have to overthrow the government in Khartoum? and occupy the largest country in Africa?

Will our troops just be sitting ducks getting hit by suicide bombers while they wonder what they are doing there?

Will the Egyptian government fall to a radical jihadist regime?

I'm not saying we shouldn't go, but it's an awful big mess that we better carefully think through because we could make matters much worse.

[Booster]

10. I knew he didn't know the definition of "invasion". Asswipe.

[Ammonium]

11. Why would we expect anything else

Nevermind the genocide treaty you lying theiving bastard!

[eppur_se_muova]

12. And dispatching troops to Iraq would be viewed as ... ? Hmmm? nt

[annabanana]

20. nighttime kick. . . . . . .eom