It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A country without oil...........

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Is a country without the needed assistance from the United States.....

As George Bush looks to "liberate the Iraqi people", Hundreds of thousands of Africans are being forced from their villages, starved, gang-raped, or slaughtered by Arab Militants "janjaweeds".

Why are these lives more expendable than the ones that Saddam killed? Sorry if this is off any topic, but I am outraged at what is going on there.




posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 02:26 PM
link   
I totaly agree with your outrage. It's too bad that the government picks and chooses who deserves to be protected agaist tyrants. The United States waited how long in 1991 when Saddam was starving and killing all the Kurds AFTER we liberated Kuwait.....How long did we wait to help the Jews from Hitler?...... and how long did Bush 41 wait to help in Bosnia? I think its obvious...you hit the nail on the head with your post. You have to have something we need BEFORE we send aid.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Makes ya wonder doesnt it.
Whole things a farse..

WMD's, Iraq had none, but that was our reason. Nkorea has them, but we chooose to ignore them.
Liberation, We are there to free a enslaved nation... whom dont want us there.
But we choose to ignore the plight in somalia, sudan and all other african nations.
Threat to the USA, Iraq was the LEAST threat out of a long list of countries.

American doesnt give a rats a55 about the iraqi's... thats just a public relations theme to attempt at keeping public support.

Good to see the public are smarting up but.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 11:30 PM
link   
It does make me wonder.

The US did go into Bosnia to help after Europe could not take care of it.

It does make me wonder why no one is sending any help to Dafur. Why does the USA have to send troops. Are other countries too weak and poor?

I guess other countries don't think other people count.


The USA led the way on the big ole tidal wave in the Indian Ocean. Why did not other countries contribute more? Because they sit on their butts letting the USA pay with money. China is sitting on a trillion dollars. Why did they not help out more? That is a shame on China.

What country gives more aid around the world.....Oh, yeah the USA. So other countries just must not care about other foriegn nationals.



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Yeah you people just sit there and curse the US like its resposible for everything, they try which is more than 90pc of Humanity.


Oil is not the most valuble commodity in this World, Water is, Oil is being replaced hastily, once your frigging oil is worth less than water, whatll your argument be then.

I say the West stops trying to help right now, no more foreign aid, do nothing but sell weapons to whomever wants them, sort out your own problems, come cry to us later.

PS . US is highest Aid donor, but i dont think they hold they title as a percentage of GDP, (And China was the 3rd higest food aid donor in 2005,US was first) i wonder if the West was poor and the rest where rich would we get any help ??

I know the answer and i no longer donate even 1 penny to overseas aid agencys only to my own country or other countrys that share similar values.


The World we have all tried to help has just grown Ungrateful and Hateful. And its time for us to teach them a lesson in manners.



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 10:05 PM
link   
The main reason why I agree with NumberCruncher is because the worlds population is too big. I do feel sorry for Iraq as they have a history of over 6000 years of civilisation; and believe it or not apparently a higher average I.Q rate (according to well documented small but present “racial differences in intelligence”.
www.cpsimoes.net...
www.google.co.uk...

As for these fundamentalists who are killing all the intellectuals; Iraq will not be safe until our democracy of religious fundamentalists and sectarian differences by a secular dictatorship (just like the one Saddam once had).
Saddam did what we wanted; we should have given his country back; and to the people who promise to side themselves with next door Iran; no matter what good or bad terms we leave them on.



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Why are these lives more expendable than the ones that Saddam killed? Sorry if this is off any topic, but I am outraged at what is going on there.


we've done this in the past in both somalia and bosnia, so saying that we dont care unless there is an ulterior motive is just plain wrong. the simple facts are that our military is overstretched in the quagmire that is iraq.


Originally posted by CameronFox
It's too bad that the government picks and chooses who deserves to be protected agaist tyrants.


see above.



The United States waited how long in 1991 when Saddam was starving and killing all the Kurds AFTER we liberated Kuwait


we promised the other arab countries in the coalition that we wouldnt take the fight all the way to bagdad. why dont you blame them for letting the kurds get slaughtered?



.....How long did we wait to help the Jews from Hitler?


we started supplying the allied powers from the very beginning. we could not enter the war because the american people had taken a very strong neutrality stance. it took pearl harbor to wake them up.....and the record shows that even after that, our first priority was helping rid europe of the nazis. thousands of US soldiers in the pacific died or were imprisoned because of our desire to free europe first.



...... and how long did Bush 41 wait to help in Bosnia?


umm, that was clinton.



I think its obvious...you hit the nail on the head with your post. You have to have something we need BEFORE we send aid.


the only obvious part is that you need to buy a history book.


Originally posted by Agit8dChop
WMD's, Iraq had none, but that was our reason.


yes he did....we sold them to him. what he did not have was a nuclear program. we thought he did because he wanted us to. he wanted us to because he was deathly afraid of iran's nuclear ambition and what they would do if they thought his military was in the shape that it was.



Nkorea has them, but we chooose to ignore them.


no, it's called learning from your mistakes. we are trying as much diplomacy as we can first.



Liberation, We are there to free a enslaved nation... whom dont want us there.
But we choose to ignore the plight in somalia


that's funny, because i've got a buddy who's still got shrapnel in his leg from a grenade tossed at him in mogadishu...you can blame clinton for turning tail on that one.



Threat to the USA, Iraq was the LEAST threat out of a long list of countries.


not according the the intelligence at the time. i've never been a supporter of the iraq war, but it was a bipartisan venture, and everyone agreed on the intel at the time




top topics



 
0

log in

join