posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 04:26 AM
It sure dosn't look like the "we care" motive will be applied in the "excuse-to-sell-ourselves-some-more-guns " action in Sudan. There has been a
suggestion the OIL has motivated it and not the Atrocities. Oh quel surprise ....
If proof were needed that Tony Blair is off the hook over Iraq, it came not during the Commons debate on the Butler report on July 21, but rather at
his monthly press conference the following morning. Asked about the crisis in Sudan, Mr Blair replied: "I believe we have a moral responsibility to
deal with this and to deal with it by any means that we can." This last phrase means that troops might be sent - as General Sir Mike Jackson, the
chief of the general staff, immediately confirmed - and yet the reaction from the usual anti-war campaigners was silence.
Mr Blair has invoked moral necessity for every one of the five wars he has fought in this, surely one of the most bellicose premierships in history.
The bombing campaign against Iraq in December 1998, the 74-day bombardment of Yugoslavia in 1999, the intervention in Sierra Leone in the spring of
2000, the attack on Afghanistan in October 2001, and the Iraq war last March were all justified with the bright certainties which shone from the prime
minister's eyes. Blair even defended Bill Clinton's attack on the al-Shifa pharmaceuticals factory in Sudan in August 1998, on the entirely bogus
grounds that it was really manufacturing anthrax instead of aspirin.
Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
Did anyone read my earlier post on this topic, in responce to the US deciding to take action in Dufur?
It was suggesting something along the lines of yeah right as if they ever gave a @#$ about the poor so what the real motive.. well here it is it
[edit on 2-8-2004 by Zion Mainframe]
[edit on 8-2-2004 by Valhall]