Why is US again hard on Sudan?

[occuserpens]

http://english.people.com.cn/200602/24/eng20060224_245663.html">Why is US again hard on Sudan?
From the geopolitical point of view, Sudan is the backyard of the Arab world and also the southern gate of Arab countries to Africa. In the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States begun its "remodeling"of the Arab countries from the east. If it can make it in, it'll cut off the way back for Arab countries and realize its overall strategy of "besieging" the Arab world. This is why the United States has constantly touched the Darfur issue. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Feb. 16 that the United States was deeply concerned with Darfur's turmoil which has left nearly 300,000 people dead over the past three years.

Meanwhile, the United States has tried to build in East Africa another camp composed of Horn of African countries including Kenya, Somalia, Djibouti and Ethiopia. The United States has had troops stationed in some of the countries to, as they put is, prevent those countries from turning into a terrorists' haven or a hotbed of terrorist activities, especially to prevent Somalia from being reduced to a harbor of terrorists. Putting Sudan into this camp surely will expand the scope of prevention and reap "greater achievements"in fighting against terrorism, which is in accordance with the U.S. strategic interest.

As for economy, more and more oil has been discovered and exploited in Sudan, leaving American oil companies remorseful and envious for they tried but gave up half way.

As many Sudanese media put it, the reason why the United States has been hard on Sudan in recent years is that Darfur serves as an entrance for the United States to deal with Sudan. Essentially, the White House is casting an eye on Sudan's oil for the sake of America's economic interest. No wonder many Sudanese scholars say that if it was not for Sudan's oil and geopolitical position, the United States wouldn't be so interested."

[Niccolo_Macchiavelli]

1. because they personally offended Chimpoleons favorite animal

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x4796752

sorry ... i just had to

[applegrove]

2. That's propaganda. There is a genocide going on. The world has

not been hard enough on Sudan.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. Indeed - the reason the Chinese government, the author of this piece

is interested in Sudan is because of oil - it has contracts with the Sudanese government, so is taking its side. This article truly is propaganda.

[occuserpens]

4. Now what - occupy Sudan?

[applegrove]

5. No. The Whole NATO/UN needs to step it up and send in.. may

20 thousand troops and all over three harrier jets. That's all it would take. It's called #1 humanitarian war. And the neocons hate it. They only like war when they are pre-emptive.

Didn't you hear it was a bunch of teenagers with ak-47 that stopped the Rwanda genocide? All it would have taken would have been about 7 thousands UN troops on the ground to saved 800,000 lives from machete death.

Liberals are for humanitarian war. Like WWII.

[occuserpens]

6. Humanitarian war is an oxymoron

Didn't you hear it was a bunch of teenagers with ak-47 that stopped the Rwanda genocide? All it would have taken would have been about 7 thousands UN troops on the ground to saved 800,000 lives from machete death.

Bunch of teens can't make a national army and police to run the country.

Liberals are for humanitarian war. Like WWII.

WW2 was nothing like humanitarian, it had little to do with HR. Actually, it was a war against the Axis aggression. It is all neolib/neocon PR!