'the ugly undertakings of the United States of America'

Yep. The Leftists I have been arguing with for months on Darfur, already believe the ONLY reason the US has for intervening, is the OIL.

Meanwhile the UN elitists are likely very pleased with the level of genocide that has taken place so far. Population control by any and ALL means.

Posted by: Gary at June 12, 2006 6:38 AM

It is interesting to note that the Oil interests held by Western Nations no longer exist.
These Western-based corporations were replaced by the state-owned oil companies of China and Malaysia- CNPC, or China National Petroleum Corp., and Petronas, or Petrolium Nasional Berhad-which had already been partners with Talisman and Lundin. Following CNPC and Petronas, a third state-owned Asian oil company, India's ONGC Videsh Ltd., began operations in Sudan.
If the UN sends forces, Would they be protecting the oil or defending the oil interests of Nations who do not provide any support for the war against terrorism?

Posted by: exsgtbrown at June 12, 2006 8:40 AM

If they wait until after the the fourth of July, the UN forces can go in armed--with our guns...

Posted by: Abscedere at June 12, 2006 8:55 AM

Yes, GAry, the loony left only understands the US as having oil interests, but not the Chinese (who have none of their own and need it desperately to support its surging economy), the French (who have none of their own) or the Russians (who have quite a lot of their own, but are looking to returning to their superpower status by controlling other countries' supplies).

There's definitely blood-for-oil behind the existing jihad in Darfur, just as there was in Iraq before the March 2003 invasion. The loony left just has the black hats on the wrong heads.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at June 12, 2006 8:57 AM

Have you heard much from actor and his dad, (Democrats for life) Looney Cloney lately? they brought up Dafur on all the talk shows, like they just heard about it. where are they now. where are the Hollywood left on this issue. l guess its only good if you beat up on the West, cant touch the butt ugly Muslim islamofacist.( ugly in ideology is my definition.).

Posted by: Lulu at June 12, 2006 9:15 AM

'WhupAss' Threatened if Jihad comes to U.S.!

Posted by: JanuaryMan at June 12, 2006 9:36 AM

if I'm not mistaken, the oil in Sudan is not in Darfur. Rather, there are large deposits --presently being exploited by China et al.-- in the part of southern Sudan bordering on the north [since piece in National Geographic about January 2003].

Anyhow, the genocide in Sudan has been going on for fifty years --on and off- and the "international community"-- always so quick to find fault with Israel, has never tried to oppose the genocide effectively. In fact, it's strange that now we hear talk of intervening in Darfur whereas the UN never intervened in the South of Sudan where the genocide has been going on since 1956, on and off.

Posted by: Eliyahu at June 12, 2006 9:58 AM

The US shouldn't intervene here. I agree with that.It can't be everywhere diluting its power.
Sick of seeing nice young men die,,,and for what?

Now the idiots are praising Zarqawi when he killed so many Iraqi's. I don't get their thinking. They should have been pleased to see him go,,but no,,they are not. Go figure.

Lulu
I agree about Clooney also. He insults Bush, but then he finds a cause and wants action - typical Hollywood lefty.

And yes,, sadly they are taking over everywhere.
Ali Sina says about 100 years,,it will be a lot sooner than that. The only thing is ship them back to where they came from and that isn't going to happen any time soon.

Posted by: Gramfan at June 12, 2006 11:07 AM

Lulu asks: "Have you heard much from actor and his dad, (Democrats for life) Looney Cloney lately? they brought up Dafur on all the talk shows, like they just heard about it. where are they now. where are the Hollywood left on this issue."

Initially the Left thought they had another issue to beat up Bush on: "Bush Ignores Genocide In Darfur!" But then they actually learned the facts--that it was the U.S. who had introduced a measure in the U.N. Security Council last February to do something about Darfur while China was going to veto it--the Left evaporated. Supporting the Bush-led U.S. effort in the U.N., and beating up on China, isn't something the Left likes to do.

Posted by: Steven L. at June 12, 2006 11:17 AM

Islam already declared jihad on the world when it placed the non-Muslim world in the "dar al-harb", literally "house of war". So haven't they already declared jihad? This is just more sabre rattling and empty threats.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at June 12, 2006 11:52 AM

Muslims continue to blame anyone and everyone but themselves.

Posted by: LukeS at June 12, 2006 12:22 PM

Funny, how it always comes back to the Jews. Kill 2 million non Muslims and you are good Islamic nation. Screw Darfur, they are Muslims there too! Let them do each other in!

Posted by: Dumbo at June 12, 2006 2:10 PM

I recently spoke with a relative who works (oil service company) in the south of Sudan. Paraphrasing his words:

"The Arab Muslims hate Black Muslins as much as Christians and others. The Arab Muslins are working to destroy Black Muslims as much as they are destroying Christians and others."

Of course, Muslims don't want Western troops in Sudan; they might actually notice the Arab racism.

This Arab action has been occurring in Sudan for a long time. It may have been the flavour of the day in the West, with cLooneys' temporary interest, but I suspect that interest is waning on news that the US military is full of mass murderers.

Posted by: foobius at June 12, 2006 2:15 PM

LukeS: "Muslims continue to blame anyone and everyone but themselves."

There is a rare exception to that rule in frontpagemag today, "We Muslims Have Work to Do":

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22868

Wow!

Posted by: Caroline at June 12, 2006 2:37 PM

Caroline,
Notice he lives in Canada, not yet an Islamic country

Posted by: Dumbo at June 12, 2006 2:46 PM

He isn't the only one Dumbo. See this one at memri -

Egyptian Progressive Criticizes Muslim Intellectual Doublespeak

Posted by: gallopinggranny at June 12, 2006 3:40 PM

The American government is missing its chance in Darfur and in the southern Sudan. The Arab Muslims of Khartoum, supported completely by Egypt and other Arab Muslims (not a single word of protest about the 20-year-long Jihad against the Christians and animists in the southern Sudan from the Arab League or any Arab government or spokesman, and the same silence on Darfur, where the inferior, because non-Arab, Muslims are being killed and driven out of their lands by Arab Muslims). It could use as justification any number of actions by the Sudanese government to seize both the southern Sudan and Darfur -- or at the very least, to destroy every plane and helicopter in possession of that regime, as a warning that it must stop.

That might be enough to change the balance of forces. It might be enough to hearten non-Muslims and non-Muslim Arabs (who need to be reminded, to have their consciousnesses raised, at every step of how Islam has always been a vehicle for Arab supremacism) both in the Sudan, and especially among black Christians in Ethiopia (the other day the BBC had a long piece on Harar, described by the female reporter as "the fourth city of Islam," her sympathies clearly with the Muslims, as her voice, dripping with fellow feeling for the put-upon Muslims, and incomprehension and hostliity toward the government of Ethiopia that in her view was leaving Harar as an ill-considered backwater, no doubt part of a Christian plot against those inoffensive -- everywhere inoffensive -- Muslims.

And such a move would hearten Christians in southern Nigeria, in Togo, in the Ivory Coast, and in Kenya and Tanzania. They need a boost. They need to believe that Islam is on the run, that what they see as the Chrsitian West will defend them, as it did not defend the Biafrans during the 1967-69 War. It will send a message to Egypt: stop telling Ethiopia what it can or cannot do with the headwaters of the Nile, some of which Ethiopia quite rightly wishes to use for irrigation projects; the Nile does not belong to Egypt alone.

And the destruction of the Sudanese airforce will be a signal as well to the Arab countries that Dar al-Islam can not only expand, but be forcibly contained, or even subject to violent contraction. Remove those planes and those helicopters, in one fell swoop. It should not take much. It would send a message the way messages are sent in the Muslim world:

This far, and no farther.

Posted by: Hugh at June 12, 2006 4:36 PM

No one in our military will lose any sleep worrying about what Sudan will do. You can bet the (un) brave soldiers of allah are scared of what we might do. Come to think about it, they should be.

Posted by: Ronin at June 12, 2006 5:37 PM

Hugh: "It might be enough to hearten non-Muslims and non-Muslim Arabs (who need to be reminded, to have their consciousnesses raised, at every step of how Islam has always been a vehicle for Arab supremacism"

I think you meant non-Arab Muslims?

"And such a move would hearten Christians in southern Nigeria, in Togo, in the Ivory Coast, and in Kenya and Tanzania."

Would it? Would the non-Arab Muslims genuinely welcome outright western intervention? I actually thought the Iraqis would genuinely want to escape the boot of Saddam as well. (But having been burned once many are no longer naive enough to expect flowers. Well forget the flowers even. One could merely hope to not be shot at!)

And is there any possibility that even Africa's Christians are bitter enough about the west's colonial past in Africa that intervention wouldn't be entirely welcomed?

These are genuine questions BTW. I am really not informed enough to know the answers.

But if the African Christians at least would unambiguously welcome western support and intervention, then that makes the situation much clearer for westerners trying to figure out what sort of policies they should support in the future.

Posted by: Caroline at June 12, 2006 7:09 PM

"If a U.N. force comes to Darfur, Jalaladin said, "We are declaring jihad against it. "It means death. It means defending Sudan and Islam," Jalaladin said."

Something thats been bugging me all day. Sending peacekeeping forces to halt warfare and genocicide is an attack on Islam? What does that mean? It's a bit hard to escape the conclusion that warfare and genocide is "Islamic".

Posted by: Caroline at June 12, 2006 7:18 PM

Caroline

I don't think Iraqi Arab-Muslims are the same as African Animists and Christians. In the countries that Hugh mentions above, there are conflicts between Christians and Muslims. Simply arming the Christians, and in some cases, where needed, bombing the Muslims, would put Islam on the run at least in West Africa. Ethiopia is one of the "coalition" members supporting the US in Iraq (although it has no troops there). Bombing Arab forces in Sudan should have a salutary effect: in addition to destroying their military power, it should also send Mubarak the message that if Egypt contributes towards the Arab campaigns in Sudan, it would be in a direct military confrontation with the US, and face losing its Jiziya aid, military aid, amongst other things, and stands to get into a military confrontation with the US. For all their bravado, not many countries have the balls to do it, except maybe Iran.

It isn't necessary to send any US troops there. Just arm the Infidels wherever they exist to the hilt, and bomb military facilities of the believers. Once that's done, it would send a salurary message to the sheikhs in the Arab League.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 12, 2006 7:40 PM

Jihad warfare, threatened??? By the UN???

Goodness sakes alive! We couldn't have that, now, could we? Or, could we???

Posted by: pythagoras at June 12, 2006 9:04 PM

God forbid America secure new petroleum sources anywhere. The left couldn't care less that millions of innocent civilians across Africa are being massacred by Islamic militias.... just as long as the USA stays out of it (it's that oil again....maybe leftist snake oil?)!! And these leftist folks have the gall to present themselves as a MORAL AUTHORITY! (God help us).

Posted by: pythagoras at June 12, 2006 11:09 PM

"I think you meant non-Arab Muslims [for non-Muslim Arabs]?"
-- from a posting above

Yes, I did. Thank you for spotting the error.

Posted by: Hugh at June 12, 2006 11:11 PM

Note how the AP [associated press] describes the Sudan as: "this vast Muslim region," as if the south of the Sudan were not predominantly NON-Muslim.

Posted by: Eliyahu at June 13, 2006 7:13 AM