Wow. What a pathetic response. So in your mind, it's a racial thing until proven otherwise. Don't you think you should justify your claim, since you absolutely have not made any attempt to do that? You know, throwing the race card is the easy way out. Thinking about it critically and coming to a conslusion is what an adult thinker would do. Grow up.
Grow up? Perhaps you forgot what genocide is. By definition it is ethnic cleansing. So I'm not sure how I'm playing the race card? Geez. I didn't realized I needed to spell that out for you on this topic, of all things. Okay, here is a quick list of genocidal events: American Involvement: Kosovo Nazi Germany (As a side note: notice that U.S. backs Isreal and not Palastine) No American Involvement (where non-whites were the target) Armenia 1915 Kurdish 1978-1983 Cambodia '75 Rwanda Dafur Given America's history of racial problems, we have shaky credibility on the front of racial equality within our own boarders. It isn't a big stretch to say America isn't the champion of racial causes accross the globe. Now...you grow up!
Actually, Kosovo has the largest coal reserves in Europe (by far). In fact securing the main mine there was one of our first operations. We recently privatized and parcelled out the rights for a nice profit. I don't know of any significant natural resources to speak of in Darfur.
LOL. Buddy, your two examples of American involvement both involved America saving ethnic minorities (or do they not count in your mind since they're not black?) from the genocidal white man. Muslims and other ethnic minorities in Kosovo, and Jews in Germany and the areas which Germany had overtaken.
Interesting. I didn't realize that. It doesn't change the end result, however. Scoreboard (see my previous post) Generally, American isn't too interested in stopping genocide unless there are extenuating circumstances...as if genocide wasn't extenuating enough. So my point is, race certainly DOES play a factor. How could it not?
I posted an article on the bbs a little while back, so u can just run a search on that one. But here's another link from 1995 detailing the approx. value of Kosovo's significant resources: http://www.scc.rutgers.edu/serbian_digest/217/t217-12.htm (an excerpt) "The latest research proved that lignite reserves stand at around 14 billion 237 million tons which equals 2296 million tons of petroleum. The overall value of the energy resources and coal exploitation facilities, the facilities for the production of electricity, gas, artificial fertilizers and other accompanying industries, amounts to 232.5 billion dollars. When talking about power, one should include the water resources and the facilities built to exploit them, experts underscore. The hydro-electric power plants, alone, are worth 50 million dollars. However, Kosovo's greatest wealth is in its mines, which had been discovered a long time ago and exploited by many a conqueror. The list of non-ferrous metal reserves is headed by lead, zinc, potassium, bismuth, silver, gold and other rare metals, e.g. gallium. All one needs to recall is that non-ferrous metals from Kosovo accounted for one-fourth of ex-Yugoslavia's exports in the fifties. The lead and zinc reserves induced the construction of plants for their processing and metallurgical plants in Kosovska Mitrovica, Stari Trg, Kisnica, Ajvalija, Novo Brdo, Leposavic, Belo Brdo, etc. The reserves of minerals of non-ferrous metals of the A, B, C1 and C2 categories are estimated to stand at 200 million tons. According to the London Stock of Exchange, their value stands at 20 billion dollars. The plants enable the processing of two million tons of ore a year. Ferronickel mines hold a special place among Kosovo's resources. They had been researched for a long time and the research have confirmed that their reserves stand at 21 million tons. This prompted the opening of mines and the construction of a metallurgical plant in Glogovac. The value of the reserves of this metal and the production facilities is estimated at around 3 billion dollars. Non-metal reserves are also extremely important. Out of 24 types of non-metals in Kosovo, only 17 have been subjected to geological research. The exploitation of these resources, the value of which is estimated at 7.9 billion dollars, has begun only a short while ago. Kosovo also boasts many forests. On 31 May 1985, forests covered 448,000 hectares of Kosovo land and the value of this natural resource is estimated at 7 billion dollars. On the other hand, the facilities built to process the wood, along with their accompanying facilities and infrastructure, are valued at one billion dollars. Kosovo has a lot of arable land, as well. According to the study, it is worth around 120 billion dollars."
I can't find your message through search. Could you link to it again? Also, I don't doubt that there exists coal in Kosovo, but it's quite another thing to claim that the US profited from it. It's an even bigger claim to insinuate that's the reason we took military action there.
I do have an interest in the energy industry. I'd also like to understand your position that you think the US had energy ideas in mind from their involvement in Kosovo. Please find that post for me. thanks.
I'd rather not spend my time looking for the article. What you believe or care to understand is really not my concern. No offense, but I have nothing to gain from you in any case. I would suggest starting in google with "kosovo lignite privatize" if you're still interested.
So you admit that you just lied. You never posted anything that justifies you outlandish statement. You've been.... EXPOSED
Just because you have yet to develop a sufficient mastery of the search function and claim to have been unsuccessful in locating a post I made on Kosovo several months ago does not equate to me having lied in any way. Now as I said, there's really nothing for me to gain by finding the article (or any similar article for that matter) for you. In fact, from your little "EXPOSED" tantrum it appears that in addition to little knowledge or search function savvy, you also have little maturity. One thing you do appear to have in spades however, is time to waste.
Results...bigtexxx....results. Spin it how you like...but at the end of the day the fair-skinned people were supported and the dark-skinned people were ignored. I'm not trivializing Nazi Germany and Kosovo. I'm illustrating to you the net result. as you like to say...you have been "EXPOSED"
Right...since all those situations you listed were exactly the same except for the color of the peoples' skin. What a joke. In both of the examples you listed under "American intervention", we supported the darker skin colored group when compared to their "oppressors". Oops, you goofed on that one too. Arguing with you is really beneath me. You lost, deal with it brah.
Fact remains...brah (is this you trying to be cool?)...America has done little to nothing in Africa. Can't argue with results. Facts suck, huh? Better to just say things like "your beneath me." I guess that supports my argument how typical Americans would rather just ignore Africa. Thanks for proving my point, however, by refusing to even acknowledge concrete FACTS.
Yea, that's the best you got? We were there to assist in the distribution of food, btw, not to stop genocide. Sounds easy enough though, right? Well, at the first sign of trouble, America withdrew all of our troops. Rightfully so, I'll add, because we didn't send enough troops to do the right job in the first place. So, yes, Somalia. Nice try but only further supports my point. In this case, doing nothing probably would have been better. Another example of America not taking Africa seriously!!!!! As a side note: Somalia is a lot like what Afganastan was...a nation without a real government and is another Al Quada breeding hotspot. Mark my words, America will need to address Somalia again...not because we want to help...but because too much anti-American activity occurs there. All of this could be avoided if we didn't ignore them and assisted them proactively but we won't because Iraq takes too much attention (rightfully). So instead, we'll fall into the same trap as Afgan from the 80' to the 2000's.
Basso; Yes I noted you complained about GW Bush but do you really care more about Darfur or are you looking for a backhanded way to criticize the Dems? In case you haven't noticed the Dems are the minority party. They don't control any branch of the Fed. government and can't do a thing about Darfur without Republicans. OTOH since the Republicans control all three branches of the elected Fed. government if they wanted to do something about Darfur they don't need the Dems. So while even criticize the Dems. when whether they say something or not nothing will happen unless the Pres and the Repubs in Congress go along. For that matter GW Bush could do something about Darfur without even Congress under the War Powers act. I find it hard to believe you're raising this issue because you're so concerned about Darfur when you're directing most of your criticism at the party that can't do anything about it without help from the other party.
You said America has never done anything in Africa, I didn't know that was limited to genocide, although the purposeful starvation of a million people could probably be called that anyway. We also did not withdraw at the first sign of trouble, nor did we fail to send in enough troops. Bush first sent in a large marine force along with a unit from the army. After the food was flowing again, the goal had been acheived, so the forces were reduced, and work was handed off to the UN. When everything went down the crapper again, Clinton sent troops back in. Your characterization of the event is poor at best.
