Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : New FADG. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KonKilo who wrote (1045)	5/26/2007 7:51:21 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 4152

Darfur doesn't have a tenth of the reserves Iraq has. Maybe not, but Sudan is on it's way (or has already achieved) 600,000 bbl/day in production. (Iraq is stuck around 2 million bbl/day). That's over $14 Billion in annual oil revenues, Whiffle. And that's quite a bit for a country as destitute as Sudan. afrol.com But let's get back the original point. You stated that if there was oil in Sudan, the US would be already be there. I proved to you that there was oil.. large amounts of it, and mostly being produced in cooperation with a Chinese oil company. Sudan is the 3rd largest oil producer in Africa as well. The US is NOT there, but along with actors like George Clooney, it HAS been trying to rally the UN to do more significant something on a multilateral basis. But "no joy" yet. Yet, people like you ignore the fact that an entire portion of Sudan, geographically larger than Iraq, is not going to be permitted to benefit from it... Instead, they are going to be killed, gradually via starvation and outright genocide. And to top that off, a UN peacekeeper was killed in Darfur.. But I'm sure you just consider him an "occupier" so he had it coming, right? I know if hurts when you have to admit your wrong, or ignorant. But that's how one comes to understanding reality AS IT IS, not has you'd like to perceive it. One of the points this administration has been harping on to the Iraqi government is the earnest need to have a portion of Iraq's oil revenues shared with the people. This is something I have personally recognized as critical since just BEFORE we overthrew Saddam. Sharing oil revenues unites the people behind a common cause ($$$$=prosperity), increases the credibility, and accountability, of the central government and gives Iraqis a reason to set aside their differences and work for the common good of all of them. But MOST importantly, you don't kill the "goose that lays the golden egg".. You don't blow up the oil infrastructure, and you sure as hell don't try and bring down the very government upon which you depend to distribute your share of the oil revenues. And anyone who DOES attempt to destroy your country's ability to generate oil revenue becomes your sworn enemy, because they are literally trying to take food out of the mouths of your children. Hawk