# World Court Issues Warrant For Sudan's President



## sealybobo (Mar 5, 2009)

Pat Robertson's son works in Darfur.  Yesterday he said that President Bashir is an evil man, but it would be too costly and unwise to remove him from power.  

We knew this to be true with Saddam/Iraq too, yet we still invaded?  Maybe if Darfur had oil???

Sudan's Bashir Faces Arrest On Darfur Charges : NPR


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Mar 5, 2009)

Good news.


----------



## Godboy (Mar 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Pat Robertson's son works in Darfur.  Yesterday he said that President Bashir is an evil man, but it would be too costly and unwise to remove him from power.
> 
> We knew this to be true with Saddam/Iraq too, yet we still invaded?  Maybe if Darfur had oil???
> 
> Sudan's Bashir Faces Arrest On Darfur Charges : NPR



Its too bad people like you make it almost impossible to remove evil dictators. Bush removed Saddam, yet the liberals demonized him for it, and continue to do so. Maybe if people would be pleased when evil men are removed, instead of using the situation to make your political opposition look bad, other evil dictators might have second thoughts about murdering thousands of innocent people, but because of people like you, its extremely rare when these monsters have to face justice.

...and for the life of me, im still ba


----------



## Gunny (Mar 5, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Pat Robertson's son works in Darfur.  Yesterday he said that President Bashir is an evil man, but it would be too costly and unwise to remove him from power.
> 
> We knew this to be true with Saddam/Iraq too, yet we still invaded?  Maybe if Darfur had oil???
> 
> Sudan's Bashir Faces Arrest On Darfur Charges : NPR



Sudan DOES have oil.  That's why China has blocked most attempts for the UN to intervene.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 5, 2009)

Godboy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Pat Robertson's son works in Darfur.  Yesterday he said that President Bashir is an evil man, but it would be too costly and unwise to remove him from power.
> ...



Removing Saddam from power was a strategic mistake.  He was a nonsecular leader sitting squarely between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shia Iran.  The result has been mostly uncontrolled infighting between religious and tribal factions in Iraq.

And make no mistake ... it behooves the leaders of these factions to lay low right now or they'd be carrying on as usual and we'd STILL be stuck in the middle.  My opinion only, but I think they figure it'd be a lot easier to take control with us gone.  Something they should have thought of in 03. 

Point is, evil dictator or no, there's a much bigger picture going on geographically and limiting yourself from seeing that has can have worse consequences than the status quo.

Having said that, I have said for years we should be intervening in Sudan.  Not to depose anyone, but to stop the genocide.


----------



## Gurdari (Mar 10, 2009)

Haha 

"World Court finally respected when it's THEM not US."


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 10, 2009)

Godboy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Pat Robertson's son works in Darfur.  Yesterday he said that President Bashir is an evil man, but it would be too costly and unwise to remove him from power.
> ...



That is a nice little spin you put on the situation.  

Can Obama take us into every country where he feels an evil dictator is ruling?  

Remember you guys bitched about Clinton going into Kosovo?  Hypocrites.  

Was it worth it in terms of costs?  Money and lives?  We bankrupted our own country to remove Saddam Hussain?  $10 billion a month for 6 years and still going?  Had you knew that would be the cost, would you have been all for it?  No.  That's why Chaney lied and said Iraq oil would pay for it.  

We were already getting cheap food for oil from Iraq.  

I think Gunny said something that is important and true.  We don't really know the real reasons why we invaded Iraq.  It has to do with a new world order.  I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, so I can only tell you to read PNAC to learn what I am talking about.  It is Project for the Next American Century.  It is the neo con's plan on how the US will stay relevant in the 21st century.  Part of the plan is to control the middle east.

Muslims don't believe in loaning money and charging interest.  We want to install our banks and oil companies in their countries.  Same with Venesuela.  But Hugo Chavez kicked us out.   And we tried to demonize him.  

He is not our enemy.  He is the Conservatives enemy.  He is Corporate America's enemy.  He is an enemy to capitalism.  

But he is not my enemy.  Same exact story in Viet Nam.

No, I think from now on, Conservatives and rich people need to fund and fight in all these wars.  They are the ones pushing for all the conflict.

I'd rather the USA be like Canada or Australia.  Just stay out of it.


----------



## editec (Mar 10, 2009)

There's oil revenues but the people of the land are starving.

How unusual!


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 10, 2009)

Godboy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Pat Robertson's son works in Darfur.  Yesterday he said that President Bashir is an evil man, but it would be too costly and unwise to remove him from power.
> ...



And typical, no reply to my response to your obsurd post.  YOu are insane!!!


----------



## Gunny (Mar 15, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



You're putting words in my mouth.  You could have just said that without attributing it to me.  I don't believe for a minute Bush did not believe he was doing the right thing.  IMO, he thought after 9/11, he had carte blanche, and it's not too much of stretch to call Saddam a terrorist.  

Then there is the fact Saddam WAS a thorn in our sides from 91 to 03.  Legally, Clinton could have and possibly should have done something about him the FIRST time he violated the terms of the ceasefire HE agreed to.

There ARE two sides to the story, and for the US, it was a lose/lose deal.  How quickly the left is willing to forget all those years of dishonestly accusing Bush I of "not finishing the job."  Bush II does, and y'all go into spin overdrive about THAT.

I will reiterate what I previously posted, and clarify it.  It was not some political ideology that formed/forms the basis of my opinion that we should have left Saddam alone.  He was a murdering scumbag and a liar and deserved to pay for his transgressions against the people of Iraq.

STRATEGICALLY, he was the joker in the deck in the Middle East.  He kept the Shia and Sunni off balance.  Big picture-wise, better to leave him in place than create the chaos we have by removing him from power.  

What I DO blame on Bush, his administration, and anyone so geographically naive, is having a great plan for removing Saddam from power, and NO plan for the aftermath.  Saddam DID have one thing right:  he kept the religious fanatics contained, until they eventually had to hide in the no-fly zones.  Americans assuming Arabs would be grateful for that need to pull their heads out of their asses.  They've been fighting over real or imagined slights and this sand dune or that for centuries.  Knocking off Saddam just allowed them to resume business as usual.


----------



## Kalam (Mar 16, 2009)

Al-Bashir is heading out of Sudan to attend an Arab League summit in Doha:

Al Jazeera English - Middle East - Bashir 'to attend Doha Arab summit'

I wonder if the arrest will be made then?


----------



## Xenophon (Apr 10, 2009)

The concept of a 'world court' is not leagal unless all nations agree to it.


----------



## Kalam (Apr 10, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> The concept of a 'world court' is not leagal unless all nations agree to it.


Yep. The Arab League is being stupid. Qatar and SA need to wake up and realize that justice takes precedence over their puerile fantasies of ethnoreligious solidarity.


----------



## ras (Apr 11, 2009)

Kalam said:


> Xenophon said:
> 
> 
> > The concept of a 'world court' is not leagal unless all nations agree to it.
> ...



the arab league, in general,  acts in a manner consistent with   Islamic law-----and therefore supports the president of  Sudan in his genocide against non muslims who resist islamic oppression.   -------in fact in their islamic eyes that genocide is JUSTICE          you should wake up to HONESTY


----------



## Kalam (Apr 11, 2009)

ras said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> > Xenophon said:
> ...



The leaders of the primary opposition movements in Sudan are Muslims, moron. You've already demonstrated that your knowledge of Islam and Islamic law is pathetically diminutive. You're as hopelessly stupid and prejudiced as any member of the Arab League, so fuck off.


----------



## ras (Apr 11, 2009)

Kalam said:


> ras said:
> 
> 
> > Kalam said:
> ...



I am quite learned in islamic law as it pertains to non muslims---having had relatives who lived and died under that disgusting filth.   ------it is LEGAL in islamic law to kill a non muslim who DEFIES islamic authority and it is legal to enslave his children and rape his wife.       In fact the turks justfied the Armenian genocide based on ISLAMIC LAW-----and the West pakistani army justified    1/4 million rapes in  east pakistan based on a declaration of  Takfir upon the muslims of east pakistan.    ---------  as to your    "fuck off"   comment--------keep in mind ---I am NOT    EMAK AL KHALBAH-----nor am I   ACHTAH ALSHARMUTAH who is now busy sucking   ZIB ABOUK.     You should keep your filth in your own house where it BELONGS


----------



## Kalam (Apr 11, 2009)

ras said:


> I am quite learned in islamic law as it pertains to non muslims---having had relatives who lived and died under that disgusting filth.   ------it is LEGAL in islamic law to kill a non muslim who DEFIES islamic authority and it is legal to enslave his children and rape his wife.


Oh, okay. I'm sure that you can provide us with an example of scriptural justification for this supposed "law," right? 



ras said:


> In fact the turks justfied the Armenian genocide based on ISLAMIC LAW-----


Anybody who knows a thing about the Armenian genocide knows that it wasn't one-sided and that it was fueled by ethnic aspirations, not religious ones. 



ras said:


> and the West pakistani army justified    1/4 million rapes in  east pakistan based on a declaration of  Takfir upon the muslims of east pakistan.


Source?

How about the same number of rapes in Bosnia being justified by Serbian soldiers who wanted their Islamic victims, God bless them, to have "Christian babies"?



ras said:


> ---------  as to your    "fuck off"   comment--------keep in mind ---I am NOT    EMAK AL KHALBAH-----nor am I   ACHTAH ALSHARMUTAH who is now busy sucking   ZIB ABOUK.


You're simply a moron. 



ras said:


> You should keep your filth in your own house where it BELONGS


Meaning...?


----------



## ras (Apr 12, 2009)

Kalam said:


> ras said:
> 
> 
> > I am quite learned in islamic law as it pertains to non muslims---having had relatives who lived and died under that disgusting filth.   ------it is LEGAL in islamic law to kill a non muslim who DEFIES islamic authority and it is legal to enslave his children and rape his wife.
> ...


the islamic filth----and the words  emak alsharmootah taught you.


----------

