quote:I suspect that people will keep reporting that until the bitter end.
His swan song means this is the bitter end.
Er, but only for the people who still unrealistically imagined that he still had a shot at president.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm almost positive that the F-22 isn't for sale outside the US, only the F-35 will be for export. Besides, I'm not entirely sure that Israel builds their own fighters, or even if they did, China isn't a part of the program, and the US would scream bloody murder if Israel tried to. Probably. I know Israel flies the F-16 and I think the F-15, but I'm not sure if they are produced on license in Israel, or if they are imported whole.
Regardless, UN resolutions are toothless. If it's just a popularity contest, and considering the UN's general antipathy towards Israel, I doubt they give a crap what the UN has to say about them, and if I were Israel, I wouldn't much care either.
Besides, from China's point of view I'm not even sure that's necessary. Depending on which variant of the F-35 you're talking about, it doesn't necessarily offer a whole lot more than what the Chinese could buy from the Russians. The latest Sukhois and Migs are pretty good (well, the export versions are pretty good anyway), with the only real difference being that the Lightning has considerable stealth capabilities, and depending on the variant, also has superior VTOL capability as well. I know China is flush with cash, but it'd be almost useless for them to buy the F-35 (for they are incredibly expensive), as they'd need the mechanics and technical support that'd go with them, and the US would never provide it. They'd be like Iranian F-14s, and it would take awhile before the Chinese could reverse engineer all the systems.
And even if all that weren't true, China is busily spending billions on investing in oil sources in Africa. China's investment in Africa is largely an untold story, but at the moment they are busily laying the foundation for what will be an eventual rape of what's left of Africa's resources. They're building factories and mines that pollute ground and river water, deforesting at an unprecedented rate, and have negotiated hugely profitable terms for resources to the disadvantage of cash strapped African nations. Africa could easily be a battleground between China and America, only this one would be an economic proxy fight, but by and large the US seems fairly apathetic to the looming crisis. To our credit though, and also unknown to most Americans, we're spending a lot of time and money on helping with the health crisis in Africa, making parts of it, and Kosovo, one of the few places you see people genuinely happy to wave American flags in celebration.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: One wonders what without US military and economic aid Israel would use to defend itself with.
I'm not saying I'd approve of withdrawing that support, I'm all for supporting genuine democracies that need our help, though I'd like it more if our help wasn't used to kill civilians, sometimes it's unavoidable.
But you don't get something for nothing, not in international politics.
Then the hell with international politics. The US shouldn't be playing chess with other countries as the pawns. There's plenty of need right here at home. With poverty what it is in the US, sending money away from the country is criminal.
And the fact is, the US is past bankrupt. We're in debt up to our tonsils to China and Japan and the UK, and what we can't borrow, we print and pretend it has value.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sid Meier: considering how often UN resolutions condemning Israel get passed that always get vetoed by the US ild be more careful about what you wish.
China might veto such bills for you but yould have to sell them an F-22/F-35 before they'ld risk angering their oil supply.
Who cares if the UN condemns Israel? Honestly, Israel should have pulled out of the UN a long time ago.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I suspect that people will keep reporting that until the bitter end.
His swan song means this is the bitter end.
Er, but only for the people who still unrealistically imagined that he still had a shot at president.
Why? He has not withdrawn from the race. He hasn't even "suspended" his candidacy, the way Romney did. He's still in it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Regardless, UN resolutions are toothless. If it's just a popularity contest, and considering the UN's general antipathy towards Israel, I doubt they give a crap what the UN has to say about them, and if I were Israel, I wouldn't much care either.
But they do, because it hurts their feelings.
If UN condemnations of Israel meant anything, Israel would have been gone for a long time already.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... And even if all that weren't true, China is busily spending billions on investing in oil sources in Africa.
Its almost like China is attempting to become the next economic colonial power
But seriously, the concept of a citizen of a former colonial power, an American no less, criticizing a near-former colony for exploiting nations in the third world almost fills up my irony meter for today. The fact that we're doing it on *environmental* grounds is just the icing on the cake.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Regardless, UN resolutions are toothless. If it's just a popularity contest, and considering the UN's general antipathy towards Israel, I doubt they give a crap what the UN has to say about them, and if I were Israel, I wouldn't much care either.
But they do, because it hurts their feelings.
If UN condemnations of Israel meant anything, Israel would have been gone for a long time already.
The US has vetoed every sanction and condemnation proposal brough to the UNSC, they do have tooth and merit do not doubt that.
IP: Logged |
posted
I hate watching these media know-it-alls kick Samantha Power.
It's the easiest thing in the world to pick on Power for her comment. Sure, it was inelegant and unsavvy, but if you really think that your opponent is willing to do anything and everything to win an election, and thereby transgress the bounds of humanity and decency, then yes, that person can be considered a monster. Power apologized, and I believe genuinely so. Her comment came from frustration. Power wasn't pandering to any audience. Clinton should have accepted the apology and gone on with her business, like a model adult. Obama should not have accepted Power's resignation. I think it shows a smallness in both of their characters.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a little confused at Power's comment. They keep quoting her as saying "off the record, I think she's a monster." If it was off the record, why was it reported?
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Regardless, UN resolutions are toothless. If it's just a popularity contest, and considering the UN's general antipathy towards Israel, I doubt they give a crap what the UN has to say about them, and if I were Israel, I wouldn't much care either.
But they do, because it hurts their feelings.
If UN condemnations of Israel meant anything, Israel would have been gone for a long time already.
The US has vetoed every sanction and condemnation proposal brough to the UNSC, they do have tooth and merit do not doubt that.
Seriously is that the best you can do? "I do doubt it" give evidence.
As long as the UNSC has the authority to enforce blockades, sanctions, military operations and the like it can and will if it wants to. The loss of the USA's power to veto resolutions that conflict with its national interest and the interests of its allies would thus constitute the greatest foreign policy disaster in Modern History. The USSR boycotted the UN once, it led to the American intervention in the Korean war which otherwise they could have vetoed it.
If the US withdraws it will amount to the same thing, imagine if a resolution was passed demanding the sanctioning of the state of Israel and the US wasn't there to veto it? The Arab states tasked to it would legally be allowed to do so and no one would be able to help Israel then.
IP: Logged |
quote:I'm a little confused at Power's comment. They keep quoting her as saying "off the record, I think she's a monster." If it was off the record, why was it reported?
Because you can't say "this is off the record" in the middle of an on-the-record interview.
Well, technically, you can say that, but it doesn't mean the reporter can't report it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Regardless, UN resolutions are toothless. If it's just a popularity contest, and considering the UN's general antipathy towards Israel, I doubt they give a crap what the UN has to say about them, and if I were Israel, I wouldn't much care either.
But they do, because it hurts their feelings.
If UN condemnations of Israel meant anything, Israel would have been gone for a long time already.
I'm with you on that one.
Blayne, the UNSC only has the authority that its constituent states give it. And I can't imagine a real economic sanction or military blockade actually passing Israel, and even if it was passed, who'd enforce it? The UN isn't utterly retarded, they wouldn't give Arab nations blue helmets and tell them to have at it.
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... And even if all that weren't true, China is busily spending billions on investing in oil sources in Africa.
Its almost like China is attempting to become the next economic colonial power
But seriously, the concept of a citizen of a former colonial power, an American no less, criticizing a near-former colony for exploiting nations in the third world almost fills up my irony meter for today. The fact that we're doing it on *environmental* grounds is just the icing on the cake.
I had a bigger rant all written out, but in the end I decided it wouldn't get me anywhere, so I'll just say this:
Should the West just shut up and let Africa become China's tool? Doesn't much seem fair to me to let Africa fall prey just because we made our mistakes, in some cases decades ago and long since passed. So it's their turn? Everyone else got a turn at it, so China is next? Flimsy argument.
And by the way, America is a former exploited colony itself, but I guess we don't get points for that do we, because we're America. Most of the time these days I wish America would just return to isolationism, so the rest of the world can deal with their problems and stop blaming everything on Earth on us.
And I'm sorry, but aren't you Canadian, and thus a subject of the British realm? I don't know where anyone remotely tied to Britain gets the moral authorty to tell ANYONE off when it comes to colonialism.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Because we asked nicely for our indepdence whilst you grabbed guns and started shooting every redcoat in sight?
China is doing wonders for Africa giving money for investment that wasn't there before, forgiving loans, granting preferential credits, bilateral trade agreements on a non ideological basis. Getting all high headed over ideology is what limited Soviets influence there somewhat and what limited US influence, for as long as you think you can dictate the terms you will never get anywhere.
IP: Logged |
quote:Because we asked nicely for our indepdence whilst you grabbed guns and started shooting every redcoat in sight?
We didn't shoot all of them, just the ones denying us the right to self rule. Besides, that has nothing to do with the fact that you guys are responsible for a ridiculously large number of the world's present problems, and for the subjugation of millions across the world under military dictatorships. America doesn't hold a candle to what Britain did.
quote:China is doing wonders for Africa giving money for investment that wasn't there before, forgiving loans, granting preferential credits, bilateral trade agreements on a non ideological basis. Getting all high headed over ideology is what limited Soviets influence there somewhat and what limited US influence, for as long as you think you can dictate the terms you will never get anywhere.
Keep thinking that.
I see China's market share in the rose colored glasses industry has increased substantially since they started exporting to Canada.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Why? He has not withdrawn from the race. He hasn't even "suspended" his candidacy, the way Romney did. He's still in it.
He did not stand a chance at the presidency and anyone who has been harboring that notion for the past month or so is being incredibly stupid.
He's the Republican Mike Gravel.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, come on now. He never had a chance, but he was a powerhouse compared to Gravel. Gravel was always with the margin of error of actually existing, and never raised more than a half million, if he even raised that.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not to mention that she could be in another ad. After her identity became known, Obama's campaign contacted her.
"I mentioned that we should make a counter ad, me and Obama, against Hillary," she said. "They thought that was really funny. They actually might take me up on it."
That said, Knowles said she plans to vote for whichever Democrat wins the nomination.
Heh. Now on the one hand, it was a crappy ad, it was fearmongering, and I have no problem with her getting slapped back in the face with a sarcastic riposte from Obama. On the other hand, she couldn't possibly have known that a random piece of stock footage would come back to bite her in the butt like that, and I feel bad for her, just a teeny, tiny, TINY, TEEEEEENY bit. Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thoought that Casey said that she contacted the Obama campaign, not the other way around. I have heard several interviews with her over the weekend and I'm pretty sure that is what she said.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: If the US withdraws it will amount to the same thing, imagine if a resolution was passed demanding the sanctioning of the state of Israel and the US wasn't there to veto it? The Arab states tasked to it would legally be allowed to do so and no one would be able to help Israel then.
Number one, the Arab states will do to Israel whatever they want, regardless of the UN.
Number two, we have God.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:China is doing wonders for Africa giving money for investment that wasn't there before, forgiving loans, granting preferential credits, bilateral trade agreements on a non ideological basis. ...
... I see China's market share in the rose colored glasses industry has increased substantially since they started exporting to Canada.
Irony strikes again! Afterall, these are pretty much the same kind of arguments that foreign companies used (and are still using) to support foreign investment in so-called "sweatshops" in places such as China itself. (which does not necessarily make the arguments wrong BTW, but that is a much longer discussion)
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... Should the West just shut up and let Africa become China's tool? Doesn't much seem fair to me to let Africa fall prey just because we made our mistakes, in some cases decades ago and long since passed. So it's their turn? Everyone else got a turn at it, so China is next? Flimsy argument.
And by the way, America is a former exploited colony itself, but I guess we don't get points for that do we, because we're America. Most of the time these days I wish America would just return to isolationism, so the rest of the world can deal with their problems and stop blaming everything on Earth on us.
And I'm sorry, but aren't you Canadian, and thus a subject of the British realm? I don't know where anyone remotely tied to Britain gets the moral authorty to tell ANYONE off when it comes to colonialism.
First, contrary to popular belief, not all Canadians are of European descent, let alone British descent. My parents are from Hong Kong, which gives me a rather unique perspective to slag both European colonialism AND the PRC, if you have some basic familiarity with its history Second, the term "British subject" is obselete under Canadian law and has been removed.
As for your objections, I note with great amusement that you're objecting to a great deal of your own assumptions and baggage rather than anything I wrote. Far from expecting the West to stop complaining, I fully *expect* the West to whine and complain about China "exploiting" (as defined by your previous definition) Africa. I also *expect* China to ignore those complaints.
Just because your complaints are hypocritical and self-serving, does not actually make them wrong. If Britain had complained about American mistreatment of native Americans after their war of independence, America would probably have given Britain the finger. That wouldn't have made the British wrong, but their continued exploitation at the same time would somewhat undercut their moral authority and the chances of anyone listening to them.
Same here, I fully expect China (or rather Chinese companies) to give the West the finger. After all, Americans (or North Americans for that matter) use roughly six times as many resources per person than does the average Chinese person. For each of those objections that you raised to Chinese exploitation in Africa (pollution, deforestation, lack of fair trade) we support in *bigger* amounts and on a more global scale than the Chinese do currently, often in China itself.
We have no moral authority to tell the Chinese what to do regarding the environment, heck, we can't even ratify something as simple as Kyoto, let alone demonstrate something like leadership regarding the environment. In fact, I'm *glad* that the Chinese are *not* following the North American example and are using a fair amount of renewable energy and resources for their level of technological and economic development. After all, if the Chinese suddenly used as much resources per capita as the US, the world environment would fold like a wet paper bag. They might even need to invade Iraq for oil too Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
A new 3am phone call ad for Obama would only work, I think, if it didn't slam Clinton by name. Obama needs to resist the constant call to go dirty. Maybe something like:
"When I was a little girl and scary things happened, I just wanted them to go away. But now I'm grown up, and I know the world is more complicated than that..."
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I don't know where anyone remotely tied to Britain gets the moral authorty to tell ANYONE off when it comes to colonialism."
There are a LOT more natives running around in BritishCommonwealth nations than there are in the UnitedStates. Heck, there were probably a LOT more natives running around when the British gave up their colonies than there would have been had the British stayed out of those regions entirely.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"China is doing wonders for Africa giving money for investment that wasn't there before, forgiving loans, granting preferential credits, bilateral trade agreements on a non ideological basis."
China is destroying what little the colonial powers' then the FirstWorld's looting has left behind. The only Africans benefitting from the transactions are the ones tossing their share of China's bribes into FirstWorld bank accounts, buying nonAfrican real estate, and "investing" in the stock of nonAfrican corporations.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: If the US withdraws it will amount to the same thing, imagine if a resolution was passed demanding the sanctioning of the state of Israel and the US wasn't there to veto it? The Arab states tasked to it would legally be allowed to do so and no one would be able to help Israel then.
Number one, the Arab states will do to Israel whatever they want, regardless of the UN.
Number two, we have God.
Thats like bringing nukes into the equation, except these nukes don't exist.
IP: Logged |
posted
When it comes to that, the juxtaposition of the 3 a.m. call and the "monster" remark are kind of funny.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Well alright, parents from Hong Kong takes some of the wind out of my sails. Thanks for that.
But I guess it comes down to this: If people like me had shut up throughout history, we'd never be as far along as we are. Just because I'm American doesn't mean I don't get to speak up about things going on around the world. You must've seen me speak out against what the US does on energy use, and I rail against the EPA constantly. I'm no happier with what parts of my country does than anyone else is, and I won't be silent because of it. Ratifying Kyoto was far from simple, and interestingly, the lynch pin of not signing something like Kyoto today is: China. They're making all the mistakes that we made in their rush to industrialize their country.
So call me a hypocrit, even though on this issue I'm really, really not. Call it ironic, call it whatever you want, but it's something I'll never be quiet about. And I'm pretty sure Africa would disagree with you wholeheartedly. They don't care about irony, they don't care about hypocrisy, they care about the prosperity and survival of their nations. I think it's a bit callous to tell someone who wants to help someone else that they should be quiet because of what others in their country have done. Shouldn't that make their help all the more necessary?
They get renewable technology from us by the way, (by us I mean the West in general, but mostly Germany and the US). They continue to buy it from us, just as we continue to spend large sums of money on it ourselves. Meanwhile, across the US, plans for coal plants are being shelved as companies fearing new greenhouse gas legislation wonder how expensive it'll be in the long run to operate a coal fired plant, and instead are opting for renewables, whereas in China, a new coal fired plant comes online every day. Don't get me started.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:“Honeybun,” said the next president, “I expect the press to ask some questions about how you handled the 3 AM calls during your administration.”
“I don’t know why my prostate needs to become an issue in this campaign,” said the last president.
“Not those 3 AM calls. The ones where national security was at stake.”
“You should know,” said Last. “The smartest thing we ever did was put the phone on your side of the bed.”
“That’s because half the time when the phone rang at 3 AM it was you calling,” said Next.
“And the other half the time it was Boris Yeltsin drunk dialing or Tony Blair needing to talk to someone about the Church of England. I wish I knew how to hang up on people but I don’t. You were totally remorseless.”
posted
All the Canadians I know are also of Chinese extraction. Coincidence or fiendish plot for world domination?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Well alright, parents from Hong Kong takes some of the wind out of my sails. Thanks for that.
But I guess it comes down to this: If people like me had shut up throughout history, we'd never be as far along as we are. Just because I'm American doesn't mean I don't get to speak up about things going on around the world. You must've seen me speak out against what the US does on energy use, and I rail against the EPA constantly. I'm no happier with what parts of my country does than anyone else is, and I won't be silent because of it. Ratifying Kyoto was far from simple, and interestingly, the lynch pin of not signing something like Kyoto today is: China. They're making all the mistakes that we made in their rush to industrialize their country.
So call me a hypocrit, even though on this issue I'm really, really not. Call it ironic, call it whatever you want, but it's something I'll never be quiet about. And I'm pretty sure Africa would disagree with you wholeheartedly. They don't care about irony, they don't care about hypocrisy, they care about the prosperity and survival of their nations. I think it's a bit callous to tell someone who wants to help someone else that they should be quiet because of what others in their country have done. Shouldn't that make their help all the more necessary?
They get renewable technology from us by the way, (by us I mean the West in general, but mostly Germany and the US). They continue to buy it from us, just as we continue to spend large sums of money on it ourselves. Meanwhile, across the US, plans for coal plants are being shelved as companies fearing new greenhouse gas legislation wonder how expensive it'll be in the long run to operate a coal fired plant, and instead are opting for renewables, whereas in China, a new coal fired plant comes online every day. Don't get me started.
There also pioneering the use of Pebble bed nuclear reactors and doing experimental research into their own Tokomak Fusion reactor, there's plenty of stuff they're doing on their own, where they buy spare parts shouldn't be a part of your rant its condenscending and belittling of their achievements.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"All the Canadians I know are also of Chinese extraction. Coincidence or fiendish plot for world domination?
Nope. Just Canada domination. The reason the Canadian dollar is so high compared to the USdollar in terms of historical levels is because China is using its USdollar surplus to buy Canada.
posted
That wasn't a criticism of China, it was saying in refutation to Mucus' apparent assertion that China is somehow leading the way in renewables against the grain in the West that all of that technology was pioneered in the West and was sold to China, where they adapted much of it, bought some of it straight out, and then progressed.
I'm not dissing China, but pretending that China is somehow any sort of leader of renewables over the West is laughable. To be sure though, China IS attempting to make strides with renewable energy, and I'm still thankful they integrated mag-lev tech into wind turbines, greatly increasing their efficiency.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... that all of that technology was pioneered in the West and was sold to China, where they adapted much of it, bought some of it straight out, and then progressed.
I'm not dissing China, but pretending that China is somehow any sort of leader of renewables over the West is laughable...
It would be laughable if I actually said that China was a *technological* leader in renewables. Let's examine what I actually said:
quote: In fact, I'm *glad* that the Chinese are *not* following the North American example and are using a fair amount of renewable energy and resources for their level of technological and economic development.
A repeat for those a bit slow, what I said was that China is using a "fair amount of renewable energy" given its "level of technological and economic development."
Now what is China's level of economic development? Well, a large majority (~70%) of Chinese are still working as peasants on incomes of probably less than $10 a day. As measured by the UN, the number of Chinese living in poverty (i.e. less than a $1 a day) was roughly 64% in the early 80s and this number was still 10% in 2004.
China is called a "developing country" for very real reasons, not just for kicks.
Now against this backdrop, we get news like this:
quote: "China is rapidly moving into a world leadership position in the industry," says William Wallace, an adviser to the United Nations Development Program in Beijing. "The government knows the limited oil supply is a situation it needs to pay attention to, from both an energy security and a development point of view. Its goals for the next five and 15 years are very aggressive." ... In 2004, an estimated $5.5 billion was invested in renewable energy in China. The rest of the world spent a total of $30 billion. "There is no renewable-energy law in the U.S.," says Eckhart. "We fund research and development, and give incentives. China is giving directives--getting right to the point."
Small solar panels can already be seen across the rooftops of major Chinese cities like Beijing. These supply power to solar water-heating systems, of which China is already both the largest producer and consumer in the world. At least 10 percent of all households in China (that's 30 million households) have them--and the market is growing by 20 percent to 25 percent a year, according to Eric Martinot, a leading researcher on renewable energy at Beijing's Qinghua University.
Well, I think that *certainly* qualifies for a "fair amount" and I'm doubly impressed that they managed to do it with their much smaller resources.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... But I guess it comes down to this: If people like me had shut up throughout history, we'd never be as far along as we are.
Actually, we'd probably be precisely as far along as we are People who speak out and get ignored (for *any* reason) do not actually affect the world. People who speak out and get in a position to get listened to or even better, who actually do something, that would be different.
quote: So call me a hypocrit, even though on this issue I'm really, really not. Call it ironic, call it whatever you want, but it's something I'll never be quiet about. And I'm pretty sure Africa would disagree with you wholeheartedly. They don't care about irony, they don't care about hypocrisy, they care about the prosperity and survival of their nations. I think it's a bit callous to tell someone who wants to help someone else that they should be quiet because of what others in their country have done. Shouldn't that make their help all the more necessary?
Only if we conflate "complaints" with "help."
One big problem is this insistence on what others in their country have "done".
Past tence.
AFAIK, American oil imports from Africa are still roughly six times as large as Chinese imports. Far from stepping back and being disappointed as China fills in the gap, American and European (hell, Canadian too probably) oil companies have been fully active in Angola, Nigeria, and the rest of Africa and the problems are still ongoing *today*. Oil corruption is not remotely something new that China is bringing to Africa.
As an example, they're actually working right alongside us in Angola:
quote: Exxon Mobil, Chevron, BP and others have poured billions into Angola in the last decade to unlock petroleum resources in the country's deep waters, where the vast majority of the oil is, and the payoffs are finally coming in.
In recent years, Angola has become the fastest-growing source of exports to the United States and, along with Nigeria and smaller West African countries, it is about to become an important component of American energy security. ... Within three years, oil-producing nations in western Africa will account for one of every three new barrels pumped worldwide. By 2015, the United States is projected to import a quarter of its oil from Africa, up from 15 percent today.
China has identified Angola as a promising source in its rush for energy resources, providing billions in loans and development aid in return for favorable treatment of its oil interests. Last year, Angola overtook Saudi Arabia as the largest oil supplier to the Chinese. It is the sixth biggest exporter to the United States. ... While oil companies talk at length about how welcoming the government is to foreign investors, they are much more circumspect when it comes to the government's lack of transparency or the history of corruption among its leaders.
Angola suffered through a devastating civil war for 27 years and became a focus of Cold War proxy battles between Western and Soviet allies in Africa. When the fighting ended in 2002, an estimated 500,000 people had died and much of the country was in ruins.
These days, Angola still has a terrible record on corruption and ranks on the lowest rungs of nearly all development indicators. Elections have been postponed several times and are currently scheduled for 2009.
The nation's contradictions are glaring. Angola earned more than $30 billion last year from its petroleum exports. But according to a recent World Bank report, 70 percent of the population lives on the equivalent of less than $2 a day, the majority lack access to basic health care and about one in four children die before their fifth birthday.
We're *all* to blame and we do not have an amazing track record, even when compared to Chinese if only due to their short record in the area. Pretending like only Chinese companies are to blame and that they're raping Africa while ignoring even greater *current* excesses by Western firms is a very good way of getting your points dismissed as nationalistic hackery rather than a realistic portrayal of the situation.
You want to help and thats commendable. If you really wanted to help, you'd notice that Western firms have even bigger problems and that would be a more appropriate target for your ire and as a bonus, *they might even listen*. Targeting China's companies to the exclusion of the others, thats a real quick way to get dismissed and raise suspicion.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Mississippi primary kind of snuck up on me there. Of course, today is my husband's birthday, so I guess that kind of nudged out the date in my active memory.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept." Ferraro does not buy the notion of Obama as the great reconciler.
posted
If Hillary Clinton wasn't a woman, would Geraldine Ferraro be supporting her?
It seems weird to me for someone to seriously claim that being black helps Obama but being a woman hurts Clinton. I'm sure that for each of these characteristics there are some voters who see it as a positive and some who see it as a negative. Maybe there's more going a certain way overall and Ferraro's right. But the reason it seems weird to me is mostly anecdotal: I've heard far more people expressly say they were voting for Clinton because she's a woman than I have heard people say they were voting for Obama because he's black.
quote:Sinbad Unloads on Hillary Clinton Finally, the Barack Obama campaign has found a big gun to help shoot down Hillary Rodham Clinton's self-proclaimed foreign policy experience. And he may be the wackiest gun of all: Sinbad, the actor, who has come out from under a rock to defend Obama in the war over foreign policy credentials.
Sinbad, along with singer Sheryl Crow, was on that 1996 trip to Bosnia that Clinton has described as a harrowing international experience that makes her tested and ready to answer a 3 a.m. phone call at the White House on day one, a claim for which she's taking much grief on the campaign trail.
Harrowing? Not that Sinbad recalls. He just remembers it being a USO tour to buck up the troops amid a much worse situation than he had imagined between the Bosnians and Serbs.
In an interview with the Sleuth Monday, he said the "scariest" part of the trip was wondering where he'd eat next. "I think the only 'red-phone' moment was: 'Do we eat here or at the next place.'"
quote:Clinton, during a late December campaign appearance in Iowa, described a hair-raising corkscrew landing in war-torn Bosnia, a trip she took with her then-teenage daughter, Chelsea. ...
In her Iowa stump speech, Clinton also said, "We used to say in the White House that if a place is too dangerous, too small or too poor, send the First Lady."
Say what? As Sinbad put it: "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
