If the USA is so about human rights why aren't they in durfur?

Question

Has there ever been a time when there were so many human rights abusses? Sadam at his worst never kiddnapped 25,000 children to use as sex slaves. Or starved to death 1.3 million in a concentration camp. Isn't the real reason they went to Iraq was the oil? There is less abuse there than Africa? What else difference could there be?

Answer 1

Because intervention there is really out of the question as far as the US is concerned.

First - how can we intervene? How are we going to deploy troops to an inland country? How are we going to get their armaments and supplies there? Who is going to let our armed forces pass through or over their countries? How vulnerable would our supply line be? Or our naval vessels in the Red Sea?

Without a significant African and especially Coastal Northern or Northeaster African country to help, and open itself up to allow foreign troops, etc, to pass through, nobody will be able to help. The logistics would be an impractical nightmare.

It is completely different from Iraq. They are not the same, so comparison is problematic.

But without any urgency from Kofi Annan or the UN, nothing will be done. A lot of people have died while Kofi Annan has been in a position to do something about it.

Answer 2

It's horrible isn't it? I think if we were exposed to just a fraction of the atrocities that go on every day it would be enough to give us a mental breakdown. I personally have to switch off the news sometimes because its just too distressing don't you think? the more I see of these things the more it convinces me of how true Jeremiah 10:23 is 'to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his own step', basically saying that we as humans were never designed to rule ourselves or create our own governments, see what a mess everything is in now? Fortunately the issue of whether it's better for god to rule us or for us to rule ourselves has been settled now and the extent of the violence on earth at this time is an indication that it will end very very soon.
I'm really glad that I believe what I do because otherwise I think I would be like a lot of people, either losing faith in any solution to the problem or trying to get as much enjoyment out of life as possible at any expense, but instead I have a hope for the future that couldn't be better.

I wouldn't be surprised if the truth behind the whole 'iraq' thing was all about oil, I'm afraid that essentially human goverments are all corrupt to a greater or lesser degree.

Answer 3

Who said the US is for human rights! We happen not to be for the moment!

If we were we would not have illegal CIA ran prisons in other countries like Poland.

On his worst day, and over his entire governing official, Saddam didn't come close to killing the number of Iraqis that we have!

During our blockade, we starved to death 1/2 million children under 5 in Iraq!

We are such a great country and so concerned about democracy when oil and poppies (Cocaine) are involved. Can't live without doing the money laundering!!

Answer 4

Bereal1 commends the President for calling upon NATO to help Dafur. Isn't that a cop-out?
That is just passing the Buck.
The question is why doesn't the USA take action? The answer is that the USA has commitments to which the President has given a Higher Priority - like fermenting civil war in Iraq.

Answer 5

I would say that Germany 1938-1945 had worse human rights abuses.

Anyway, the US is not in Darfur because 'human rights' is not a good enough reason to invade. If it was, we'd be invading China, North Korea, Russia, Iran, Sryia, Sudan, and about half the world at the same time.

We can't do this, the US doesn't have that kind of power. So, sadly, we can't intervene everywhere.

Answer 6

The situations in Iraq and in Darfur were both bad, and no, it's NOT all about oil. That's a childish simplification by those who are, for some reason, unable to work through the complexities of both situations and understand what is going on. There's plenty of oil and other fuels, so that no one really needs to go to war over them. Look at Brazil. Between their offshore drilling and development of sugar-cane ethanol, they supply much of the needs of the entire continent of South America.

Answer 7

good question.

for the USA to take military action (or probably any country for that matter), it needs to meet two conditions:
1. The moral high ground- which this situation certainly calls for, and
2. In our interests.

Sadly- it apparently doesn't meet criteria #2. And we've wasted so much of our political capital around the world on this godforsaken Iraq venture- that we can't use our persuation to get other countries (those with more interest in the region) in there and doing something.

Plus- our Military is up to their eyeballs in S*&T right now.

Answer 8

The US is helping Darfur... Quote from Boston globe... For nearly three years, President Bush has watched from the sidelines while senior officials in his administration have searched for solutions to the catastrophe in Darfur. So the president took a lot of people by surprise -- especially members of his own foreign policy team -- when he recently called for NATO to help protect civilians and stabilize the security situation there.

Answer 9

Regrettably, the U.S. only commits troops when attacked or to protect its interest. This has been a long term policy dating back to Teddy Roosevelt. This isn't a cold hearted policy either. Bear in mind, our troops are our sons and daughters. It would be difficult to get Americans to sacrifice the lives of their children unless the U.S. was directly threathened. It's sad, I don't want to sent my son over there.

Answer 10

The USA doesn't really care for human rights. The US doesn't let Americans own property (no allodial title), US has "Free Speech Zones", US limits the right to bear arms even though in the 2nd amendment it says "shall not be infringed."