what can we do to convince our gov't to help in darfur?

Question

I mean peacefully. like sending buearocrats or disgraced politicians to help get food into the region.

Answer 1

First, you have to get a lot of activists on the streets to carry signs saying, "Bomb Darfur - A Country that Never Attacked Us"

Bush cannot engage in such a humanitarian effort that would surely require war against Islamists (Janjiweed, supported by Al Qaeda) and 'create new terrorists' as long as Leftists prefer to see hundreds of thousands murdered rather than see Bush succeed.

Really, so much effort was put into convincing Government to NOT wage war against murderous thugs that it will be difficult to swing the pendulum the other way.

The UN has a presence in Darfur. That organization lacks the courage to ask the US (its main fighting force) to fix the problem. To fix it will certainly require bloodshed. Islamists, having conquered that land, will fight to the last to hold it.

Humanitarian progress is the result of war against tyrants. To crush that willingness to fight tyranny is to doom humanity to ever-increasing brutality.

Answer 2

Quit listening to the " Political Party of Hollywood" ..... "the Bush administration has been spearheading efforts to end the violence, but little has had much impact. Not the fact that the United States early on labeled it genocide when others were reluctant to do so. Not 7,000 African peacekeepers. Not a U.S.-led effort for a possible NATO role along with United Nations peacekeepers.Even if the U.S. military wasn't overstretched in Iraq, it can't simply impose a military solution unilaterally. Its efforts to get more action from the U.N. Security Council and NATO haven't made much headway. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called on Security Council members China and Russia to help pressure, but they are reluctant." USA Today.
"The US government does "not intend to stand by while violence and atrocities continue in Darfur," a US State Department official said, warning the Sudanese government it had to cooperate putting an end to humanitarian crisis in Darfur. "Do not doubt our determination," he told the Khartoum government. A military intervention is being considered.
"Our message to the government of Sudan is clear: do what is necessary now, and we will work with you. If you do not, there will be consequences," he said, adding there was no time to lose.
The United States for months has been the nation exerting the strongest pressure against Khartoum regarding the government-supported ethnic cleansing campaign in Darfur, which has led to a humanitarian disaster. The international community so far however has been slow following the US leadership in this case."
Our Government is doing what it can, remember we can't just invade a sovereign Nation, NATO and the UN have to get involved..

Answer 3

Pressure from many quarters is closing in on the government of Sudan to end the violence that ravages the Darfur province. But more is needed, particularly from the United Nations.
The UN must overcome the reluctance of China and Russia, which have oil interests in Sudan, to persuade the government in Khartoum to let in the troops and humanitarian groups that can stop the exodus and genocide of its own citizens. So far, government-armed militants have killed more than 200,000 people and displaced more than 2 million. Security continues to deteriorate, and aid workers are targeted.

Oh, and by the way, Pretty Woman is pretty stupid

Answer 4

i think of have been combating terrorists who threaten people who desire peace. If we bypass to Darfur, the comparable element will take place there. we are going to win this conflict in Iraq and we can win the war on terrorism. I agree, there needs to be extra interest concentrated on Darfur, yet, i do no longer think of that's a topic which would be solved militarily. Thats all I could say approximately that.

Answer 5

Our government will not intervene in this civil matter because there is no american interest to protect in the Darfur region of Sudan. Now if the Darfur region of Sudan was a major oil producing area, then our troops would already be there, protecting our oil interest. Please pass the potatoes and gravy.

Answer 6

So confusing... I thought we weren't the police of the world? All the world is bitching and moaning about our involvement in Afghanistan and the middle east... now we are supposed to be involved? It makes no sense!

Personally, I feel that it is our role as a global super-power to prevent these sort of atrocities. However, until the world, the UN, and the AU (African Union) agree to our presence, we will not go in there. The fact that the AU thinks it has this situation under control is laughable. We should AT THE VERY LEAST halt ALL aid to Africa until it stops.

Answer 7

Nothing Bush doesn't care a straw for darfur, because there is no black gold in this poor country.

in fact do you know that it,s expensive to make war.?
That why the Soviet Union fell.

Answer 8

President Bush seems to be the only one I have seen trying to help with this devastating problem and tragedy. However, the U.S. cannot act alone and unfortunately the U.N. is not cooperating. They want to oppose anything constructive that comes from the U.S.A. but they cannot propose anything that seems to help.

Why is that people want the U.S. to solve all the world problems and when we attempt to resolve them we are criticized and condemned. Sometimes by our own citizens.

Answer 9

America has no national-security interest in Darfur. I couldn't care less about what's happening there.

Answer 10

Last time we attempted to help over there we ended up getting shot at and several of our soliders got killed. It's THERE problem they should deal with it. After all everyone is ALWAYS telling America we need to mind our own business.