Shouldn't the Bush administration focus on the genocide happening in Darfur instead of on the war on Iraq?

Answer 1

what's funny is... they ignore Saddam's major genocidal purges... and after they are mostly over... then we invade? a lot of good that does...

I guess they are waiting for the genocide to stop before we go in to "free the people" of Darfur?

Answer 2

I think that is a cut an dry approach to the topic; however, life is more complicated than a text book answer. There are many living in poverty, and without doubt most are minorities; but, having been one of those few whites who have lived in poverty, I can tell you that there is a way out, and you don't necessarily have to have college papers to do it. Being educated is more than a scrap of paper, it's actual intelligence. And herin lies the tie-in. Intelligent people who care to have studied the region known as Mesopotamia will know that "Bush's War" isn't the reason why innocent people are dying. It's because of ethnic hatreds that predate the Roman Empire. Bush's Occupation was an excuse, not a symptom.

Answer 3

No. Our nation's interest are better served creating a stable Iraq.

Besides, if Bush had gone to Darfur instead of dealing with Iraq ... democrats would be accusing him of not being in Iraq now.

Answer 4

Ask a Republican these days why it was still okay to go into Iraq after we now know there were no WMDs, burgeoning nuclear arsenal, and no connection to 9/11 and they will tell you about those poor Iraqi people who were being abused by Saddam Hussein. That despot needed to be taken care of folks! But when you ask them about Darfur and the hundreds of thousands dead because of THAT despot they will call you a liberal like it's a dirty word. Go figure...

Answer 5

Can anyone tell me who is responsible for the genocide in Darfur? Oh, sorry. The correct answer is Al Qaeda. So one one hand we are supposed to fight Al Qaeda in Darfur but not in Iraq. And if you don't think Al Qaeda is in Iraq then who exactly is Abu Ayyub al-Masri but al-Zarqawi's replacement as the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Look it up.

Answer 6

No, the Africans don't have nukes that they will want to aim at us. I said no, because you said instead of Iraq. American should be after the UN to step in and help the poor victims in Darfur. We cant be on every front. We could send aid, but the leaders wont let aid in now. Pray for our fellow Christians in Darfur.

Answer 7

Kimberly, since the beginning of time, African hostility shall remain African. No country with any sense of values will dare to commit troops to this region. This, more than any other, is a no win commitment!

You're right, clinton did send troops into Somolia, but that just goes to show you how really stupid the man was (is)! He wasn't there very long, was he? Shamefully, the fool denied his troops the back up of men and equipment they had requested. As a result of this horrific denial, 18 of those fine Rangers died.

Somolia was the act of a greenhorn politician making decisions that only generals should be allowed to make. However,it did reaffirm one edict, stay the hell out of Africa. The US hasn't been back to Africa since Somolia, in any real long term commitment, and it's doubtful that it will.

The French do good in Africa, so do the Dutch. Well, they did! Hell, Sweden, Ireland, Switzerland, Monoco, Greenland, Nova Scotia, they're all overdue to help out, let them make a commitment, for a change!

Answer 8

No oil in Darfur

Answer 9

Yes, I would love to see Bush, or any other politician, set a threshold for humanitarian war based on genocide and human rights violations. They have been really inconsistent about talking up freedom and democracy when it suits their causes, but silent while other nations wither.

Answer 10

Darfur doesn't have wmds