I see the atrocities in Darfur, little boys tortured, very young girls gang raped, genocide. I realize these things are happening in Iraq, but they no longer seem to want us there. On the other hand, the people of Darfur are pleading for help. Over 400,000 have died and 10,000 are dying every month. Your opinion?
2006-11-09 06:22:25 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I agree, it should be an international coalition or UN force.
Turbo, I am against the war in Iraq because we went there under guise that we were looking for Bin Laden, then it was WMD's, then it was "liberation". The don't want us there and our troops are dying needlessly. The people of Darfur are begging for international help and yet are getting little.
DW, as for your snide answer, I have donated money and clothes and petitioned our government to help them. It may not be as good as being there, but it is my part to help.
2006-11-09 07:04:02 · update #1
Okidoki, The Bush regime doesn't give a damn where Al Qaeda is or we wouldn't have been in Iraq in the first place, we would have had all our troops concentrated in Afghanistan WHERE BIN LADEN WAS! There was nothing in Iraq for us but oil and $ for Halliburton. At least in Darfur our troops could feel a greater sense of purpose.
2006-11-09 08:26:24 · update #2
Yes they could be far better used in Darfur. And I think the troops would feel better about what they would be doing also.
Iagree with Skater etc. & this would be a great chance for the US to work with the UN and set it up as an International Police Force as originally intended.
2006-11-09 06:31:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Sudan has signed oil contracts with China and France - guaranteeing a UN veto of any effective solution.
Besides - there are serious logistical issues regarding supporting any large force in Darfur.
Another issue is that there is no need for the US to be there. Let Europe handle it.
2006-11-09 14:57:53 · answer #2 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
If you were against the invasion of Iraq, then it would be hypocritical to support the invasion of Sudan.
And, militarily, it would be pretty much impossible without local government cooperation, or the cooperation of a neighboring African country. The logistics can't support it.
And, note, this would be a unilateral act of war, and would result in a possible larger conflagration there, involving more than just Sudan.
Without the UN, without a coalition force including neighboring African states, this is a non-starter.
2006-11-09 14:41:11 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
You do realize that it's alqueda that's there too. They posted on the Internet that that we need to stay out of darfur. So since people think we are butting in in Iraq why would it be any different there?
2006-11-09 14:52:01 · answer #4 · answered by Stand 4 somthing Please! 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Bet $10 someone answers, because they don't have any oil in Darfur
2006-11-09 14:26:01 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
We need international troops in Darfur
2006-11-09 14:31:20 · answer #6 · answered by king of jersey 1 · 2⤊ 2⤋
actually J.S. ....I believe there is oil in the Sudan and south darfur..Talisman Oil..?
2006-11-09 14:45:20 · answer #7 · answered by Pete Schwetty 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The people in Somolia wanted us too then look what happened!
The Hollywood celebrities have adopted Dafur then let the celebrities go feed and fight for it!
2006-11-09 15:12:21 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Ideally they could come home for a while and spend time with their loved ones for a change.
For me, the question isn't about where they should go. It's whether they need to be going anywhere.
2006-11-09 14:27:35 · answer #9 · answered by Shane 5 · 0⤊ 5⤋
no
but you can go there and help out.
what have YOU done to help?
2006-11-09 14:42:34 · answer #10 · answered by DW 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋