Question for a politcal science class debate I'm doing. I am on the "yes" side, but would like to hear opinions on either side. Credible statistics and facts to back up opinions would be a plus.
"Intervention" means putting U.S. troops on the ground either alone or with UN backing rather than simply giving more support to the AU.
2006-11-17 07:15:09 · 9 answers · asked by Jamie 1 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Oh, I should add that while the humanitarian issue is of course the main argument for going in, I do need a wider variety of ideas, such as economic, regional security, etc...
Unfortunately, while humanitarian issues should be a good enough reason, there are other political factors involved (hence why nobody has gone in yet) and I have to discuss those as well...
2006-11-17 07:32:33 · update #1
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
Our military is stretched very thin in the middle east and should not attempt to take on any more military missions. Unless you don't mind seeing the draft reinstated.
The UN refused to assist in Iraq for a variety of reasons so it should be up to it to help in Darfur. When I read the news about Darfur it makes me ill, but we cannot stretch ourselves any further. Many of our troops are experiencing stress levels that are dangerous. The violence of war is most harmful to decent humans and eventually they snap and go berserk. Hard hearted people are not so severely affected because they don't care. But we don't want them in the military walking around with guns, deciding who lives and who dies.
2006-11-19 18:05:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We should NOT simply give more support to the AU. The AU has proven itself to be a useless and corrupt organization (similar to the UN, not surprisingly).
We should NOT care about having UN backing because the UN has proven itself to be a useless and corrupt organization.
I firmly believe that we SHOULD intervene in Darfur. This is a legitimate aid mission helping citizens who are being exterminated and raped by rebels. It sickens me that the AU and UN have allowed this situation to exist for so long. However, I would like to qualify my "yes" vote by saying IF we go in, we need to go in with a clear plan and goal, take care of it, and get out. We do not need to set up bases, rebuild the infrastructure, or democratize the nation. We DO need to save the innocent people who are being butchered for no reason.
2006-11-17 07:24:43 · answer #2 · answered by Goose&Tonic 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The government in Sudan is intent on wiping these people out.
so in order to protect those people we would have to topple the
gov there and then what? Spend a lot of money and loss of life
protecting them forever ? We lost 37,000 lives and a lot of money in Korea just trying to stem the spread of communism
and now, more than 50 years later, we still have 50,000 troops
there and it is costing us a lot of money. How many lives and
money can we spare to protect the rest of the world? Especially
without the help of other countries like the French, etc. Since
Sudan is no threat to the rest of the world, nobody would stand
by us in another bloodbath. If we weaken ourselves too much,
then It may be us that needs saving. I feel for all the misfortunate
folks in the world, but we are incapable of sorting out everybodys
problems.
2006-11-17 07:52:02 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The US should intervene in Darfur because doing so is in its long term strategic interests. The genocide is being commtted by the people with the same Islamo-Fascist philosophy that led to attacks on the US. If unchecked, the Islamo Fascist philosophy will spread and America will face more enemies in the future.
2006-11-17 16:36:11 · answer #4 · answered by d/dx+d/dy+d/dz 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes we should because enough is enough. i mean how many people are going to die .before the un @pu steps in but that 's myth
we must step in send at least 1,000 troops 10 tanks
20 black hawks @ 2 f-16's to get the job done in the sudan
2006-11-17 07:24:28 · answer #5 · answered by theodore y 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes to a certain extent, we are over extended right now. I believe if our government could work to guarantee the safe delivery of goods to the suffering, our churches would donate the supplies.
2006-11-17 08:46:23 · answer #6 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
of course they wont intervene, and why, simple there is nothing in it for them, china controls the oil in Darfur ,.America like all powerful nations only act when there is an advantage in it political or monetary
.
2006-11-18 08:48:21 · answer #7 · answered by michael c 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We have to do something. It's not like Europe is going to do anything about it, and the UN will only make things worse.
2006-11-17 07:59:38 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
i HOPE YOU ARE READY TO VOLENTEER?
2006-11-17 12:40:06 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋