2006-11-25 13:20:34 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Current Events
An allied force of Euro soldiers would be great for Sudan, because it would end the slaughtering of innocent peoples. It would also split Sudan into 2, divided along Arab and African lines. It could also give Africans more say in the politics over there.
BUT
Sudan is backed by many Arab nations (its ruled by its Arab minority), they would oppose that.
The US would be seen as the antagonist and would loose even more support in the middle east.
Sudan does have alot of oil :) , ask China they are buying the oil and funding the Sudanese military and janjaweed.
cheers
2006-11-26 03:50:43 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You know what, the US are damned if they do, and damned if they don't, why doesn't some other country go invade Dafur or anywhere else that there is trouble, one of the answers right on this question told us to stay in our own country, so well maybe we should mind our own business, the hell with it.
2006-11-25 16:25:01 · answer #2 · answered by glasgow girl 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What troops would the US use? The US military is over-committed without adding yet another conflict . Unless a draft is instituted there is no way the current army could effectively invade Darfur.
2006-11-25 15:31:21 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's time for some of those other UN members to step forward and do something about Darfur. We're a little bit busy just now. Maybe the French can go there and surrender
2006-11-25 14:15:48 · answer #4 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would rather the US had invaded Darfur than Iraq. At least I could see some good coming out of it. But the odds of getting support for that now are close to zero.
2006-11-25 13:28:21 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
definite, Bush seen it, even even though it quite is Africa and that too a nasty famine bothered and abject poverty of Somalians in Dafur potential, the Africans might devour the human beings alive! This made Bush to variety on that troops deployment!
2016-12-13 14:17:31 · answer #6 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Every time we get mixed up on somebody else's conflict,we lose,we lose our own soldiers,we lose the support of the rest of the world and we lose confidence on the people running the show.As many have put it before,we have to stop policing the world,in the end after we lose our own soldiers,the country involved turns around and denounces us as warmongers and demands restitution,that's enough,other countries better do their share instead of relying on the US for everything
2006-11-25 13:36:34 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
well the US ain't getting anywhere near Dafur, as it's not getting any benefit from that. No interest in this mission, as they don't have any military/economic agenda in that region.
2006-11-25 13:29:09 · answer #8 · answered by Changed by Lithium 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
sure but they wont unless theres an oil or gas or some strategic metals wars about money
2006-11-25 15:07:09 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Are you high? Look what a mess Iraq is! Afghanistan is not much better.
2006-11-25 16:54:00 · answer #10 · answered by urgup70 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋