Regarding Dufar?

Question

Should we give the United Nations over 10 years to see what they will do about it, like we did with Iraq, or should we interfere prematurely?

"just send money, thanks"

Yeah, nothing like sending money (food and supplies also) so the ones doing the killing can get rich also.

Answer 1

People are so pissed we haven't gone in. Yet they ***** that we shouldn't "police" the world.

Which is it? police the world or not?

Answer 2

First of all; any action taken now can not possibly in good conscious, be called "premature" considering that there are barely any people left alive in Sudan from the genocide.

Secondly, it's important to see what happens when Bush decides to "act through the UN"; the same thing that happened in Rwanda.

Third, militarily, we are stretched about as much as the institution of the U.S. Armed Forces can be stretched. Sad to say, but there is not much that can be done for them.

Answer 3

Shouldn't interfere in another Muslim civil war. Hell they want to pull out of Iraq after we removed their government. How long do you think they would stay in Darfur? Yes, sending aid and money to Somalia did so much! Made sure they were fed well before they dragged dead nude US soldiers behind vehicles. I will wager if we go to Darfur, the insurgents that are in Iraq will follow!

Answer 4

I think EVERYONE should stay out of it. Let these nations develop, because that is the problem, they are underdeveloped. Outside influence will not help, you can't advance nations hundreds of years overnight.

You got a point about sending money and aid, it all filters into the hands of the warlords and militias, compounding the suffering of oppressed people.

Theres no quick solution that would satisfy the Myspace Libs who latch on to something humanitarian like a pitbull.

Answer 5

a million. I deliberate out my tale, allowing what befell to take position. Then, I retroactively gave my characters certain personalities in accordance to their movements, and then rethought out the tale with the purely right personalities. So in reality, the first area replaced into purely options, and the 2d area replaced into shaping those options into personalities. My characters advanced, and slowly began to attain the sources of existence in my concepts. i do not love my characters, a lot as i'm drawn to them. they don't look to be meant to be loved, or hated, or overanalyzed-- they're who they're. 2. My characters are not to any extent further plot units, yet no longer particularly complete human beings. i'm confident that the further I artwork with them, the further they'll look like residing, respiratory human beings in my eyes. it truly is all about evolution for me. 3. I somewhat have in no way achieved so, even with the actual incontrovertible reality that a number of my characters are nonhuman and emotionally different. i do not imagine i ought to correctly write what you're speaking about. 4. My characters are not very like me or my associates. One component of myself replaced into given to a personality (she virtually makes relaxing of her own tale, and likes to chortle and comic tale). even with the undeniable fact that, she is a complicated personality who has many aspects that i do not (basic xenophobia, optimism, a particular faith, and each and each and every of the sentiments that come from her position, one so divorced from my existence that I somewhat do not comprehend what i'd do in her footwear). except for that, they contain few or no aspects of me and associates. One personality began as a Sue that I projected myself onto, yet by the end of the tale he had a personality, that's now's his personality instantly from the initiating (even with the actual incontrovertible reality that he's universal a dynamic personality). 5. My characters continually went OOC in my first theory of the tale. Like I reported, their personalities were determined contained eventually, and those at the instantaneous are their personalities for the entire tale, that's now consistent. after I note an inconsistency now, I both restore it or stumble on a thanks to describe it (that can upload extra aspects to a personality). Sorry for no moar paragraphs. kthxbai :)

Answer 6

since all the people in darfur are being eradicated, why dont we set it aside for the palestinians, so they can have a homeland?

and they can finally leave the Jews alone, Israel belongs to the Jews, says so in the bible. they have two ancient temples underneath the al aqsa mosque in jerusalem, their presence was there for thousands of years before the moslems came in.

they called "seat check"


hey geniuses, he said prematurely "tongue in cheek", its sarcasm. o; allah, the state of the public schools these days.

Answer 7

well.. there wasn't genocide going on in Iraq when we invaded... in fact, it may be too late in Darfur... it seems to be calming down now...

if you wait until three or four years... or 10 years in Iraq's case, after the genocides are over... it doesn't really make a lot of difference...

Answer 8

I think we should stay out of it...look how grateful the Somalis were...let the UN handle this one completely...maybe this will give France and Germany something to do...

Answer 9

Why would Bush interfere? There ain't much oil there.
What do you mean," prematurely"? It's been out of hand for a while now.

Answer 10

Maybe they chould set up enclosed towns like we had in the American 'Old West'. We need economic solutions, not political ones.