If the U.S. really wanted to, could we get the United Nations to take action in Darfur?

Question

What I'm really asking, I suppose, is if the U.S. shares some of the blame for the U.N.'s inaction on the Darfur genocide?

Answer 1

Probably, but we have certainly lost some of our international standing over the last 6 years, and specifically since our invasion of Iraq. However, we are still quite powerful, and if we had the determination to help, we could push the UN and a few other countries into Peace Keeping. The biggest obstacle is the person in the White House at this time. He has no interest in Darfur because there is no oil in Darfur. It is an incredibly poor country with no hope of paying companies lilke Halliburton to rebuild it or provide security. How does he sleep at night when this is happening? Then again, how does most of the world sleep when this is occurring in Darfur.

Answer 2

So are you advocating invading* Darfur? Under United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution? Like the UNSC Resolution that we used to invade Iraq? Why would it be better to invade Darfur? And have we tried 10 years of sanctions yet (like Iraq)?

* Sending troops into a sovereign nation is an invasion. The people who are doing the killing don't want us there, they have guns, they are not going to welcome us with open arms, they have a reason why they are doing it (as disgusting as it is to us). How is this different from Iraq?

Answer 3

Doubt it, they've got the Iraq excuse.

Answer 4

yes, but US is never gonna do anything like that in less there is profit

Answer 5

The UN is not our friend, they are USING us in Iraq to gain control.

I hate the UN. They are evil.

Answer 6

We can't be everywhere at once.