English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

but what do you think.kepp an open mind don't just give superficial answers

2006-12-19 14:38:16 · 8 answers · asked by duy n 2 in News & Events Current Events

if both are the same why are we in iraq but not darfur

2006-12-21 15:19:13 · update #1

8 answers

The situation in Iraq is not because of "terrorism." After years of this needless conflict, there haven't been a single shred of evidence that Iraq was remotely behind 9/11, has weapons of mass destruction, nor was it to "free the Iraqi people" (really, what country would divert billions upon billions of dollars without asking for something in return?). It's obvious that Bush and his administration has some hidden agenda that either busted, or they're already exploiting it. Bush doesn't even see Dafur right now. He's too busy trying to make Iran look bad since they have something more advanced than coal to produce energy for its people.

2006-12-19 14:49:40 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

Seems like another Democrat talking out both sides of his mouth. If we went into Darfur, Democrats would go crazy. We should have been in Darfur some time ago, but it's the same circumstances as Iraq. Innocent people being killed by Islamic Jihadist.

2006-12-19 23:38:49 · answer #2 · answered by jay r 2 · 0 0

Darfur isn't next door to the country that is trying to bring on Armageddon in the Middle East. IRAN. It's also a worse civil war than Iraq and Al Q and Bin Laden are licking their lips waiting for the USA to jump into that cesspool, where are all these other big brave nations, especially muslim ones, to go in and police Darfur for the UN? I'm not being superficial, but when two peoples are determined to kill each other, we have to ask if it's worth one American life? We can't afford to go without foreign oil in the USA, and we could simply be outbid for foreign stocks by other countries like China and India in the future, this is why Bush said we must cut our dependence on foreign oil. Until then, we must keep a foothold in the Middle East.

2006-12-19 22:55:51 · answer #3 · answered by theshadowknows 5 · 1 1

I do remember Bush, during his early years worked with Sudan to stop the Muslim north from enslaving the Christian and Animist south and a civil war between the two sides. I agree, we do need to be doing more to help out with Darfur, but these Johnny-Come-Late-lies to the issue irritate me.

2006-12-19 22:50:09 · answer #4 · answered by Martin Chemnitz 5 · 1 0

there is not that much difference between Iraq and darfur, both have muslims killing each other off.

2006-12-20 22:29:19 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

We have no major national interests in Darfur, or Khartoum. I think the Chinese are interested in their oil. Let the Chinese intervene.

2006-12-19 23:34:12 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

In Iraq we are keeping terrorists busy. If we give up and leave they will be attacking in the states. 911 happened because Clinton ignored the warning signs and allowed the terrorists to continue training and infiltrating the US.

2006-12-19 22:43:55 · answer #7 · answered by sm4125 3 · 2 1

oil, and a chip on George's shoulder, he and CHeney have had a hard on for Iraq and Sadam for years

2006-12-19 22:46:03 · answer #8 · answered by ray 3 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers