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

...region of Sudan into Chad has captured growing attention in the U.S. due to belated media coverage and aggressive advertising by concerned groups, but the prospects in Washington dealing with the problem effectively seem slim. Darfur, is only one of a pox of conflicts that, together with HIV/AIDS, are causing the death of more and more people in parts of Africa, thus robbing it of the potential of mineral, oil, and gas deposits. Where it not for Iraq, WA. might have acted to stop what the Bush administration admits is a genocide in Darfur, or taken steps to prevent the take over of Somalia by an al Quaeda affiliated group. Unfortunately, even supporting small presence of U.S. Special Forces to lead a U.N. approved coalition peacekeeping force is beyond the the capability of the badly stretched U.S. military.

2007-01-04 12:17:48 · 3 answers · asked by phyleciah 2 in Politics & Government Military

3 answers

So Darfur is Bush's fault too? Man, this guy gets around doesn't he. My thoughts are that I can't help but marvel at the Irony and hypocrisy of the same people saying Iraq was a mistake now saying we must intervene to stop a genocide as if Saddam never committed genocide. This all stems from classic liberal guilt. You see we have to feel bad if we try to help a part of the world that also has strategic and economic interests but feel good if we help a part of the world that has no US interests.

2007-01-04 12:22:38 · answer #1 · answered by Daz2020 4 · 0 0

Western nations would not have gotten militarily involved in Darfur regardless of Iraq. For nations with a majority white population going into Africa is a no win situation because regardless of the outcome it will be presented as whites killing and taking advantage of blacks. The USA tried to help Somilia and got nothing but a bloody nose from it, they will not be going back. Stabilization in Africa will be up to countries on that continent.

2007-01-04 15:01:03 · answer #2 · answered by k3s793 4 · 0 0

it is not a genocide. it is been portrayed as one for political reasons. lots of the warlords accused of attacking the refugees come from an identical tribal background because of the fact the victims, yet that would not healthful the spin. - Pheemz. - i don't shop on with your logic. the human beings working the lifts from the gas chambers to the crematoria might have been Jewish without it making lots distinction to the cost of Genocide. If the German excessive command and Nazi party officers have been Jewish, historians may well be staring at yet another clarification for the mass killings, different than that of ethnic background. they might have concluded that there became a political reason. The killings in Sudan are lots greater complicated than you have been instructed, and that they are happening in a factor of the international the place you have not have been given any good autonomous information materials. The NGO's have been very prepared for this civil warfare to be formally declared a 'genocide' for his or her very own reasons.

2016-10-30 00:46:50 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers