Why is it that so many Americans and Canadians get upset when George Bush intervenes to stop Saddam's reign of terror in Iraq, but then the same people get upset when he refuses to intervene in Darfur to stop the genocide that has already killed a quarter million people? I'd like to see what far-fetched explanation the Bush bashers will use to explain themselves there!
2007-01-06 14:09:14 · 22 answers · asked by jsprplc2006 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
WONDERFUL QUESTION! THEY WILL ONLY COUGH UP SOME NON-VIABLE ANSWER!
2007-01-06 14:15:42 · answer #1 · answered by tcbtoday123 5 · 2⤊ 7⤋
I'm a registered Republican, so not a de facto Bush basher. To answer your question, it runs to motive. Bush claims that the reason he went into Iraq was to free the people. Don't be so naive. He went in to free the oil. And I can assure you that if Dafur had oil to be freed, he go in there too.
Why didn't Bush send troops into Rhwanda to stop the absolutely brutal genocide there? Answer - No oil to be had. No strategic value to the United States at all.
The sooner you open your eyes to the truth of things and stop being such an idealogue, the better off you'll be. Think for yourself instead of swallowing nationalistic propaganda. And that goes for EVERYONE.
I used to be in that group, and then the election cycle of '94 opened my eyes to the truth, to a large extent. The issues that matter, a great deal of the time, depend to a large extent only upon whether or not your party is the majority or minority party. Prior to 94, the Reps were ALL about term limits and campaign finiance reform and whatnot and the Dems were against it. But lo and behold, as soon as the Reps became the majority party, their positions on those matters did a complete 180. Complete and utter BS hyprocrisy on both their parts.
Don't buy the hype of your pet party. Open your eyes, educate yourself and realize that labels mean NOTHING. Voting records tell all.
Peace-
2007-01-06 14:22:13 · answer #2 · answered by Blue 4 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Be truthful, what justification did Bush use to invade and occupy Iraq? It was not to free the Iraqi people. Hussein was not a terrorist and did not condone terrorism. Stop making it sound like Bush had a noble purpose in doing this. We've killed more Iraqi civilians than Saddam ever did. If BushCo had used the "insert democracy" reasoning in front of the US Congress rather than WMD scare tactics, there's no way we are in Iraq today.
And Darfur is a tragedy, no friggin doubt. We should be at the forefront of the UN effort there.
2007-01-06 14:13:29 · answer #3 · answered by Joe D 6 · 9⤊ 0⤋
Because Bush DIDN'T intervene to stop "Saddam's reign of terror". Iraqis are much worse off now than they were under Saddam.
What Bush is doing to Iraq is WORSE than what Sudan is doing to Darfur.
2007-01-06 14:14:18 · answer #4 · answered by Longhaired Freaky Person 4 · 8⤊ 0⤋
Well, like Will Rogers said, "We're all ignorant. Just about different things.".
I haven't taken a strong stand on Darfur but you have to admit, it's pretty bad there.
I think that if we are going to end the reign of terror in Darfur, we should do it differently than we have done things in Iraq.
It seems to me all we have done in Iraq is replace one reign of terror with another. Before we intervene in Darfur, we should end Dubya's reign of error here in America.
Sorry, tcbtoday. My answer is only as viable as victory in Iraq.
2007-01-06 14:17:11 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Because going into Darfur is a legitimate and just reason. Going into Iraq on faulty cherry picked intel was stupid. He was wrong about every single thing he and the people who pull his strings have said about Iraq from the very beginning. Yet he will not say he was wrong. He cant admit his own mistakes. That doesnt even make him a man in my book.
2007-01-06 14:14:19 · answer #6 · answered by Haven17 5 · 8⤊ 0⤋
Well, first the war in Iraq was because of 9/11..that got dismissed.
Then the war was because of WMD's in Iraq...that got dismissed.
The the war was to rid Iraq of an "Evil" dictator...and that stuck
The point of the matter is there are "Evil" dictators all over the world...and if the reason was good enough for Iraq then why is it not good enough for Darfur?
Get it?
2007-01-06 14:17:26 · answer #7 · answered by fade_this_rally 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
I think the problem started with the lies about why we went to Iraq. First it was WMD , and then it morphed into a humanitarian effort. The ironic thing is that now the country is more unstable than ever and more people are dying. I just think that if we only went to Iraq because sadaam was a bad person then we have a huge list of countries to force our beliefs on. Besides...Iraq was secular and had not intelligence saying they had any links to al-qaeda, infact the evidence was just the opposite.
2007-01-06 14:13:26 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 10⤊ 0⤋
The question is not what you have asked. It is: Why Iraq and NOT Darfur, if the REAL reason is to stop reigns of terror, improve lives, and encourage democracy????
When you figure this out (hint: try o-i-l...), you won't have to ask stupid questions.
2007-01-06 14:21:37 · answer #9 · answered by Joey's Back 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
If you don't know the difference between the two, then maybe you should do come further research, instead of listening to the lies that you can count on from the mainstream media, and the BS you will get if you are getting all your "information" from people like Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter.
2007-01-06 14:15:31 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 1⤋
well you know we have nothing to gain in Darfur,since it is not that big of a nation and because,the left thinks we are the worlds policemen,a better one for them to answer is that thousands upon thousands of Americans are killed yearly here,much more than 3000 in Iraq,why arent they reporting and whining about that?
2007-01-06 14:17:44 · answer #11 · answered by stygianwolfe 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋