IF Barack Obama got elected as President, do you think he would send US troops to Darfur?

Question

I sure hope not but I think he might...

His 1st generation African American heritage might cause supporters of the Darfur cause to push even harder on him than anyone else. I also think since he comes from a party led by heavy left-leaning people then he could become their pawn in a game geopolitical world chess. He hasn't stated anything that he would oppose US intervention in Darfur so I think he's leaving the door open for involvement.

Honestly, this is the biggest problem I have with him b/c I don't want American troops in yet another unwinnable civil war for no reason.

Answer 1

I could definitely see that happening if he got elected, but he faces many challenges getting there in the first place. The media loves him right now, but that does not mean that he can win a primary, much less the '08 general election. However, if he establishes a strong platform and surrounds himself with trusted, experienced advisors, then he could overcome his experience shortfall.

I remember an issue in the 2000 election was that Gore had the experience that Bush lacked. Bush bolstered his qualifications with a cabinet and running-mate oozing with decades of experience.

My question for everyone crying over Darfur who opposes troop deployment: how in the world would you stop senseless genocide? People who systematically engineer mass murder don't do it because they just didn't realize it was wrong. It's ridiculous to think you can just send a diplomat to say, "shame on you," and expect it to stop.

The point was well stated in the movie Blackhawk Down, "Without victory, there will be no peace."

Answer 2

If the Bush administration wouldnt raid Iran upon discovering they have been supporting the insurgency, there isnt a huge gamble in hell the Hussein Obama administration might raid Pakistan. that's purely an empty threat and yet yet another liberal attempting to look tricky on terror who if this conflict have been entrusted in 03, wouldve decrease and run by now and wouldnt be everywhere close to Iraq and Afganistan not to point Pakistan. Democrats are unwilling to committ to militia operations for extra suitable than a million-2 years. They cant abdomen being on the unpopular fringe of a conflict and that they actually cant abdomen troop loss. even in spite of the undeniable fact that statistically we've lost the fewest quantity of troops ever given the quantity of time we've been engaged.

Answer 3

Of course he wouldn't. Obama is against the 2nd amendment. Which is the right to bare arms. Why would he be against a person's right to defend himself or the safety of his home from criminals? How can someone against that have the guts to send troops elsewhere? Nobody even knows who Barrack Obama really is. The reason for this is he doesn't have much experience. I only view him as being a tree hugging hippie. The person I'm worried about is Hillary Clinton. Obama doesn't stand a chance against her. Personally, I don't want either of them to be the next president. But I'll have to wait and see what both sides have to say.

Answer 4

It would most likely seem not. I imagine that if Barack Obama were to be elected President, he would stress an egalitarian, global-friendly, diplomatic approach to everything. He strikes me as the sort of man not to use violence as a last resort - that is, the card of leverage, but not at all.

There are other ways to solve international affairs without the need to even threaten violence, let alone use it. Diplomatic sanctions and other means can and do work - that is why they (and great organizations of peace such as the EU and UN) exist.

His cool-headed way of expressing himself just leads me to believe that he would not use troops in Darfur no matter how "black" he is....

Answer 5

I'm not sure of his official possition either. I dont want our troops sent any where....but I hope he does something to help the situation in Darfur.

What is sad is that we feel we'll have to wait until '08 or '09 for something to be done concering Darfur. The situation there is tragic and it goes to show how clueless and/or narrow minded the current administration really is.

Answer 6

That would be a politically correct fight,just like Somalia.
Under manned, under equiped, managed from the White House and LOST thru lack of political will when the going got tough.

Answer 7

He said that the Iraq war was a noble but unnecessary war. He may send them to Darfur in nobility is justification for war in his mind.

Answer 8

dont just think because of his race, he has any standing on that. that is like saying bush would have invaded Poland (I dont know where hes from). he definitely wont, it has been slowly quieting down. dont forget he is a democrat, he doesnt want a war that we have no reason to be in. also, remember, there are plenty of other countries out there that can be the next invader and supervise the world.

Answer 9

honestly, the world doesnt care about Darfur, and most of them that do dont even knpw what is going on:

A Muslim militia is killing christians(mostly all black) and burning the villages, and no one wants to step in there b/c the Govt is a muslim one and wants the christians gone, Obama would do it not for Africa, but for the Christians, considering he is one

Answer 10

Well, considering his Dad is Kenyan, not Sudanese, what does him being part African have to do with it?

Or are you just lumping African Americans into one group?

My problem with Barak so far has zilch to do with his ethnic makeup. It has more to do with that he's not been in a true leadership role (i.e. he wasn't a Governor previously) and I'm already not happy with his pro-choice stance.