Thought-out responses will be much appreciated.
P.S. The much-less publicized situation in Myanmar (Burma) is nearly as bad as that in Darfur. Have you heard about it before, and if so, what should the US do about in this regard?
2007-01-17 19:41:00 · 7 answers · asked by Free Ranger 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
My question was purposefully broad. Doing something can include diplomacy, miltary actions, sanctions, and/or whatever else you can think of.
2007-01-17 20:06:20 · update #1
It is difficult to police the whole planet. We need more sheriffs.
2007-01-17 19:52:17 · answer #1 · answered by Stop_the_Klan@yahoo.com 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why hasn't anybody said "Let's arm the people in Darfur and maybe give them a little weapons training!" I mean all the Sudan is attacking them with are a bunch of dumb yahoo sons of b*tches on horses!! The last time anyone used horses was WWII (US Army- Phillipines 1941-42.) Show them how to make caltrops (A upturned spike that pierces a horses hoof. Nasty!!) all you need are some nails and a primitive forge with a little charcoal! Hand over some M-60's and the Janjaweed will be drilled full of holes and the people will be eating meat (Horsey is tasty!)
2007-01-18 03:56:41 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Funny thing no one helped Uganda with Idi Amein killing his people and yet the Israeli went in and leveled their airport and freed that passenger plane he held hostage? only 2 civilian deaths reported from the plane? Maybe someone should ask them to assist? Instead of calling them names with prejudiced inflammatory remarks. After all they are the best at military stradegy. And I am an American, but they learned enough to train our forces today. (WW II and fighting 21 Arab countries)?
Or maybe ask China? They could go in there and help the people but they won't build it up and civilize in our way they will just out and out own it under their rule. Just like Russia. But maybe Spain? Or France, Great Britain? Why only America? So we can get blamed for interfering? Or because we will help those people and yet we will still get spit on afterwards. I agree we should go in there and help but we have to withdraw from Iraq first?
2007-01-18 04:55:23 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
US should not do anything, if the UNO interfere and and works independently then any place in the world will be in peace. let it be burma or darfur
2007-01-18 03:46:10 · answer #4 · answered by syed d 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not a thing. If the UN wants to do something go for it, but using the Democrats logic [and they did win the majority]. there are no WMD there so, too bad.
2007-01-18 06:47:20 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Darfur is one sad case...I don't really think that politicians are interested in humanitarian issues
2007-01-18 04:16:39 · answer #6 · answered by IguanaGal 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
instead of sending another 20,000 troops to iraq i bet darfur could use them! not to create more drama but to at lest help defend... but even if they wanted to just barge in they cant cuz of Sudan's right to sovereignty, Sudan doesn't want help
2007-01-18 03:46:35 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋