Or are they not allowed to have "democratic state" over there?
2007-01-31 07:05:36 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
LET SOME OTHER UN COUNTRY SEND THEIR TROOPS THERE WE'VE GOT OUR OWN BATTLE GOING ON. BETTER YET WHY DON'T YOU JOIN THE UN AND GO YOURSELF IF YOUR SO CONCERNED.
2007-01-31 07:16:08 · answer #1 · answered by jason s 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Darfur is a sectarian civil war for oil. PetroChina is currently drilling there.
If we pull out of Iraq, no other country will go with us to Darfur.
2007-01-31 15:11:20 · answer #2 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We're a little preoccupied right now. Darfur does not affect our national security. It's also not our problem. Why can't other countries send in troops?
2007-01-31 15:11:47 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
And make the 4 unsigned rebel groups comply?
Sorry, that's not our job.
Press 9 to return to the main menu, then 2 to contact the UN.
2007-01-31 15:25:12 · answer #4 · answered by MoltarRocks 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Do you support the Iraq war?
I find it both amusing and frustrating that everyone gets pissed off when we *do* interfere, but complain when we don't.
What about the UN? Isn't it supposed to be THEIR job to handle these things? Oh, wait - I forgot - they are USELESS!
2007-01-31 15:23:47 · answer #5 · answered by Jadis 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
So I guess as long as it's a Neo-lib concern it's ok to send troops.
2007-01-31 15:13:13 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
they can have a "democratic state" i'd probably make washington happy, doesn't mean they have to give it to him.
2007-01-31 15:15:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
not really sure,,will check it out further
2007-02-03 13:12:20 · answer #8 · answered by jerry 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋