Why do Liberals want us to interfere in Darfur, but not in Iraq?

Question

It is said that Saddam killed 400,00 people under his evil regime in Iraq.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0312/14/bn.03.html
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/legacyofterror.html

But in Darfur, the government has financed the killing of some people, and the number is usually given as the same amount: 400,000 deaths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict

Yet Liberals LOVE to cry about us not going to Darfur, but they attack the government for interfering in Iraq. Do they just oppose ANYTHING our government does or does not do?

Just wondering.

Answer 1

Hypocrisy at its finest.

Because in Iraq there are no photo ops for celebrities to cry at before they are whisked away in their limos.

Far left Democrats need celebrities crying in photo-ops so they know its time to care.

Darfur, you have starving children, dead or dieing sick people, dirty water... you have all the great moments of suffering with out having to actually get down and dirty with it.

Actually I read a story (I cant find the link anymore) where workers for various UN groups that help people in need are reporting that Celebrities are hurting more than they are helping, the cost of keeping the celebrity (because they don't pay them self's), driving them around, providing escorts, security and then providing for the media that follows is actually taking time, money and services away from the ones in need.

anyhow!

if We are forced to leave Iraq it will go to pot, it will burn and chaos will rule, the Far left Libs will say "I told you so." and in ten years when the suffering and the blood there become good and generally safe photo ops the celebs will pour in and start throwing benefits for the poor suffering people of Iraq.

they are so kind that way.

Answer 2

Okay, Mr. Humanitarian- Saddam and his sons are pushing up daisies, so I guess on to Darfur, right?

Plus the UN would actually shoulder some of the Darfur burden, so it wouldn't be just US soldiers attacked there.

Answer 3

Because they haven't realized that Darfur has oil and since the New York Times and George Clooney went there, Darfur became a real place for them.

Answer 4

I certainly can’t speak for all liberals, but I can tell you why so many despise the actions in Iraq and ridicule the government about their inaction in Darfur. What many detractors of the war are trying to do is not say that Darfur is anymore important than Iraq, but they are trying to put a spotlight on Bush, his administration, and his constituency’s hypocrisy when they state that we are in Iraq because we care about the Iraqi people. Though most sensible people know the Iraq occupation is all about garnering profits, the rationale propounded by the Bush administration, to give our actions in Iraq a sense of moral legitimacy to many credulous Americans, is that we are doing it to bring freedom, democracy, preserve human dignity, and to save lives in Iraq. By pointing out that Darfur is equally, if not a more grievous humanitarian crisis, for which we have been virtually apathetic to, liberal critics of the war decimate the moral justification for Iraq and show it to be the profiteering venture that it is. For if the United States, and the Bush administration were truly empathetic to the plight of the downtrodden, there would be equal efforts put forth in Darfur to avert the tragedy there. By bringing up Darfur, Bush’s adversaries I think quite skillfully are showing the duplicity in his rhetoric.

Answer 5

Well, the thing in Iraq is a civil war. Darfur is genocide - can we say holocaust? I can't believe the UN isn't jumping up and down about Darfur.

Answer 6

Liberals always cry about what is being done wrong, what could be done better, but they never have an answer how to make things better. If we were in Darfur liberals would be arguing about that also (if it were initiated by a conservative).

Answer 7

via fact the rustic did no longer "illegally invade oil-wealthy Iraq," i might ought to assert that no, this isn't any longer hypocrisy; you only do no longer understand the subject concerns in touch. First, there is greater oil below Alaska or in the Dakotas than in each and all the middle East blended, yet you libbies refuse to permit them to drill for it even nevertheless, a minimum of in Alaska, they overwhelmingly want to do it. 2d, as we've advised you until eventually now many situations, there grew to become into very lots of credible evidence to signify that there have been WMDs in Iraq this is why people like Hillary voted to circulate into Iraq via fact the President has no authority to accomplish that on his very own. So, you libbies brazenly debated this for weeks, if no longer months, allowing Saddam to get any evidence of WMDs into Iran, it is the place maximum of them at the instant are. in addition to, whether there have been no longer any WMDs as you insist, Iraq breached maximum, if no longer each and all the agreements that deliver approximately an end of desolate tract hurricane. One grew to become into adequate to circulate lower back in and take Baghdad. Thirdly, i discover it fairly telling which you help the cruel crackdown on the Tibetans who only want to be loose and self sustaining. in case you ballot the Iraqis, maximum are happy that the U. S. is there and don't need them to circulate away extremely yet. i do no longer think of you will get a similar numbers in Tibet. Tibet proclaimed its independence from China in 1911. Tibet remained an self sustaining state until eventually shortly after the top of the chinese language civil conflict, while on October a million, 1949, the folk's Republic of China grew to become into formally proclaimed in Beijing and here year released an armed invasion of Tibet. The chinese language military of 40,000 adult adult males routed the unprepared protecting Tibetan military of only 5,000. So, you have a difficulty with the U. S. "invading" Iraq as you declare, yet you do not have a difficulty with China invading and annexing Tibet. who's the hypocrite right here?

Answer 8

The WMD are in Darfur. We should go to spread democracy & fight terrorism.

Answer 9

they are just latching on to a serious problem, and I think many of them still would not volunteer to go and help in Darfur. AND they would complain after we were over there if they felt it was taking too long....

Answer 10

Never interfere in a civil war is their cry- except they did in to Bosnia- and want it in Darfur.