Do those who oppose US involvement in Iraq agree that we should not get involved in Darfur?

Question

Everything war opponents say about Iraq appears to apply there too. It's a civil war, and we shouldn't get stuck in the middle. We can't stop these ancient hatreds. It does not affect US security (this is more demonstrably true of Darfur - Iran is not next door).

Wouldn't every death - no matter who caused it - then be the US's fault, as some claim in Iraq? (Yes, one could say that the US "caused" the problems in Iraq, but the overall deaths are down from the days of Saddam's mass executions. Do we get the credit, then?)

Would every company that supplies resources for the Darfur effort be accused of "profiteering?"

Finally, should those who say we should do something there agree to enlist themselves, or keep quiet?

I'm just trying to figure out where those who oppose the mission in Iraq would ever send US troops on a "humanitarian" mission.

Answer 1

We have no business being involved in ANY other counties internal politics. That is why so many countries have such a hatred for the U.S.

Our military forces are not built or trained to conduct humanitarian missions. They are equipped and trained to kill and destroy.

Answer 2

It really depends on whom you're referring to when you say those who oppose US involvement in Iraq. The Iraqi war opponents are not a homogenous group by any stretch of the imagination. Of course there are some isolationists who think we should retreat within our borders, and just turn the US into an impenetrable fortress, avoiding international interaction at all, so those would be a yes to your primary question.

However, I believe the majority of the Iraqi War opponents oppose it purely for perceived political gains, rather than true principle, so they have no internal conflict with saying we should be in Darfur, but not in Iraq. They don't have to be consistent on anything other than criticizing the status quo and current administration's policies. This block is for the most part the Democrat party and they have increasingly become the party of no. Whatever the administration proposes, or considers, they oppose, before even hearing them out. As long as President Bush has low poll ratings and bad press from the liberal media, the Democrats will continue to oppose anything he does as their "winning" strategy.

Of course it's not consistent, but that doesn't really matter. Since when do politicians have to be consistent?

Answer 3

Thats a fair question and something I have wondered about. The same people who oppose the war in Iraq (after they all voted for it in the first place) talk about sending peacekeeprs to Darfur. We went to Iraq for WMDs, genocide and terrorist training camps. Did not find the WMDs (big surprise we waited two months) but did find the other stuff. But we have the same Congressmen who want to send our troops to Darfur to be in another African ground war. Since these mostly Dem and mostly liberal officials who want to do this are also darlings of the United Nations, why are they not asking the UN to send a multi national force there? Because we are the only ones who do that kind of thing I guess. I say no to Darfur, pressure the UN to act. The political left in the US has some strange values and short memories. The Vietnam War was a purely Democratic thing, the first troops into Somalia went under Clinton, the Dem majority in Congress voted for the Iraqi War. Nope, no more Democratic Party wars.

Answer 4

Yes to all of your questions. Darfur is another glaring example of the UN's ineptness and impotence. Other than food and medicine that is sent, but seldom arrives at it's destination, the entire continent of Africa has been ignored by the UN (and much of the world). With regard to policing and protecting those that can not protect themselves, the UN has closed it's eyes. The genocide in Sudan, Rwanda, Darfur, is never called that by the UN. How much of the UNICEF appeal proceeds actually gets to those children I have to wonder!? I somehow doubt that the UN, UNICEF, or Hollywood, is sending troops over to protect the poor, oppressed, and neglected in Darfur. Since WWI, the US has historically provided humanitarian relief in every theater of operations it was ever involved in (to both prisoners, conquered, and refugees.) That's one of the things that makes the USA great no matter what anyone says!

Answer 5

If we feel we can influence the outcome without a full-scale invasion, I'd like to see it happen. If sending small forces of advisers or combat troops would have little effect, we should stay out. We have a responsibility to try to prevent bloodshed in the world, but the usual US response seems to cause a whole lot more. If we are left with the options of going to war or letting them sort themselves out, we have to leave it to Africa to decide their own future.

Foreign policy should take from the hippocratic oath--if we can do no good, at least do no harm.

Answer 6

I think somebody else needs to start handling this stuff.
African nations.
European Nations.
Whoever the former colonial power might have been.
But not the U.S.

Answer 7

They are going to check their morality compass and get back to you.