Clinton sent troops to Haiti,Somalia,East Timor,Bosnia, all civil wars.
Now, Darfur.
Yet,the libs say Iraq is a civil war and want us out.
Is this a PC thing?
2007-02-28 02:48:06 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I really do not know, because there are so many problems with doing it, so many reasons why it would be the wrong thing to do, that it amazes me that anybody would suggest it.
1. Why do they all of a sudden have no issues with unilaterally invading a country without provocation, a country that never harmed us, and go into the middle of a sectarian civil war?
2. The Sudanese government has said it would consider any uninvited intervention as an act of war, so bingo, we would be at war.
3. Sudan is a land-locked country, surrounded by Muslim-majority countries that do not necessarily have any love for the US. How are we to get troops and equipment and supplies there? We would have to get permission to fly over other countries. Those countries do not have the infrastructure for us to go over land, if they'd even consider letting us do that. So, we'd be only able to deploy a limited quantity of troops that we could barely keep supplied from long distance into a country with little infrastructure. Sounds like a recipe for disaster.
4. Oh, and based on the Muslim love of Christian nations attacking Muslim governments, this action would probably set off a Muslim conflagration in North & East Africa, that would have seriously bad results, such as a possible Islamic overthrow of Mubarak, etc.
It is, on all accounts, a really, really bad idea.
2007-02-28 03:19:20 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
the version is that there are acts of genocide happening there. sure Saddam became into evils against the Kurds and there have been acts of genocide there besides, although, Darfur is extra great scale and of a diverse ingredient. Did you watch hotel Rwanda? extra suited yet, watch products of April, this is a documentary and could open your eyes. i could fairly see us in contact in humanitarian warfar, then in a conflict that noone looks to understand, because of the fact it certainly isn't against terrorism. Terror would not eminate from a single geographical area or perhaps the two we've invaded. this is a international undertaking and could be fought that way. we could desire to continuously no longer be scuffling with it like we fought the chilly conflict.
2016-10-02 02:52:29 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because they can read the writing on the wall that the troop surge is working. They need some thing else to run on for the 08 election and having the military in a war seemed to work out well for them in the last election.
2007-02-28 02:56:29 · answer #3 · answered by Mother 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Wait! Wait! I thought the "mission" of the U.S. is to spread peace and democracy?
That's the "real reason" we overthrew Saddam Hussein, right? He was a very bad man - terrorizing his people, killing thousands of them. (That's AFTER we noticed that there weren't any "weapons of mass destruction," of course, another Bush lie.)
Take your head out of the dark, and look at what's happening in Darfur! VERY bad things happening - innocent people being terrorized, thousands of people being killed!
And, yes, our troops are caught in the crossfire in the middle of a civil war in Iraq.
Good Lord Above - JUST LOOK AT THE FACTS!!! WHY is that SO DIFFICULT FOR YOU TO DO?
Must be the oil - you hypocrite. If they found oil in Darfur, THEN you'd be outraged at the terror, deaths, and destruction going on there because YOUR "brains" (Rush, Bill, et al) would tell you to be outraged.
2007-02-28 03:31:25 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
You can't deny that Darfur is a humanitarian crisis, and if the US is such a great PC country that cares about human rights, you would think that would be the first place they would go. Plus the fact that we could probably kick those genocidal maniacs' asses easily.
I'm not a liberal, I'm just sayin'...
2007-02-28 02:54:37 · answer #5 · answered by Pfo 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Liberals love to use US troops as "policemen"... you gave great examples !!
The interesting thing with Darfur, Sudan is that the government of Sudan has REFUSED all assistance from the US and UN... they will ONLY work with African forces.
Amazing to see the commercials on television that "demand" that President Bush force the UN to act !! Yet I haven't seen the CONGRESS put forth a Resolution to act on the matter...
2007-02-28 03:07:26 · answer #6 · answered by mariner31 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Re-read your "question", then think about it, if you're capable. It seems that you don't quite know what you are talking about. Had the US not invaded the soveriegn country of Iraq, there would be NO CIVIL WAR there right now. Our troops do not belong in Iraq and never had. That's not a "PC thing", that's a REALITY thing.
As for Darfur, it breaks my heart that we can't help - we're too busy wasting time and valuable lifes and resources losing in Iraq and Afghanistan.
2007-02-28 02:55:35 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 6⤋
PC and it gives them the stance of pro military, but anti Iraq
2007-02-28 02:56:01 · answer #8 · answered by John B 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It's sad that they want us to leave a country that can barely defend istself and will crumble into ruin. When it happens, they will want Me and my brothers and Sisters to re-enter Iraq to "restore order". This time there will be dug-in opposition and five times the casualties...
they will never learn
2007-02-28 03:03:43 · answer #9 · answered by Q-burt 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Libs are scratching for something positive in their meaningless lives....We are winning in Iraq and that bothers them to sleepless nights. So they need a diversionary tactic...something to boost their rating and bring attention to them...they are such snakes and weasles
2007-02-28 03:15:49 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋