Many liberals are calling for the United States to take an active involvement in Sudan. In a country being torn about by radical Muslims, what would be the difference between sending in troops there to quell the violence and bloodshed and sending in troops to Iraq to stop a mass-murdering family that rewarded terrorists and attacked its neighbors?
How can someone be in favor of one course of action and not the other?
2007-03-12 17:55:57 · 4 answers · asked by robot_hooker 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Russia and China have blocked a resolution the U.S has had before the Security Council of the U.N. for a couple years now.
Maybe it's because "PetroChina’s government-owned parent, China National Petroleum Corp. (CNPC), operates in Sudan."
2007-03-12 18:14:19 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
the quick answer: stay in Iraq, we are triumphing that. The longer answer: if we switched to the Sudan, we'd purely be scuffling with a proxy conflict with China as a replace of Iran and we don't desire that stunning now.
2016-10-18 06:10:44 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because bleeding heart liberals are hypocrits and will be the downfall of this country. What they want and what they propse is borderline communism, ask the Chinese peasants how well that's working for them.
2007-03-12 18:04:46 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No difference. We should just pick up our toys and come home to let the world deal with it's own problems.
2007-03-12 18:05:03 · answer #4 · answered by Jay 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋