Darfur's genocide is far worse than Saddam's regime's genocide ever was. So, why doesn't the Bush administration keep their promise to work with the UN to make Darfur a better place?
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-02/US-Promises-February-Push-on-Darfur-Security.cfm?CFID=47269370&CFTOKEN=24110637
2007-03-13 06:42:55 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Dafur is a win win situation. Muslims killing muslims...why get in the middle of this?
2007-03-13 06:46:42 · answer #1 · answered by mr_methane_gasman 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think the soldiers should have been told before the war that we were invading Iraq for the oil, and that's it. If that is not the reason, then better damn well invade Darfur. Let's be consistant. If we say we're going to remove evil dictators let's remove them all, not just the ones whom we have interest in.
In other words, our troops (2 of my friends included) are dying for oil and financial gain, not freedom or combating terrorism. Let's see how many people would supports our policy if it said: "We are determined to remove any brutal dictator that has oil. If we cannot benifit from a human rights mission, than we will not take action. We are only in it for ourselves." Let's see the American people get behind that policy. Unfortunately, that is our current policy. It's sad. Sorry Darfur, but until you get some oil, our government can care less if you're suffering. I'm sorry.
2007-03-13 18:35:35 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wow. Not trying to beat a dead horse here, but were you this outraged when Clintoon didn't step in and stop the genocide in Rwanda? Didn't he even forbid his staff to *call* it a genocide? We can't be the world's police. Look at how many people are pissed off that we went into Iraq (which I think we were entitled to do - they repeatedly violated cease-fires, no-fly zones and treaties they signed after the Gulf War). I just find it astonishing that so many of the same people who don't want us in Iraq are pissed that we're not in Darfur.
We're damned if we do, we're damned if we don't.
And if it was all about the oil, ANWR would be open - like the VAST majority of Alaskans want!
2007-03-13 13:52:28 · answer #3 · answered by Jadis 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's a very complicated situation. If the US did decide to help they would have to answer some key questions:
What kind of assistance should we give?
Who would help us?
Is it a military operation?
Who would be against us?
Why isn't the UN helping?
Why should we help?
How do we know this won't turn out like Somalia?
Do we have the rescources?
Do we have the man power?
2007-03-13 13:52:35 · answer #4 · answered by Paul C 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
1. All US resources are presently in Iraq
2. Race
3. China
4. Oil
5. All of the above
2007-03-13 14:00:49 · answer #5 · answered by Global warming ain't cool 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What US national interest would be served by intervening in Darfur?
2007-03-13 13:48:04 · answer #6 · answered by Rick N 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Maybe Darfur doesn't have resources that would fatten the wallets of Bush's friends.
2007-03-13 13:47:00 · answer #7 · answered by Fiesty Redhead 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
because darfur has no oil. people have also insinuated that their is a racial issue- that I can't confirm or deny
2007-03-13 14:40:45 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because we're too busy babysitting a "civil" war in Iraq.
2007-03-13 14:44:36 · answer #9 · answered by Effraye 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush and the neocons have no interest in Darfur....because there is no oil.
Another broken promise.
2007-03-13 13:48:20 · answer #10 · answered by Villain 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
ROFLMAO
You use a very plainly seen LIBERAL site to prove what you say?
ROFLMAO
That only proves you are easily swayed into believing lies and BS.
Sorry, you'll have to do better than that, Sparky.
2007-03-13 14:23:48 · answer #11 · answered by Kevin A 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋