What threat does Darfur pose to the United States that we need to send the troops there for?

Answer 1

PermH20 has the correct view here in America...

The Liberals WANT to send troops there... because it would be "peacekeeping" and protecting blacks from genocide. There are numerous TV ads screaming for action in "Darfur". And YET:

Darfur is a region in the nation of SUDAN... the conflict is a religious CIVIL WAR... so by liberal-logic... we shouldn't go in THERE (since that is their logic for withdrawling from Iraq).

The UN and US wants to intervene... BUT the soveriegn government of SUDAN won't allow troops other than African Conference in...

IS there a threat to the US... yes... it is Islamic fundamentalists/ fanatics/ terrorists doing the killing in Darfur. They are building an infrastructure for terrorist training. Will the NEXT terrorists in the USA be travelling on Sudanese passports ?

Answer 2

a million. Neither the UN nor the european is taking any management place in assisting in Darfur. can't truthfully all people do something with out the U. S. better? 2. The Sudanese government has reported that any peacekeepers that come into the rustic would be considered invaders, and their presence an act of conflict. 3. What makes truthfully all people think of that an identical jihadist combat against the U. S. does no longer take place in Darfur, too? Do human beings no longer understand that there are various Muslims in and around Sudan? 4. If we do, will the liberals all run right down to their recruiters and connect the militia? Bwahahahah!

Answer 3

You're failing to take into account the liberal guidelines for use of military force (formally codified under Bill Clinton, kidding). These state that military force can only be used by the US if the situation is in no way, shape, or form, in the national interest of the US (for example, Bosnia, and Kosovo). From this we see the conclusion that Iraq war is bad, Darfur war is good.

I acknowledge that there is a humanitarian crisis in Darfur, but why should the US be the policeman for the world.

Answer 4

No threat at all, but sometimes you have to send troops for humanitarian reasons. How can we stand by and watch the slaughter.

Although, it should not always fall on the U.S. We get a bad rap for always sticking our noses in other countries affairs, but when it comes down to it, who else does anything? Serbia/Croatia, Somalia, Rawanda, etc. If we do nothing, we have another Rawanda on our hands... That was a disgrace that nobody, including the U.S. did a thing to help those poor people.

It's time for the U.N. to step up to the plate for many of these situations. I thought that was what they were for, among other things...

Answer 5

There's no threat to the U.S. However, mass genocide is going on there, and the UN, the very organization that made genocide a crime against humanity, is doing nothing. We are a part of the UN, and therefore, we should be there, but we aren't.

Answer 6

Muslim extremist and Al Quedea are trying to set up a base there. In reality the USA is letting the U.N. handle the situation there. Problem is over a million innocent people have already been slaughtered! The U.N. can not do the job, because they aren't serious about human life.

Answer 7

We are warriors we must fight with those who rebel against U.S. wherever in the world, whether it is Japan, Afghan, Iraq or Darfur and maintain peace and security in the world. We are born to die by fighting with various insurgents in the world.
It is our primary duty to send our troops any where in the world to keep peace and security, because we are duty bond to do the same.

Answer 8

Who knows. The government doesn't share all its information with us because to do so would jeopardize there effectiveness in protecting the country.

Answer 9

No current threat and no need for US forces.

Answer 10

none, we shouldnt be there