Why do Democrats want to invade Darfur?

Question

Democrats want our military to invade Darfur to help stop its civil war while calling for our troops withdrawal from Iraq because its in a civil war.

Answer 1

because they think AMerican citizens have bottomless pockets that can save the world. while the republicans just want to ensure our safety

Answer 2

because the u . s . did not "illegally invade oil-wealthy Iraq," i'd might want to assert that no, it isn't hypocrisy; you only don't realize the topics in touch. First, there is better oil under Alaska or in the Dakotas than in all the middle East blended, yet you libbies refuse to let them drill for it although, a minimum of in Alaska, they overwhelmingly favor to do it. 2d, as we've instructed you before many circumstances, there became very much of credible info to point that there have been WMDs in Iraq it really is why human beings like Hillary voted to bypass into Iraq because the President has no authority to finish that on his own. So, you libbies brazenly debated this for weeks, if no longer months, permitting Saddam to get any info of WMDs into Iran, it really is the position maximum of them at the on the spot are. besides, no matter if there have been not any WMDs as you insist, Iraq breached maximum, if no longer all the agreements that bring about an end of barren area hurricane. One became sufficient to bypass lower back in and take Baghdad. Thirdly, i hit upon it rather telling that you help the not problem-free crackdown on the Tibetans who only favor to be loose and independent. in case you pollthe Iraqis, maximum are satisfied that the U. S. is there and do not favor them to leave particularly yet. i don't think of you would get a similar numbers in Tibet. Tibet proclaimed its independence from China in 1911. Tibet remained an independent state until eventually presently after the top of the chinese civil conflict, at the same time as on October a million, 1949, the individuals's Republic of China became formally proclaimed in Beijing and right here twelve months released an armed invasion of Tibet. The chinese military of 40,000 adult males routed the unprepared protecting Tibetan military of only 5,000. So, you've a difficulty with the U. S. "invading" Iraq as you declare, yet you do not have a difficulty with China invading and annexing Tibet. who's the hypocrite right here?

Answer 3

Either they are for population control or not,

wars and abortion are now our only way to keep populations down,

we can't save the world, Let the French and Dutch take care of Darfur,

our resources are limited.

Answer 4

It is a bit hypocritical, but what is going on in Darfur is wholesale slaughter of Christians by the hands of the religion of peace.
What really suprises me about your question is the fact that most demicans tend to hate Christians and love Islamists.

Answer 5

It is to stop a genocide you know just of blacks instead of letting something that can easily approach the Holocaust happen.
The African continent has asked for help. Iraq did not ask for ours and we should not have invaded them. Therein lies the difference.

Answer 6

I think you are rearing things in your head. No they do not want to invade.

The UN needs to do something but the president of the nation will not let anyone help.

Wash your ears and buy some glasses.

Answer 7

They did not get their heads out of the dirt and @$$es out of the air long enough to see what is REAL and what are figments of their imaginations and what their billionaire COMMUNIST RULERS like George Soros spoon feed them or what is FACT. When they actually LOOKED and saw what the real world is like, they could not stand the thought that they were bordering on treason and were actually enemies of their own country so they quickly buried their heads again.

Answer 8

So they can claim it was someone else's idea and that they never wanted to go in the first place when they demand we pull out immediately.

Answer 9

Humanitarianism vs. Imperialism. Anyone with a brain AND a heart would know the answer.

Answer 10

Maybe because we would have a chance of succeeding in darfur, whereas in Iraq dubya and his gang of neo-con idiots have gauranteed that there is no chance of anything resembling victory?