Well, there has been so much talk about Darfur should the United States take action? Plz no agendas here just yes or no, feel free to substantiate your argument.
2007-04-14 13:17:58 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
okay my mistake that does not seem to make too much sense. use your agendas!
2007-04-14 13:21:05 · update #1
Most people above don't seem to realize that the UN sent 17,000 peace keepers. That should be enough to control the problem. If they need our help, then sure, we should. It wouldn't hurt for some of these other countries to step up either.
No matter what the US does, we will be criticized for it.
2007-04-14 13:47:53 · answer #1 · answered by Curt 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes, and I'm sure we would if we weren't already stationed in Iraq. I personally feel the Darfur issue is bigger than the Iraq one, we just need to finish one thing before we start another. However, countries not participating in the Iraqi war, I feel they should especially help Darfur. This is the Holocaust all over again. Have we learned nothing? Do we want to look back and go, "Why didn't anyone do anything?"
We can't use the excuse "I don't know." because we ALL know.
2007-04-14 13:32:01 · answer #2 · answered by Seung Hee 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. We are involved in too many cess pools around the world. Going into the Darfur would be Somalia all over again. The problem is that the people in Sudan are fighting each other. If the tribes would come together, they would be more than a match for their current dictator. But, the warlords and cartels who are financing and supplying the weapons will never let this happen. I say let them figure it out. Eventually one of two things will happen:
1. The get tired of fighting and come to some kind of cease fire.
2. One side finally wins and drives out the other, or eliminates them.
Either way it will be their decision.
2007-04-14 13:25:43 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes. It is hypocritical to not act. That being said, the rest of the world ALSO has a moral imperative to do so (I'm tired of how America and Britain are the only to really act). I'm especially angry that China and Russia continue to prop up this evil dictatorship.
I say yank troops out of Iraq, and send half to Aghanistan, half to Darfur for 8 months. It won't take even that long to kick the crap out of the Janjaweed and Al Qaeda bastards.
BTW, notthat it matters, but I am a liberal. I say so because I'm tired of hearing how we won't resort to force. I'm all for us using force, diplomacy is over and the B-52's need to fly.
Also, just out of curiousity, what does 'Diplomatya Pushki' mean?
2007-04-14 13:24:18 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, the USA has no strategic, national defense reasons for intervening. That would be a UN issue and can be handled by local governments. We have enough on our plates. Also, there are no US citizens being abused there so it is really none of our business. Only colonial powers would be.
2007-04-14 13:29:38 · answer #5 · answered by WhatBrain? 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
N O, The UN is supposed to have peace-keeping forces there, let the UN take care of it.
2007-04-15 06:51:29 · answer #6 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, the US should absolutely help Darfur! They need help desperately and no one else is stepping up!
2007-04-14 13:22:43 · answer #7 · answered by They call me ... Trixie. 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
And give people more to complain about? We should just send some democrats over to talk about it.
2007-04-14 13:24:46 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes!
2007-04-14 13:23:34 · answer #9 · answered by vegaswoman 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No we are not the worlds police force.
2007-04-14 13:23:36 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋