All I see on hippie's cars are bumper stickers with "Save Darfur" on them. I don't really know what's happening in Darfur, except some people are killing other people.
But yet, when we went into Iraq, and overthrew a brutal dictatorship, the Liberals protested. Why? Because Bush did it.
So, if Bush would have brought America into Darfur, and we would have stopped whatever bad is happening there, but some of our soldiers would have died (obviously), would the Liberals be protesting that, too?
2007-04-26 06:17:50 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Of course they would! What justification to interfere in the genocide in Darfur that wasn't present in Saddam's Iraq?!
Except for the added UN corruption and back-door terrorist dealings Saddam was involved in.
Hypocritical Libs! Somehow they are more moved that the killing in Africa involves black people, and the killing in Saddam's Iraq didn't.
2007-04-26 06:22:41 · answer #1 · answered by ? 7 · 3⤊ 5⤋
If you were to READ every now and then instead of getting your news from Limburger, Hannity, and those other idiots on Faux News, you would see there is genocide occurring in Darfur. Race number 1, not one Dictator (Hussein, by the way, was placed there by our American Government) is killing off the men and boys of race number 2, then raping the women of that race so they will have children of race number 1. There is a terrible and horrific genocide going on over there.
Now, people wanted to know why bush won't go to Darfur since he went to Iraq. There are two reasons. One, Darfur is an African country, and seeing what happened in New Orleans, we know what bush thinks about Africans and African-Americans. Two, Darfur doesn't have oil.
Funny, I remember Republicans protesting Clinton when he went to help another country while he was president. Hypocrisy, maybe?
2007-04-26 06:36:25 · answer #2 · answered by linus_van_pelt_4968 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Liberals are all about the hypothetical, ordinary, popular causes. Tibet has a cachet. East Timor has an unique ring to it. Darfur is one hundred% black, so that they are frequently very "computer". Liberals are merely like the nature George Costanza on "Seinfeld". George cherished to communicate about being an architect, yet did not have the stress, interest, or expertise to really develop into one; he merely cherished pretending. it really is how Liberals are. They conceive of those ordinary fights which will instruct how noble and selfless they are. yet once the body count number starts, they run for cover.
2016-12-04 22:02:35 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The situation in Darfur is affecting a LOT more people. From what I understand, most of the people in the refugee camps are women and children, and the men are fighting or already killed.
So, I wish Bush would have chosen Darfur rather than Iraq. Iraq ethically is too close to the oil industry, even if there are claims of terrorism. However, the US probably does not have much international business tied up in Darfur so we have less governmental interest in that region. Also their conflict is not considered a high priority since the conflict does not have implications for our country.
2007-04-26 06:24:51 · answer #4 · answered by Searcher 7 · 3⤊ 5⤋
Not this Lib.I would be griping just as loud.I don't believe we need to be the world police force.We have enough problems here to try and take care of all these countries.Wouldn't you rather we put our money into America?Do you even realize the extent of the money we send and use to to protect other countries?We could have one helluva country if we stopped being such busy bodies in others affairs.Lower taxes the whole ball of wax.
2007-04-26 06:35:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
When bush said we were going to Iraq he said it was because there were WMD. THERE WERE NONE. He lied. Never did he say we were going there to overthrow a brutal dictatorship.
Perhaps it's time you do some research and make up your own mind about what's going on in Darfur. You're calling people "hippies" because they actually know what's going on over there and you don't. How can you call people names (which incidentaly, most people don't consider "hippie" a bad thing), without knowing the issues they are standing up for? Get informed.
2007-04-26 06:30:38 · answer #6 · answered by katydid 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Bush would never help Darfur
It is not that he dislikes Blacks. No in fact Bush bought Condi Rice as a symbol of Afro American prosperity.
But the bottom line for Darfur is they have no oil.
If the refugees would walk to somewhere that had oil they would get Million$ in help.
Go Team Bush Go
2007-04-26 06:30:59 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
Yes they would protest Darfur too.
Because we haven't had 12 years of debate in the UN with all the resolutions and the letters written before we do anything.
2007-04-26 06:22:22 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Moot point.
Bush wouldn't help out Darfur because he couldn't make any money in the deal. That and the approval rating would have not been an issue with it.
Don't justify what Bush did. He is a lying and cheating b@stard. Makes me long for the presidents that lie because of a personal decision they made, as opposed to lie to start a war that he can't finish.
2007-04-26 06:23:10 · answer #9 · answered by volleyballchick (cowards block) 7 · 3⤊ 5⤋
The only way any action will be taken against the government of Sudan is if they had something the republicans really wanted. They don't.
If Bin Laden were running a training camp there, you know Bush would invade. And he would fail to capture him yet again! Such great leadership...
Thankfully, the rest of the world is acting. And for the right reasons.
2007-04-26 06:25:56 · answer #10 · answered by Floyd G 6 · 3⤊ 4⤋