If we are supposed to be a world peace keeper? What are the details of how it began?
2007-05-27 10:25:23 · 9 answers · asked by brandontremain 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
The USA is one of a very few countries that act responsibly in the world. While we are occupied with Afghanistan and Iraq, it would be irresponsible to go into Darfur.
What NEEDS to happen is responsible behavior from other countries, who bask in the security the USA provides them, to go in and stop the slaughter in Darfur.
USA is not "supposed to be" a world peacekeeper .... It does this out of pure sensibility, and would appreciate other countries behaving sensibly also.
2007-05-27 10:36:44 · answer #1 · answered by gcbtrading 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The Darfur conflict really is over oil.
There is oil in the Darfur region of Sudan and the Sudanese government is using militias to push anyone who might dispute their claim to the oil off the land.
We can not be everywhere and can not fight everybody's fight.
We are attempting to get a peace keeping force made up of troops from African nations.
Several have pledged troops although I am not certain if they have been allowed into the country by the Sudanese government.
2007-05-27 10:35:39 · answer #2 · answered by joseph s 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Darfur is mainly about oil and the Sudanese govt's claim to that oil. The reason the US government does not go into Sudan or pressure other countries (despite the large amount of civilian casualties) to get involved is the lack of our imports of Sudanese products. Simple as that they don't have enough of anything to perk our governments, and other governments ears
2007-05-27 11:19:47 · answer #3 · answered by rdwoelfe 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The Sudanese government sent its very own military blended with the Islamic extremists to resign insurrection interest. regrettably they generally focused civilians and committed many humanitarian crimes. opposite to standard theory it replaced into no longer purely the Muslim group who killed and raped harmless people, it replaced into additionally the Sudanese military, and those strikes have been ordered Sudan's government (the government that maintains to be in potential and could no longer permit-in UN peacekeepers........i ask your self why?)
2016-12-18 05:58:54 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I liked Colin Powell's analogy to the pottery store. If you touch something and it breaks you are responsible.
The people of this region should be helped if they takes some steps in the right direction on their own. This is a cruel paradox, making them a "51st state" is not going to work.
2007-05-27 11:29:05 · answer #5 · answered by Menehune 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Darfur doesn't have anything Mr.Bush wants. He doesn't give a crapola about it. Now, if they had oilfields and didn't have black skin, he might be interested.
2007-05-27 12:14:31 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
What would you want the US to do about it ?
Invade and kill everyone ?
The US is funding the African union peacekeepers in Sudan.
The question should be,
Where is Europe, China, Russia ??
They think they are our equals, so what are they waiting for ?
2007-05-27 12:01:16 · answer #7 · answered by jeeper_peeper321 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I am not sure how it started but the cynic in me thinks we aren't doing anything because Darfur doesn't have anything we want. If they had oil, we would be there.
2007-05-27 10:31:31 · answer #8 · answered by weebee 2 · 2⤊ 5⤋
It is not the US's responsibility.. it is the UN's responsibly
2007-05-27 10:38:08 · answer #9 · answered by katjha2005 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋