2007-05-27 15:53:32 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Because the Left, would start bitching and whining that Bush illegally invaded the Sudan.
They would accuse him of lying about people being killed there.
Or say, the only reason Bush sent troops to Sudan, was to steal their oil.
I can give you other reasons, but those three are enough.
2007-05-27 16:23:51 · answer #1 · answered by jeeper_peeper321 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
First, thank you for saying "Sudan"... Darfur is a STATE/ region within the nation of Sudan, and if the Nation of Sudan doesn't INVITE us in... OR The United Nations... we can't INVADE !!
To respond to another answerer, Sudan is an oil producing nation, but not a member of OPEC: at 520K barrels per day (compared to 692 MILLION barrels.for Kuwait, or 700 million barrels for Saudi Arabia)... the Sudan is 10% of Kuwait or Saudia Arabia.
The US would LIKE (Congress) to intervene... but the Sudan ONLY wants African Union TROOPS... and the UN Security Council hasn't overridden the Sudanese government !!
Oh... we can invade ONE country (Sudan) but not another (Iraq) ??
2007-05-27 23:38:13 · answer #2 · answered by mariner31 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
The Oil in Sudan is controlled by China. China has created the genocide situation there and will not allow any more UN or US involvement.
Whoever denies that Sudan is filled with oil is a fool and a liar.
2007-05-27 22:59:56 · answer #3 · answered by gorgeous george III 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
The UN is ALREADY there. Why can't they deal with it?
And the truth is there is oil in the Sudan worth billions of US dollars, so the argument that there is no oil doesn't work. Of course the truth is not something that some people will accept.
2007-05-27 23:01:53 · answer #4 · answered by Tater1966 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Deployment of troops is made where national security is involved. Matter is being looked into by United Nations. Most important is financial aid and its economical use for the maximum benefits of its people.
2007-05-27 23:08:51 · answer #5 · answered by snashraf 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Actually we have been asked by the UN to stay out of Sudan.
This congress has seen to it that request will be honored by funding for troop deployments, or lack therof.
Don't balme GWB, or his admin, they're only trying to do the right thing for everyone... and we all know you can't be all things to all ppl all the time.
2007-05-27 23:11:31 · answer #6 · answered by solo_powered_boatie 2 · 4⤊ 2⤋
I must have missed the news report that said Sudan grew 100 Billion Barrels of OIL.
OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL...it's all about oil...not bringing "freedom and democracy" to people.
Watch this British Documentary from 2005 and get tuned up on what's really going on with the OIL war machine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut9-hgFbJWs
2007-05-27 23:37:19 · answer #7 · answered by Perry L 5 · 0⤊ 4⤋
So the media and liberals can say, "Bring our troops home?" Congress sent troops to Iraq, remember?
2007-05-27 23:02:16 · answer #8 · answered by Mr.Wise 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Now that would be one I would support but we have pretty much shot the wand on Iraq. The UN really needs to get on top of this one with a majority of the resources and troops coming from other nations. I know we have most of the money & arms and it is our own fault for not lissening to them about Iraq but my god we are going brake us.
2007-05-27 23:02:30 · answer #9 · answered by crownliftman 3 · 0⤊ 5⤋
It doesn't seem like anyone cares what happens over there...I keep thinking we could have solved world hunger with the hundred billion or so spent on this war on terror. Why can people pool together for a cause such as that????
And sorry Heidi...the USA isn't solving "the world's" problems...it's just making a feeble attempt at resolving it's own.
2007-05-27 22:58:15 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 6⤋