President Bush today saying that the Sudan government is responsible for the deaths and rapes of many people there. President Bush anounced that we will be esculating our involvment there to improve the situation.
If being involved in a civil war is bad in Iraq isn't it then also bad in Sudan and Darfur?
2007-05-29 03:57:21 · 16 answers · asked by Mother 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Iraq isn't a civil war as much as it is sectarian violence.
Most people are tired of the fighting and just want it to stop.
Darfur is ethnic cleansing. Arab Muslims are trying to clean out the black Muslims and Christians.
If there were a world consensus to intervene, I would be all for going into Darfur and exposing the "religion of peace" for what it really is.
However, the US should not have to bear the burden alone. France could do SOMETHING to help.
2007-05-29 04:02:44 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
If you want to call what's going on in Iraq a civil war, then you have to see it as 2 equal sides in a power struggle over a big mess that we caused. Why are we there? I believe that we're supporting the side that's most likely to win so that we can have a stake in the benefits that come after the "war."
As far has Darfur, its not a Civil War, its genocide. That's like calling the Holocaust a German civil war. We'll help the peoples in Darfur because its crimes against humanity, not a power struggle.
2007-05-29 04:04:14 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
the two circumstances are very diverse: Iraq is barely having a civil conflict with the aid of fact we invaded there. earlier we invaded, it became right into a rustic with a depressing dictator, yet there became into not an lively genocide occurring. to boot, specialists in the area knew basically before time that we've been going to lose the "hearts and minds" conflict and get caught in a quagmire. the situation in Darfur is extremely diverse: it somewhat is a genocide, not a civil conflict. we are obligated by potential of the Genocide convention in the United countries shape (signed by potential of the U.S. and all yet a million (i think of) different u . s . in the worldwide) to intervene on the topic of genocide. 60 years in the past, after the Holocaust, the perfect worldwide powers promised "never returned" approximately genocide, and then proceeded to look any different way many times for the time of genocides. to boot to our promise, we could intervene plenty greater efficiently in Sudan - the human beings committing the genocide are using historical rifles to attack human beings from horseback!
2016-10-30 02:04:09 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe we should physically stay out of all such internal conflicts (meaning troops), but seek to influence those situations through diplomacy and the UN. In Sudan, if the ruling Govt is behind alot of the killings, how do we think we are going to stop this? You have two large factions of people who hate each other.
2007-05-29 04:02:32 · answer #4 · answered by JeffyB 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the Darfur genocide has been going on for quite some time and the US govt. is just now recognizing it. the violence between Shiia & Sunni in Iraq happened as a result of the US led invasion when the Baath party was removed with Saddam Hussein. the situations are different for many other reasons as well.
2007-05-29 04:03:37 · answer #5 · answered by Diggy 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
There is a huge difference in the scale of involvement between Darfur and Iraq. Beyond that there is a lot less soliders who will be deployed to Darfur and there will actually be a plan in place for Darfur. Nor will we be spending $400 billion on Darfur.
2007-05-29 04:00:38 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 2⤋
Sigh- I really wish people would take a few minutes to learn about Darfur before posting uninformed questions. 400,000 people were not killed in Iraq in the 3 1/2 years before we invaded. We did not invade Iraq to save the citizens. We invaded because of those WMDs that they did not have. President Bush is talking about applying sanctions against Sudan, not bombing them.
Hope this clears it up for you,
Channa
2007-05-29 04:23:06 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
First of all, if Iraq is a civil war, its because of our actions. There wasn't a civil war there before we showed up. Second, if invading Iraq was OK in order to liberate the country, then why is Bush now talking sanctions and diplomacy when dealing with the Sudan? Third, as bad as Saddam was, and as glad as everyone is to see him gone, he was not engaged in genocide. Our doing nothing in the Sudan is as unacceptable as was our doing nothing in Rwanda (Yes, I know that was Clinton. This is an issue of decency, not politics).
2007-05-29 04:06:00 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋
We are not involved in an Iraqi civil War. That is a FAUX News lie.
Survey after survey of Iraqi citizens all conclude the same answer.
Iraqi's are in a Holy War not a Civil War
So Choose gods and grab a gun
Go Team Bush Go
2007-05-29 04:25:19 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
a couple of points come to mind. first.. we overthrew the government of Iraq.. do you think they will do the same to Sudan? I think not.. diplomatic actions are something I SUPPORTED against Iraq. Also, we may not have started either of these massacres .. but we uncorked the one in Iraq.
My biggest question.. why did we wait so long to take DIPLOMATIC ACTIONS in Sudan (again, diplomatic actions are something I support)
2007-05-29 04:16:28 · answer #10 · answered by pip 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋