LIberals, Do You Support U.S. Boots On The Ground In The Sudan To Stop The Genocide There?

Answer 1

Depends on the parameters, personally, I agree with Geroge Bush:

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."


what changed George?

Answer 2

FRiend: Absolutely. And not just U.S. Boots either. I think that the more different National Boots the better! That's what the United Nations was established for ---- to save & deliver & create just peace. So why beat around the bush about it? Some selfish Americans are so stupid. Haven't they ever heard of the Golden Rule?? If it was us, the USA being trampled upon by such nefarious insanity, those retarded complainers would be totally changing their tune. All those poor Sudanese need some Real Divine Intervention; and not just the Sudanese. For real.

Answer 3

Why is war the first option?

No. I would NOT support our troops on the ground (is that a cliche for killing?) in Sudan. The genocide has been going on for years, and the solution is political. The United Nations sent a proposal a week before Mr Bush made his sanction speech. The killing IS horrible, it will not be made less horrible if we contribute to it.

Answer 4

Yup.... African Union has been clear the civil war in Sudan is over scarce resources. Send UN advisers, agroingeneers to check the area. The US could help by providing aid without strings. China could do the same.
Sanctions could be played around with as an incentive to stop funding the Janjaweeds. But careful not to further impoverish the population.
Military involvement would speed up the killing as it did in Kosovo. It would be criminal.

Answer 5

Yes, I do. Why you ask? Well, simple.
Our motives would be pure, we wouldn't be stealing their resources under the guise of repayment for liberation. The reasons for going would be obvious and unlike our mess in the Middle East would not have been condoned on the basis of intentional misinformation for personal/political gain.


**though I think the UN has a responsibility based on the terms of the charter to be the ones to become involved.

** for those of you that state that it is none of our business, I ask this. Would you condone it if the stakes became greater, such as a genocide on the scale of the Holocaust? When do you decide that human life becomes more important than "your own business"? If you are of a Judeo-Christian backround, how do you reconcile your apathy for other countries with your religious adages and tenets?

"So much attention is paid to the aggressive sins, such as violence and cruelty and greed with all their tragic effects, that too little attention is paid to the passive sins, such as apathy and laziness, which in the long run can have a more devastating effect." ~ Eleanor Roosevelt

Answer 6

No. The government of Sudan wont allow it.

Want to know why they wont? Because they have oil and theyre scared sh*tless that we're going to try and steal it, like we're doing in Iraq right now.

They'll only allow 3000 of the UN peacekeepers in for that same reason. We should be putting all our diplomatic efforts into ending the genocide, after of course, we end the civil war we started in Iraq.

Answer 7

Thanks for bringing up this great question!
Who gave us the sole right to be the world's policeman? if you are a conservative, why are you for constantly SPENDING zillions of dollars around the world on other countries? I thought liberals were for throwing dollars around and conservatives were for smaller government? Doesn't seem to be the case anymore. I know I can't afford my nation to go any deeper into debt for our grandchildren to pay. We need to keep our noses out of other people's business and quit trying to orchestrate the entire world. THAT'S's why we are so hated around the world. Oh by the way, I'm not a liberal.

Answer 8

I don't support any interdiction there unless it's an international one under the UN auspices of an international police force.

If the entire world agrees to intercede, then I'm supportive because in that instance there would be global accord that something needed to be done.

But I don't support the idea that the US should either "go it alone" or intercede with a "coalition of the willing".

Answer 9

Peacekeepers and financial support to help the legitimate government (or preferred rebel group) stabilise the country. We can't be doing these things FOR them, but instead, *with* them. Nations need to stand on their own two feet.

Answer 10

Defiantly, that's a justifiable conflict and as decent human beings would should want to stop genocide. Plus by international law states are required to stop genocide if they know about it