Why Do Liberals Support U.S. Troops Going To Sudan But not Iraq?

Question

Genocide has occured in both countries (Sudan doesn't have the same level of methods as Iraq did as they only have fire arms where Sadaam could simply gas entire towns, but they seem to be pretty effectively carrying out genocide anyways). Why would person want to protect the of Sudan over the people of Iraq?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AkED1OZQUt5wp1zgzHph5cjsy6IX?qid=20070531085158AA7b9k7

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=At7prG_UJi_Fs_HbbLc.QqPY7BR.?qid=20070531085745AAKtWCk

Same basic question in both links, totally different answers. Also, if you can't help out everyone around the world, would it make more sense to help the people that benefit greatly or the people that don't benefit you as much?

"Liberals have the utmost respect for law, including international law. Cons obviously don't, as their support for the Iraq invasion and disregard of Bush's warrantless wiretapping shows."

Unless it has to do with illegal immigration....

Answer 1

because a republican=Iraq, Dem lead house and senate=Sudan.

liberal hypocrites at their best.

Answer 2

Once again, the 'liberal' strawman gets beat up and words are stuck in its mouth. The war in Iraq is long since over. Currently the US is engaged in an occupation where all factions there want us out. Our involvment in Iraq was sold as an immediate danger to the US via weapons of mass destruction. Only later did the subject of mass murder come up. In real life the reason for going into Iraq was to protect the US's oil interests. Sudan is a different story. As there is no 'danger' from WMD, the excuse of genocide has become an excuse in itself, but again, the reason is oil...way too much oil from that country is heading for China. While it's probably a good thing to prevent or stop mass murder, as long as mass murder has no impact on the west and its interests there is very little movement toward dealing with it. Even the Balkan situation that Bill Clinton got reamed over, while no oil was involved, had the political stability of that area in danger..which is why NATO stepped in. It isn't the non-existant 'liberals' that drive these things..it's real politics and of course..always follow the money!

Answer 3

if the President said Saddam Hussein is committing genocide, we need to stop it now, I would support that. But the cause for the war in Iraq was drummed up with fear of a mushroom cloud like explosion on our soil, WMDs, revenge for 9-11 and a host of changing intentions. And since Saddam is gone and his genocide is over, wtf are we still doing there with combat troops?

And it does make sense, your second part, that we can't save the world, but we can try and our priority would be to help where it benefits our own interest, yes that is what we do.

turn it around, how can we sit there and hear about genocide in Sudan and say well what do we get out of it, that's disgusting. However the US is the leading nation at least doing something about Sudan. in any case, genocide any where is wrong and free nations with the means to stop it, must do so immediately. Innocent women and children being slaughtered is inexcusable.

Answer 4

The difference is the genocide/ethnic cleansing is ONGOING in Darfur, and it wasn't in Iraq.

While the emerging norms of customary international law ARGUABLY support the intervention/invasion of a sovereign to stop ONGOING genocide, they DO NOT support the invasion of a sovereign on the basis of PAST, NON-ONGOING genocidal actions.

For the record, I'm liberal and I haven't supported intervention in EITHER scenario, but there is a valid distinction between the two that supports intervention in Darfur but not Iraq.

Liberals have the utmost respect for law, including international law. Cons obviously don't, as their support for the Iraq invasion and disregard of Bush's warrantless wiretapping shows.

Answer 5

WOW got it! priorities! if costs more than it is worth most likely not a good idea. unless of course one is an idealist and idealist are never happy with Stacie quo, always some problem to deal with, but one has to have priorities! as far as committing genocide , well I suppose its one approach to control if one wants to risk weeding out the week or the ones that aren't smart enough to get away. but 1800 plus years of that has made the Jew's some pretty pissed off people that are really good at math! I suppose 800 years of only letting them own pawn shops in Europe has an affect their too, so is one goes down that silly road better make dam sure you get them all. or your only making them better in the long run. but yes one must always have priorities, and a plain to achieve peace, most successfully done with tolerance and acceptance but that is indicative of maintaining power in some parts of the world right now. question is, are all those innocent starving people is it worth the effort? is saving them and making sure the population growth can eat and drink and a job not to mention the birth rate explosion of better conditions and how to feed them and proved jobs bla bla bla is it worth the effort. save them today for the sake of saving them so their quality of life can be what? to starve so NO don't send any one unless your willing to pay the price of unintended consequence. THINK! BEFORE you act

Answer 6

They would support it because they do not think our soldiers would get killed. Soon as they do, liberals will ask what are we doing over there. They have no patience, and face it, we send in troops some will be killed there too.

Take note that the UN has had this problem since 2000 and notice how they have handled it, even with our support.

Answer 7

Bush will bypass down in historic previous as a ruthless President who favoured the destruction of three worldwide places for the sake of avenging 9/11, without ever bringing any real justice, repayment and/or protection to the human beings in touch. The "worldwide conflict on Terror" potential slamming the protection rigidity-commercial complicated, Westernization, globalization, colonialism, anti-Arab sentiment and bloodthirst for oil up against Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism, with the human beings of those undemocratic worldwide places caught in the middle. subsequently there is plenty dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. The conflict in Somalia is paranoid and pointless, because it somewhat is extremely not likely that there is any terrorist recruiting camp down there.

Answer 8

possibly to save the UN's butt as they are in sudan and making a mess of it as are the chinese armed forces protecting their oil interests and the liberals want to try to save the reputation of the un as they (the un) are the hope of the free world (not that they seem to be any good at helping even themselves... just ask any bosnian who thought they were going to be protected by the un... the serbs took them from right under their noses...)

also as the us has been so successful in iraq and the liberals want the troops out (they don't want to be seen to support the republican's idea's do they....) - so they would rather immerse the us troops in doing peace keeping work for the un?!

actually i hadn't heard that the lib's wanted to do this and it does surprise me that they (the liberals) are that stupid [sorry but I don't think it isa good idea to help out the un and save it from messes it has made - look at mogadishu or however you spell it.....]

Answer 9

Liberals do not realize we would be fighting racial Muslims in the Sudan. They just think it is some radical dictator. You are right it is kind of ironic, when we went into Iraq and deposed a radical dictator.

Answer 10

A word of unsolicited advice. You cannot question why a liberal says or does anything. Liberals live in a fantasy world where reason and logic to not exist.

Answer 11

The left hates nation building, unless it is their nation building.

The truth is the U.S. should get out of the nation building business altogether, as nation building is a fool's game. But that would require the left to turn the other cheek on a lot of pet causes, where they would love to take billions of taxpayer cash to dispense their "compassion".