The are advocating imposing no-fly zones in Darfur, which is an act of war. They are also advocating putting US troops in the middle of a civil war, which the Sudanese government has already said they would also consider an act of war.
So why are they advocating war and sending US troops into the middle of a civil war? All without any national interest being at stake. Does this make their criticism of Bush and Iraq hypocritical at best?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070629/pl_afp/usvote2008democratsrace_070629044527
2007-06-29 04:51:37 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I guess a lot of people forget that they did not support going to Iraq because they saw nothing of national interest in going there, and they did not feel that Saddam's brutal mass murder of Iraqis to be a worthwhile cause to stop.
Also, I don't recall any Democrats, especially none with the name "clinton" having been anxious to help people in Africa, such as when Bill Clinton and Kofi Annan completely ignored the pleading from the UN forces commander there to do something to stop the upcoming slaughter.
I'm not commenting upon whether it is worthwhile or not, but whether this displays duplicity and hypocrisy on their parts.
2007-06-29 05:02:08 · update #1
Hi Ya, you can ESAD. You blocked me, yet feel you should be able to respond to MY questions? Pathetic.
2007-06-29 05:07:40 · update #2
Suddenly you NeoCon's are crying about acts of war ??
LoL
2007-06-29 04:54:33 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
There is Genocide in Sudan in the Darfur region. It must be stopped. The Democrats don't want this just to be USA doing this they want this to be a UN or NATO thing so there would be many more nations there and it wouldn't cost us too much money. The US is the protector of the free world so we must help them. What if people just started killing and raping people in a certain state- should none care about us if that happens? There are more important things then national interests. It isn't exactly hypocritical of them to say we need to leave Iraq because the Iraqis are not doing anything to try to fix their problems like creating political solutions among Sunnis and Shiites.
2007-06-29 12:04:30 · answer #2 · answered by NFrancis 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nope. It's not hypocritical at all. Totally different situation. The Sudan situation would involve a minimal amount of troops compared to Iraq, is a legitimate international situation, and would involve the support of hundreds of other countries. We would not be the only people there. In fact, we would be one of MANY. The costs to us would be infinitely smaller compared to the Iraq War, and the premise would not be based on lies and falsehoods. In other words, we'd have a real reason to be there. Sudan is unstable, and the instability can easily spill out into surrounding areas, creating an international disaster, and a REAL breeding ground for terrorism. It is a completely different situation, and most Republicans even support it. So no. You are incorrect. There is nothing hypocritical about it, because war in itself is not what Democrats are against. It is an unjust and illegal war that is sapping all our resources and thousands of people that would otherwise have not been harmed that that are against. People in Sudan ARE being harmed right this very moment, and at an alarming rate. Peacekeeping is completely different than all-out war. You are making a bad comparison.
2007-06-29 11:59:19 · answer #3 · answered by Mr. Taco 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I have to concur with the Democrats on this one. The Sudanese government is clearly committing acts of genocide and should be dealt with. I would not send in combat troops, but we could help the people in Darfur with air power to give them an edge.
2007-06-29 11:55:41 · answer #4 · answered by The Stylish One 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Can you explain what "National Interest" was at stake in WWII?
Sometimes there are more important things than National Interests". Stopping Genocide is one of them.
2007-06-29 11:56:41 · answer #5 · answered by TheEconomist 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
There is mass genocide occurring in Darfur...Iraq was stable before we went in and destabilized the country.
2007-06-29 11:55:24 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
You're a Republican chastising a political party for the use of force?
Hypocritical?
2007-06-29 12:01:39 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
maybe they will do what Clinton did in Somolia..send in troops with no side-arms..to be beaten to death
2007-06-29 11:58:31 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think you answered your own question.
2007-06-29 12:01:44 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋