Why should the US give aid to Darfur?

Question

Do our leaders expect the reaction from the left-wingers to be different from when we entered Iraq? Were the people of Iraq less deserving of our support (removing their evil dictator) than the people of Darfur are?

Answer 1

If any part of any aid involves the military liberals will complain, even if it is only delivering aid.

Answer 2

Five things.

1. Darfur is completely different than Iraq, because Darfur WANTS our aid. Big difference between sending aid to a country in great need and invading them.

2. Someone having an evil dictator does not justify attacking a country. If that were the case, we would have literally dozens of countries we would need to attack. This fact further makes the Darfur and Iraq comparison very weak. It is not a matter of who is more deserving.

3. Darfur currently has hundreds of thousands of people in danger of being killed. Tens of thousands have already died. How can you possibly justify not wanting to help them? Instability in a country like this can easily lead to instability in the entire area. That leads to terrorism. Last time I heard, we were at war with terrorism. Best nip it in the bud rather than wait till it is too late.

4. We are paying the bulk of the costs for the Iraq War, due to the fact that we did not go through proper channels before invading. The war is costing us tens of billions of dollars every year. Aiding Darfur is part of a worldwide, united attempt to prevent genocide of a very extreme nature. We will be helping, but not paying for the entire thing ourselves. The costs, compared to Iraq, will be very minimal.

5. More civilians have died as a result of the war in Iraq than killed by Saddam Hussein. Thanks for nothing, U.S.!

Answer 3

Giving aid to Iraq is a worthwhile humanitarian effort. The invasion of Iraq was a blunder. The issue at the time was the attacks of 9/11 which Iraq had no part in. And the blunder has tied up the resources of this country for 5 yrs. preventing us from pursuing the people that WERE involved in 9/11. One more of our soldiers spilling his blood in Iraq is one too many

Answer 4

Darfur is actually worse for the victims there, but since the aim of our invasion of Iraq was not primarily to remove an evil dictator (vis a vis his own people), the US doesn't have the oil interests and strategic location in the middle east to merit much help.

Answer 5

Can we just acknowledge the fact that most people are to the center and want what's best for everyone, not the left or the right? Personally, as a "lefty" I think charity starts at home, but that would mean taking some bucks from big money companies Halliburten, Bechtel, and making sure our troops get the armor they need before a war starts anywhere, not several years into it. I'll tell you what, as a righty why aren't you doing the typical right-wing pro-military spending thing and get on your soap box about Walter Reed Medical Center, the Republicans raping veterans benefits, and the lack of supplies for our troops. Make yourself useful!!!

Answer 6

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and the defense -- against attack from abroad -- of the lives, liberty, and property of the American people on American soil. Provision of such defense must respect the individual rights of people everywhere.

The principle of non-intervention should guide relationships between governments. The United States government should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted trade, travel, and immigration.

Answer 7

Although other Nations behave irresponsibly and stand idly by in the face of Genocide... We the USA, and our few responsible Allies, must continue to hold ourselves to a higher standard.

Answer 8

EXACTLY!