yet think we should get involved in Darfur?
2007-07-15 15:46:23 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I think wether or not we should stay out of Iraq is a purely academic question at this point since we are already there. And I don't think anyone with one eye and 1/2 sense thinks we can just leave and everything will be fine.
As for Darfur we aren't there yet. Whereas in Iraq it could be argued (rightly or wrongly) that we had a compelling national interest in removing Saddam as a threat and keeping half a million troops on the borders to contain him wasn't a realistic solution. In Darfur I see no national interest in getting involved. It is an African problem just as Kosovo was a European problem. Its going to make no difference to us how that situation works out.
2007-07-15 15:54:35 · answer #1 · answered by Roadkill 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
That's a good question. I would say because there is a real genocide going on in Darfur where as Iraq simply had a harsh dictator. Many countries have harsh dictators but most don't kill people by the millions. Yes, Saddam tried to exterminate the Kurds but you have to admit that there was some level of stability in the region compared to the present time........
2007-07-15 22:52:11 · answer #2 · answered by ? 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Instead of trying to use our power to make everyone conform to what we want ( like in Iraq) we should use our powers to help people....Genocide is happening in Darfur and nothing is being done just like the holocaust.... it when on for years before anyone did anything about it. You know I watched Hotel Rawanda last night about the the genocide that took place there. It was so sad...and that was just a movie I mean they cannot even begin to show all of the horrors. Something needs to be done NOW to help those people!
2007-07-15 22:53:26 · answer #3 · answered by Lindsey G 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Two different situations. Participating in international efforts to save the people of the Darfur region is one thing. Invading and occupying a country that wasn't a threat to us--ESPECIALLY while knowingly letting our real enemies have 5 years to rebuild their strength in Afganistan/Pakistan--is an entirely different matter.
2007-07-15 22:55:11 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bush choose invasion of an oil rich country over sending troops to stop a genocide. It's clear where his priorities lie.
2007-07-15 23:00:26 · answer #5 · answered by ndmagicman 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's a little late. I think that should have been flipped and asked a long time ago.
The humanitarian angle was revision #3 to the reasons we invaded list.
2007-07-15 22:50:36 · answer #6 · answered by Truth Erector 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
We had no business going to Iraq. If you were to decide to get your information from someplace besides Limbaugh or Hannity, you would know this.
2007-07-15 22:55:37 · answer #7 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Hmmmm.. Genocide compared to "atrocities in the past".. Wow.. What a tough choice!!. der..
2007-07-15 22:50:21 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
don't you read news? they don't want us there they can take care of there self Iraq pm said so lets take our people home they should not get killed for nothing for people who don't care about our men an women
2007-07-15 22:59:53 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
people are naive and do not realize that islamic extremists do not operate the same way we do. they dont care if they die while killing you, they just want to kill you.
"We had no business going to Iraq"
there are plenty of reasons we went to iraq. heres just a few if you can handle the truth
1) bush would have been criticized if he didnt do anything about 9/11 so he declared WAR.
2) increasing violence on Israel had been persisting and israel is one of our allies.
3) to stop future terrorist attacks.
4) to prevent unneeded death, (see #3)
2007-07-15 22:56:02 · answer #10 · answered by jsda_man 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋