We have soldiers in Iraq. We don't have soldiers in Darfur. What makes Iraq the right place for soldiers and

Question

Darfur the wrong place?

Answer 1

I find it interesting that so many Americans object to the use of military force for strictly military or national security purposes but have no problem using it for humanitarian purposes. Its as if you guys believe that the purpose of the military is to deliver food and keep the peace. Provided they don’t carry weapons of course.

I’m half Sudanese (and half Bengali) and yet I don’t feel that the US has any responsibility to solve that problem. It would be nice of course, but it isn’t your responsibility. What you are witnessing there is the result of decades of civil unrest between two Muslim belligerents and approximately 10 years ago, one side gained the upper hand. What they are doing to one another is evil pure and simple. If anything the Islamic world should do something about it. Its funny that they complain about Western interference in their affairs but when they make a total mess of their lives, they complain that the West is treating them with callous indifference.

The best thing that has been done thus far is that the Bush Administration forced the UN to take up the issue. Perhaps you should ask why the UN and the Islamic nations have closed their eyes to the situation.

The US has a Constitutional duty to defend and protect the American people from attacks and threats of attack. But I challenge you to find that section of the Constitution that places a duty on the US government to use military force for humanitarian purposes.

Answer 2

Darfur is not a UN problem, it's a Sudan problem.
And what good would it make to put more guns in Darfur? You'd have to take one side or the other or fight both. One way or the other, the result is that more people are going to die. Exactly like it's happening now in Iraq.
US citizens, you have a lot of problems in your own hands.Your economy is going down fast, your government is taking wealth from you to pay for adventures around the world, your government is taking down all your civil rights one by one because, sooner or later, it's going to turn you into slaves to pay for the wars and the support of the corporative/political system. Get all your people back home and get to work.
Iraq and Sudan (and Afghanistan, Palestine, Israel, etc. etc.) have to find their own solutions.

Answer 3

There's no oil in Darfur. There's a genocide going on of course, worse than any of the human rights violations going on in Iraq that the Bush admin. used as justification for the invasion. But there's no oil. If there weren't any oil in Iraq, they wouldn't be there either. If you believe that they care about humanity, human rights etc. than I can see why you'd be confused as to why there are troops in Iraq and none in Darfur. Once you rrealize all they care about is money and exploiting less developed nations, then it all becomes clear.

Answer 4

If we had more troops we would have them in Darfur as well. We currently have too much on our plates with Afghanistan and Iraq.

Answer 5

Darfur is not a threat to our Country right now.

Answer 6

Because no one can find Darfur on the map let alone how to pronounce it

Answer 7

The US has no compelling interest in Darfur. It is a UN problem.

Answer 8

oil.

Answer 9

MONEY... duh