tonight on the cnn/youtube debate i heard almost every democratic candidate say we need to get involved in darfur. but that is a civil war, isn't that what they preach against in iraq? what makes the people in darfur so much better in darfur than in iraq? hasn't more people died in iraq than darfur. the last i checked whole towns were wiped out by the saddam regime!!!
2007-07-23 15:07:45 · 10 answers · asked by caroline k 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
for the ones who are yelling it is a genocide, please go look up genocide before you all hurt yourselves!!! genocide means to harm or kill because of one's religion, race, or ethnicity. last i check same thing going on in iraq.
2007-07-23 15:22:18 · update #1
Yes, that is called hypocrisy.
Don't get involved in one civil war, because it's unpopular, but get involved in another civil war, because it's popular.
But what do you expect from any politician of any party?
2007-07-23 15:11:24 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I guess it's different when our troops get sent in over a Dem war.
This is really a case of reverse racism. If they were white people in Darfur, nobody would care.
Everyone forgets that Saddam tried to eradicate the Curds in Northern Iraq. No one gassed anyone in Darfur.
2007-07-23 23:20:37 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Its absolutely hypocritical for these Democrats to want to get involved in the Sudan Civil War while wanting to get out of the Iraq Civil War. Have you heard about "emergent Christians," a new form of Christianity that claims that God may not exist and which is the strongest cheerleader for War in Darfur and also supports Socialism? They are a major new constituency among Democrats, whom the candidates are trying to please. They are anti-Iraq War, but pro-Sudan War.
I'm supporting Ron Paul, because he's the only candidate speaking out against all of these ridiculous wars and opposing Socialism.
2007-07-23 23:21:18 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
GENOCIDE IS NOT CIVIL WAR!!! Saddam used cruel means to put down rebellions yes. He did not set out to eliminate an entire people. Saddam killed thousands. Millions are going to die in Darfur. See the difference. A few thousand soldiers can end the fighting in darfur. 100,000 soldiers are not enough in Iraq. See the difference.
2007-07-23 22:22:30 · answer #4 · answered by old-bald-one 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
There is an enormous difference between removing a government and restoring civil order. It took the entire world and all its resources to do that in the case of the World Wars.
In case you have not noticed, we do not enjoy the support of the entire world in Iraq. We also do not enjoy the support of the majority of the Iraqi people. They want us to leave, so they can sort out their destiny for themselves.
Yes, Saddam was brutal, but at least he was a secular Muslim. That was why Osama hated him. By removing Saddam we have opened the way for an Islamist regime that will ally itself with Iran, and every day we overstay our welcome makes this more certain.
We stopped the killing in Iraq. Now for Darfur, and maybe Zimbabwe. God knows there are enough evil men in power.
Once we take them out, however, we need to get out and let the locals make their own way. Occupation only makes enemies. Look at Texas; they have never forgiven us for the post Civil War occupation, and send the worst of their sociopaths to Washington to wreak their vengeance.
2007-07-24 05:47:30 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Difference:
We have been asked to assist them in Darfur. We INVADED Iraq. We were uninvited guests, and we made our presence a rather harsh one. And it continues to be harsh.
As long as Darfur has asked that we intervene, I think that it is something to consider. When it is our fault and we invaded, it is very wrong.
2007-07-23 22:26:39 · answer #6 · answered by volleyballchick (cowards block) 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Well like Iraq they talked a good show an did nothing after getting us there.An here look what they tried to do for the illegals the amnesty bill sellout. All for votes They won't do anything with Dafur it might get messy except talk talk talk.
2007-07-23 22:20:54 · answer #7 · answered by 45 auto 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Wow. Really?
There are so many things I could dissect about this paragraph. However, I haven't the time. So I'll just say this: I hope no one on here is willing to take a history lesson from somone who thinks "Hasn't more people died..." is an example of proper grammar.
2007-07-23 22:12:46 · answer #8 · answered by BrightEyedBlasphemer 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The issue is genocide. Additionally, you are referring to a debate where candidates voice their opinions. How does that translate into "dems getting to choose?"
2007-07-23 22:12:46 · answer #9 · answered by snoopy 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It's a genocide, not a civil war. Christ.
2007-07-23 22:11:00 · answer #10 · answered by miXzo 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋