Do you think that the U.S. should send troops to Darfur to stop the Janjaweed?

Question

Please give your opinion and some things backing your opinion.

Personally, I think that we should stay out of Darfur as American soldiers are exactly that, American soldiers, they should not be used as world police, they should be used to defend the homeland. I also believe that if one group of people wants to kill another group of people you can't really stop them without much more killing.

Please, no obnoxious comments bashing "hippies" and no rambling emotional stories about starving Sudanese babies.

Thank you.

Answer 1

I am with you. We should not get involved.

It is strange how the same people who criticize our deployment into Iraq insist that we go into Darfur. The military needs a rest. They need to recuperate and they need to be back here in the states.

And for anyone who wants the US military to go there, why don't you join up?

Answer 2

I heartedly agree with you. American troops cannot be World Police. However, we have sent troops into Viet Nam and into Iraq only because it benefits the U.S. Whoever controls the oil, controls the world. Bush is the new Caesar, and the United States is becoming the new Rome. The British and French tried and failed. The U.S. thinks that they are going to tame the MidEast, but they never will. They have more armaments and strength, but the Muslims are willing to tie bombs to their bodies and die for Allah. You cannot beat that. As for Darfur, the U.S. has nothing to gain there so we will look the other way. Just like Sarajevo and Ethiopia. There was nothing to gain there. It breaks my heart to see children and women slaughtered and raped, but humans are a violent people as much as we like to think that we are not. There always has to be a scapegoat and someone to put down. I do believe that the United Nations is a lacking organization and should have been constructed differently, with more power and an International Police Unit, that could be sent into places like Darfur. The Veterans Administration cannot handle the load it has now with our veterans from Viet Nam and Iraq. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan is costing 75 billion dollars a month. If we start going into Darful and Iran, which I think the White House is eyeing now, the cost will be phenomenal and the taxation will be carried for centuries. I am afraid that we have reached the point where there will be no peace in life. We are headed for destruction and sometimes I feel it might be best for the way we are today. If I was the creator, I would have pushed the button long ago.
Read the book, "The Rape of Nanking" which will make your blood curl. When the Japanese went into China and the rivers were running red with blood. They tore open pregnant women's genital organs, bashed babies against walls, cut the organs of males, and we haven't learned yet. Our own G.I.s raped and killed in Viet Nam and in Iraq. The atrocities in Sarajevo and Ethiopia are legend, let alone Africa. And let us never forget the Nazi concentration camps of Hell. Also, read the book, "The Last Death" and see what we did to the Indians, the ONLY true Americans.

Answer 3

American soldiers should only be used to protect America from legitimate threats.

Darfur would not fall under that category. It's a world peace issue. It's not America's responsibility to handle the situation there; it's the responsibility of all nations.

Therefore, it's a matter to be addressed by the UN. However, you have to consider how hard-pressed the UN is to come to agreement on situations like these AND to actually send in troops to enforce their decisions.

America should leave its troops out and instead use their political power in the UN to influence that body's course of action.

Answer 4

If you believe the Iraq invasion is to protect the homeland, then US should also attack on Saudi Arab as most of the 911 hijackers were from there.... and there's no democracy or freedom there whatsoever.

US tries to use the "world peace keeper" image to justify its own global strategy, which is nothing wrong from a nation's point of view. The only problem there is it bites its own tongue when things like Darfur came along.

The bottom line is, even if US soldiers should be used to defend their homeland, is it right to be offensive and go mess around on other countries' soil and accidentally kill other countries' civilians?

Answer 5

i think that we should put strong political and economic pressure on sudan and it's allies. if that does not work then we should send troops to darfur. its not about the US being the world police. this is a humanitarian crisis and a genocide of living people. i thought that the general feeling after the holocaust was "never again". if that is true how can we put politics before our obligations as humans and let this go on. it is simply not enough to say "oh well, we are not the world police, let another country do it"

Answer 6

Its no longer gonna take place. There are 3 the style to get the militia in Sudan. a million. UN Peace protecting tension - yet under financial ruin 6 of the UN shape, Sudan could conform to peace keepers, before they are able to be despatched in. Sudan has refused. 2. financial ruin 7 of the UN shape, enables the risk-free practices Council to deliver forces whilst international order is in threat. properly no you are able to truly make the case that whats occurring interior the Sudan, effects international order And plus the certainty that China will VETO this manner of decision. 3. Unilateral Intervention via a rustic or team of countries. different than the protest via the liberal left interior the U. S. and around the globe, against the unilateral intervention in iraq, especially plenty makes any intervention everywhere else, impossible. in basic terms how could you justify intervention in Sudan, after the LEFT claimed the intervention in iraq became unlawful, that could desire to make any intervention in Sudan unlawful additionally.

Answer 7

I personally think that america dosn't have the right mentality to help other countries, but something does need to be done in sudan.
I don't think the majority of america would agree to help sudan because they don't really seem to see the big picture. There is genocide down there. Peopole dying for not really any reason, and if people have to die so many more people can live thats a sacrifice thats worth something.
And with the politics and such of america I think we arn't capable of helping them.
they need help though.

Answer 8

I don't think the US should send troops to Darfur. We need to use our troops to stabilize our own borders before risking lives and spending resources over there. It's nice to help others, but it's also important to take care of our home.

Answer 9

The military is not meant to be an occupying force. I say hell no. Must we be stuck in the middle of another civil war, and/or genocide? Not only that but our military is stretched thin already. another major conflict and we are f...ed. This is one for other African nations and the UN to handle. And the let the french do something useful for once as well.

Answer 10

I don't think we should send troops there. But I can see us sending in transport aircraft and vehicles under the UN banner to support other military projects and those troops hopefully from other African countries.

We could also provide air reconnaissance and satellite imagery to assist the contra forces.