Do you agree with Senator Biden that the US should send troops to Darfur?

Question

Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a Democratic presidential candidate, called Wednesday for the use of military force to end the suffering in Darfur.


"I would use American force now," Biden said at a hearing before his committee. "I think it's not only time not to take force off the table. I think it's time to put force on the table and use it."

In advocating use of military force, Biden said senior U.S. military officials in Europe told him that 2,500 U.S. troops could "radically change the situation on the ground now."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18059937/

YO! I did not state an opinion here at all, don't assume because I support Joe Biden and I am against the War in Iraq that I agree with him.

Answer 1

I agree that something needs to be done to stop the genocide in Darfur and it's inexcusable to let it go on.
HOWEVER (a big however), I think The US needs to tread very carefully in this area for at least two reasons.

First... as others have pointed out, this is a UN responsibility. I'm all for lighting a fire under some collective UN Security Council arses, then supplying some troops and supplies to support a multi-national UN action. We need to leave the unilateral, 'take it into our own hands' mindset at the door, because we've done that already in Iraq. Contrary to 'gung ho' beliefs and recent actions, we are NOT the world's police

Second... there is oil in the Sudan and China is laying claim to it. The last thing we need right now is to march into the Sudan half-******. Our actions could be very easily misconstrued as a(nother) US war for oil. We could very easily find ourselves in a head-to-head confrontation with a very angry China dead set on protecting their oil interests in that region. Don't think innocent civilians would be spared. That's exactly what we do not need, especially right now!

Answer 2

America has proven that we have no problem putting our money where our mouth is.. but it's time the rest of the world did the same. As horrible as the atrocities are in Darfur, can't someone else clean up the mess for once? Granted, if there is just absolutely no one else in the world that is willing to step to the plate I'd like to see if we can help (although at best we can probably only stop it temporarily) But most of Africa and the Middle East are a result of European Colonization and/or influence.. with the exception of what.. Liberia and Ethiopia? Lets try to get Europe to take care of this before we go committing ourselves yet again to the very thing that has caused terrorists to target us.. that is placing troops on foreign soil... even if it is with good intentions. Again.. if Europe just won't do it.. then yes, I'm all for trying to help.

Answer 3

An excellent question. While it is certainly a far more worth cause than fighting the civil war in Iraq; I would have to say no for two reasons. First, with the US deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan sending troops to Darfur would to a certain extent be stretching ourselves thin.

Secondly, since it is Muslims that are in power, military action against them, even to prevent genocide would lend credibility to those who believe the US is determined to wage war against Islam; this could be the turning point for those Muslims who are "on the fence" politically. The Arab media would no doubt put an Anti American slant on the action and Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations would have multiple orgasms from the unlimited propaganda that this would give their followers.

Answer 4

Go over what he said again. He didn't say send "AMERICAN" troops. He said, we can help. That could mean anything from writing the UN a check to convincing China to stop oil movement from southern Africa to the north and then writing them a check.

He's not dumb enough to committ to "American" troop deployment this early in the campaign.

He'll wait for the new president to do it and if it fails he will say:

"I didn't say anything about AMERICAN troops specifically, I was thinking the UN or maybe some more French"

or

if it is successful he'll say:

"See, I've been calling for the appropriate use of US military might like this all along"

As usual, we have no idea what he DID say.

Answer 5

No...I think some responsibilities should be delegated to the UN and some other countries in the world. I agree that there is a need to stop the Genocide and stop it now but how can we continue to fight the entire world's wars and aggressions when they evidently don't want to contribute any assistance. It's a simple matter of not being able to do everything for everyone regardless of our altruistic views and compassion. What's the matter with France and the rest of Europe? Have they lost their compassion for the human race? Didn't they just elect another Bush? Why doesn't Japan get involved instead of sucking US on condiments, reaping astronomical profits, and contributing NOTHING to positive unification or progressive activities? Lets get OUT of this WAR MENTALITY and FOCUS on getting our troops HOME.

Answer 6

If the Bush administration wouldnt raid Iran upon getting to renowned they have been helping the insurgency, there isnt a extensive gamble in hell the Hussein Obama administration might raid Pakistan. it particularly is in basic terms an empty danger and yet yet yet another liberal attempting to look difficult on terror who if this conflict have been entrusted in 03, wouldve decrease and run with the aid of now and wouldnt be everywhere on the edge of Iraq and Afganistan to not element Pakistan. Democrats are unwilling to committ to defense force operations for extra applicable than a million-2 years. They cant abdomen being on the unpopular edge of a conflict and that they actually cant abdomen troop loss. even inspite of the actuality that statistically we've lost the fewest quantity of troops ever given the quantity of time we've been engaged.

Answer 7

A UN force would make more sense for such 'peacekeeping' aplications, but yes, the use of force in Sudan is long overdue. An American-only force would make more sense if a less globally popular objective - like nation building - were being contemplated.

Mind you, it probably wouldn't /work/ - before you can keep the peace you have to pacify the population, and 2500 troops aren't going to do that. If it happens, expect a quick failure and pull-out like Somalia, or an escalation and long, long involvement, like Kosovo.

Answer 8

The truth is, the UN is useless. They are great at passing resolutions but when they are broken no one follows up. If the atrocities in Dar fur are to be stopped, it's going to have to be the U/S. who takes the lead. Once again we will be seen as aggressive and hate mongers, but at the end of the day we'll do what we always do: Stop oppression and genocide and get nothing in return for our looses in lives and dollars other than a bad rep. But of course, it should be stopped and we are going to have to do it. I don't see anyone else stepping up to the plate, do you? But, none of that 2,500 troops crap. That's what always gets us in trouble. If you are committed enough to a cause to send our troops into harms way, then send and overwhelming force and get it done quickly and efficiently.

Answer 9

Something has to be done and I'd like to see it done through the UN....with our support as well as others.
Some called for the head of Saddam for genocide that happened 25 years ago. This is happening right now.

Answer 10

I believe that the genocide in Darfur should be dealt with by a UN action. Unfortunately, the US military is already overextended due to our involvement in an illegal and immoral war.