we now have to pay for the war in Darfur. The UN is sending 26000 troops but we have to help pay for it. We need to keep out of it like the world always tells us. Why is this any different than Iraq? And don't give me the genocide excuse.
2007-07-31 10:17:18 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
You people are funny and fickle. It's not ok to save the Iraq people but it is ok to save others. And some call themselves " Humanitarians" ?
BTW, we aren't the only country that's in Iraq.
2007-07-31 10:28:09 · update #1
I think we need to get out of the UN. It takes them a year to do anything with Iraq, Iran, North Korea but only 3 months to stick it's nose into Darfur.
2007-07-31 10:38:49 · update #2
it is strange that when these same arguments were given for the Iraq war they were negated...i been wondering when someone would realize the similarities of these two ...they cry when we do...they cry when we don't.
2007-07-31 10:29:39 · answer #1 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm not opposed to helping fund the UN mission to Darfur if the US believes it will stop the bloodshed.
It's different from Iraq in one giant way. It's the UN and UN troops, not the US and US Troops. The rest of the world can ***** at the UN if they don't like it.
Genocide an excuse? What a sad statement.
2007-07-31 10:25:45 · answer #2 · answered by Uncle Pennybags 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Humm strange. Liberals should be happy?? Aren't liberals the ones that oppose wars?? Aren't liberals the protestors?? So it's got to be the republicans who are happy. They can say see we are in Darfur and there is no oil.
But it's the UN that has come together and decided to send troops not the US so it may or may not effect our tax payers pockets. Even if the US does end up Helping to pay for it we will not be footing the entire bill ourselves.
2007-07-31 10:26:14 · answer #3 · answered by wondermom 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You're confusing liberals and socialists -- they are not the same, even though both exist in the Democratic party.
And the UN is sending troops -- not the US. The US doesn't pay for anything unless we choose to. So, unless we choose to pay UN costs, or send troops ourselves, what other countries choose to do isn't on our budget.
2007-07-31 10:21:34 · answer #4 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Dude we found a underground lake there its huge. Enough water to drink for a long time. Darfur will soon be over. America i think was the ones who found the lake. thank god for that.
2007-07-31 10:23:06 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
We are part of the UN. The UN isn't some separate entity; it is made up of representatives of nations around the world.
Why do you people act like the UN is some mega-corporation or something?
2007-07-31 10:32:50 · answer #6 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
OK. You don't think that genocide should be a deciding factor in a US troop deployment. However, hundreds of thousands of lives can be ended in the pursuit of a valuable resource like oil?
I think that I have your conservative money grubbing number.
2007-07-31 10:24:14 · answer #7 · answered by Skeptic 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Why do we have to pay for some and not all of it like in Iraq. oh that's right, we didn't listen to the UNs advice.
2007-07-31 10:22:15 · answer #8 · answered by bbbbriggs04 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
WAAAAAAAAAAAA...we could of had UN support in Iraq if W hadn't of jumped the gun...come to think of it, they were already there
2007-07-31 10:24:07 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
ooo you don't care about people being unjustly murdered....I see. How about you don't look at the issue as I'm an American but as I'm a Human being who should care about others suffering. You're not going broke yourself, and helping wont bankrupt the US
2007-07-31 10:22:21 · answer #10 · answered by boricua_lilly 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋