2007-09-21 06:53:54 · 13 answers · asked by salient debate 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Because Saddam wasn't running that place. We should have been in Sudan when Usama Bin Laden was there. But Bill Clinton wouldn't send troops there.
Why isn't the UN in both places in force? Tell me why WE have to be the ones who get anything done?
Why isn't China there? They have more troops than we do and they are wanting to show they world how good they are. Darfur would be a great place to start.
2007-09-21 07:02:56 · answer #1 · answered by namsaev 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
No it doesn't matter, as you said, Africa is not a major oil asset, no geo strategic position for political commercial or military purpose and it seems we are only concerned about those who threaten Israel ... the rest of the world we could care less.
2007-09-21 13:59:13 · answer #2 · answered by caliguy_30 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The problems in Darfur belong to the United Nations. The US does not provide the world's police forces. We have no compelling interest in Darfur. The US military would not be able to tell the good guys from the bad guys. Shall I continue?
2007-09-21 14:00:15 · answer #3 · answered by regerugged 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
no - to the reich wing scumbags who try to claim that Iraq was all about the genocide - no the lives don't really matter - otherwise we'd have invaded about 20 other countries whose history of genocide is far worse than Iraq's in terms of #s of people
Iraq is all about the oil - Bush drooled on 9-11 when his PNAC buds figured out they could cram a 9-11/Iraq link down their lemming drones' throats when in fact they had been planning on invading Iraq for maybe 10 years - for the oil - it's all about the oil - same reason we have a military presence in Islamic holy lands which ended up pissing off al Qaida to begin with - oil/greed/money for OPEC
2007-09-21 14:03:11 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
You don't complain when we take out the taliban, which didn't attack us first, and put in a democratic government. You did complain when we did it in Iraq. Now you want to do it in Sudan.GEEZ! Make up your minds! Is it only O.K. when a Dem wants to do it?
2007-09-21 14:07:32 · answer #5 · answered by jrldsmith 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you are referring to Sudan, there is oil there.
Not to mention China has vested interests there that would prevent us from going there.
2007-09-21 14:03:44 · answer #6 · answered by Adolf Schmichael 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I thought everyone understood that fact.
"No oil no concern"
2007-09-21 14:09:55 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Oil--or more correctly, money--is a big part of it.
Also--while the neocons who fom the base of Bush's support are not all racist, practically all the racists are part of that group. A war to help black people would not get much suppport from that quarter.
2007-09-21 13:59:49 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
In africa? what a **** do they have to be doing in my country? we don't need anyone here, be specific.
2007-09-21 14:09:24 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, let's just be like Tupac and say, "F**k the world" and let them try to help themselves why don't we? *rolls eyes*
2007-09-21 14:05:20 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋