Don't the people in Darfur need help worse?
2007-10-06 06:35:53 · 9 answers · asked by Zardoz 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Could it have something to do with oil?
2007-10-06 06:56:34 · update #1
You hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately, there are many 'trouble spots' in the world and many tyrants out there. Why do we intercede in some places and not others? It is a question of U.S. national interest and the sad fact is that Iraq had more interest than Darfur. Tragically, if a few million Africans die, it doesn't really affect American interests. But Iraq is in the Middle East and, of course, has lots of oil. So it's a security risk. Of course, many people will tell you that oil has nothing to do with it!
2007-10-06 06:47:05 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Of course it was about helping people. However, simplifying the situation to one or two reasons is extremely silly.
Darfur didn't try to invade one of our allies (like Kuwait), didn't pay suicide bombers to attack civilians of another one of our allies (Israel), isn't threatening to wipe out that ally (Israel) and hasn't publicly stated they want to destroy the United States. They also haven't tried to assassinate one of our Presidents, shot at us for over a decade during a cease fire they agreed to, or given comfort and aid to other enemies of the United States.
In short, Darfur still holds on to its sovereignty, at least with regard to what the U.S. can do.
They need help worse, but walking into Darfur WOULD be an act of war, not a response to an act of war as it was in Iraq.
2007-10-06 13:45:58 · answer #2 · answered by mckenziecalhoun 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
So, your not against usbeing in Iraq? It's O.K. to help another nation develop democracy? Then what's your point? Either we should be in Iraq AND in Darfur OR Myanmar for the same reasons, or we should be in all three.
2007-10-06 13:59:00 · answer #3 · answered by jrldsmith 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because nation building is only valid in Iraq, not where there is genocide. After all Bush talked about Bosnian nation building as flawed policy in the 2000 election.
2007-10-06 13:39:17 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because Darfur has nothing to do with the U.S.?
Because we're not the world's policeman?
Because it's not part of the "job description" of our government to be doing that kind of thing?
Because the war is (not) about "helping people?"
2007-10-06 13:44:02 · answer #5 · answered by tom p 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Because the leaders of darfur didn't threaten us and say they would love to kill anything western,,, THey didn't boast of having weapons that could annililate everyone.... Darfar is horrifying and I wish all countries, not just ours would get off their a$$'s and step in...
2007-10-06 13:40:12 · answer #6 · answered by coco d 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
one genocide at a time dude
The UN is working in there, we send aid Bush is on it, among other nations. We can't Police everyone. That's like wishing for a draft notice. Not!
2007-10-06 13:40:28 · answer #7 · answered by Mele Kai 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Genius...Dafur does not have a madman despot leader set on the total destruction of the US.
2007-10-06 13:39:11 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
war has never been about people its been about money period.
2007-10-06 14:12:42 · answer #9 · answered by stephenmwells 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋