Question for pro-war Republicans?

Question

If we invaded Iraq to help the people of Iraq (free them from Saddam) then how come we aren't in Darfur? The clearly need more help then the Iraqis do.

Answer 1

Because of you libs

We would gladly help the Darfur people if you promised not to whine and complain and undermine us at every turn.....but we both know you wouldn't. The minute we put troops on the ground in Darfur, you would be protesting in the streets calling us "warmongers"

So you see, you have only yourself to blame

Answer 2

Dar-fur, Sudan has no reasonable government to control the country. Just like Somalia, there are no possible leaders who will step up and run the country. In Iraq and Pakistan there were leaders exiled from the country who could return and create a stable government. Most of the countries who could really use our help (especially in Africa) are overrun by different groups of organized crime lords rather than a real government. If the world really wants to stop the ethnic cleansing there would be an overwhelming force sent, by the UN, to stand over the fallen and protect them. It didn't work ing Bosnia so I assume it will not work in Africa.

Answer 3

or Burma and 20 other countries.

Because no one can be given Democracy
It must always be earned.
Never in history has it just been handed over like some old coin.
Freeing people is never enough, they need leaders for after you have gone.
If the people of Iraq were never able to free themselves then why did we think they could build their own Government ?

Answer 4

I know this is a little long but please the whole thing to understand my answer to your question.

The premise that we invaded Irak to help the people of Irak is wrong. It was propagated by Liberals and the media, Liberals don't care to see the whole picture because it doesn’t fit their ideology and most don’t care anyways. What matters to them is to be right and to impose their ways and ideas because “they know is for the best.”

They have been wrong for a few generations now but what matters is to hide the truth and advance their cause and in the process they willingly blind themselves.

The whole picture is that the world was being set up, a little at a time, for another World War 3. There are many ideologies around the world today that are no different than around WWII, all seeking total dominion, power, world dictatorship, getting rid of some unwanted minorities and races, imposing their way, taking control of the world resources, etc. And included in this are the Muslim extremist, Al-Qaida, Saddam Hussein (and his desire to rule over the whole Middle East), Communism, etc.

9/11 was a wakeup call to pay attention and not ignore those dangerous ideologies that were becoming stronger and popular among 3rd world nations in Asia, the Middle East and Africa. We needed to “invade” (liberate and promote democracy) Irak and Afghanistan because it was a great place to start and it has proven to be right: the other weaker enemy nations were demoralized and isolated from being poisoned by the idea of a Muslim takeover of the world. And the bigger stronger enemies of the USA were stopped on their tracks and isolated so we can deal with them one at a time, such as Iran, China, North Korea and others.

Otherwise, I can assure you that if there was a World War 3, Saddam Hussein, Iran, China, half of the Middle East, North Korea, Cuba and others will join forces against the USA and the Western World, and socialist Europe (governed by liberals) will find themselves in the same position as in WWII: a surprise!

You see, the human race has not "evolved" as liberals want to believe, in this area of power, control, domination, selfish ambition, genocide, extermination of some minorities and races, total control by a few elites, intimidation by strength, use of nuclear weapons, etc. Liberals want to believe we humans have evolved to a point that every one desires peace, good will, universal equality, fairness, sharing and goodness for all, like a Star-Trek movie. That sounds nice in theory but at this time in our history is a fantasy. Saddam Hussein in Irak and the Taliban in Afghanistan were only one part of a very unstable and ignorant middle east that has been brainwashed with hate, misinformation and lies by a few ideological elites that just want total power like it was in the 1930's. No different that Fascism, Nazism, Communism and other ideologies of the time. If we are going to learn anything from history is to stop them as soon as they become to dangerous and 9/11 proved that to be the case.

The idea that we invaded Irak to "help the people there" was a lie infiltrated by the media and the Democrats with the plan to diminish the importance of this war. Darfur is just another red flag to you of how the world and many crazy ideologies have not changed since times past and socialists and liberals are wrong in their world views once again, as it was with Communism in the Cold war and regarding Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin in the 1930’s. They just don't get it. Do you?

Answer 5

Oh. My. GOD....I'm laughing my head off at the answers given my these sanctimonious Neocons! :))
"We can't police the world"...."you libs will cry about it"...and the unbelievable "Saddam had WMD's" !!! Have you people no shame?
Hon, I'm hardly a pro-war Republican, but I can answer you without even blinking....those people being victimized in Darfur are dark-skinned-type folks, and hardly "worthy" of the Bush administrations time and effort, if you get my drift.

Answer 6

history and what you have been taught are two very different things.
we went into iraq because they invaded kuwait. then they surrendered and that was that until they violated the terms of that surrender (violating more than a dozen UN resolutions in doing so). so then the war was back on and we won in about a month.
if darfur is invaded by another country we will likely defend them also.

Answer 7

Because we did not. We went into Iraq to enforce the cease fire Bush the elder signed. Saddam refused to keep his part and we could not allow him to stay in power.

Darfur has internal strife that will not impact us directly. There are many other countries that have the same problem. We are not the world's police, that is the job of the UN

Answer 8

That is because Saddam presented us with far more risk then the leadership of Darfur. We didn't do it too free the people of Saddam nearly as much as we feared continually trying to contain Saddam - eventually that containment would have failed and people would have asked why we didn't take him out when we could have (well that is a question they will never have to ask)

Answer 9

If you oppose the war in Iraq why then would you send troops to Dar-fur, You deny the Islamo-fascist threat in Iraq and ignore the implications of an Iranian threat with nukes and seizure of Iraqi oilfields yet you are desperate to fight Islamo-Fascists in the Sudan. We are at war with Al Qaeda and they are in Iraq, They may be in Sudan but where is your evidence. The bigger threat is Iran and are forces are are thin where are you going to get the troops?

Answer 10

We invaded Iraq because the government posed a threat to US, I know you don't belive that but it's true. We know what types of WMDs they HAD because we sold them to the Iraqi government years ago when the posed us no danger.

Darfur poses no threat to US, and as bad as we feel about what is happening there we cannot send our troops into harms way to make ourselves feel better.

it's the UN that should be helping those people.

Answer 11

If...

But that is not why. We wanted to FREE AMERICA of the threat of Saddam. Freeing the Iraqi's was just a bonus.