Should we send in the British Army
2007-10-13 05:51:14 · 15 answers · asked by Carl 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Check to see what's going on and then ask again.
2007-10-13 05:54:23 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
"The United Nations (UN) estimates that the conflict has left as many as 450,000 dead from violence and disease.[4] ...Sudan's government claims that over 9,000 people have been killed, although this figure is seen as counterfactual.[5][6] As many as 2.5 million are thought to have been displaced as of October 2006. [7] (See Counting deaths section, below)"
"The mass media once described the conflict as both "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide," and now do so without hesitation. The United States government has described it as genocide,[15] although the UN has declined to do so."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict
Whenever there is genocide the British Army should arrive and prevent it. Genocide is wrong. Full stop. We are talking about *Great* Britain. Not some dodgy european country. Our behaviour in international matters should be exemplary.
Saying the army is overstretched now so therefore we shouldn't try to help in Darfur is a joke. It doesn't matter. Increase army wages and the army won't be overstretched. However that would probably take an increase in taxes - something many British people would not be happy about. Many people feel hard done by when the money they have earnt gets reduced by income tax.
At the end of the day we are primates, we are built to look after ourselves and our family, we are not designed to care about people in far off countries. In England we learn maths and english, we do not learn how to care about people we don't know. Therefore the English do not care about Darfur very much.
2007-10-14 12:31:11 · answer #2 · answered by some_pixels_on_a_screen 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
'D' check your recent history, we never went in to help the Iraqies with their Saddam problem. We went in to prevent a mad man from stocking up his nuclear arsenal. Even then that turned into a damp squid and thats when the political spin doctors started saying we were there to help the population. Not to mention theories (very likley theories) about going in to rescue the black gold.
As for most of the world being behind us, well that's tripe as well.
As for Darfur, sorry to say I don't know the facts behind this so can only say that sending british forces in at this time would not work. British forces are already stretched to their limits with operations elsewhere.
2007-10-14 01:16:33 · answer #3 · answered by hottotrot 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Darfur problem has a lot to do with the Chinese government who is financially and militarily backing the people who are doing the genocide. China is also behind the mess in Burma.
The U.S. is trying to put pressure on China. This is not easy! How do you put pressure on a waking giant when the cords of sanctions would be ripped apart like insignificant thread?
I think it would be better if our nation's administration and businesses would try to shame the Chinese for their role in this genocide. They're trying so very hard to put on a positive mask for their country's image as they get ready for the 2008 Olympics.
Shame goes a lot further than "right against might" when it comes to the Chinese culture.
2007-10-13 05:59:33 · answer #4 · answered by bwlobo 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
this is a very difficult situation because Africa is so unstable. if we were to stop it, it is probable that there would be another one in 5 years and 10 years etc etc. there really is no quick solution to be honest. i know some people will not like me saying this but to a certain extent there is no political will to do so. the Sudan is not home to terrorists like Afghanistan or major exploitable resources that the west desires like Iraq. as for the army they and their budget are stretched enough so will be very reluctant to help. the reasons for genocide in Africa are so complicated that whatever we do, there will always be a problem - look at Rwanda for a case study.
2007-10-13 08:42:30 · answer #5 · answered by <><><> 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes we are. The world stood by when Native Americans (Indians) were killed off by every means available. The world stood by and made a profit when Africans were enlaved in the Western hemisphere. Africans are on their own it seems.
IF there was A LOT of oil there that was in danger of being cut off or if the problem was in Europe and could spread like in the area of Bosnia/Yugosalvia,then U.S. and British Troops would be there.
Weird, how Hitler had the time to kill 6 million Jews, Stalin killed 20 million Russians, and the list goes on.
I have not looked into why the U.S. went into WW1.
It seems that few people are concerned about Black Africa. Not even African Americans give rat's *** about what happens in Africa with the exception of a few people like Ophra and the white guys Bono and President Jimmy Carter..... This is a very sad accusation but it sure seems true.
One kid who has had 4or 5 run-ins with the judicial system sparks a huge protest in Jena, Lousianna, but what about the thousands dying of starvation, disease and genocidal murder in Africa?
2007-10-13 06:22:21 · answer #6 · answered by Fairfax_triangle 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
There was genocide and violence in Iraq, we went in to help; most of the world was behind us. A few years later, the whole world has condemned us for it.
Why should we help Darfur, the same thing is bound to happen.
2007-10-13 05:55:09 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Who cares. The world asks us for help, which we give and then the world turns on us. I say let them figure it out, either way we are the jerkoffs, so lets save our military a deployment. Ive been to Iraq and Afghanistan, i have no desire to go to darfur.
2007-10-13 06:55:52 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
No we shouldn't. The army is already overstretched doing a grand job even if the wars it is fighting are unpopular. We expect far too much from it already. UN problem - let the UN sort it out
2007-10-13 06:01:00 · answer #9 · answered by Ellis 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
i actually saw a documentary on why we dont help as much
ppl say cuz they dont have oil
well, yea but
remember what happened in somalia?
we came, we helped, left, aidid declared war on the remaining peacekeepers, we came back, started fighting and bombing, and THAT turned the country agaisnt us
which is why we ultimately lost in somalia
we dont want it to happen again
2007-10-13 06:02:32 · answer #10 · answered by jim p 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋