Just saw on CNN than 61% of the public support sending in US troops to peace keep in Darfur. Do we want to get involved in more tribal genocide?
2007-10-19 09:13:43 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
After the holocaust everyone said "Never again" But I guess it's different if genocide happens in Africa. I think we should go in. I'm surprised we haven't heard anything about it from Israel. Shelling women and children in refugee camps is one of the worst things imaginable.
There doesn't appear to be many "christian" answers to this question.
2007-10-19 09:21:11 · answer #1 · answered by Zardoz 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The people of Darfur are defenseless against these terrorists and the government that supports them.
I would rather some of our troops be in Darfur than Iraq...
This might actually convince some people, that our motivations for getting involved in conflicts, truly are in the interest of liberation....without alterior motives like energy.
"The only reason we aren't there is there is no oil in Darfur"...this is what people are saying, and I can't say they don't have a valid point.
2007-10-19 09:20:44 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I vote no. Instead empower and enable groups such as the International Red Cross, The Salvation Army, and church-based organizations to send in relief supplies, health care, and education. Darfur represents no significant threat at this time to the United States.
2007-10-19 09:19:19 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
We should not put US combat troops on the ground both because we do not have any to spare, and they would become targets due to the way the Muslim world views America after Iraq. However we should push for UN intervention and provide logistical support for UN troops as well as humanitarian aid through NGOs.
2007-10-19 09:47:48 · answer #4 · answered by meg 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The Darfur situation is sad, however it is not the responsibility of a nations government to intercede in a genocide on the other side of the planet. I am all for individuals wanting to make a difference, but to place a government in that kind of situation is only asking for trouble. SEE ALSO: Iraq's sectarian violence..
2007-10-19 09:25:36 · answer #5 · answered by Mark 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
the us could certainly help by sending in forces under UN authority in darfur
2007-10-19 09:26:48 · answer #6 · answered by Amon 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We're kinda busy in the mid east. Let some other countries do something useful fora change.
France ? Germany? Where the hell have you been hiding since 9-11??
2007-10-19 09:48:50 · answer #7 · answered by Barry auh2o 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
We should not go into Darfur, it should be the UN who sends troops in and America should not participate.
2007-10-19 09:17:07 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋
I think the U.N. Peace Keepers should go into Darfur.
The United States military is spread to thin as it is, thanks to George Bush, and it is going to get even thinner if he attacks Iran.
2007-10-19 09:23:58 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
We should we get involved? If the UN isnt willing to take action on the issue, then we shouldn't.
2007-10-19 09:17:47 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋