Why hasnt the US, UN, or EU done anything to help the situation in Darfur?

Answer 1

Wasting effort on the hopeless is not a good thing; there are other countries that want and will allow help. The only alternative is to send large armies and occupy the area, depose the government, and create a new one and that rarely works because it takes decades to accomplish.

Answer 2

Since some people here sound to know how much peoples exaggerate the fact of the US being the worlds leader to violate countries for money or oil, let me inform you, that, yes Darfur have tons of oil, however, the Chinese National Petroleum Corporation holds the large oil concession in southern Darfur. Chinese soldiers are alleged to be protecting Chinese oil interests.

There is no interest to Chinese puppet, the USA to go face to face affront the country that hold most of its bonds and US currency.

Also, UN observers say they have better weapons than the Sudanese army, and are receiving supplies by air. Since USA is easily topping China on being high level hypocrites, a conspiration theory would hold a strong ground.

So basically, the US are feeding the conflict, quantity of death does not mather in the country that only think green green green ! And to that, I would add, off the subject, this is were hispanic designation of Gringo comes... It was the citizens of Central and South America who started to shoot that to the US soldiers violating their country through the support of sanguinary corrupted leader who where promising the US economic support of its interests. It meant : GREEN GO. Get the F*** out and stay where you belong.

Today, mostly all nations think USA coming in their country in worst then any political or human reason.

Answer 3

in case you may get each liberal baby-kisser or activist whining approximately Darfur now to sign a freelance affirming: "i'm no longer able to criticize US troops for enforcing UN resolutions, freeing a rustic, and killing the undesirable adult men. i'm no longer able to shout that, 'united statesa. has no precise to be the international's policeman' jointly as concurrently annoying that united statesa. police the international. Nor will I approve a protection stress intervention plan at first to look difficult, an then do a one hundred eighty while human beings initiate loss of life and my looney hyper-pacifist base starts off spouting conspiracy theories." inspite of the undeniable fact that it won't happen. i could guess $one thousand that a minimum of 0.5 of liberal the politicians who call for we deliver troops to Darfur could be criticizing Bush, the country, etc. interior of a million month of the beginning up of any protection stress operation there. I assure it, it got here approximately in Iraq.

Answer 4

Gent, Darfur has TONS of oil. And if the U.S. did something, we would hear people like you whining about U.S. invading another country.

Answer 5

Because Darfur does not affect or threaten our national interests.

Now, if there as an abundance of oil, or if Darfur threatened Israel or the USA you would see F15's flying over there in a flash.

Charity/social justice for others is sadly not high on the agenda for the list of rich industrialized nations.

Answer 6

Because their government denies our ( or anybody
elses ) help. They claim they have the situation in control. Until they request help, the only thing any-
body can do is watch the situation spin out of control.

Answer 7

Thank you! The U.S.A wont help out because of the Iraq war, the UN and the EU wont help out because of the aid workers were killed.

Answer 8

I think it is called selective morality