I think those people need help.I think it will happen,because 400,000 are dead.How many had to die before the West intervened in Bosnia?It did happen though people said it would never happen.Also the Serbian Communist regime was toppled partly with Western emnity to the Serbs.You can only sustain a state like that for a short time before it is toppled.Witness Hitlers Germany.
2007-11-11
01:45:09
·
14 answers
·
asked by
godbar
2
in
Politics & Government
➔ Military
I remind you that The Sudanese regime is a radical Islaamist state.I visited the place (Khartoum)in 1989 I said when in Rome do as the Romans do to some Sheikh within 24 hours I was rushed through the Passport control and Customs(avoiding it because their officials are corrupt and the state is criminal).I am not a bleeding heart liberal and the Sudanese Goernment certainly has no sleepless night about people who help them by insulting people who do expose their oppression.There are 400,000 people dead.Invariably when one of those Western Sudanese Women falls into the hands of The Gangaweed militia she may be raped.I really don't know where some answerers think their heart is.When I say may be it is often the case that they are raped.I obviously have some answerers who don't know what they are talking about.The Sudanese government and fellow travellers of the Sudanese are at least giving lip service to Al-Qaeda.At least in fact I feel sure it's more.
2007-11-11
03:37:36 ·
update #1
Theres enough reason from a justice point of view.I believe we need to help the people of Darfur.I don't believe that the idea that we cannot intervene can be sustained for ever.I know War is a trauma and I am one of those who wanted to forcibly wanted to intervene in Bosnia and I am sorry for the harm to our guys that happened,but not as sorry as those sorry Gangaweed militia will be when they face justice.
2007-11-14
04:19:54 ·
update #2
Too long.
2007-11-11 01:47:38
·
answer #1
·
answered by Greenman 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
While we are aware of the chronic suffering in the region, it is a mission for the U.N. and not the western powers.
Some people are under the misguided notion that countries like the USA and the WEST have a moral obligation to go and fix the worlds problems as soon as they occur.
But, in reality the funding for such a response has to come from somewhere, and taxpayers are not so sympathetic to causes thousands of Km from them or that have no direct input on their own lives.
The Serbian problem was another situation all together with a potential to have started a major conflict in what can be regarded as Balkan Europe, you show very little understanding of the balance of power from the Cold War era up to the present day, there is no recorded incidence in that time of a rapid armed intervention in any situation, the middle-east being a classic example.
Maybe many people do not care for the Serbs because they remember ultimately that they were responsible for starting W.W. 1, and apparently got away scot free from firing "the shot that was heard around the world".
Again there is a misconception that the United Nations have a hugh standing Military Force to send all over the world at will!! The United Nations have to look for countries willing to send volunteers to serve in a particular mission, these countries make a pledge to send a force of volunteers with equipment for the mission it takes time to gather the necessary materials, to negotiate with the countries concerned to allow foreign troops access to their sovereign countries, bases have to be established, it cannot be done overnight. The U.N.'s first and foremost a civil humanitarian organization and not a world super-cop!
2007-11-11 02:01:00
·
answer #2
·
answered by conranger1 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
hope we don;t intervene.why should our sons and daughters.have to go die all the time for the rest of the world.where are all these countries when we need help.it;s time the united states just learns to say no.just about every country in the world owes the united states money.Finland is the only country i believe who ever paid the united states it;s war debts back.we would.nt be in the mess we are right now if the other countries of the world would pay us back the money they owe us.now this country has to borrow money just to pay it;s debts.and if this war in iraq ever ends.we;ll be expected to pay for that debt as well.by building up that nation.and thus far keep putting more and more of a burden on the working class people of America.time to say look else where were not helping.work your own problems out.
2007-11-11 02:27:13
·
answer #3
·
answered by bigjon5555 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
Britain is fully commited and over streached so is America. it would have to be down tothe United Nations. and as has been shown since the U. N. began. they never go in to any thing untill the fighting is over. so without American or British troops. it just aint going to happen. besides that!! if we deployed troops for every slaughter caused by Muslims we would be deploying 24 hours a day all around the world. let these muslim leaders who keep assuring the world that their religion is a peacefull one....(scuse me for laughting) show the modern world their willingness to join it by putting an end to 'Muslim dealt' carnage all over the 'non' muslim world. the world will never find peace untill it deals with the muslim problem and it WILL!!! eventualy have to be faced.
2007-11-11 03:01:59
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
No all invading Syria will do is make the case to the conventional public that Iran ought to be next. Syria could be a cake-stroll and if blended with the paranoid case of "OMG Iran has a nuke! attack!" by utilising the media then in line with threat it will be stepping stone. in all probability the "setting up" of a pseudo government?
2016-10-02 02:34:54
·
answer #5
·
answered by ducey 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Perhaps the west will intervene once some of its troops are freed up; then we will hopefully see similar successes to those we are currently witnessing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not really.
2007-11-11 02:08:52
·
answer #6
·
answered by Raygun 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
George W. and Gordon B. are more interested in Iran, that is where the oil is.
2007-11-11 08:39:40
·
answer #7
·
answered by RiffRaff 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
When Amnesty International has its right to political power in the UN. That is what I want. For the greater good of humanity.
2007-11-11 01:57:38
·
answer #8
·
answered by Laurence B 4
·
0⤊
2⤋
The west will not help because there is nothing in it for them.
They do not care about the death toll.
2007-11-11 03:36:51
·
answer #9
·
answered by raggyann 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
hopefully never. until these 3rd world countries are willing to end age old rivalries the problem will still exist and keep coming back to haunt us.
2007-11-11 02:21:24
·
answer #10
·
answered by darrell m 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
if you think those people need help,,,,,start looking in your own back yard first...help the homeless in your OWN CITY...
do some good for YOUR people FIRST>...
Bleeding heart liberals like you always want governments to spend spend spend on OTHER countries,,,then scream like HECK when you have to pay taxes..
look after your own people first, I say,,,THEN go out and look after the world...
other wise...MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS....
and BY THE WAY.....the world is overpopulated as it is....
2007-11-11 02:15:01
·
answer #11
·
answered by flyboss1107 3
·
1⤊
1⤋