Why did Mr. Bush pick on Iraq and not help the people of Darfur?

Question

400,000 people are dead in Darfur.Darfur is in Suda

Answer 1

darfur has no oil

Answer 2

Actually-W was in favor of doing everything possible to help Darfur through the UN. It was China that blocked all attempts to help those people. China was buying oil from Sudan. It was the Sudanese that committed the atrocities against the Darfur people. They thought Darfur wanted their oil. China should be ashamed of their actions. They selected profits over people. What a shocker!! Just like all the powerful nations. I dont care for President Bush, but on this issue, he was over ruled in the UN security counsel by China. His heart was in the right place.

PS to rotorhead-When China finally agreed to UN intervention, it was with the caveat that they could not target and kill the Sudanese rebels who were killing and raping the people from Darfur, thus making the UN resolution worthless. Its not the UN fault....once again it is China. Check your sources please!!!

Answer 3

The Democrats complained and condemned Bush for not giving the UN more time in Iraq. The UN complained that they weren't given enough time in Iraq.

Now, the UN is being given the time to deal with Darfur.

And doing as well as I expected, I must say.

Answer 4

It is unfortunate, but Mr. Bush cannot stop all the genocides in the world.
He picked on Iraq because its leader, Mr. Hussein, had been supporting and helping numerous international terrorist groups which, he decided after 9/11, actually pose a greater and nearer threat to the US than anything going on in Darfur. Saddam also had been responsible for hundreds of thousands of murders, even more if you count his military adventures into neighboring countries.
Don't imagine that he would have been praised if he had decided to invade Darfur to impose peace. The genocidal Janjaweed would not have been any easier to control than the terrorist factions in Iraq. No doubt, Islamist terrorist groups would have flocked to Sudan to defend the land against infidel invaders. The terrorists would have used civilians and children as human shields, forcing troops to kill the very people they came to help. It would have been just as ugly as Iraq. And Mr. Hussein would have continued providing resources to international terrorists, many of whom would have gone to Sudan.

Answer 5

wake up, nobody really cares about the folk in darfur. unless their is oil or other financial incentives the major powers will do nothing apart from send aid, and why should they, they are always being told to mind their business, then when a poor country suffers somehow it is the fault of the major nations. africa is and always will be unrepairable and people will soon stop trying to help because one tragedy will follow another mainly due to corrupt governments and stupid planning.

Answer 6

Bush 'picked on' Iraq because:
1. His family had a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein ever since George H.W. Bush was ridiculed, criticized and humiliated for 'not finishing the job' and ousting Hussein during Operation Desert Storm in 1991;
2. Dick Cheney coveted all that cheap, easily-accessible OIL swimming underneath Iraq's sands;
3. The giant U.S. military-industrial complex [which Eisenhower warned us about] needed a new 'war' to boost sagging profits from too many years of peace.

Darfur has little in the way of benefit to the U.S.A.'s "best interests". What little OIL it has is not readily accessible - and is mostly already sold to China.

Iraq, on the other hand, has one of the top three richest inventories of OIL in the world (Iran and Venezuela are the other two). The Bush family has long-term 'friendships' in the Middle East, and has their "interests" at stake much more so that the "interests" of the American people.

675,000 Iraqis and 3,900 U.S. soldiers have sacrificed their lives so that a handful of wealthy U.S. elitists, industrialists, OIL barons and power brokers can become wealthier and more powerful. Bush lied to Congress, hoodwinked a grief-stricken American public, and conned our courageous troops into believing there was honorable purpose in attacking Iraq, when - in fact - the ONLY objective from the wars very first day was OIL and WAR PROFITEERING.

If there were more OIL in Darfur, Bush/Cheney & Co. would be there trying to get its greedy hands on it.

NEXT STOP: IRAN, which the Bush/Cheney OIL greedheads will invade as soon as they can come up with a rational excuse that most 'ditto heads' will buy into ('weapons of mass destruction' won't work again; it will have to be another staged 'terrorist attack' by Iranians on American soil).

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and all their war-mongering friends deserve a special OIL-soaked, blood-stained corner of Hell where they can rot eternally, along with
* 535 members of the most arrogant, contemptible, wicked, incompetent, cowardly, corrupt Republican-led Congress in U.S. history that stood by and watched Bush run rip shod over our Constitution
-AND-
* 535 members of the most arrogant, contemptible, wicked, incompetent, cowardly, corrupt Democratic-led Congress in U.S. history that promised to end this 'war' if elected, and - to date - has done absolutely nothing to keep that promise.
MAY GOD DAMN THEM ALL!!!
-RKO- 11/23/07

Answer 7

No oil in Darfur and he wanted to be just like daddy and kick Saddam`s ***.

Answer 8

because there is nothing in Darfur for Mr Bush and pals to make money on.
where as Iraq has an abundance of oil and he and his daddy, along with their friends the Saudis can get richer and richer while the rest of the world gets poorer. it a simple question of greed.

Answer 9

Because he sees Muslims as a threat and he was completely seduced by the idea of showing off America's military power - hmmm, something went wrong somewhere didn't it George?!

Answer 10

Blame the UN, not Mr. Bush.

Answer 11

Darfur is none of our business. The people of Darfur must help themselves.