I guess you're all really broken up over Darfur now?
2007-12-20 12:43:02 · 11 answers · asked by topink 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No, they didn't. Many dictators are torturing their own people right now, all over the world. But we're not helping THOSE people because they're not sitting on our oil source.
2007-12-20 12:46:57 · answer #1 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 3⤊ 9⤋
Yes, as a matter of fact one of the primary reasons I voted for H Ross Perot is because George H Bush refused to kick Saddam's butt.
I am upset that we are not in Darfur, I was upset with Clinton when he didn't kick butt in Somalia and I think we should have been in Rawanda.
In fact I don't give a rats *** if people don't like us being the "worlds cop", I say kick *** on oppressors.
That moron, Laugh-IN appearing, Red China Loving, Vietnam pull out, Liberal Richard Nixon upset me with Pinochet in Chilie and the fricken Dems, Truman, JFK, Lyndon Johnson bugged me with their support of dictatorships all over the world.
Now all Dems want to do is support Saddam's memory so everyone knows how much they love their hero's, The Oppressive Totalitarian Dictators of the world.
PS, And don't get me started on Carter. Why people think Carter woke up one day and thought, "Gee, those Rangers haven't been doing squat the last few years. Lets send them to Iran." Does it occur to demophytes that Carter used special operations in illegal missions on foreign soil so often that he probably figured the Iran debacle was a sure thing.
2007-12-20 21:01:49 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
In terms of justifying the war, the only justification we needed was that Saddam did not live up to the treaty that he had signed ending Gulf War I. It called for unfettered access for weapons inspections. The second he refused this, the treaty was null and void and we had all of the justification we needed.
In my opinion, it was a mistake to start looking into other potential reasons for removing Saddam. (He tortures his own people, we'll be liberators, etc...). I understand the rationale for doing so, but it was unnecessary. It made us look like we were searching for a valid reason when we already had one.
2007-12-20 20:49:32 · answer #3 · answered by Pythagoras 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
No I didn't have time to care about them because I am to tied up worrying about my own survival and my own country men, Saddam was nothing more that a strong man for the US anyway and when they seen their chance to take that country, they did. Now about supporting the war whats holding you back, why don't you care about your country men are you not a patriot, its not about what our government is doing to another country for our benefit even if you don't know what the benefit is. Its about I love my kin and I know they will fight their hearts out for the cause, what ever I think is to hold to myself but not utter a negative word against the people that joined to protect the USA.
I feel for the people in Iraq and Dafur but not more that I care for my own country and country men
2007-12-20 21:10:05 · answer #4 · answered by man of ape 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I did . I am not a supporter of the war but I did care about that and I do care about Darfur and everywhere that people are oppressed.
2007-12-20 21:11:52 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
i've said it before, this racist country will be a long time worrying about any african nation, when they can't respond to black areas in this country.
this shows that the whole pretense for the invasion of iraq was the oil, and nothing but the oil.
if it was not for control of the natural resources in the middle east, saddam could have eaten babies for breakfast.
good question.
2007-12-20 21:26:14 · answer #6 · answered by tomjohn2 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
That is not THE reason for the war. The fact that he is no longer doing it is one the positive results of the war. I've never heard anyone use that as THE reason for the war.Quit trying to twist other peoples opinions.
2007-12-20 21:02:14 · answer #7 · answered by jim h 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yes I did and I do. I am all for killing all of the despots and dictators I see no reason to even consider diplomacy.
You do know how difficult it is to get Democrats to authorize war don't you? Well it is not any easier to get Republicans to do it.
2007-12-20 20:50:35 · answer #8 · answered by Locutus1of1 5 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Yes, in fact, I am.... and I wonder why that worthless POS, the UN, hasn't done anything at all... oh, I forgot... the Sudan is a "Sovereign Nation" oh well...
I assume you are implying that the US should do something there? Well... I always thought that you people didn't want us to be the "worlds policemen".... why don't you make up your mind? or is it true that you just want America to fail in the world and be "put in it's place"? Yep... I nailed it... didn't I?
2007-12-20 20:52:56 · answer #9 · answered by lordkelvin 7 · 5⤊ 3⤋
most people dont understand that if clinton had tried to take out saddam, he wouldnt have had enough votes...it took 911 to get people angry enough to back politicians in this war...clinton did what he could as president when it cake to terrrorism...
2007-12-20 21:02:50 · answer #10 · answered by moderation 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋
There were a good number of reasons for sending in U.N.-approved peacekeeping troops. As for Iraq, it was never justified.
2007-12-20 20:47:03 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 7⤋