Darfur will we go... should we?

[biozombiex]

As many people know, there is a crisis in darfur.In particularly genocide.With the way our government is and with the current war should we go and help africa with this problem.
Extra info:
Sudan and its friends -- Syria, Saudi Arabia, China -- deny the atrocities in Darfur.China is supplying them weapons and has trade agreements with africa.the head leader in the country
is denying that theyre is a problem and the numbers of over 300,000 deaths is exhaggerated . everyone has recognized theyre is a problem besides the government.who is doing the killings.

Personally i think we should go because china is trying to become the worlds next super power
and i feel they will suceed if we do nothing.the american dollar has already degrated in value next to the euro and pound.And with this war were fighting were actually borrowing money right now our debt is like 90 billion or higher.china is also doing a mass recruitment drive of its military.it has recruited over 2 million more people to its already mass army.So im guessing that if we help with some of our status as a super power can be restored.

im not completly sure but i also think that theyre denying forces from coming into the country and helping.

[ImaSmartass2]

No, we are in no position to take on Darfur, we should have done that BEFORE we invaded Iraq

[DariusR]

US go into Darfur -> Interrupts with China's resource extraction -> China economy goes down -> China/US conflict -> Possible war

[morefngdbs]

As I've seen stated here numorous times, Africa is having all of it's problems due to colonialism & interference in the past by Europe & America.

So lets just let them sort themselves out.
By the time they're finished there isn't going to be a hell of a lot left.
But at least we can't be held responsible.
Also since we can't be sure that the humanitarian effort isn't being used to supply the Warlords, lets cut it off 100%.
Sure people will die, there dieing there already we should stop interfering & let them show all of us what a utopian society they are capable of building on their own.

[Memorize]

At 7/31/07 11:17 AM, ImaSmartass2 wrote: No, we are in no position to take on Darfur, we should have done that BEFORE we invaded Iraq

Yes, because Darfur had more to do with the US than Iraq ever did, right?

[zambota]

At 7/31/07 11:17 AM, ImaSmartass2 wrote: No, we are in no position to take on Darfur, we should have done that BEFORE we invaded Iraq

I thought the conflict reached genocide after we invaded iraqI

[public-enemy1]

At 7/31/07 12:52 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 7/31/07 11:17 AM, ImaSmartass2 wrote: No, we are in no position to take on Darfur, we should have done that BEFORE we invaded Iraq

Yes, because Darfur had more to do with the US than Iraq ever did, right?

Iraq has:

Oil

Darfur has:

People that need help

[zambota]

At 7/31/07 01:25 PM, public-enemy1 wrote: Darfur has:

People that need help

And Iraq didn't?

[public-enemy1]

At 7/31/07 01:32 PM, zambota wrote:

At 7/31/07 01:25 PM, public-enemy1 wrote: Darfur has:

People that need help

And Iraq didn't?

Pardon me

Iraq has:

People that still need help

[zambota]

At 7/31/07 01:35 PM, public-enemy1 wrote: People that still need help

Even the Kurds? I mean I know they're having it out with the Turks but.....

[public-enemy1]

At 7/31/07 01:38 PM, zambota wrote:

At 7/31/07 01:35 PM, public-enemy1 wrote: People that still need help

Even the Kurds? I mean I know they're having it out with the Turks but.....

Ok...let me put this question to you:

Right now, would you rather live in Iraq, or Darfur.

[Memorize]

At 7/31/07 01:25 PM, public-enemy1 wrote:

Iraq has:

Oil

Which is being divided in that country.

Iraq also had:
-Genocide
-People who needed help.

Iraq wins.

[public-enemy1]

At 7/31/07 01:45 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 7/31/07 01:25 PM, public-enemy1 wrote:

Iraq has:

Oil

Which is being divided in that country.

Iraq also had:
-Genocide
-People who needed help.

Iraq wins.

Key word had

Iraq still has people that need help

Darfur has geoncide and people that need help

[escudo0]

In the future please use the SEARCH BAR

I'm personally opposed to any interference in other countries affairs.

[zambota]

At 7/31/07 01:43 PM, public-enemy1 wrote: Ok...let me put this question to you:

Right now, would you rather live in Iraq, or Darfur.

Depends on in what part of each. Causei f i can hang in Kurdistan I would go to Iraq.

[Memorize]

At 7/31/07 01:48 PM, public-enemy1 wrote:

Key word had

Iraq still has people that need help

Darfur has geoncide and people that need help

Which would you rather go into first? Iraq (considering its history) or Darfur (which has nothing to do with us)?

If Iraq first, then you cannot claim we need to be in Darfur NOW because we're still in Iraq.

That's about as simple as you can make it.

[fli]

At 7/31/07 11:17 AM, ImaSmartass2 wrote: No, we are in no position to take on Darfur, we should have done that BEFORE we invaded Iraq

Totally agree, but it seems that Dalfur is a real crisis that genuinely needs our help. So we should go. They have asked for help through out the world.

[zambota]

At 7/31/07 02:50 PM, fli wrote: Totally agree, but it seems that Dalfur is a real crisis that genuinely needs our help. So we should go. They have asked for help through out the world.

What do you mean "real" crisis?

[ImaSmartass2]

Why do we want oil if we are trying to get new fuels? Massive Hypocrites...

[JakeHero]

My personal opinion, we should take care of both Iraq and Darfur.

[zambota]

At 7/31/07 04:09 PM, JakeHero wrote: My personal opinion, we should take care of both Iraq and Darfur.

I'm not sure if we can actually pull that off.

[JakeHero]

At 7/31/07 04:14 PM, zambota wrote:

At 7/31/07 04:09 PM, JakeHero wrote: My personal opinion, we should take care of both Iraq and Darfur.

I'm not sure if we can actually pull that off.

Most likely we can't, but at the time being we should fix one of the problems than, if possible, the other.

[LegendaryLukus]

Looks like the chances of something happening are a bit better, at least.

UN agrees to send force

[Memorize]

At 7/31/07 04:51 PM, LegendaryLukus wrote: Looks like the chances of something happening are a bit better, at least.

UN agrees to send force

I'll be waiting for another Somalia to happen.

[RedSkunk]

At 7/31/07 11:51 AM, morefngdbs wrote: As I've seen stated here numorous times, Africa is having all of it's problems due to colonialism & interference in the past by Europe & America.
So lets just let them sort themselves out.
By the time they're finished there isn't going to be a hell of a lot left.
But at least we can't be held responsible.

No offence, but short-sighted half-baked ignorant comments like this irritate the piss out of me. Sure, 99% of the problems in Africa can probably be traced back to colonialism. But saying we should just "let them sort it out" is hardly an ethical move.

Look at your post. You claim all of their problems are our fault, and then claim that ignoring it now will absolve ourselves? How? That's an irresponsible, lazy position to take if you seriously think this is a result of colonialism.

What we need is aid that isn't politically motivated. That isn't tied to favors or buying our products. Aid that's actually meant to help the situation. I've always said that the best way to solve the problem would be to boost the African Union and make it a more effective force. There are already AU troops in Sudan. They're helpful but woefully undermanned at this point. Promoting the AU is promoting a regional coalition that can benefit the entire continent. For the problems right now as well as long-term.

We help immediately, it doesn't come off as an occupation, no Americans are killed, and African countries end up being able to help themselves long-term.

[tony4moroney]

At 7/31/07 01:25 PM, public-enemy1 wrote:
Iraq has:

Oil

Darfur has:

People that need help

I think that summarizes it real well.

[Memorize]

At 7/31/07 06:14 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

I think that summarizes it real well.

Of course, only an idiot would believe it.

Oh, i'm sorry, forgot who I was replying to for a second.

[Exblade]

At 7/31/07 04:09 PM, JakeHero wrote: My personal opinion, we should take care of both Iraq and Darfur.

actually thats a pretty smart opinion, we may not exactly pull that off, but what the heck it could happen.

might not happen now, since we probably dont have amount of men to pull of three wars at once, now that could change, i m just sying we probably would need a lot of men to pull that off.

other than that i agree, Both Iraq and Darfar do need help, Although im my personal opinion i think Darfur is a little more Important.

[tony4moroney]

At 7/31/07 06:43 PM, Exblade wrote:

At 7/31/07 04:09 PM, JakeHero wrote: My personal opinion, we should take care of both Iraq and Darfur.

actually thats a pretty smart opinion, we may not exactly pull that off, but what the heck it could happen.

No that'd be an incredibly ignorant opinion.

Let me see 2 consecutive wars when all generals are saying the troops are stretched and exhausted, resources are diminished, the budget has been blown for several years, we have our own problems, the Iraq war was already a fuck over, we've already seen what happens with foreign intervention.

Oh but hey what the heck lets throw in another war for the sake of it.

Stupid.

[Memorize]

At 7/31/07 06:50 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

Let me see 2 consecutive wars when all generals are saying the troops are stretched and exhausted,

Hence part of the reason for the surge.

But that didn't exactly sway opinions did it?