Do you think that the U.S. should send troops to Darfur to stop the Janjaweed?

hannibal61577

I am with you. We should not get involved.

It is strange how the same people who criticize our deployment into Iraq insist that we go into Darfur. The military needs a rest. They need to recuperate and they need to be back here in the states.

And for anyone who wants the US military to go there, why don't you join up?

Maximus_2007

We got troops everywhere else why not?

open4one

We've heard so much about how the UN should have handled Iraq, I think we need to just let the UN handle Sudan.

Show us how it's done.

Ryan G

American soldiers should only be used to protect America from legitimate threats.

Darfur would not fall under that category. It's a world peace issue. It's not America's responsibility to handle the situation there; it's the responsibility of all nations.

Therefore, it's a matter to be addressed by the UN. However, you have to consider how hard-pressed the UN is to come to agreement on situations like these AND to actually send in troops to enforce their decisions.

America should leave its troops out and instead use their political power in the UN to influence that body's course of action.

jamesmom2

we don't have any troops to spare, or the ones in Iraq would not be on their fourth or fifth deployment without any rest in between

Belial

I personally think that america dosn't have the right mentality to help other countries, but something does need to be done in sudan.
I don't think the majority of america would agree to help sudan because they don't really seem to see the big picture. There is genocide down there. Peopole dying for not really any reason, and if people have to die so many more people can live thats a sacrifice thats worth something.
And with the politics and such of america I think we arn't capable of helping them.
they need help though.

eltoro

Only as a small part of international force peacekeeping force that all parties agree to.

But I would prefer to see african countries get together for such a mission.

I am tired of our military going all over the world...like it belongs to us.

THE DAWG.

Nope We Got Missles, Why Send Soldiers Anywhere ?

Questions

If you believe the Iraq invasion is to protect the homeland, then US should also attack on Saudi Arab as most of the 911 hijackers were from there.... and there's no democracy or freedom there whatsoever.

US tries to use the "world peace keeper" image to justify its own global strategy, which is nothing wrong from a nation's point of view. The only problem there is it bites its own tongue when things like Darfur came along.

The bottom line is, even if US soldiers should be used to defend their homeland, is it right to be offensive and go mess around on other countries' soil and accidentally kill other countries' civilians?

LuvDylan

I think we could stop it without troops if we really wanted to. The CIA is probably down there anyway taking notes.

Dundas S

I don't think we should send troops there. But I can see us sending in transport aircraft and vehicles under the UN banner to support other military projects and those troops hopefully from other African countries.

We could also provide air reconnaissance and satellite imagery to assist the contra forces.

amauris16

i think that we should put strong political and economic pressure on sudan and it's allies. if that does not work then we should send troops to darfur. its not about the US being the world police. this is a humanitarian crisis and a genocide of living people. i thought that the general feeling after the holocaust was "never again". if that is true how can we put politics before our obligations as humans and let this go on. it is simply not enough to say "oh well, we are not the world police, let another country do it"

ezpaced

I don't think the US should send troops to Darfur. We need to use our troops to stabilize our own borders before risking lives and spending resources over there. It's nice to help others, but it's also important to take care of our home.

jeremy sem

The military is not meant to be an occupying force. I say hell no. Must we be stuck in the middle of another civil war, and/or genocide? Not only that but our military is stretched thin already. another major conflict and we are f...ed. This is one for other African nations and the UN to handle. And the let the french do something useful for once as well.

exclusive

not necessary,let them not kill innocents,
wherever us troops go they kill innocent civilians ex-iraq,
afghanistan,
why dont they face war crimes ?? what about friendly fire
incidents [remember pat tillman].......

mckenziecalhoun

Democrat here.

No. They should only be sent to places that have sacrificed their right to sovereignty, like Iraq did by invading an ally (Kuwait), paying suicide bombers to attack civilians of another ally (Israel), sponsoring terrorism (not necessarily al-Qaeda, of course), and shooting at U.S. troops and breaking the cease-fire for a full decade before we finally finished the war.

Darfur is still sovereign and should not be entered militarily. We do have a right to choose who we do business with, however, and there are other ways... .

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: