Should the US send troops to Darfur?

[fedupfisherman]

I say we pull troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan and send to them to Darfur to stop the genocide.

The African Union force that is there is small and overwhelmed

[seriousstan]

1. Yes, drop us in the middle and we can kill in both directions.

:sarcasm:
And just who shall we kill there?

[Yupster]

15. Agree

We don't need to put our troops into another Muslim nation, this one with a radical religious government.

One other addition to the mix will be Egypt next door with tens of thousands of Muslim Brotherhood cadres who would be happy to sail up the Nile to take their chance at Jihad against the American Crusaders.

Nope, let's let this occupation of a Muslim country pass to someone else. Perhaps someone more resisatant to IED's.

I am for trying to help the Chadians protect themselves from the radical militias crossing from Sudan, but that's probably a hopeless cause too.

[babylonsister]

2. No. All troops home. Regroup with someone sane.Then we'll talk. nt

[pinto]

3. I'd favor a UN peacekeeping force.

[fedupfisherman]

6. Put our troops under the UN

The UN has already pledged troops.

The US should contribute

[pinto]

7. I agree. We ought to be *part* of a UN response.

[Lucinda]

16. Yup.

I cannot believe we live in a world where this horror is allowed to happen

[seriousstan]

17. Why, are the UN peacekeepers running out of young girls to have sex with?

I thought the African Union had troops taking care of this. Also, doesn't the EU have a slight obligation by virtue of proximity and the fact that they are not busy elsewhere? Finally, how many deaths by IED and suicide would be needed in Dufar before it is time to abandon them. I realize you must have an exit strategy, exactly what would the parameters and dates be for that?

I am especially interested in the timeline of the exit strategy.

[bluestateguy]

4. No

No more foreign entanglements. Period.

[liberalmuse]

5. Hell no.

Our troops need to come back home and stay here. I think an international peace-keeping/humanitarian contingent would be more appropriate.

[Dead_Parrot]

8. Why, did someone just stike oil there?

:shrug:

[MiniMe]

9. What troops do we have available to put in?

[ManiacJoe]

10. Blackwater may be available soon!

:evilgrin:

[whoneedstickets]

11. No, we don't have the soldiers or the stomach for it...

But, we should try to fund a UN mission using 'troops for hire' from African countries. The UN pays a flat rate per peacekeeper which is lower than the wage rate of many soldiers in developing countries. So the home governments make money using their troops as UN mercenaries. It employs more men and sends $ into African economies.

[Selatius]

12. Fuck no. If you want to fight in Darfur, then set up another Lincoln Brigade

But don't involve the resources of the federal government. Those resources belong to everybody, but the armor, weapons, and other supplies you purchase to become a volunteer in the Brigade are yours and yours alone.

[Adsos Letter]

13. Does that mean I can bring home an Abrams tank?...

...'cause I kinda' think an Abrams tank in my driveway would help keep those damn kids offa' my lawn...

:D

[Beerboy]

14. No.

But the pull them out of Afghanistan and Iraq part is good.

[raccoon]

18. What troops? Do we have any left? nt

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

19. Well we ought to do *something.*

We have an obligation to try to stop it.

[mainegreen]

20. No. No need for us to create peace by becoming the enemy for both sides.

Uniting them in their hatred of us.
No, no thanks.

[spinbaby]

21. Only if they're delivering food and water n/t

[1320crusier]

22. bad idea

bad idea... the un "peacekeeping" force has proved absolutely useless in the past ie... somalia, you same people that callfor intervention will say to pull out once the body count rises. darur is a huge tragedy but the UN is uslss in the matter and has proved so in somalia and in rwanda. we should be in afghanistan and stay there. iraq is the debatable one.

if darfur is to be solved, the people need to ultimately go after the people responsible themselves becuse the UN sure wont or arm the people and ket them stand up to the murderers. you wnt it to be stopped? destroy those that perpetrate it. honestly i think we have bigger problems that directly effect us...iran and syria. if iran or syria goes after israel or vise versa itll be a biiig hornets nest. especialy if iran or syria detonates a chem or nuke weapon in tel aviv.

i would like to add that the "world police" designation is part of why 9/11 happened.