It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


If Obama is Elected, Should He Get the US Military Involved in Darfur

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 04:22 PM
Obama and Biden have been very vocal about their efforts and plans to help stop the genocide in Darfur. Genocide in any part of the world should not be tolerated and these two men should receive praise for speaking out against this genocide.

Obama's Darfur Scorecard

Biden's Darfur Scorecard

However, genocide is not an easy issue to solve. The UN is already involved in Darfur and an African Peace Keeper Force is already in place but yet the problem persists. Obama suggests that a no-fly zone be implemented like the one the US had against Iraq.

Obama believes the United States needs to lead the world in ending this genocide, including by imposing much tougher sanctions that target Sudan's oil revenue, implementing and helping to enforce a no-fly zone, and engaging in more intense, effective diplomacy to develop a political roadmap to peace.


Biden's comments on No-Fly zone

"We can now impose a no-fly zone. It’s within our capacity. We can lead NATO if we’re willing to take a hard stand.


I, for one, am in agreement with Obama that the genocide has to stop. However, I have reservations about getting our military involved for fear that it will turn into a Somalia type incident. In addition, I am weary of us continuing to try to police the world. Many Obama supporters have voiced this policing issue over the war in Iraq.

If Obama is elected, should he get the US Military involved in Darfur to help stop the genocide?

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 04:38 PM
Yes, we should. The Iraq War was was unjust. This is not. Therefore I don't think our policing the world will be as frowned upon.

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 04:46 PM
Absolutely not. No way.

It is time to bring our military home and keep out of the worlds business. Out of Iraq, out of everywhere.

After all, dont we Americans get blamed for playing world police as it is? It costs us trillions of dollars and there is no thanks for it, only more grief.

And besides, our country is now broke. We may be asking Darfur for financial help before this is all said and done.

Absolutely no way.

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 04:49 PM
BlackOps719, I have to say.........

I see where you are coming from.

I think our troops deserve a well long lasting break.

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 04:51 PM
Well not that I dont think those poor people need help but it is time for us to sit out a few and regroup. We have way to many problems here on the home front that are going totally unadressed because we are pouring so much money into policing everyone else.
Sure once we get things set straight her at home we should rejoin and help out but it is really time to sit out and straighten things out here at home. We have way to many families going homeless and with out food and many more that have homes but cant buy food. We have elderly people who are having terrible times. And our vets are on the list too. There is just soooo many things to add to the list it would take days on end to finish it. It really is time to sit out.

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 04:53 PM
I think we probably will see this. If we look back to Clinton, we see he got involved in more of these 'UN approved' actions..

Perhaps this shows a difference in the parties, it feels like the Democrats want to get involved in wars that are 'good for the world' (even if it doesn't help America much), whereas the Republicans prefer a war that benefits USA in some way, and screw the rest of the world..

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 04:56 PM
I sure hope we don't. A lot of the world has been telling the U.S. government that we should mind our own business, and let the rest of the world do as they will, either good or bad. Seeing as a lot of the world didn't see anything wrong with what Saddam was doing to his own people, then they'll probably say the same thing about what is happening in Darfur. I say let the UN and African Union handle the physical aspects of it, and we'll act like the rest of the world and play "armchair general". It's a lot cheaper and safer, and we won't put any of our armed forces personnel into any more danger than necessary, seeing as that's what seems to be the primary goal of a lot of people here in the U.S. And also while we're sitting on the sidelines criticizing all the actions of the African Union soldiers for their brutality against the "freedom fighters", we'll be able to become a lot closer friends with the countries a lot of my country folks wish us to get closer with, seeing as they'll be doing the same. Doesn't that sound like a lot better plan?

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 04:58 PM

Let the UN earn their keep.

We aren't the only muscle on this planet.

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 05:01 PM
The UN in Africa has made an absolute mess of every country they stick their noses in. Thats one conflict the US should stay out of for ever. Every time we let the UN bully us into going into a country and doing the job right, we catch flack and harrassment from every other nation thats involved. Let all those who seem to know better than the US play the game. Let them try to justify how things work out for them. I am not in favor of the genocide that is taking place there over ethnic and trible problems, but, those problems have been festering for centuries and nothing the US or anyone else can do will remedy the situation! Its up to them to fix it!

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 08:36 PM
I guess it is safe to assume that people can criticize Bush for playing police in Iraq, but think it is OK for Obama to police up Darfur.

Either that or people just don't give a damn that Obama is going to get us involved in Darfur.

Mark my word.

top topics


log in