US Foreign Policy-Promoting democracy worldwide

[hetron]

Here's a question for all of the people who backed the invasion of Iraq on the basis of wiping out a terrible dictator who killed his people and start promoting a democratic regime.

I ask the following question: Why don't we do the same in the Sudan, where government-backed militants are wiping out thousands of people in Darfur?

[BCPVP]

Day late and a dollar short, bub. This question's been asked and answered before.

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
Day late and a dollar short, bub. This question's been asked before.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[PhatTBoll]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a question for all of the people who backed the invasion of Iraq on the basis of wiping out a terrible dictator who killed his people and start promoting a democratic regime.

I ask the following question: Why don't we do the same in the Sudan, where government-backed militants are wiping out thousands of people in Darfur?

[/ QUOTE ]

Two words: political capital

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
I ask the following question: Why don't we do the same in the Sudan, where government-backed militants are wiping out thousands of people in Darfur?

[/ QUOTE ]

Limited capacity.

I submit the French should do it or at least lead the way - Or better yet, a EU Force, with the US lending air and ground logistical support, but no fighting force.

-Zeno

[lehighguy]

1) It is unfeasible domestically since the American left has used the realist defense of "American Interests" to oppose Iraq. It's anti-foriegn involvement policy in that area has eaten away at Bush's political capital and made it impossible for him to go into Darfur. Imagine a democratic leader getting up and essentially saying: "It's not right for American's to die protecting Iraqi's from Saddam, but it is alright for them to go into a total hellhole and die defending some other group of foriegners because its the moral thing to do."

There is absolutely no way the US could start another war at this time from a domestic political POV.

2) Militarily this is challenging because of our present deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. Involvement in Darfur is likely to be just as ugly as either of those two countries with as many casualties.

3) I don't think we'd get any help from anyone. It would just be the crazy Americans starting another war.

The real question is how the morally superior countries of France and Germany, who don't have the bulk of thier armies already deployed, can talk about what a shame it is we aren't preventing genocide and then not stopping it themselves when they have the power too.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
1) It is unfeasible domestically since the American left has used the realist defense of "American Interests" to oppose Iraq. It's anti-foriegn involvement policy in that area has eaten away at Bush's political capital and made it impossible for him to go into Darfur. Imagine a democratic leader getting up and essentially saying: "It's not right for American's to die protecting Iraqi's from Saddam, but it is alright for them to go into a total hellhole and die defending some other group of foriegners because its the moral thing to do."

There is absolutely no way the US could start another war at this time from a domestic political POV.

2) Militarily this is challenging because of our present deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. Involvement in Darfur is likely to be just as ugly as either of those two countries with as many casualties.

3) I don't think we'd get any help from anyone. It would just be the crazy Americans starting another war.

The real question is how the morally superior countries of France and Germany, who don't have the bulk of thier armies already deployed, can talk about what a shame it is we aren't preventing genocide and then not stopping it themselves when they have the power too.

[/ QUOTE ]

But as a world superpower (the only one), don't we have the responsibility to at least to try and lead a multilateral force in Darfur? The Sudanese refused to give a US relief team visas to go to Darfur, yet other than a weak protest from the state department, we didn't hear a peep about the situation. Doesn't this just send a message to the world that, unless you have some oil or something else we need in your country (like terrorists in Afghanistan), that we really don't care about democracy or human rights? Don't we have an obligation to at least talk tough, to try and get the African Union to honor their obligations in Darfur?

I'm not saying that the US should go throw 50,000 troops into Darfur, but can we get at least some tough talk about it so we don't look like complete hypocrites?

[ACPlayer]

backed the invasion of Iraq on the basis of wiping out a terrible dictator who killed his people and start promoting a democratic regime.

That is the reason now offered by those trying to rewrite history. If that had been the reason that Bush sold this idea on -- Most Americans would still not know which continent Iraq is on.

Does that answer the Sudan question.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying that the US should go throw 50,000 troops into Darfur, but can we get at least some tough talk about it so we don't look like complete hypocrites?

[/ QUOTE ]
"Tough talk" is tough for a reason. There's a threat of action. If we don't plan to act on our talk, and the Sudanese call our bluff, what then?

Maybe more can be done, I don't know. Bush is fighting a polarizing war right now, and to start "talking tough" about another country will probably only dig the hole deeper. I say it's time for a few other countries to step up to the plate. Russia, France, and Germany should have enough combined muscle to do something about Sudan. What's stopping them?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
backed the invasion of Iraq on the basis of wiping out a terrible dictator who killed his people and start promoting a democratic regime.
------------------------------------------------------------
That is the reason now offered by those trying to rewrite history. If that had been the reason that Bush sold this idea on -- Most Americans would still not know which continent Iraq is on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am always amazed that you guys are more fixated on the reasons Bush used to sell the war, than on the actual humanitarian need of the Iraqi people for relief from a tyrant.

By the way, Bush DID use the humanitarian reason as a selling point, but as a minor selling point. Bush's emphasis or lack thereof in no way alters the actual degree of need of the Iraqi people for relief.