Should We Send Troops to Sudan ?

The UN won't, they are too busy making blood money of the murders. They drink the blood of murdered kids.

I agree that this would be a UN concern and not a US concern. Are you aware that part of the terrorists we were fighting in Afghanistan fled to Iraq, and that was one reason among many that we invaded Iraq? The US did what the UN was afraid to do.

Iraq is the new world center for terrorist training, with money and arms and recruits flooding in from all over the globe. Please explain to me how we accomplished anything? Saddam would never have allowed the concentration of so much power in the hands of people he couldn't control, ever. HE was the only thing holding terrorism in check there! The state of world terrorism is far, far, far worse than it was when President Stupid took us weinie-wagging in Iraq. Why do Republicans have such a hard time saying, we were wrong? The USA owes several tens of millions of dollars in member fees to the UN, as do a number of other countries. If we want the UN to do its job, it would be appropriate to pay the bill, don't you think?

"The US fights a kinder, gentler version of war while our enemies do not." Yes, this is true. If there is anything we should have learned from the Vietnam War it is the truism of this statement and the conclusion that can be derived from it. When you decide to go to war, let the military commanders fight it the way they want or don't go to war. When this is done, surprisingly fast victories are the result.

gardengrrl...I was already out of the service in 1979, I left in '77. This has got nothing to do with the Geneva Convention and everything to do with micromanaging a war from the safety of the US instead of letting the Generals and soldiers on the ground do the job they were sent to do. The same thing happened in Vietnam, and we all know how well that turned out, and now Congress is doing the same thing again. Everyone is blaming Bush for the troops deaths, when in reality Congress bears that responsibility because of the restrictions thay are placing on the troops. If you are not serious about fighting a war then you had just best stay home, because you are going to get a lot of soldiers killed for no good reason. The John Wayne remark was uncalled for...Have you ever been in the military in any branch?...I have. The people that we are fighting have no qualms about any convention or rules, or killing innocent civilians, and yet you want to talk about the Geneva Convention? This is not a conventional war where the enemy is on one side and we are on the other, and the civilians are over there some place out of the way...Come to think of it, I don't remember any recent war working quite that way. This is a war where the enemy looks just like any other Iraqi...so are we supposed to just sit there and wait for the next attack, or do we take a proactive stance and start cleaning out the neighborhoods trying to sort out the noncombatants from the terrorists? The only place high moral ground has is in the debate halls...War is hell, and there is nothing nice about it. There is TV, and then there is reality. Either let the soldiers fight the war, or bring them home and wait for al-Qaida to arrive.

To my knowledge there is no national security interest or concern in Darfur other than in the humanitarian sense. Darfur appears to be a civil war and a lot of people are dying, which is a terrible thing. However, that is not a reason for us to become involved. That is what the UN is for...that is the UN's job , not ours. As to Iraq, I agree. If we are going to fight a war, then we need to fight it, and stop dancing around. Do whatever it takes to win, and then we can help rebuild after it is over. The adage that nice guys finish last is so true when it comes to war. The US fights a kinder, gentler version of war while our enemies do not.

Well said, and correct... As I recall, Congress was Republican dominated when we went to Iraq...and the Democrat support for the invasion was overwhelming. Hillary should know all about the facts, she had inside information to work with, and the facts about the WMD's were known well in advance of Bush taking office. Bush has been a good leader, and when he decided on a course of action he stuck to it even after the war had lost popularity. That is the mark of strength and leadership, and not of following the most popular path in order to win votes. The democrats are walking a very fine line between wooing the voters and the security of our country. they have to be very careful, and hope that people don't come to realize that Bush was correct in his assessment. They have repeatedly called Iraq a civil war which we had no business in, so I was really surprised to see a democrat want to involve us in a war that really is a civil war...and doesn't threaten our security like Iraq does. Well said.

The decision was almost unanimous. democrats and republicans alike.

Gardengrrrl...What are the lies you are claiming? Before you answer you would do well to remember that we were bombing Iraq throughout most of the Clinton presidency in order to soften it up in preparation to the coming invasion....this invasion was in order to remove Saddam from office and to keep Iraq from using WMD's and destroy Iraq's ability to manufacture more. To further legitimize the coming invasion, Clinton also signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law in 1998 which made regime change in Iraq official US policy. So...I ask you again....What lies were told?

As near as I can determine the violence in Darfur is nothing more than a civil war, which is one of the assertions that those who oppose our involvement in Iraq are making about the war in Iraq. So why would we involve ourselves in Darfur? You used the words "appear to do his job" and "corner the emotional market of the voters"...which I find interesting. Appearances are a big thing with the democrats...they want to "appear" as if they have a lock on being the party who "cares". the democrats are all about smoke and mirrors, making promises without following up. Cornering the emotional market of the voters makes perfect sense and you are probably right in that. The democrats are all about emotional issues, and frequently use them to their political advantage. "Do it for the children" is always a big winner,especially if it is going to cost us a tax increase. I am curious as to why you would think that sending troops to Darfur is morally a better use of our troops than having them in Iraq...Darfur poses no threat to us as far as I am aware. I think you stayed on topic very well.

hmm...you know when reading that article the only thing that stuck in my mind was "genocide" and the millions of refugees. the term civil war never entered my mind. but you are totally right. it is a civil war. so i fell for the "emotional" chip that was offered lol! dang it! and is certainly none of our affair. like you say in a lower response...that is the business and the JOB of the UN. now..lets compare - we THOUGHT, that Iraq posed a serious threat to us. which is a reason to "get involved" Darfur poses NO threat to us, causes us NO loss of oil or whatever else we might get from that part of the world...so there really is no comparison. we shouldnt go to Darfur. we shouldnt be in Iraq either...but that is beside the point now, at the time we thought we had good reason. if we used civil war as a good reason to send troops to another country, how many countries would we be in?!! more than we have the money for, more than we have the troops for. mind our own business, lets try to fix our own problems before we go elsewhere.

Yes, we do need to mind our on business. The only places we should ever go is to protect ourselves. I can see both sides of Iraq, Saddam was evil, but there was relative stability in that area.

Our nation was founded by "traitors" who bashed our King and everything he did. Many, many residents of the Colonies disagreed with them. Now, we call those men the Founding Fathers, and hold them in highest esteem for risking everything to defy the government and create this nation. It is our sacred duty as Americans to question our elected officials and hold them accountable for their actions. A free society cannot survive where everyone is content to goose-step to the tune set by whoever spends the most cash. We have squandered the blood of our military to make us far, far less safe from extremists of every ilk than we were before the Iraqi Mistake. Someone must hold those responsible accountable. If we don't, then who will?

Not afraid to do, enjoying the fruits of Hussein's "leadership" too much to... Feasting on the blood of Iraqi children too much to.

There are times when sending troops is necessary, and there are times when it should not be done. In the case of Darfur, I fail to see where the US has a reason to send troops.

Parated, that was a TRULY ignorant statement