Should the United States send troops into Darfur?

[MrNiceGuy420]

should we?

MrNiceGuy420 Reviewed by MrNiceGuy420 on 07-06-2007. Should the United States send troops into Darfur? should we? Rating: 5

[Psycho4Bud]

China's special representative on Darfur says the Chinese government's dialogue with Sudan was key to Khartoum agreeing to allow United Nations peacekeepers into the conflict-ridden Darfur region. As Daniel Schearf reports from Beijing, China has become more active in trying to resolve the Darfur conflict after facing criticism for putting economic concerns above human rights.
VOA News - China Takes Credit for Sudan Allowing UN Peacekeepers

China's No. 1 oil company, CNPC, and Indonesia's PT Pertamina have agreed to co-develop a Sudanese offshore oil block, ignoring international efforts to isolate Sudan over the crisis in its Darfur region, a report said Monday.

The agreement, signed Thursday in Sudan's capital, Khartoum, calls for a six-year exploration phase and shared future oil production under a 20-year concession, the CNPC-backed China Petroleum Daily reported.

Sudan is among Beijing's key oil suppliers. It shipped 4.7 million metric tons of crude oil to China in January-May, a fivefold increase over the same period in 2006.
Chinese Company OKs Deal on Sudan Oil - Forbes.com

HELL NO! China is part of the U.N.....let them deal with it since they want to go after the oil contracts. Why should we have to send troops to more/less protect their interests?

Have a good one!:s4:

[MajMike]

As a vet who's seen genocide up close in the former Yugoslavia, and been to several civil wars in Africa, we have a lot more business in Darfur than we do Iraq.

The people there are fighting a daily battle for their very existence, wondering where their next meal is coming from, or if they'll be killed by the rebels or the govt troops.

For that cause I would go back.

[hempotalogist]

Of course we should. We should pull the hell out of Iraq and save Darfur.

Fo SHO... why wouldn't we? We're the only country in the world that can stop this. And I hope it does bring China to a head, cuz they are just flithy when it comes to this issue.

Ok, I don't care how much money China lends us. Clearly our next President will have more fiscal sanity than numbnuts, so we should be able to get the economy back on track - meaning, less debt to China.

We would need to kill our deficit spending and do sort of multi prong approach to Darfur. Tell the Chinese to pound sand by sending troops into Darfur and stabilizing the trade over there; and as I said stop borrowing so much money from them.

[andruejaysin]

I voted no, not because we aren't needed, but simply because there aren't any troops left.

[PharmaCan]

The United States is not the world's police force. The American taxpayer is not responsible for every human life on this planet!

A P4B pointed out, let countries that have interests in the area invest their resources in the area. China can afford to do their share of world policing. Actually, they have a huge army that hasn't seen combat in 40 years. It's high time they did something.

For that matter, Mo Qadafi is talking about uniting Africa, let him send Libyan forces to the area.

JMO

PC:smokin:

[S.W.I.M. 504]

The American taxpayer is not responsible for every human life on this planet!

:

u shouldnt think like that

[PharmaCan]

u shouldnt think like that

Oh really? And exactly how should I think, my sage?

PC :smokin:

[S.W.I.M. 504]

o lol i was really high. but its still a good idea

[hempplaya]

I';m high bare with me

I Wrote a paper on this for my english class last semester. Yes we should sent the troops in. They need help land we the US Must be the ones to take a stand