[QUOTE=habesor;76016]...Why do you seem to consider UN involvement to be an important element in an American decision to intervene in a situation like Darfur...?[/QUOTE]

Can't speak for Van -- can only speak for myself.

First off, we have no national interests in Darfur, other than those of the shared humanitarian concerns of the World.  We're up to our neck in military commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, the latter justified, the former not.

Second, if we were to go in, I believe the inhabitants would get it in their heads that we were "invading," that we were worse than the Sudanese, and some Darfurian would therefore feel justified in killing our troops.  This has already happened it Iraq, and I for one am tired of their "gratitude."

Finally, despite the history of Saddam's regime, and the fact that the UN is secretly HAPPY we got rid of him for them, they and their member nations have made it sound like WE are worse than Saddam.  We  experienced similar comparisons in Bosnia, Kosovo and Somalia too.  I think this country has had its fill of World's comparisons to dictatorial regimes.  If they like murderous bastards so much, let them deal with them.

Personally, if the UN were to ask us to go in, I think our response should be "FOAD (**** off and die)!"  The UN however WON'T ask, because in my opinion, it is nothing more than a worthless organization that issues out high-sounding hot air and whose actions do not match its words.

[QUOTE=habesor;76016]Vanhoopcoach,

I'm not a conservative but being an Israeli, I can't help but appreciate the American action to take down Saddam. He may or may not have had anything to do with the terrorist attacks of 9/11 but he had been up to his gizzard in terrorism all over the Middle East and was mass murderer within his own country.

From your messages I get the feeling that you believe that the USA should not intervene in Darfur without UN approval. Do you really think that UN approval would make any difference?

One other point, the disarmament regime that was imposed on Iraq after the first Gulf war was not particularly successful in finding the WMD that Saddam had at that time. It took the defection of his son-in-law who spilled the beans on Iraq's WMD program for the weapons to be located and destroyed. In addition, it seems that the inspection system set up under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is only effective against those states who are not interested in having a secret weapons program. Given the experience in North Korea, Saddam's Iraq prior to the first Gulf war and some other places, the credibility of the inspection system is not very high. This goes even more so for UN conducted peace keeping and truce supervision forces (and we have lots of them here). Just recently the UN beefed up the UNIFIL forces in Lebanon and the Hizbolah have run rings around them, bringing in weapons from Syria and fortifying positions in South Lebanon.

Why do you seem to consider UN involvement to be an important element in an American decision to intervene in a situation like Darfur?[/QUOTE]

With no WMDs, after the ouster of SH,we should have left Iraq.
Instead, under the premise of giving the Iraqi's a goverment that they have proven that they do not want, we have once again tried to police the world.
My point is that if we are the mighty doers of right and, all the while proctecting oil in Iraq, why not grow a pair and stop the killing going on in Darfur.

My point concerning the UN is simple...why do we pick and chose when to and when  NOT to follow the UN's choices.

This two-sidedness is what makes American policy to 'help' others, a complete JOKE on the world stage.
Cowboy up fellas...we are interested in fairness and right, worldwide, or we are not.
This administration has no balls, brains, nor heart for a people suffering in one of the largest atrocities since Nazi Germany.

May God help us until Bush World closes it's doors and stops embarrassing our nation.

The US should not send ground troops into Darfur. What we should do is provide logistical support and air support for the UN and African force that goes in there, in case an organized force Sudanese force such as a  Janjaweed militia or Sudanese military threatens the ground forces. In addition they should prevent Sudanese Air support for the militia.

"While this is a middle east board,can someone here tell me, if going into Iraq and removing a 'killer of his own people', why are we not in Darfur?.....I have asked alot of our snorter-in-chief supporters and no one person has answered....also,why does the conservatives figure that anyone who does not see things their way is 'anti-American'...that's a harsh word for someone who has pulled two tours and was shot twice defending oil...."

Darfur does not have enough oil to bother with.   The little they have we leave it for the Chinese.