The U.S. should not invade Sudan to stop the genocide in Darfur

"However they have one outstanding similarity: the U.S. is invading a foreign country." This similarity cannot simply be compared to Afghanistan and Iraq. The Us has invaded Germany, Japanese islands, Spain, Mexico, much of Latin America, and others. The point is that you cannot make huge generalizations that any invasion is a bad one because Iraq and Afghanistan are going astray. "Recently the U.S. has proved to be inefficient in handling it's foreign invasions, and should not be granted an opportunity to mount another one of similar characteristics." First of all, we handled Afghanistan pretty well. However, most of the terrorists fled to Iraq, so we followed them. While popular liberal media had us all believing the Iraq war is the biggest disaster in US foreign policy, they haven't said anything for a while, even during election campaigns. WONDER WHY. WE ARE WINNING IN IRAQ. Casualties had dropped tremendously in Baghdad; we are handing over lots more power to the Iraqi military. There has been a huge increase in the amount of people joining the Iraqi military. John McCain is right when he said, "I have no doubt that we are succeeding militarily over there [iraq], I know too many people who are fighting over there, three star generals, captains, who have told me that there have been huge successes in Iraq in the past 7 months. Are there problems, yes, there are areas where Iran leaders are getting IEDs to the terrorists in Iraq." He goes on to elaborate on the few problems yet to finish. He has numerous times came out in public along with many generals who are trying to let the American people know that we are making huge progress in Iraq. So, please don't just blandly say that Iraq proves the US can't handle war. People need to start paying attention to the Iraq war, more so than ever, instead of just righting it off like the democrats want everyone to think. Because they are guerilla insurgents- "The U.S. would run into the same problems they have in Iraq, Vietnam and Afghanistan: high civilian casualties" Ok, come on. High civilian casualties? Why don't we just look at Sudan right now! You think there aren't huge amount of innocent people dying? You don't think that civilians are being gunned down in the streets and targeted for murder? Yes, there are problems with fighting guerilla warfare. But, don't tell me that we are going to stop fighting guerilla insurgents because we might kill a few innocent bystanders when thousands are murdered ever week. 2. On creating stability in Sudan. "The Sudanese government…is funding the Janjaweed police group, which is committing the genocide" if this is true, then we should 100% take down the Sudanese government. First of all, I believe that we could get unilateral support for this invasion. But even if we didn't, we should still invade and take down an evil country who is fighting proxy wars within their own country. "there is no way more stability can result from deposing the current government of a nation." This is quite a bold assumption, my dear friend. First of all, many countries like Sudan don't have a very stable government in the first place. It is usually run through few leaders who only want power. You take them down, their government falls. You put new people in charge. It would be very easy to do this is Sudan, as long as we took down the leaders of the Janjaweed police as well. I do trust the US government to handle the situation effectively. I believe an international conflict like this would be similar to the way we handled Kuwait and Iraq back in the day.. 1989. Numerous other nations would get involved, and help us set us stability both militarily and diplomatically. I do believe that this time around, it would almost be necessary to get international support. I am referring to Iraq. But I believe that it would be infinitely easier to get help in stopping a genocide that it is in going after a few terrorists in an arbitrary country. 3. "I personally disagree with the U.S. being so heavily involved in the UN, I'm not saying the U.S. should withdraw, I'm just saying we should consider our own interests to be paramount to what the UN wants us to do. I also disagree with many of the extended occupations of foreign nations that the U.S. currently employs, I believe we should withdraw troops from most of these nations." The UN is the best tool for international cooperation through information trading, conflict resolution through peace talks, and international awareness. We have troops in other countries so that we can move troops easily around and also so that we have reserve troops ready if necessary that are actively on duty. Whatever, the point here was that your opinion doesn't matter on jurisdiction, and neither does mine. The US has jurisdiction to do what we feel is necessary based on precedent, and the international status quo. The US also has the duty and obligation to uphold the UN dec. of human rights, because we had such a big hand in it in the first place. I believe it shows hypocrisy to not step in to Darfur. 4. OK, so we agree that people should keep their money. I get the feeling you are fiscally conservative. I am pretty much too. But I believe that upholding our obligations and duty is a necessary cost that most of the country WOULD agree to. At least a whole lot more than Iraq. Maybe now is a good time to address your concerns of the tax payers money. Yes, there are problems with the budget and taxes. First, I believe this topic is much more important than that. But, there are many things to deal with that could make room for this invasion to occur. Like I said before, we can cut frivolous subsidies, increase taxes alcohol or detrimental substances, delete meaningless bureaucracies like NASA, and many others, but most of all, but all earmarking. That stuff is such a waste of our money that is done through the most diabolical ways possible. So, regarding the cost of such an invasion, my plan would involve finding money through the eradication of such programs and activities, and pay more to the troops. Get unilateral support, find money, and go full force to stop genocide. "I do not believe an invasion of Sudan is worthy action" What can be more worthy morally than stopping an unjust genocide? You will say that it doesn't matter to the US. THIS IS THE SAME ATTITUDE THAT LET THE HOLOCAUST AND HITLER'S REIGN GO ON FOR WAY LONGER THAN IT SHOULD HAVE. We wouldn't have even gotten into the war had it not been for Japan. How many deaths do we let happen until we decide that maybe it is the right thing to do. How many Jews, gays, dissenters, innocent civilians does it take for my opponent to decide whether the US should take an interest in this. Any affront to the human life is an affront to human life in the US. When MAJOR massacres or genocides occur, the US should help stop it to their highest power. These people who degrade human life; how long until they decide American's lives aren't important either, and do something stupid in the US. 5. "This is a cultural invasion that the U.S. should not undertake" "There is an increasing wave of anti-American sentiment sweeping through Africa, the last thing we need is more intervention in that area" "there could be an increased tide of African nations funding terrorists." I do not think that protecting a group of Africans will raise anti-American sentiment. I do not think that the people of Africa will look bad upon the US if they try to help a minority stand up to the government who is murdering their people. I do not think that African nations will look at this incident and decide the US should die. There will be a clear and resounding message sent across Africa, and the rest of the world. NO LONGER will governments be allowed to kill their people. NO LONGER is it alright to kill whoever they feel like. NO LONGER will it be tolerated. I believe that this will