Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

If Bush is so concerned with liberating oppressed peoples, then why doesnt he send troops to the Sudan?

Why hasnt George W Bush, the great visionary, the President who wants history to judge him as a "War President", sent troops into Darfur to stop what this government has called "Genocide"?

We allow Cubans into the country yet we turn Haitians back.

Hmmm. If there was oil in the Sudan as there is in Iraq, would Bush have sent in troops? Maybe his reason would have been-" the soldiers over in the Sudan are removing babies from their mother's wombs and killing them. That is abortion and that must be stopped!!"

Update:

Was Kanye West right about Bush?

Was Richard Clark right about Bush?

Were Valerie Plame and Joseph

Wilson right about the Bush

administration?

Is Scott McClellan right about the Bush administration?

7 Answers

Relevance
  • kejjer
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Sudan has OIL!

    http://hrw.org/english/docs/2003/11/25/sudan6528.h...

    but Bush did not go to war for OIL in IRAQ.

    That is what ignorant people like to say to other ignorant people to justify why they hate BUSH.

    Iraq is strategically located in The heart of the muslim world.

    A democracy in Iraq would hurt Radical Islam's greatest propaganda tool.--

    That is one reason Bush picked IRAQ.

    Bush has tried to get the UN to do something in the SUDAN--more than what Clinton tried to do--

    But the USA can't do everything and so it has to pick it's fights carefully--maybe if the left in the USA did not undermine Bush's credibilty in front of the world every chance they got throughout his administration---he would have been able to save some of those people in the SUDAN.

    Source(s): That thing on my shoulders
  • ?
    Lv 4
    5 years ago

    First, thank you for asserting "Sudan"... Darfur is a STATE/ area in the country of Sudan, and if the country of Sudan does not INVITE us in... OR The United international locations... we can't INVADE !! to respond to a distinctive answerer, Sudan is an oil producing united states of america, yet no longer a member of OPEC: at 520K barrels consistent with day (while in comparison with 692 MILLION barrels.for Kuwait, or seven hundred million barrels for Saudi Arabia)... the Sudan is 10% of Kuwait or Saudia Arabia. the U. S. might like (Congress) to intervene... however the Sudan basically needs African Union TROOPS... and the UN protection Council hasn't overridden the Sudanese government !! Oh... we are able to invade ONE united states of america (Sudan) yet no longer yet another (Iraq) ??

  • 1 decade ago

    China. We left Sudan due to their human rights violations a long time ago. China stepped in and made the situation worse off. It is an international political hot potato. There is oil in Sudan, that's why China is there and why we were there.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    No oil there. Same with Zimbabwe. Have you seen the documentary"War on Democracy"? Also google Esoteric Agenda.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Of course. Oil is what makes the world go round and round.

    No business in darfur since the chinese would kick some american butt.

    how many chinese are there? like bizillion

  • 1 decade ago

    What about Tibbet ?

    And by the way Americans leaders are more dangerous than any body else in world.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    No oil.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.