Re: Should the US get involved in Darfur?
my point is, I met a group of radicals (whom I am NOT associating with the left wing, just saying they are a group of radicals) on campus who in the past have vehemently disagreed with the US's involvement in the Middle East, who were vehemently arguing for the US to take "moral responsibility" for what is going on in Darfur.
if there were an extra 20,000 troops and the country would be willin to support it, I think wit hthe proper leadership, a region as small as Darfur with a clear cut enemy could easily be controlled and its people liberated and given all the aid.
but that's just me. however, what options are left? possibly the only way anything can be done and scapegoats won't be pointed out, is if a coalition of many different nations sent in "peacekeepers" (really soldiers given a fancy name to appease the media) to resolve the issue.