Originally Posted by different107
At the moment, if the President authorized any more military action I think the nation would about explode. I hate seeing what is happening as much as anyone else, but at the moment I don't think military force would be the best decision. The UN is quite ineffecive in my opinion anyways. With most of our troops in the Middle East, do we even have the resources needed to go into Darfur?
That's woefully inaccurate.
The US Army alone counting Active Duty, National Guard, and Reserve, numbers just over 1 million soldiers. "Most of our troops," are right here in the United States.
Skimming over this in wikipedia now. We easily have the resources to send a force in there, but for what purpose? Would they be going in with a mandate allowing them to adapt to changing situations, or would they have their hands tied as seen in 1992-1993 Operation Restore Hope? Further is the question about the "correctness," of a military intervention force, although nobody batted an eye when the French decimated the Ivory Coast, I doubt anyone would view another overt deployment of US forces in the context that it is used and crys of Imperialism would become rampant.
Sorry, but people want to complain about US intervention, so I say leave it to the UN. After all, that's what they're there for.