Question mainly for Democrats

[Beet]

Uh, if sending troops into Darfur meant 3,500+ troops killed and billions of dollars for an endless quagmire that never gets anywhere and never helps anyone, not a single Democrat would support sending troops to Darfur.

Imagine this. A Democratic President takes office, says there is a genocide in Darfur. He says he has all kinds of secret government evidence showing it. Says this proves we must go to send troops to Darfur. Anyone who opposes this action is called unpatriotic and is accused of not supporting the troops. Once we get into Darfur we find out there was never any genocide going on there. While the regime was not a good one by any means, the purported genocide never happened. However the President says we must continue to "stay the course" and pour blood and money into Darfur because now he's staked his Presidency on it and can't admit he's wrong. This goes on for 4 years. Wouldn't you be pissed?

[Beet]

Of course, but you must realize that non-interventionism is an authentically conservative ideology. Notice under which party's banner that the WWI, WWII, Korea, Nam, Bosnia, and Kosovo have happened under. Iraq just happens to be an exception because our Republican president is a "neocon" (definition: "Liberalism under a Republican administration"). Democrats never learn from their mistakes.

Neoconservatism is very conservative, although it emphasizes the authoritarian aspect of conservatism over the libertarian aspect.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would only consider supporting sending troops to Darfur under the assumption that our intervention in Darfur would be far more successful than our intervention in Iraq has been, and is likely to be. There is certainly precedent for a successful intervention. During the Kosovo war which Republican heavily opposed, we lost not a single US military life to ground combat (possibly 1 airman was killed, according to the movie Behind Enemy Lines).  It took just 78 days. The result was not to 'incite hatred' towards America but tremendously improve America's influence and prestige in the Balkans. In the year 2000, one year after we humiliated Slobodan Milosevic's government, his own people rose up and overthrew him in a peaceful revolution. But yeah, for ground intervention I think it should be primarily the UN, not the US, although we could contribute to such a force.