Armor Games

It's interesting how America has decided to dive into the Middle East after 9-11, and get involved with Iraq and Afghanistan. But in Africa they are dealing with mass genocide, in Darfur, Sudan, Uganda, and in other places that we might not even know about. Sure we give them some support, but not with as much focus as in the Middle East.

So the question is why do we seem to be so much more involved with the Middle East than the genocide in Africa?

Ehh you think the U.S is helping out?
It has nothing for its own good in Africa.

Well, that's a rather easy question in my opinion.  The problems in the Middle East tend to affect us more directly and in more ways than those in Africa.  I mean after everything is settled there, we will probably give more attention to Africa again.

One word: Economics

Sudan is committing the worst genocide of the 21st century, yet no Western nation wants to get involved.  It would not be profitable to invade Sudan.  They pump very little oil (500,000 barrels a day may seem like a lot, but the country is HUGE).  It would take millions of troops to control the country as well.  Costs would be tremendous.  Other nations in Africa have very little resources.  During the Rwanda genocide, no one helped because Rwanda's number 1 resource is coffee.  No Western nation is going to stop the genocide to protect coffee beans. 

Now I do agree with non-interventionism to a degree.  I don't agree with it based on economic reasons.  I support non-interventionism based on sovereignty.  The US and the Western world has no right to invade a country except for extreme circumstances.  If a nation declares war on us, or attacks us, then I believe we should defend ourselves.  The US was okay to fight in WWI, and WWII.  The current war in Afghanistan is justified as well.  Those three wars, to me, are the only justified wars we have been involved in since 1900. 

Of course, when it comes to genocide, it is a tricky issue.  Does a nation give up all rights to sovereignty when they are slaughtering a whole race, religion, ethnic group, or some other group?  Should we invade?  Should we do nothing?  Should we go there for rescue and protection missions?  To me, genocide is a tricky issue for the US.  If we invade, the world will condemn us (ex: Somalia, Yugoslavia, Iraq 1991).  If we do nothing, the world will condemn us (ex: Rwanda, Darfur).  So no matter what the US does, we will be the bad guy in the end.  There's so much behind every intervention situation, that it may be years after the event to find out if the action we took was justified.

Because the Middle East has terrorists that are threatening the whole world. If the one world Superpower is not in there weakening and destroying them, they can run loose and pull off attacks all over the world.

Darfur only affects small parts of Africa like Sudan and Chad (it affects Chad because there borders are being flooded with refugees).

So as soon as we are done in the Middle East, we can go and deal with the Darfur.

um its because no one cares about africa.. seriously though because its so hard to help africa when they have tons and tons of needs.. this sounds bad but how much money is poured out for them?? people in the US are struggling and we are out helping others.. maybe we should look inside on some matters..

@Ricador

Africa has just as many terrorists.  Sudan and Libya harbor terrorist organizations.  But like mentioned before, economics is behind it all.

They pump very little oil (500,000 barrels a day may seem like a lot, but the country is HUGE).  It would take millions of troops to control the country as well.  Costs would be tremendous

Anyone who thinks that the amount of money gained from Iraqs oil revenues is enough to cover the cost of the war is sadly misguided. The war costs both the US and the Uk billions of dollars. The UK estimated 14 billion $ and the US 40 billion $. The oil revenues of Iraq are valued at a rough estimate of 15 billion $. Simple mathematics. The reason we are still there is simple. Pride. We went in there all guns blazing and took down a tyrant. However we left a country in chaos with every faction trying to get a slice. We stay ther becasue if we left and the country decended into anarchy we would be in the eyes of the world the selfish westerners that most of the middle east thinks of us anyway. The reason Africa gets very little aid is simple eceonomics aswell. There has been an estimated 100 billion £ of donations through charitable organisations over the past 60 years. The UN and other governments gave around 40 billion £ ( separate figures). The first Live Aid ironically was the turning point that persuaded governments to stop givivng. The Ethiopian famine which it set out to solve wasnt,because the corrupt African President kept around 60% of the money. 2 weeks after Live Aid the president bought a private jet worth around 30 million dollars. The money that should have gotten to the starving people. The point is this triggered off a chain reaction among the governing bodies of the world to stop giving and this has been the case. Government funded aid to Africa has dropped by 40% in the years between now and then. Africa needs to regain the trust of the West and until it does its economies will only keep enduring years of negative growth.

It's interesting how America has decided to dive into the Middle East after 9-11

Well, I guess it was the murder of thousands of our people by terrorists coming out of the middle east that caused the US to "dive in".