CHRISIS IN AFRICA
I was sitting last night in my room reading the morning paper i was browsing through and went to the "SUNDAY READER" section and the headline read
"AFRICA'S LATEST KILLING FIELD"
over three million people have died in the last 4 years.
As i read the article, hald way down a picture of a 13 year old boy with an AK47, wearing a blue jacket and a blue pair of trackpants..i walk outta my room into my lil bro, and i see a 13 year old boy wearing a blue pants and a blue shirt playing with an action figure with a sword and a Big gun in his hands.Under the picture of the 13 year old boys read..."About a third of the combatants in this internicine conflict are child soldiers"
about a third of the children in canada play pokemon all day long. It was so disturbing that i could not even eat all day long. later that evening i turned to CNN, to see what the latest WMD search had recovered...NOTHING.
They sent thousands of soldeirs to IRAQ, to free a so called surpressed people from the brutality of Saddam..What about all those children in the CONGO.
Whose gonna go relieve them off thier suffering..BUSH, i dont think som, I also dont see The Congo, lavishing in OIL.
If your wondering why i wrote this post..what my point is, i really dont know.....im just pissed off that in the last 4 years so many people have died in that country, and a country like THE UNITED STATES has the power to help them, but they would rather send tens of thousands of troops to secure thier oil and search for WMD's that are not even thier.
If you feel like anything i said does not make sense or seems offensive, feel free to state it. Im good for critizism, but i hope that people to feel the same way and empathatic towards the poor people in africa and what they have gone through
Deep

Haven't really got much to add aside from "its crisis not chrisis" and "learn to punctuate, it makes posts far easier to read".

Good post though, people need to stop being so apathetic when it comes to Africa.

[Edited on 12-6-2003 by Thomas Crowne]

sorry.....my spellings not the greatest...

The African genocides have been going on for a very long time, and the Congo is just the latest hot spot.

I don't know if it's because the US is a predominantly Christian nation (and therefore sees the Middle East, cradle of its religion, as the most important spot) or whether it's that we don't need African resources -- or just what it is that makes America ignore these and other areas where our peacekeeping efforts might help.

I am, however, reluctant to have our government step in and support one side or the other. Our track record in selecting governments for other places has been very bad in the past (we put people like Ayatollah Khomeini, Saddam Hussein, and Castro in power)... I think we should work for peace and let the people determine their own destiny.

For the record, former US President Jimmy Carter has tried to get negotiations going in some of the African countries.

Africas problems simply cant be solved by stepping in. Its bad enough attempting to do anything in the middle east. Africa would be just as foolish.

Let the UN handle them, thats thier area. Im still hopinmg and fighting to get US troops pulled out of 90% of the foreign places we are in. Last thing we need is more to get sent on yet another foohardy mission.

Get it through your heads, people: THE US MILITARY IS NOT A HUMANITARIAN PEACE KEEPING FORCE. THATS WHAT U HAVE THE BLOODY UN FOR!!!!!!!!

Why do people bitch about the US interfering in one country, but scream and demand we send our troops, who they constantly taunt and belittle, go and fix some idiot countries problems?

As Byrd stated, the US has a bad track record of chosing which side to aid anyway. Given that simple fact, its amazing thse geniuses still want the US to get involved. If we get involved, for all you know, the guy we support will be the next Hitler!

Let the french get this one.
Theres no oil worth exploiting...oh..diamonds you say?
Terrible tragedy, more must be done, lets send troops, and why dont we go for a regime change too.

Lookit, people, Saddam had his finger in the terror scene and he was the easiest target to take out while being large enough to get world attention. Were it not for the oil in that region, we wouldn't have a concern what went on there. There was no benevolent "Save the children" motive behind the liberation of Iraq, that just sounded humane. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

Byrd, this nation is supposed to be a Judeo-Christian society, but the federal government is supposed to be neutral in its dealings, as was stated in Tripoli a long time ago. Also, I can't imagine our den of vipers and thieves in D.C. doing anything in the guise of religious motives. Money and power is their religion.

Africa. What would one expect to be done? Send the U.S. in and all that will happen is it will get mired in a mess. Besides, our troops have to be free to pursue the war on terror and do whatever else the U.N. may demand its strongest military member to do.

Which leads to the U.N. It can go in and watch the killing just like it did in Rwanda. 1.1 million lives later and you still want the U.N. to solve the crisis in Africa? Really.

Africa is killing itself off through disease and eternal warfare, while at the same time the environment is being destroyed by the backward ways they refuse to leave behind.

The continent that has held our imaginations for so long is dying, and all the west is going to do is send them condoms, grain and powdered milk.

A little ray of sunshine tonight, ain't I?

No, Thomas, in this case, a little ray of truth.

Keep the US out of anymore stupid tribal, social, civil, or internal conflicts.

I thought I was the only one here who cared. You can call me a crusader, cause I am. It is my opinion that if we are going to fight for freedom than we shouldn't stop until freedom prevails. That is what the so-called 'War on Terrorism' is all about anyway. Freedom and peace.

The thing that makes this hard is that America and a few other countries are the only ones willing to fight for this ideal. Everyone else has their own problems. The world is full of corruption, and the corruptors are the ones we need to fight, not the fighters. There are better ways of doing this then going to war with thousands of troops. This country and the rest of the world is just going to have to deal with the fact that certain people must die.

I think it is a total hypocrisy that killing one person to salvage peace is wrong but killing thousands of pawns, slaves, and innocents is more justified than the other. Don't you agree????

Tell me this:

Would you rather see Saddam killed or his people???

Now don't take that literally, it was just an example. I would rather make an example out of him then anyone else.(I have made enough enemies with mad men with power)

What this world needs to ask itself is that. They need to ask themselves which one they would rather see die. Take Hitler for example. If we had taken enough time and resource to take him out how many lives do you think would have been salvaged???????

A lot right.

We need to say screw your dogmas. We need to let our men at the CIA and DIA do their jobs. They are trained to protect the people from madmen like Hitler and Saddam, not to sit around and give us intel so we can ignore it and watch our men and women die by the thousands, if not millions. I say we use political assassination without regard for international law. Who is going to stop us?????????????????????????

Who stopped Amin???????????

Who stopped Mao????????????

Who stopped Stalin???????????

NO ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SO WHO IS GOING TO STOP US??????????????

HAMAS????????????

AL-QUIDA??????????

ARAFAT????????????

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am not trying to compare us with them. If that is what you think I am doing then think again. Those people killed for far much different reasons then we would be doing so. Am I right or am I wrong??????????