Deadliest War Since WWII

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 08:04 PM
link   
I'm new here so sorry if i dont do this correctly! and if i put it in the wrong place sorry for that to





Some wars go on killing long after they end. In Congo, a nation of 63 million people in the heart of Africa, a peace deal signed more than three years ago was supposed to halt a war that drew in belligerents from at least eight other countries, producing a record of human devastation unmatched in recent history. The International Rescue Committee (IRC) estimates that 3.9 million people have died from war-related causes since the conflict in Congo began in 1998, making it the world's most lethal conflict since World War II.





Yet Congo's troubles rarely make daily news headlines, and the country is often low on international donors' lists of places to help. After Sudan, Congo is the second largest nation in sub-Saharan Africa, a land so vast and ungovernable that it has long been perceived as the continent's ultimate hellhole, the setting for Joseph Conrad's 1899 book Heart of Darkness. It is in part because of that malign reputation--and because the nation's feckless rulers have consistently reinforced it--that the world has been willing to let Congo bleed. Since 2000, the U.N. has spent billions on its peacekeeping mission in Congo, which is known by its French acronym, MONUC, and it is at the moment the largest U.N. force anywhere in the world. But troops number just 17,500, a tiny presence in such a large country. In February the U.N. and aid groups working in Congo asked for $682 million in humanitarian funds. So far, they have received just $94 million--or $9.40 for every person in need. By comparison, the aid group Oxfam estimates that the U.N.'s tsunami appeal last year raised $550 for each person.


TIME Link

BBC News Link

It would seem that 3.9 million deaths would scream out to the world that something is very wrong here. The United States will help anyone out of crisis as long as there is something to gain. While Bush and Blair say they went in to save the lives of the Iraq's because they were so opressed, they established democracy and are sighting to save the poor Iranians as well. While UN troops are there to help, the UN military capabilities are pathetic, and from the stories of Libiria of child rape from UN forces, they are not capable of keeping peace. So why is it that millions die and you never even hear about places like Congo?


[edit on 6/1/2006 by Rockpuck]




posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 03:32 AM
link   
You dont hear about it because after the genocide in Rewanda the west stopped giving a damn about the place. The UN made an effort in the sixties and took a pasting whilst being dragged into interminable civil war.

The Congo is truly vast, almost the same size as Western Europe, the effort needed to fix it and the potential rewards just dont add up. Sometimes a nation has to sort itself out before we will help.

The west has tried and failed before and noone wants to send their forces to the heart of a vast disease ridden jungle to try and pacify a bunch of warlords.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 03:49 AM
link   
the west needs africa to stay famished and in constant sates of war,

as the saying goes 'people get the government they deserve'

I think the west is trying to encourage conflit in Africa so they wake up .its the problem - action - solution thing, creat a problem .i.e. war in your backyard team up with your neighboughs to sort it out, hence the Africa Union peace force /

yes its lame at the moment ,this is what happend with Yougoslovia and NATO,

Has any seen the film of Yougoslav ministers all round 1 table on the eve of conflict?
its one of the most shocking things Ive ever seen the defence minister says its been planned that a civil war will start then outside forces will interveen.

any find a link to this?



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   
So what your saying is that places like Yugoslavia wanted civil war to cause chaos so that the west will in turn give them money and support so that they end up better then they were? I soppose that could make since, I just think 3.9 million war related casualties is amazing. Its one thing to have disease and famine to cause these deaths but when its rape, torture, murder, genocide and war related disease and no one ever covers it is simply amazing. I dont think the world should be policed by America or by any European state, but what I don't like seeing is our president declaring we have to help the poor Afgahns, the poor peoples of Iraq, and the poor peoples of Iran that we need to save them from WMD producing sadistic leaders! 3.9 million people is far more then Iran could threaten against America, so there clearly is a resource drivin objective. Like you said if we dont gain anything from the conflict we won't go there, so we have to be gaining something from Iraq but what is it? I voted for Bush to
but im glad to see I didn't make a bad choice, as all politicians on both sides of the isle are corrupt.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 01:50 AM
link   
Gotta take a step back, maybe look at Earth from outer space as extraterrestrials would see, what is being done to all humanity.

The biggest war is the American elites' war on all humanity. Its clear:









top topics
 
1

log in

join