why is the world ignoring the Congolese war?

reply to post by moonzoo7


DR Congo is stacked to the rafters with resources, so your premise is moot.

Even so, there is a huge international presence in DR Congo, but the fractious politics, rampant corruption by local militia, Police and politicians make it a very hard problem to solve.

reply to post by Spike Spiegle


..and if you could, there are plenty of others who can't or simply don't want too.

But I will tell you two things:

1) Barack Obama has done nothing to help his own family in Africa or Africa on the whole and

2) He is using up pretty much all the good will and "Can't We All Just Get Alone" there was..... .....

reply to post by stumason


I must respectfully say that my point is....NOT moot. We have our eyes on the prizes in the Middle East. Oil, Lithium, and Opium, er, I mean other resources. We have a lot of blood and treasure invested there.
We don't really have a history of playing in the African sandbox as much. That has tended to be the playground for the Europeans. Besides, the main crux of my point is that Americans are caught up in the bull$#!t hypnotic mind-control distraction that we call the media. The sad fact is that more people know more about Snookie than they do about the difference between the DRC and Congo, or where the African continent is.
Relax, we're on the same side here.

reply to post by Spike Spiegle


After reading your response, I still wonder why anyone from outside the country needs to get involved. It's still a centralized conflict and it's still not anyone's place to interfere. Or is there some reason the world has to police individual countries? To me it would be like other countries wanting to interfere in the American Civil War. Which there may have been, I'm a little rusty on parts of my history but I don't recall any countries interfering with America's Civil War. That's how it should be in my opinion. Let centralized problems sort themselves out, unless they spill out into other countries, I see no reason anyone else should get involved.

If for some reason you still believe the world should police other countries for whatever reasons you may have then why stop there. Why not create a one world government that polices everyone so no one can bitch about countries influencing wars in other countries. If we're all one in the same then no one can be offended by people policing other people because then we no longer have divisions of country.....Otherwise, what you are proposing I simply can't agree with. Either everyone's involved or no one is and the country should sort itself out. Of course....that's just my opinion....

For heavens sake everyone

The US can not and will not get involved for the very simple reason that China is already there. You can not have the US Military go toe to toe with Chinese Military because both have enough Nukes to guarantee the outcome predicted my the MAD principal.

China has Africa and the US has the middle East.

Case closed. IMO.

P

reply to post by Spike Spiegle


Confused !! I don't know why this comes as a new problem. The UN and the world have ignored conflicts and wars in Africa, since, well, forever..

reply to post by GrimReaper86


You're allowed your point of view and thanks for going back and reading.

Now then I just don't understand how you can say such things, since 1945 America has policed quite a bit.

More recently you have spent a decade in the mid east.

I am at a loss towards your logic


SS

reply to post by MajorKarma


I like that movie

Now then what truths on the matter do you have to share, I think I could handle them.

What?

You have no truths to share and you just linked a video, for no reason?


SS

reply to post by Spike Spiegle


Just because America has taken such a course doesn't mean all Americans agree with it. I don't see the necessity of us policing other parts of the world that we already do. It's not our place, with the exception of conflicts that have had effect on more then one country. Like I can see why we got involved in World War II. It makes sense to me since we were bombed at Pearl Harbor that we would get involved and even if we hadn't been bombed and it didn't effect us directly the conflict was certainly past being isolated to one country. I am in support of outside nations getting involved in conflicts that have drastic effects on more then the country that they originate in.

I hope that clarifies.

reply to post by GrimReaper86


It does thank you.

One more question do you agree with America's course in the mid east?


And do you believe that both countries involved were a threat to your way of life?



SS

I think it was Jimmy Carter who said something along the lines of: "They are poor, black and don't have any oil."

But really its a pretty resource rich country yet the population suffers

reply to post by MCGReGoRoBaMa




This your 4th post and you have completely lost me and I mean COMPLETELY

What the hell are you talking about, I'm having a hard time forming a logical response...


SS

One of the "Hall Monitors" is going to dock me a thousand points for what was my response so, I have deleted my initial reaction and response to you and only say you and most of the rest of you are welcome to the bed you have made.

ignore the little dear...he's posting crap on a few forums. Clearly parents are out and the babysitter's watching telly

No, I don't agree with our course in the middle east. At least not as it stands to promote peace. Perhaps I could support a warring nation, if our country had been honest about it, but then again whose honest about an invasion that is truthfully unprovoked.

The only reason I think the US is in either country is primarily resources, I believe most "terrorist attacks" for the most part have been either false flags or isolated incidents that were not a direct result of any particular countries aggression toward us. If a country were against and trying to attack us as a country I certainly don't think such an attack would be so simple as a solitary building or even a few solitary buildings but perhaps attacks on entire cities and such. The fact is, if we were attacked by terrorists then those terrorist belonged to small extremist groups and if that's the case why are we at war with what feels like entire countries instead of particular terrorist groups within said countries, and Israel....why the hell did we get directly involved with Israel to begin with. Why the hell is it even our business to be involved? In many ways the deal with Israel makes no sense at all politically. It only makes sense when you take things like resources into account and religious beliefs.

I mean it's not like 9/11, even if it was a foreign terrorist attack (which I don't believe), was carried out by war planes like what was the case in Pearl Harbor where multiple Japanese warplanes were seen. No, 9/11 was carried out by American commercial aircraft, so how can anyone really blame any country without more concrete evidence. Even if the attacks were carried out by people from that country the decisions of the individual do not reflect the decisions of a country.

I have never felt directly threatened by any other country at any time in my entire life. I suppose a large part of that has to do with the vast size of our country and the very small amount of direct impact the very few "attacks" on our country have had destruction wise. There are towns and cities in other countries that been practically completely destroyed by our presence their to "liberate" one thing or another. How many towns have been decimated by outside influence in the United States since the Civil War? As far as I know (which granted I may be ignorant of some things, I'm not perfect) there has never been the destruction of a town in the United States by an outside country since the Revolutionary War as far as I know. The closest thing to such an event for me is Pearl Harbor and even then I think that was, at most, the destruction of a military base.

reply to post by GrimReaper86


I don't see how occupying a country for over a decade promotes peace.


Your logic escapes me once again....


SS

reply to post by Spike Spiegle


That was my point, I DON'T agree with it. It doesn't promote peace and there was no logical reason to occupy the country for 10 years.

reply to post by GrimReaper86


understood, I misread.

Star for you.


SS

Originally posted by superman2012

Same reason they ignored the Rwandan Genocide.
It doesn't directly relate/hurt them. If it doesn't benefit a country, why would they go and actually help another country?

Why doesn't your country do the same?...

I find it ironic how the same people who always whine and complain about the U.S. getting involved in wars in some other countries are the same people who whine and complain about the U.S. not getting involved in wars in some other countries...

Damned if you do, damned if you don't huh?...