Atrocities in DR Congo

THE LINK!

If this isn't terrorism have have no #ing idea what is.

When is America going to send troops into DR Congo?

[Edited on 21-5-2003 by Fantastic_Damage]

It lacks the infrastructure, F-D. It has enormous wealth (ask Mugabe).
the US won't intervene - the French probably will, perhaps with UK support.
Perhaps the only credit mark on US diplomacy's reports is staying well clear of black Africa: despite the HBO trash - they did nothing when Cuba was knee-deep in the Portuguese colonies.
You leave Africa to Europe ( the US should also do this - at the diplomatic level - in the Middle East and concentrate on the real threat: Latin America.

Why?

Can America just pick and choose what it wants to deal with and what is too ugly.

And to all those who call France cowardly, at least they are trying to deal with this messy situation. Where is America?

"Can America just pick and choose what it wants to deal with and what is too ugly. "
Sounds good from a US perspective, F-D.
Europe to varying degrees is the collective colonial power: this makes sense insofar as intervention is concerned.
There are no virtues here: just commerce and the capacity.

I posted an article similar to this a while ago.It is a brutal place,with an enormous death toll.After the way a lot of the world acted towards the US going into Iraq,I can understand why the US might not want to get involved.You know as well as I do FD,that if the US got involved we would have the arguements about the Congo,as we did with Iraq.
I wouldn't count on the French though,I don't think they want to add another war to their military defeats list.

Originally posted by Fantastic_Damage
THE LINK!

If this isn't terrorism have have no #ing idea what is.

When is America going to send troops into DR Congo?

[Edited on 21-5-2003 by Fantastic_Damage]

There not!!! They don't care about a bunch of Africains, plus there is no oil there

This is why the U.N. is so useless...

The UN troops have been pulled back into Bunia for their own protection after the killing of two soldiers some 70 km north of the town.

Now, what would happen if we just let the U.N handle all global crises?????


NOTHING

as far as this:

There not!!! They don't care about a bunch of Africains, plus there is no oil there

What does that have to do with anything? I think it would be more fair to say that the Congo has very little strategic value. Nor does it threaten any of our allies directly.
Additionally, if America is only doing things globally for it's own financial benefit, hmmmmmmm, can you say African Gold mines?

Some people are just too blind...

But it turns out that Iraq didn't have any weapons of mass destruction afterall. They couldn't evern hit Kuwait city from their own border for God's sake, and you try to tell me that they were a threat to world peace.

If this is a war on terror, then surely the war should be fought against all terrorism. Quite frankly it looks to me like no one cares if a few africans kill eachother. I was pro the Iraq war so long as equal standards were applied across the globe afterwards, this now seems to be a mere fantasy. Israel breaking UN resolutions, and now this, no wonder we a targets for terror.

And another thing, oil is far more important for Bush than gold. You cannot put gold in the tank of an engine.

This is not terrorism! It's a war for control of territory. Bloody? Yes
Messy? Yes
Bad things happen in wars? Yes
Terrorism? I think not.

Oops, my question's been answered...

there is no oil there

Its the application of terror tactics to maintain control over a country and clearly its gotten out of hand.

While the US should provide support UN troops are clearly what needs to be sent, I would say that the sooner the better

AS was earlier the case with N.K. - it's quite attractive, in a propaganda sense, to appear top be acting against non-Muslim, non-oil nations as well as the Muslim ones.

Blair is making mumbling noises about intervention; but -while Britain does have expertise in Africa (Sierra Leone for instance) the sheer size and in accessibility of Congo would make anyone think twice.
If anyone searches the conflicts when Belgium withdrew (40 years ago) you'll get some idea of the sheer horror and complexity.

The history of the region is almost unique: it was never really a "colony" of Belgium - by some very strange diplomatic skulduggery it was made in effect a personal possession of the King of the Belgians.
Other than commercial exploitation, little else was ever done there. IT remains uniquely "unwesternised".
One of the best short novels of the late 19th Century is Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" set in the Congo: well worth a read, based on Conrad's own experience.

Oops.. I should have added: Search "Lumumba" or "Tshombe" if you want some background.

Sounds like a Challenge Estragon, not quite certain why it took 4 posts to get your point across.

If one included cannibalism as a trait depictive of unwesternized methodology one thing is for certain. Addressing this type of behavior is something the UN should address en force.

Otherwise, while laughing out loud would be inappropriate a conclusion that exsit is that the UN is best described as garbage in/garbage out.


Let�s be realistic, the Congo is not a territory which the United States of America should attack with indifference to the UN. Perhaps Estragon we should all pretend that peace above all is so important that eating others is well within the UN Charter????

Originally posted by Estragon
The history of the region is almost unique: it was never really a "colony" of Belgium - by some very strange diplomatic skulduggery it was made in effect a personal possession of the King of the Belgians.
Other than commercial exploitation, little else was ever done there. IT remains uniquely "unwesternised".
One of the best short novels of the late 19th Century is Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" set in the Congo: well worth a read, based on Conrad's own experience.

Excellent book on the ability of humans to lose their humanity and sanity for that matter. Not sure as to the historiocity of the novel though.

Found this lovely link regading the plight of the Pygmies in the Congo. Dreadful.
Pygmy Plight

[Edited on 22-5-2003 by observer]

As Conrad was there, Observer: I think it's not un-factual.
He chose it as the place where the West was entirely unresticted - and did not even have to pretend to have a virtuous motive.
My own studies lead me to believe that it is still fairly close to hell.
Which might be a strong reason for assistance.

as for your curmudgeonly jibe: four posts because some of us do real work in real places with real SARS regulations.
When you're next short of a spam-drivel-wheeze, try a poll: any four Toltec postings worth one from Estragon?
I'll abide by the opinions of colleagues.
U2U's exist for post-confinement psychotherapy.

Perhaps Estragon we should all pretend that peace above all is so important that eating others is well within the UN Charter????

Estragon I have neither the desire or need to insult you despite your
inclination to do the opposite.

To be very honest I couldn't care less.

Simply stating an opinion Estragon, if you do not like it perhaps you would seem more credible by attacking the opinion and not the person responding.

In your last response prior to mine you cited military action with respect to 1940.

That to me is a joke with respect to how much technology has advanced since then.

As far as your concern about Sars given what you have said about your life its understandable.

While some gentlemen may cry peace other's cry for liberty specifically from the BS

[Edited on 23-5-2003 by Toltec]