Ethnic cleansing in Africa

[Showtime]

Some sick stuff going on in the world.

"BUNIA, Democratic Republic of Congo (CNN) -- Red Cross workers recovered more than 230 bodies in the streets of blood-torn northeastern Congolese town of Bunia and gave them "a decent burial," a U.N. spokesman said Wednesday.
Most of them were civilians brutally killed in gruesome ethnic clashes this month amid reports of cannibalism. Some tribal fighters patrolling the streets of Bunia Wednesday had human organs hanging from their assault weapons, The Associated Press reported.........."

Full Story:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/africa...ing/index.html

Do we send troops/aid to stop ethnic cleansing there or is that something we only do when there's oil and stuff for us? Or is it a race thing? Or do we care?

I personally don't want to send any of our soldiers there.

-jel

[brainsmile]

that's so disturbing

[topane]

Originally posted by the jello is jigglin
Do we send troops/aid to stop ethnic cleansing there or is that something we only do when there's oil and stuff for us? Or is it a race thing? Or do we care?

I personally don't want to send any of our soldiers there.

I don't think it's necessarily a lack of oil, but I'm sure economic factors play into it. There's also our strategic interests. There's nothing fun in Africa to control so we'll just ignore it.

Should we send our troops there? I'm torn on that one. I think somebody should do something, but our armed forces are always involved in something, so someone else should take care of it (but no one will). Then again, if we invaded Iraq to "liberate its people" we should be doing the same thing in the Congo and elsewhere.

[Joshua]

When are they gonna run out of people over there? I mean, between aids, starvation, civil wars and ethnic wars, you'd think they'd be running low on people left to fight by now.

That's prolly what the U.N. is waiting for, let 'em all kill each other first, then the only ones left should be the peacefull ones. That's when you move in with the peace keepers and "save" the country.

[Joshua]

I doubt it, cuz knowing how they fight, they'd use them on each other before they were a threat to anyone else. Then you're back to my U.N. plan mentioned above.

Originally posted by DarkFury


Ummm... yeah.



Maybe if they build biological weapons... then we'll send someone down there.

[Joshua]

You got that right! Rock On GW! he he he...

<-- War monger.. Nothing on tv since the war ended...

[molecularfire]

Nah... what's the point of sending troops over there. Personally, I don't care if they kill each other. They've got nothing useful to us, and this doesn't look like it's going to escalate into something worse, so if a bunch of people die, who cares.
Personally, the only reason why I supported attacking Iraq was because they pissed us off and because they attacked our buddy a couple years ago.

[attgig]

what pisses me off more is that cnn doesn't see this as headline attracting or as newsworthy as a couple parents getting charged for the hazing incident in ill. so that on the front page of cnn.com has the hazing headline right on the top, but this article had to be dug out into the world section.

you know what...who really gives a **** about some loser, retarded surburbanites beating each other up. that's just stupid and let them work out that stupidity amongst themselves. news like this where we see anarchy and social injustice...this is the stuff that the media should be clamoring over and pushing onto the public as stuff that we need to be aware of as citizens.


and with the whole GW, should he send troops over...
they pose no threat to our national security, he probably won't do anything about it. but the UN. they should be doing more and asking more from all the UN members to aid in stabalizing not only the Congo, but many other war torn nations in Africa.

[brainsmile]

we have to keep in mind that news reporting is very unbiased

[Cantacuzene]

Well there is no oil and the people are not white so these unfortunate souls are 0 for 2.

[le_stick]

1) Russian and Chechneya <---- spelling
2) China and Tibet
3) India and Pakistan
4) India and Shri lanka <--- spelling
5) Indonesia and Tamil <--- spelling


and many many more low/high intensity level conflicts that are currently active!!!!

[sbp]

Congo is a nation endowed with vast potential wealth. Sadly, Congo is like many other African countries-it has been mismanagement for decades. Also it has been wartorn for years with forces from various surrounding African countries in there.
http://www.usatrade.gov/Website/CCG....CH-1:-005AC59C

Ethnic cleansing is happening and the UN does nothing with its thumb up its arse. Oh wait, with all the resolutions the U.N. passes on this issue, they can drop the paper on the Congo and suffocate everyone.

[Cantacuzene]

SBP, when recently has the US waited for the UN to get its act together on an issue. How is it that 6 months ago your side was basically ready to throw away the UN but now that it coems to other cases of human rights violations it suddenly isnt our business to get involved until the UN resolves it?

[Dave_7]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
SBP, when recently has the US waited for the UN to get its act together on an issue. How is it that 6 months ago your side was basically ready to throw away the UN but now that it coems to other cases of human rights violations it suddenly isnt our business to get involved until the UN resolves it?

I don't think he's speaking highly of the UN in his post. At least, how I read it.



Dave.

[Cantacuzene]

Oh I got that. My point was that in Iraq's case we were willing to act unilaterally, but in Congo's we are not.

[Joshua]

Well, like you said.. Poor country poor fanatical diseased people. What's in it for us?

Oh wait... Tanzenite! That's something they have that nobody else does... Unfortunately, Bin Laden owns 99% of the tanzenite mines in Africa... Scratch that idea.

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Oh I got that. My point was that in Iraq's case we were willing to act unilaterally, but in Congo's we are not.

[sbp]

"Stop fighting. I said stop fighting. I mean it this time. If you don't stop fighting the UN will have to pass a resolution to make you stop. If that doesn't work we'll pass another resolution. If that doesn't work we'll pass another, and another, and another..."

After the UN's dismal performance in screwing around with Iraq for years, it now has an opportunity to do something useful, show it is still relevant and semi-rehabilitate its well-justified woeful image.

[molecularfire]

The UN is doomed to be ineffective. The problem is that it's hard enough to get two countries (or two people for that matter) to agree on something, much less >100 odd countries. The only thing that matters in this world is power. Those countries that have it can do whatever they want, and those that don't, cant. Period. Unfortunately for Congo (I guess... fortunately, for those in power in Congo), they don't have anything that is useful to anyone that that country couldn't get it in another way with that country destabilized, so what's the point in doing anything about it.

As for the media issue... simply put, more people are interested in what a bunch of dumb rich kids do than what happens to a bunch of people in Africa. People are self-centered and selfish. What happened at that school, might get parents worried about whether that stuff could happen in their neighborhood, to their kids, etc... I don't know about you guys, but I've never really worried about what would happen if we started a program of genocide here.

[le_stick]

1) History written by the Victor(s)
2) Might makes right
3) Survival of the Fittest
4) Majority rules, with the exception of South Africa....
5) The richs get richer the poors get poorer and the middles income
have to work their a$$ off for the rich and pay tax to support the poor.....hehehee

By the way, even God requires one have to give up his/her live
in order for him/her to enter his kingdom of heaven!!!!
The bottom line, nothing is free...unless it FAR....

[Dave_7]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Oh I got that. My point was that in Iraq's case we were willing to act unilaterally, but in Congo's we are not.

I see.


Four things that Iraq had, that the Congo doesn't have:

1. Modern Military (read WMDs or the potential/history).
2. IMMENSE resources.
3. Close Proximity to Anti-American, International Hate/Terrorist Groups.
4. A ruthless and disgruntled, Anti-American dictator.


There are bigger fish to fry at the moment. Namely, N. Korea. Who has at least three of those four.

The potential threat from Iraq was relatively great compared to the Congo. Should the Congolese leaders be on our list... yes. They do not, however, pose such a threat to America or Americans like North Korea potentially does.

First things first.




Dave.

[Cantacuzene]

Dave, I agree with you exactly that those are teh reasons why we are not there. Which is why I'm all the more angry when conservatives say that we went to Iraq to liberate the people and end the human rights violations. Lets be honest and agree that we went to Iraq for the WMDs and when we didnt find them the conservatives witched their reason to human rights violations.

[Dave_7]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Dave, I agree with you exactly that those are teh reasons why we are not there. Which is why I'm all the more angry when conservatives say that we went to Iraq to liberate the people and end the human rights violations. Lets be honest and agree that we went to Iraq for the WMDs and when we didnt find them the conservatives witched their reason to human rights violations.

Well... my take is like this:

I think there were many reasons to go into Iraq. The WMDs were tops on my list. I still think we'll find evidence (but that's another thread). Another was the UN sanction violations. And yet another was the "liberation". All were good reasons, IMO.

What they latch onto is something that they can wave and say, "Look... doing what we did WAS good. See? And there WAS good reason." I think the rest of the evidence will come later (again, another thread).

I understand your frustration (being in general disagreement with conservatives). From where I stand, though, there were enough good-enough reasons to do what we did that trumpeting any proof is to be expected. Turns out... most of the proof coming out of Iraq initially, is proof of the human rights violations that have been put to an end. So beit.

I do see where you are coming from. If you didn't think that there were WMDs there or a threat of them, then I can understand your displeasure. I don't have any more proof than you do. But... I think in the coming months there will be evidence of such. Or maybe there won't. That's a possibility. If that's the case, the other reasons were still good enough for me.

It was the combination of them that put Iraq at the top of our list (I believe).



Dave.

[hang10wannabe]

Originally posted by topane
I don't think it's necessarily a lack of oil, but I'm sure economic factors play into it. There's also our strategic interests. There's nothing fun in Africa to control so we'll just ignore it.

Should we send our troops there? I'm torn on that one. I think somebody should do something, but our armed forces are always involved in something, so someone else should take care of it (but no one will). Then again, if we invaded Iraq to "liberate its people" we should be doing the same thing in the Congo and elsewhere.

yet another reason why we should have more of these planes... they would solve our problems...


but about this whole send troops over dilemma, i say we should send troops over there to "keep the peace" and only act if it continues occuring. but as of sending off a full off offensive, i dont think it will do much b/c this sort of thing is always occuring. all you need is a disgruntled man to gather a group of men and go on a killing spree. its only stoppable when and if a national government gets started.