Democratic Republic of the Congo
(Please note: I'm NOT saying whether we should/shouldn't intervene. This is just to start a debate.)
Whenever I discuss the world with people, it's always the same few things: Iran, Iraq, al Qaeda, and the genocide in the Sudan. Yes, all of those are urgent and pressing issues. But what about the Democratic Republic of the Congo? It's not only never discussed, it seems to be virtually ignored. The civil war there is the deadliest conflict since the end of World War II, and has killed even more people than the Sudanese civil war. Does no one care? Or do people care, but not want to intervene? I don't think we should send U.S. troops, per se, but something should be done. I find it sick an appalling how neocons, etc. go apeshit over Saddam's atrocities (which, admittedly, were no picnic), yet make no mention of the killings, rape, starvation, and chaos in the DRC.
So, I ask you: What, if anything, should be done? Does anyone even care?
Lacadaemon
19-02-2006, 07:40
No-one cares. As I have pointed out before on these forums, as a matter of international law, it is not genocide if it involves black people.
You only get genocide if it is whites.
Neu Leonstein
19-02-2006, 07:41
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MONUC
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,398470,00.html
Get cracking then! They need plenty more money and troops, and no one will turn them away.
If the resources are available, then action should be taken. It the right thing to do, afterall this is supposed to be the Century for Humanity.
No-one cares. As I have pointed out before on these forums, as a matter of international law, it is not genocide if it involves black people.
You only get genocide if it is whites.
Sickening, but sadly true. :(
No one cared about Rwanda just as no one cares about the wars going on throughout Africa. Shameful but there it is.
Sarkhaan
19-02-2006, 08:00
No-one cares. As I have pointed out before on these forums, as a matter of international law, it is not genocide if it involves black people.
You only get genocide if it is whites.
cynical, yet true. In Africa, you get "acts of genocide" but no genocide. I wonder, just how many acts of genocide makes it a genocide?
interestingly enough, the people carrying out genocide in the Congos are the same exact people who did them in Rwanda a decade ago.
Neu Leonstein
19-02-2006, 08:03
No one cared about Rwanda just as no one cares about the wars going on throughout Africa. Shameful but there it is.
Not "no one". Just not the West.
Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Uruguay, Nepal. All examples of non-Africa nations who have more than a thousand soldiers in the Congo to protect the civilian population.
Total Western troops there: 3 (French)
cynical, yet true. In Africa, you get "acts of genocide" but no genocide. I wonder, just how many acts of genocide makes it a genocide?
interestingly enough, the people carrying out genocide in the Congos are the same exact people who did them in Rwanda a decade ago.
Many of them are, yes. Plus, there were troops from at over eight other countries, and several different rebel groups.
The one good thing about the situation in the region, however, is that it led to the toppling of that mother fucker Mobutu.
Sarkhaan
19-02-2006, 08:06
Many of them are, yes. Plus, there were troops from at over eight other countries, and several different rebel groups.
The one good thing about the situation in the region, however, is that it led to the toppling of that mother fucker Mobutu.
yeah...after Rwanda ended, it would seem most escaped over the boarder, and continue to pursue their goal.
I'd say Mobutu deserved to be toppled...but I don't know if I'm willing to say that the costs are outweighing the benefits (they might, but I don't know enough about the situation to make that call)
yeah...after Rwanda ended, it would seem most escaped over the boarder, and continue to pursue their goal.
I'd say Mobutu deserved to be toppled...but I don't know if I'm willing to say that the costs are outweighing the benefits (they might, but I don't know enough about the situation to make that call)
I don't know either, but at least it's one good thing that's come out of this.
No-one cares. As I have pointed out before on these forums, as a matter of international law, it is not genocide if it involves black people.
You only get genocide if it is whites.
Plus, unlike oil, diamonds are valuable only if present in limited supply. I. e.: only if a constant number of people get murdered over them.