Over 3 million dead
Tuesday, April 8, 2003 by paxx | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
Was reading this morning that over the last 4 years, some 3.3 million people died in Congo, as a result of the civil war going on there. Most died of malnutrition and deseases, but all due to the totally terrible conditions the country has been in for the last few years.
I know Iraq is a hot topic right now, but this seems to me to be a much greater problem that needs our (UN and other countries able of help) attention. What is the UN waiting for to send troops to stop that carnage? Why isn't anything done? More people are dying in Congo than during Saddam's reign of terror. Of course, the problem is totally different, but something needs to be done too. The number of casualties is totally insane.
I know Iraq is a hot topic right now, but this seems to me to be a much greater problem that needs our (UN and other countries able of help) attention. What is the UN waiting for to send troops to stop that carnage? Why isn't anything done? More people are dying in Congo than during Saddam's reign of terror. Of course, the problem is totally different, but something needs to be done too. The number of casualties is totally insane.
 |
|
Page 1 of 3 | |
|
|---|
Green Armani
Reply #2 Tuesday, April 8, 2003 12:11 PM
Reply #2 Tuesday, April 8, 2003 12:11 PM
Are you telling me that all matters in the world need the UN's approval? What if the UN decided that it didn't need to intervene? Would you then hate on the UN the way you have the US. What if the US decided it would go in to stop the war in the Congo unilaterally, would you say the US is just going in to colonialize the region? I'm just wondering because I have read many of your posts in other threads and want your input.
BoBoMoe
Reply #3 Tuesday, April 8, 2003 12:13 PM
Reply #3 Tuesday, April 8, 2003 12:13 PM
Another case of the UN sitting on their a** and debating resolution after resolution and not doing anything. The same thing happened in Rwanda. That's why the US and others sometimes have to take the initiative rather than wait in an impotent UN. The humanitarian catastrophe would have been that same in the Balkins if the US hadn't stepped in. Note that these catastrophes are occuring in former French and Belgium colonies. Where are they?
DarkMist
Reply #4 Tuesday, April 8, 2003 12:13 PM
Reply #4 Tuesday, April 8, 2003 12:13 PM
have to do what we are now, go without their backing
KarmaGirl
Reply #5 Tuesday, April 8, 2003 12:19 PM
Reply #5 Tuesday, April 8, 2003 12:19 PM
Many people believed that Iraqis should handle this themselves. If they did, they would have the same civil war conditions that the Congo does. How would the UN decide that it was time to aid in a civil war? How is the distinction made?
Green Armani
Reply #6 Tuesday, April 8, 2003 12:27 PM
Reply #6 Tuesday, April 8, 2003 12:27 PM
I would hope it would be when enough countries (and I mean 2 at least) raise it up at the UN. As much as I love the US and all the good it's trying to do, I would rather have the UN which is comprised of many nations actually work together rather then against one another or when it's most beneficial for each of them.
It's funny how so many Iraqi's are packing up and heading back to Iraq now that it's being liberated. Families will be reunited, lost ties will be found. So much good can come out of this but people still want to blame the US for greed, money, OIL. Really bugs me.
It's funny how so many Iraqi's are packing up and heading back to Iraq now that it's being liberated. Families will be reunited, lost ties will be found. So much good can come out of this but people still want to blame the US for greed, money, OIL. Really bugs me.
BoBoMoe
Reply #7 Tuesday, April 8, 2003 12:34 PM
Reply #7 Tuesday, April 8, 2003 12:34 PM
The problem is that the UN cannot agree on anything quickly enough to prevent these humanitarian catastrophes. I see the UN going the same way as the League of Nations.
_Martin_
Reply #8 Tuesday, April 8, 2003 12:43 PM
Reply #8 Tuesday, April 8, 2003 12:43 PM
Same issue with the persecution of white farmers in Zimbabwe. Dictator, abusing his own people, creaming cash into slush funds.
The only difference - perceived justification and reward.
The only difference - perceived justification and reward.
bakerstreet
Reply #9 Tuesday, April 8, 2003 12:47 PM
Reply #9 Tuesday, April 8, 2003 12:47 PM
I dunno. Look at what it took to have something done in Yugoslavia. The UN is still in charge in Kosovo, if i am not mistaken.
In cases like the democratic republic of Congo, UN intervention would simply unite both warring factions against the incoming peacekeepers. It should be done, of course, and as soon as possible, but I don't think the world could stomach the bloodbath. If I am wrong, and they accepted the peacekeepers, how long would we stay? What would we use as proof of an end to hostilities?
In ex-soviet states, people were killing their neighbors; not neighboring communities, their 'next-door' neighbors. They committed war crimes on people they had lived beside peacefully for generations. Once soviet control was removed, they had nothing to hold them back. How do you combat rage and hate that simmers that long?
The UN and the world as a whole seems to have a Star Trek style 'prime directive' that states you can protect people, and you can render physical aid, but trying to change them culturally is anathema. This kind of genocidal aggression *IS* a cultural phenomenon. We are either gonna have to stomach a bit of political and cultural programming or face the eventual extinction of many ethnic groups around the world.
Usama bin Laden has been trying to install Taliban-style governments in several African states. Who in the fickle UN is gonna agree on which kind of 'culture' to program in? What kind of politics? Call it imperialism, or colonialism, but it is the only thing that will work. Look a what happened in Rwanda. That is what an adamant belief in 'cultural sovereignty' gets ya.
In cases like the democratic republic of Congo, UN intervention would simply unite both warring factions against the incoming peacekeepers. It should be done, of course, and as soon as possible, but I don't think the world could stomach the bloodbath. If I am wrong, and they accepted the peacekeepers, how long would we stay? What would we use as proof of an end to hostilities?
In ex-soviet states, people were killing their neighbors; not neighboring communities, their 'next-door' neighbors. They committed war crimes on people they had lived beside peacefully for generations. Once soviet control was removed, they had nothing to hold them back. How do you combat rage and hate that simmers that long?
The UN and the world as a whole seems to have a Star Trek style 'prime directive' that states you can protect people, and you can render physical aid, but trying to change them culturally is anathema. This kind of genocidal aggression *IS* a cultural phenomenon. We are either gonna have to stomach a bit of political and cultural programming or face the eventual extinction of many ethnic groups around the world.
Usama bin Laden has been trying to install Taliban-style governments in several African states. Who in the fickle UN is gonna agree on which kind of 'culture' to program in? What kind of politics? Call it imperialism, or colonialism, but it is the only thing that will work. Look a what happened in Rwanda. That is what an adamant belief in 'cultural sovereignty' gets ya.
Bangkokboy
Reply #10 Tuesday, April 8, 2003 1:01 PM
Reply #10 Tuesday, April 8, 2003 1:01 PM
the UN, as it stands, was set up to deal with things in a different age. it's biggest achilles heel has always been anything that demanded immediate humanitarian intervention. i don't want to do away with the UN, but i think it's time that we got together and gave it a much needed overhaul .
moshi
Reply #11 Tuesday, April 8, 2003 1:10 PM
Reply #11 Tuesday, April 8, 2003 1:10 PM
bakerstreet: what African states are you talking about? Sudan? it´s the other way round: the spiritual leader of Sudan (Hassan Al-Turrabi) was the mentor of Bin Laden during his stay there. Sudan has been a dictatorship under Sharia law, before Bin Laden became the worlds most dangerous man.
Congo: the UN has failed there in the past. the whole intervention then was probably only about the territorial integrity of Congo as the more prosperous souther province of Katanga (copper and diamond mines) has seccessionist tendencies. as an end results they had a cruel pro-western dictator (Mobutu Sese Seko) and Congo (called Zaire then) had the highest per-capita champaign import of the whole world (no joke). the leaders of the world just hope nobody will care about Congo, there is nothing to gain anyways.
Congo: the UN has failed there in the past. the whole intervention then was probably only about the territorial integrity of Congo as the more prosperous souther province of Katanga (copper and diamond mines) has seccessionist tendencies. as an end results they had a cruel pro-western dictator (Mobutu Sese Seko) and Congo (called Zaire then) had the highest per-capita champaign import of the whole world (no joke). the leaders of the world just hope nobody will care about Congo, there is nothing to gain anyways.
Bangkokboy
Reply #12 Tuesday, April 8, 2003 1:48 PM
Reply #12 Tuesday, April 8, 2003 1:48 PM
during the five years after the US stopped aiding Cambodia, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge reformed their society by murdering 2.4 million Cambodians. i don't even remember any world voices crying foul, and there wasn't a member nation in the UN that would have touched that one with a ten foot pole. the pendulum swung back toward center after many years, the KR are gone, and Cambodia is attemting to effect normalcy. the loss of those millions of Cambodians is a horrific loss, but for the life of me i can't think of a single thing that anyone could have done to successfully stop it. 
bakerstreet
Reply #13 Tuesday, April 8, 2003 2:03 PM
Reply #13 Tuesday, April 8, 2003 2:03 PM
moshi: it is pretty much common knowledge that we were fighting Al Queda in Somalia. Kenya, Tanzania, and Ethiopia have active terrorist populations connected with the government opposition. Unrest breeds chaos, chaos begs order, radical Islam provides order. It worked in Afghanistan. You mention the Sudan yourself, though like you say it is more a question of 'chicken or the egg'...
I have no doubt that you can fan out from there and find numerous states with active rebel populations that have sought assistance with either finance or training. The original hatred isn't the result of outside terrorist influence, but i have no doubt that it is at least partially fomented and materially supported by such.
I have no doubt that you can fan out from there and find numerous states with active rebel populations that have sought assistance with either finance or training. The original hatred isn't the result of outside terrorist influence, but i have no doubt that it is at least partially fomented and materially supported by such.
bakerstreet
Reply #14 Tuesday, April 8, 2003 2:04 PM
Reply #14 Tuesday, April 8, 2003 2:04 PM
Bangkokboy: unfortunately the Khmer Rouge are far from gone, they practically have their own state in Cambodia. They were bribed to sleep.
moshi
Reply #15 Tuesday, April 8, 2003 2:05 PM
Reply #15 Tuesday, April 8, 2003 2:05 PM
didn´t the Vietnamese (evil communists) did stop it in 1978?
strange constellations during the Cold War.
Vietnam: enemy of Khmer Rouge
China: enemy of Vietnam (since centuries)
USA: enemy of Vietnam
so the USSR supported Vietnam.
i´m sure it was a topic in the security council then, would be interesting to dig out who supported the Khmer Rouge back in those days.
strange constellations during the Cold War.
Vietnam: enemy of Khmer Rouge
China: enemy of Vietnam (since centuries)
USA: enemy of Vietnam
so the USSR supported Vietnam.
i´m sure it was a topic in the security council then, would be interesting to dig out who supported the Khmer Rouge back in those days.
moshi
Reply #16 Tuesday, April 8, 2003 2:11 PM
Reply #16 Tuesday, April 8, 2003 2:11 PM
"trying to install Taliban-style governments" is a little much though. there are rebel groups in each of these states (rather few in numbers), but i don´t see Taliban-style governments there soon. Somalia might be an exception, but then i don´t see any type of government in Somalia. the northern region (former Somaliland) looks a little better and those aren´t extremists.
bakerstreet
Reply #17 Tuesday, April 8, 2003 2:23 PM
Reply #17 Tuesday, April 8, 2003 2:23 PM
moshi: /nod I think the goal is a weak or virtually non-existent secular government that can be substituted by Taliban style rule given years or decades as the population is converted or beaten into submission. Heck, the better part of Afghanistan hated the rules they lived under, but they tolerated it because the Taliban had enough muscle to enforce rule. I wonder how quickly places like Congo would fall into line if they considered it the only alternative to these roving militias.
I dunno how feasible it is in Africa proper, but bin Laden's view of 'how the world oughtta be' has never been a secret. No doubt there are many people that share his goals.
I dunno how feasible it is in Africa proper, but bin Laden's view of 'how the world oughtta be' has never been a secret. No doubt there are many people that share his goals.
moshi
Reply #18 Tuesday, April 8, 2003 2:28 PM
Reply #18 Tuesday, April 8, 2003 2:28 PM
would look like your allies in Saudi-Arabia, but with less corruption 
bakerstreet
Reply #19 Tuesday, April 8, 2003 2:32 PM
They aren't *my* allies. Remember, I am in the "Iraq first, next... THE WORLD!!" crowd
Reply #19 Tuesday, April 8, 2003 2:32 PM
They aren't *my* allies. Remember, I am in the "Iraq first, next... THE WORLD!!" crowd
moshi
Reply #20 Tuesday, April 8, 2003 2:37 PM
Reply #20 Tuesday, April 8, 2003 2:37 PM
no, your in the "i believe my government tells the truth and the covenants are evil long-haired communists" crowd. so they are your allies. next target is Syria (or why else every government on this planet feels the need to let the world know that they won´t support this).
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 1 of 3 | |
|
|---|
Reply #1 Tuesday, April 8, 2003 11:41 AM