Deadliest war since WW2

[Syntherio]

Several western countries were involved into the reign of Mobotu and into the coalition of Kabila. The current war started because of ressources: gold, oil, diamonds and coltan. Western nations had interest in them, not african - now saying it´s not our problem is like leaving Iraq and saying the same...

 

[Evil Tyrant]

The idea that the west must stop wars and somehow bring the world into a state of peace and harmony is foolish. The war may have begun because of western involvement, and that can be said of many of the world's troubles. But the people killing each other are Congolese, and they are doing it long after they should be officially at peace. If they do not know when to stop, that is not our problem is it? I think it is best to let them fight, peace is good, but the west is not a babysitter. If the Congo wants a true and lasting peace, it needs to do it of it's own accord.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Several western countries were involved into the reign of Mobotu and into the coalition of Kabila. The current war started because of ressources: gold, oil, diamonds and coltan. Western nations had interest in them, not african - now saying it´s not our problem is like leaving Iraq and saying the same...

African countries hadn't an interest in Congo's mineral wealth? One can only assume Kabila didn't know that when he bought the support of Angola, Namibia and Zimbabwe with mining rights and concessions ...

 

[Babbler]

I don't know what is to be done with the Congo. Send in more troops? Many of the problems we're seeing in Iraq would occur in an occupied Congo. Also, there have been alligation that UN peacekeepers are sexual abusing the women, just like the locals.

 

[Syntherio]

African countries hadn't an interest in Congo's mineral wealth? One can only assume Kabila didn't know that when he bought the support of Angola, Namibia and Zimbabwe with mining rights and concessions ...

And what do they do with it? They sell it to the West. Or do you think, african nations have a flourish electronic industrie or masses of automobiles, which need gasoline?

 

[Xenocrates]

The Belgians killed 10 million in the Congo 100 years ago. It was the biggest holocaust in history.

There's an article here about it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/congo/story/0,12292,765632,00.html

Shocking claims - often well documented - that 10 million Congolese were either murdered or worked to death by Leopold's private army, that women were systematically raped, that people's hands were cut off and that the local populace endured kidnapping, looting and village burnings, have never been the subject of serious debate in Belgium, let alone brought an apology.

I think, as others have said, that the best thing we could do for the Congo is to build a wall around it and stop foreigners from interfering in there. The war would end on it's own, like Sudan and Somalia if no one from outside could profit from it.

 

[The Last Conformist]

And what do they do with it? They sell it to the West. Or do you think, african nations have a flourish electronic industrie or masses of automobiles, which need gasoline?

Yeah, because everyone knows that the West is the only part of the world that uses cobalt, copper, or gasoline.

 

[Fox Mccloud]

Congo's simmering conflict has killed 4 million

I've heard that some of the Vietnam wars casualties may possibly be as high as 5 million, but it is impossible to know for sure.

Still, if this really is the worse since WWII, then that gives you an idea of how huge WWII is, with 60 million casualties.

 

[Fox Mccloud]

The Belgians killed 10 million in the Congo 100 years ago. It was the biggest holocaust in history.

The German WWII holocaust was bigger. The 6 million figure you always here about is just the number of Jews. The total number exceeds even that.

 

[blackheart]

The idea that the west must stop wars and somehow bring the world into a state of peace and harmony is foolish. The war may have begun because of western involvement, and that can be said of many of the world's troubles. But the people killing each other are Congolese, and they are doing it long after they should be officially at peace. If they do not know when to stop, that is not our problem is it? I think it is best to let them fight, peace is good, but the west is not a babysitter. If the Congo wants a true and lasting peace, it needs to do it of it's own accord.

You fail to see they continue fighting to claim the land and resources, which they can then sell to other nations. In this case, probably Western nations.

 

[Kozmos]

You fail to see they continue fighting to claim the land and resources, which they can then sell to other nations. In this case, probably Western nations.

KA CHING! *sniffs* Ah Capitalism!

 

[amadeus]

The key to avoiding being called racist imperialists is simply to get some sort of consensus before you do anything.

Who exactly needs to be a part of this "consensus?"

France? Germany? Russia? Brazil? India? South Africa? Mexico? Spain? Nigeria? China? Australia?

 

[amadeus]

How about we send in a multinational peacekeeping force to restore order?

Somalia.

And how about we do it for the sake of restoring people's lives and acting in the good faith of mankind instead of just material gain?

Somalia.

If you don't learn from history, you're doomed to repeat it, right? Intervening with "peacekeeping" and "humanitarian" missions only lead to disaster. Whether it's our helicopters being shot down in Mogadishu or the mighty blue helmets trading a box of bananas for sex slaves, it's going to be a mess.

 

[Evil Tyrant]

You fail to see they continue fighting to claim the land and resources, which they can then sell to other nations. In this case, probably Western nations.

Is it our fault they cannot figure out how to split up the proceeds from the sale? To use an analogy, if you and I were to open a restaurant, would the customers be obligated to intervene if we had a disagreement over how to split the profits? No, it is their obligation to pay the restaraunt for the goods received, and if the owners cannot agree on how to divide it, that is something the owners must settle between themselves.

 

[blackheart]

Somalia.

If you don't learn from history, you're doomed to repeat it, right? Intervening with "peacekeeping" and "humanitarian" missions only lead to disaster. Whether it's our helicopters being shot down in Mogadishu or the mighty blue helmets trading a box of bananas for sex slaves, it's going to be a mess.

A few hundred Ranger's hardly counts as a peackeeping force, especially since they were doing more combat operations than actual peacekeeping. Where does NOT intervening lead us?

 

[Uiler]

I've heard that some of the Vietnam wars casualties may possibly be as high as 5 million, but it is impossible to know for sure.

Still, if this really is the worse since WWII, then that gives you an idea of how huge WWII is, with 60 million casualties.

Well, half of the 60 million casulties in WWII were from only two countries - the Soviet Union and China. They were the two most populous nations in the world, the fighting was on their home turf because they were being invaded, the people invading were ruthless "kill everyone including women and children" "we are the superior race" murderers and their own leaders didn't care much about casulties. Put it all together...

 

[Stylesjl]

Well considering I didn't actually make a suggestion of how to, much idealistic to being with...

Send a large military peacekeeping force, start up trials of those involved, etc. I really don't see how sending a competent military force would make the situation worse to a country that's already been devestated and women a raped daily. Do you?

Giving aid is obviously NOT helping.

My point was that people always post these articles about terrible things happening and ask people to do something about it. This war is a lot more complex then what a western intervention can acheive.

I say let them duke it out, its their own bloody problem

 

[blackheart]

My point was that people always post these articles about terrible things happening and ask people to do something about it. This war is a lot more complex then what a western intervention can acheive.

I say let them duke it out, its their own bloody problem

Except for the past decade or so they've been duking it out with encouragement and subtle pushes from western influence. The status quo isn't working so either we leave altogether and let them fend for themselves or enter it full force, not dabble on the outskirts with support.

Is it our fault they cannot figure out how to split up the proceeds from the sale? To use an analogy, if you and I were to open a restaurant, would the customers be obligated to intervene if we had a disagreement over how to split the profits? No, it is their obligation to pay the restaraunt for the goods received, and if the owners cannot agree on how to divide it, that is something the owners must settle between themselves.

Civil wars are bad for business. Bringing stability and peace would increase the productivity of the region.

 

[JerichoHill]

Capitalism is not the cause of this war. Please remember that most African countries adopted Socialism and were supported by aid from the USSR until its decline and death. Now, without proper institutions in place, several countries are in states of war.

This is mainly due to the African countries being rich in natural resources, which can be extracted and sold for profit. The government can control these resources and profit from them, without regard to the people's well being.

That, above all else, is the problem that Africa faces. The way to solve it? The government must get its funding from the people. That requires huge investments into infrastructure, development, and the like. Such cannot occur in such a politically unstable environment. And we, the West (the US) should not attempt to bring about this environment. We're great at kicking butt and taking names and winning wars, but we can't nation build worth a damn.

Sadly, its going to take alot more deaths and wars in the Congo to bring about some form of stable government. Then, and only then, will we really be able to help them.

For more information on why natural resources pose such problems for government's accountability to its citizens (and why such governments are normally exploitative), please read Fareed Zakaria's "The Future of Freedom"

--CFC Economist Du Jour

 

[Leonel]

I once saw a History Channel documentary on mercenaries in Africa and how 100 mercenaries accomplished something a national army couldn't do and took on 10,000 absolutely newbie rebels without suffering a casualty. I believe this was in Angola and the United Nations ordered these mercenaries out just as the rebel's were being put on the spot. Then something like 1000 United Nation soldiers couldn't do a single thing.

If these governments can train very well a stable army, or the United Nations generate some kind of revenue to hire mercenary companies to actually put down various rebellions, then they'd be in a good position to rebuild.

And blaming capitalism on the conflict is like blaming Jodie Foster for Ronald Reagen's attempted assassination.