Deadliest war since WW2

[tomsnowman123]

If planned and executed systematically I see no problem.

Yes, we all know that our current administration is great at strategic war planning.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

I don't recall any outrage over the interventions in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo (well, maybe over Kosovo from the Left), but that was a NATO operation as much as an American one). The difference being that the first three operations at least had UN assent; I suppose that you don't include Iraq as an example of the US trying to "help".

The right doesn't do street protests like the left does, but plenty of people were upset at us playing 'world cop' in places we had no business being in the first place. I could find you links if you like.

Former Yugoslavia was a bit different with the EU involvement and functioning governments, infrastructure, etc.

Despite our efforts how are Somalia and Haiti today? Can we really expect different results in the Congo?

The Congo, and this world, are only truly lost if nobody bothers to try and save them.

The Congo has been messed up for hundreds of years and I don't see anything changing there anytime soon. I doubt that it staying the way it is will somehow cause the downfall of the rest of the world. If they all died how would it really affect you and I? Higher diamond prices?

 

[jameson]

Well, the Battle of Mogadishu in Somalia originally involved only US troops, we eventually got Pakistan and Malaysia to send troops to help after the operation failed to go as planned. The failure in Somalia helped lead a shift in American politics and thinking, as those in favor of military intervention in other third world countries decreased in number, many people wanted to just stay out of other problems.

I'd argue that Somalia is an argument against badly planned and executed interventions, not against interventions per se. From what I recall, it only went south after the peacekeeping force started taking sides in the local conflicts and tried to bring down the warlords.
The troops from Pakistan and Malaysia were already present in Mogadishu of course as part of the UN peacekeeping forces; they got involved because the US troops (part of the same force) were under attack. I'm not sure what your point is there.

There are so many countries in the world with problems (besides ours) we can't go around trying to "fix" all of them. (By fixing I mean trying to force our Democratic belief system upon them.)

I'm under no illusions that we can fix all countries with problems, I merely think we have a moral duty to at least try and stop wholesale slaughter taking place.

 

[jameson]

The Congo has been messed up for hundreds of years and I don't see anything changing there anytime soon. I doubt that it staying the way it is will somehow cause the downfall of the rest of the world. If they all died how would it really affect you and I? Higher diamond prices?

No, that would be if people were still dying in Sierra Leone.
The Congo has been messed up by King Leopold and the Belgians, it's been in a state of war only in the 1960s and in the last decade (in the meantime, of course, they had Mobutu. But even he didn't kill people by the millions).

Who cares if it affects you and I though ? I hope we do not care for people only inasmuch as their fate affects our own narrow self-interest.

 

[garric]

Let me get this straight, liberals want us to invade the Congo, yet, complain about what happened in Iraq? That's so foolish I can't explain it, so hipocritical.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

I'm under no illusions that we can fix all countries with problems, I merely think we have a moral duty to at least try and stop wholesale slaughter taking place.

Would you be willing to go fight in the Congo? Would you be willing to do a tour there in an effort to keep the peace? Would you be willing to send your kids to fight there? If your kid came back in a body bag fighting over the Congo would that be O.K. with you?

I'm not trying to pick on you but I think the average American would answer the above questions with a resounding NO.

IMHO I don't see us as having any moral duty to try to fix such a unfixable mess. We have a finite amount of resources to devote to the betterment of everyone else so why not spend those resources where they may actually have some long-term results and not just be lost in a bottomless pit?

 

[tomsnowman123]

The troops from Pakistan and Malaysia were already present in Mogadishu of course as part of the UN peacekeeping forces; they got involved because the US troops (part of the same force) were under attack. I'm not sure what your point is there.

I was merely saying that the original military strike involved only US troops, nobody else, and that it failed.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Would you be willing to go fight in the Congo? Would you be willing to do a tour there in an effort to keep the peace? Would you be willing to send your kids to fight there? If your kid came back in a body bag fighting over the Congo would that be O.K. with you?

I'm not trying to pick on you but I think the average American would answer the above questions with a resounding NO.

And I think that is probably correct.

We have a finite amount of resources to devote to the betterment of everyone else so why not spend those resources where they may actually have some long-term results and not just be lost in a bottomless pit?

I agree, I just don't see how involvement in Congo would have all that positive of an outcome.

Let me get this straight, liberals want us to invade the Congo, yet, complain about what happened in Iraq? That's so foolish I can't explain it, so hipocritical.

That's the same argument that I used earlier, except I think you can apply it to more than just liberals. There are many people who support direct intervention in Congo through military means.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

I agree, I just don't see how involvement in Congo would have all that positive of an outcome.

I think we are agreeing. I see the Congo as a waste of our limited resources too as I don't see much chance of long-term peace there without a prolonged Western presence to enforce it.

 

[blackheart]

Let me get this straight, liberals want us to invade the Congo, yet, complain about what happened in Iraq? That's so foolish I can't explain it, so hipocritical.

Are you referring to me? Because I am not a liberal, nor was I against the initial invasion of Iraq.

I'm under no illusions that we can fix all countries with problems, I merely think we have a moral duty to at least try and stop wholesale slaughter taking place.

Exactly. Why do we sit back and let massacres and mass-rape occur when we can do something about it? Doesn't anything compel people to help others?

Say we did invade the Congo, would you be willing to be drafted to fight there? The place is likely to go the way of Vietnam, with a lot of jungle fighting and guerilla warfare. As can be seen by the present situation, the natives are a tenacious bunch, willing to fight long and hard. Our army is stretched thin just by a country like Iraq, which is relatively easy to occupy compared with the Congo. Then we come to the economics of the matter, the government is already in heavy debt, and invasion would cost money likely to run to the billions and higher. And this is just the Congo, you could probably dig up dozens of countries with similar problems and backgrounds. Happy Crusading.

I'd rather command than be drafted, especially given the current administration's knack for war planning. I'm not even suggesting America itself invade, as given by the history of the American military in such a situation. Economically, some governments could probably underwrite it with pressure exerted from corporations who would want an interest in its resources (we already do it in Iraq, so why not?). And somehow I doubt there are a dozen other countries where such anarchy and lawlessness thrive.

 

[amadeus]

Well, the Battle of Mogadishu in Somalia originally involved only US troops, we eventually got Pakistan and Malaysia to send troops to help after the operation failed to go as planned.

I don't think the Somalis said "hey...the Malaysians are on their side! Well, I think this changes everything. Drop your arms, boys. That's it. Let's go home. The war's over."

The people responsible for the situation in Somalia are the Somalis. They didn't want us there, Malaysia helping us or not.

 

[blackheart]

The people responsible for the situation in Somalia are the Somalis. They didn't want us there, Malaysia helping us or not.

No, the people responsible are the militias, the Somali civilians just wanted to be left in peace.

And since when have we cared what other people wanted in contrast to our own?

 

[Evil Tyrant]

I'd rather command than be drafted, especially given the current administration's knack for war planning.

Everyone would like to command, but very few actually do.

I'm not even suggesting America itself invade, as given by the history of the American military in such a situation. Economically, some governments could probably underwrite it with pressure exerted from corporations who would want an interest in its resources (we already do it in Iraq, so why not?).

Someone is going to have to send at least a hundred thousand troops and billions of dollars. When last heard Iraq has cost somewhere along the lines of 300billion dollars, and has contributed heavily to our already impressive national debt. Do we want to add the expense of a war that is not our own on top of the wars we are already engaged in? Of course the US will not be doing it alone, but I have a strong suspicion that we will somehow end up with the brunt of the fighting.

And somehow I doubt there are a dozen other countries where such anarchy and lawlessness thrive.

You are right, such complete absence of even a semblance of law and order is somewhat rare, but the list of countries that are having problems due to western intervention is very long.

the people responsible are the militias, the Somali civilians just wanted to be left in peace.

I must confess I find this statement somewhat mystifying. When last heard a militia is composed of civilians. When a time of crisis pops up, they break out the family AK-47 and fight along with everyone else.

 

[Winner]

Well, in my opinion, the only thing that really can help Africa is 1 million European troops restoring the colonial rule.

Africa has received immense amounts of financial aid, several times more than Europe after World War 2. And look where is Europe and where Africa ended up.

The most ironic thing is, that the only really prosperous African country was ruled by white racists. And no, I am not implying that you need white man to rule in order to make that continent prosperous, you just need someone who is not totally corrupted. AFAIK the living standard has fallen since the end of colonial rule, not even mentioning all that wars, genocides, famines etc., the products of new, free Africa.

 

[Winner]

At least somebody is trying to do something...

Germany set for DR Congo mission

The German parliament has given the go-ahead for up to 780 soldiers to be sent to the Democratic Republic of Congo ahead of elections in July.

The troops will be part of a 2,000-strong European Union peacekeeping mission.

The government, which has a majority in the Bundestag, said the mission was crucial for the stability of Africa.

German media and opposition politicians have raised strong misgivings about the deployment plan.

But German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told MPs recently that only stabilising DR Congo could prevent the region sinking into a new phase of violence.

The country's legislative and presidential elections will be the first since independence in 1960 and come after five years of civil war that claimed three million lives.

Mr Steinmeier warned that if elections failed, there would be a new stream of refugees.

The plan to send the German troops was approved by 440 votes to 135 in the Bundestag, with six abstentions.

German troops have served in several United Nations and EU peacekeeping missions, notably in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Kosovo.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/5036746.stm

 

[Syntherio]

I doubt 2,000 soldiers will be enough. Thats more a PR-Gag then an attempt to help.

 

[Winner]

I doubt 2,000 soldiers will be enough. Thats more a PR-Gag then an attempt to help.

It is not enough, but it is something. At least some areas will be safe for a while.

 

[tomsnowman123]

I don't think the Somalis said "hey...the Malaysians are on their side! Well, I think this changes everything. Drop your arms, boys. That's it. Let's go home. The war's over."

The people responsible for the situation in Somalia are the Somalis. They didn't want us there, Malaysia helping us or not.

I wasn't saying that the Malaysians changed the battle. I was just making the point that the original strike team consisted of only US troops, and that we eventually had to get troops from two other countries to help.

I don't think hardly any of the Somalians wanted us there.

 

[puglover]

We can't help Africa. If we get involved, there will only be more bloodshed. The solution needs to start with people's hearts, not global conflict. Their own government needs to provide peace, we can't do it artifically.

Lets hope time heals these wounds.

 

[JerichoHill]

Areas won't be safe because of peace-keepers, because of the rules of engagement.