So generally, I'm disgusted when a country goes and invades other countries for economic reasons under the pretence of removing a threat/dictator/communism etc.
We're all aware of this kind of behaviour.
But when we have a genuine tragedy unfolding before us, and the world largely stands by and does very little compared to other conflicts, I have to ask why.
The crisis in Congo, has reached epic proportions.
Some estimates cite as many as 6 million deaths as a result of genocide > that's on level pegging with the Holocaust during WW2.
Bearing in mind, these are just estimates, the real number might be far higher.
And that's not mentioning the rape and torture, both of which are common.
There are 6 million deaths as a result of famine and disease caused by the conflict. Not as a result of direct genocide. Comparisons to the holocaust in that regard are way off the mark.
I also disagree with your assessment that the world has done very little compared to other conflicts. The Congo mission is the UN's largest peace-keeping mission ever. Certainly countries send less troops to Congo than they do to their own wars, but this is an unreasonable comparison.
There are 6 million deaths as a result of famine and disease caused by the conflict. Not as a result of direct genocide. Comparisons to the holocaust in that regard are way off the mark.
I also disagree with your assessment that the world has done very little compared to other conflicts. The Congo mission is the UN's largest peace-keeping mission ever. Certainly countries send less troops to Congo than they do to their own wars, but this is an unreasonable comparison.
It all depends on what sources you read. I hope that like you say, genocide isn't a large part of the conflict, but it's been widely reported that genocide has been well represented thus far. Even so, 6 million deaths makes this the worst conflict since W.W.2 > the reason you might hear it reported as; "Africa's World War"
For many years the UN was simply there in a peacekeeping role, but after coming under heavy criticism for its passivity during the fall of Goma to the M23 rebels in November 2012, the UN peacekeeping force was effectively given new teeth. It wasn't until the later part of 2013 that the UN force started to accompany the National Army to rout insurgents.
During the mid-2000's, Congo was often referred to as the world's most neglected humanitarian crisis.
Whilst what you say about the massive humanitarian effort (currently) is true, consider the difference that could be made if even a quarter of the amount of money that was spent on Afghanistan/Iraq was spent in Congo instead? Considering the massive death-toll in this conflict, I would suggest for many the aid was too little, too late.
1. The area isn't connected to larger areas that have a massive spill over effect
2. The area isn't held holy by billions of people
3. Oil
There's large concern for the area, but the lack of media coverage is mostly because of those two areas as compared to the Middle East.
I would argue point 1 is wrong. After the Rwandan genocides of the early 90's, where an estimated 800,000 Tutsi's were slaugthered, hundreds of thousands of refugees crossed the border into Congo, together with a number of Hutu génocidaires, soldiers and militiamen responsible for the mass killings.
The other two points are very cynical, and I must admit that given theories on recent wars for economic reasons, like Afghanistan & Iraq, you may have a point.
A massive foreign army in Congo isn't likely to stop the killing IMO, but I am quite surprised thus far, given the severity and scale of the conflict, that western nations haven't sent more troops to make a difference.
The country has been at war for so long that war, and the business of war, has become entrenched in the country. No different to the people who stand behind Mugabe in Zimbabwe, in Congo you have a large number of people who are effectively in positions of power who are profiting from the war, or want the war to continue for similar reasons.
My view on things is: Most countries which goes to war do it with for particular interests (economical, geopolitical, religious). The humanitarian reasons are there as a moral justification but war are 'projects' and they need return beyond those reasons. I think Congo simply lacks those kind of returns compared to the massive difficulties it presents.
Also, country will not spend a large fraction of it's budget in favor of non-citizens. If some government have a true humanitarian vein, they will engage in improving people's situations within it's own borders.
So generally, I'm disgusted when a country goes and invades other countries for economic reasons under the pretence of removing a threat/dictator/communism etc.
We're all aware of this kind of behaviour.
But when we have a genuine tragedy unfolding before us, and the world largely stands by and does very little compared to other conflicts, I have to ask why.
The crisis in Congo, has reached epic proportions.
Some estimates cite as many as 6 million deaths as a result of genocide > that's on level pegging with the Holocaust during WW2.
Bearing in mind, these are just estimates, the real number might be far higher.
And that's not mentioning the rape and torture, both of which are common.
So why isn't more being done?
It is in our nature to see to our own concerns firstly. Plus no one really knows about the atrocities going on there except for people like yourself that look past the media outlets.
It's always possible that Western companies only benefit from the fighting. Promising quick cash to a warlord in return for a good price and exclusive rights to rare ore isn't a far-fetched possibility.
You're actually dead on here. There are warlords who pay using opium and the like, but one of the sources they're generating cash for guns is through an ore called Columbite-tantalite - coltan for short - one of the world's most sought-after materials.
Refine coltan and you get a highly heat-resistant metal powder called tantalum. It sells for $100 a pound, and it's becoming increasingly vital to modern life. For the high-tech industry, tantalum is magic dust, a key component in everything from mobile phones made by Nokia (NOK) and Ericsson and computer chips from Intel (INTC) to Sony (SNE) stereos and VCRs.
Currently, outside Congo, there are few other places in the world that mine it....
My view on things is: Most countries which goes to war do it with for particular interests (economical, geopolitical, religious). The humanitarian reasons are there as a moral justification but war are 'projects' and they need return beyond those reasons. I think Congo simply lacks those kind of returns compared to the massive difficulties it presents.
Also, country will not spend a large fraction of it's budget in favor of non-citizens. If some government have a true humanitarian vein, they will engage in improving people's situations within it's own borders.
In this case, the country has descended into full-blown civil war. There are outside factors also, like the Rwandan Genocides of the 90's, but wars of this nature don't usually start because of govt. interests, more a case of a govt trying to stop the violence... and things escalate.
Look at the Malaysian Civil War following WW2, also known as the "Malayan Emergency". It's an example of guerrilla-style militia's bringing a country violence whether it wants to go to war or not. I have uncles who fought during that war, and the stories they tell are chilling.
It is a tragedy, no doubt. And, I haven't figured out how I feel on the topic, but out of curiosity: How do you feel about the idea of the US acting as the World Police?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH UBW Sharuum BR Olivia Voldaren UR Jhoira URG Riku U Vendilion Clique
How is the USA in such *****ty economic shape now that they have all of that Iraqi and Afghan oil from invading the countries?
Afghanistan doesn't have any significant oil reserves. Maybe that's the problem.
Then why does everyone keep telling me that's why the USA went in there? Is Bush just that incompetent?
Think of it as how Hollywood has the movie you have to make in order to make the movie you want to make. Afghanistan was the country he had to invade in order to invade the country he wanted to invade.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
How is the USA in such *****ty economic shape now that they have all of that Iraqi and Afghan oil from invading the countries?
Afghanistan doesn't have any significant oil reserves. Maybe that's the problem.
Then why does everyone keep telling me that's why the USA went in there? Is Bush just that incompetent?
Think of it as how Hollywood has the movie you have to make in order to make the movie you want to make. Afghanistan was the country he had to invade in order to invade the country he wanted to invade.
Part of it is: you don't intervene in something like this unless you can make it meaningfully better. Do we really believe we can fix the Congo with military intervention?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So generally, I'm disgusted when a country goes and invades other countries for economic reasons under the pretence of removing a threat/dictator/communism etc.
We're all aware of this kind of behaviour.
But when we have a genuine tragedy unfolding before us, and the world largely stands by and does very little compared to other conflicts, I have to ask why.
The crisis in Congo, has reached epic proportions.
Some estimates cite as many as 6 million deaths as a result of genocide > that's on level pegging with the Holocaust during WW2.
Bearing in mind, these are just estimates, the real number might be far higher.
And that's not mentioning the rape and torture, both of which are common.
So why isn't more being done?
I also disagree with your assessment that the world has done very little compared to other conflicts. The Congo mission is the UN's largest peace-keeping mission ever. Certainly countries send less troops to Congo than they do to their own wars, but this is an unreasonable comparison.
1. The area isn't connected to larger areas that have a massive spill over effect
2. The area isn't held holy by billions of people
3. Oil
There's large concern for the area, but the lack of media coverage is mostly because of those two areas as compared to the Middle East.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
It all depends on what sources you read. I hope that like you say, genocide isn't a large part of the conflict, but it's been widely reported that genocide has been well represented thus far. Even so, 6 million deaths makes this the worst conflict since W.W.2 > the reason you might hear it reported as; "Africa's World War"
For many years the UN was simply there in a peacekeeping role, but after coming under heavy criticism for its passivity during the fall of Goma to the M23 rebels in November 2012, the UN peacekeeping force was effectively given new teeth. It wasn't until the later part of 2013 that the UN force started to accompany the National Army to rout insurgents.
During the mid-2000's, Congo was often referred to as the world's most neglected humanitarian crisis.
Whilst what you say about the massive humanitarian effort (currently) is true, consider the difference that could be made if even a quarter of the amount of money that was spent on Afghanistan/Iraq was spent in Congo instead? Considering the massive death-toll in this conflict, I would suggest for many the aid was too little, too late.
I would argue point 1 is wrong. After the Rwandan genocides of the early 90's, where an estimated 800,000 Tutsi's were slaugthered, hundreds of thousands of refugees crossed the border into Congo, together with a number of Hutu génocidaires, soldiers and militiamen responsible for the mass killings.
The other two points are very cynical, and I must admit that given theories on recent wars for economic reasons, like Afghanistan & Iraq, you may have a point.
A massive foreign army in Congo isn't likely to stop the killing IMO, but I am quite surprised thus far, given the severity and scale of the conflict, that western nations haven't sent more troops to make a difference.
The country has been at war for so long that war, and the business of war, has become entrenched in the country. No different to the people who stand behind Mugabe in Zimbabwe, in Congo you have a large number of people who are effectively in positions of power who are profiting from the war, or want the war to continue for similar reasons.
Also, country will not spend a large fraction of it's budget in favor of non-citizens. If some government have a true humanitarian vein, they will engage in improving people's situations within it's own borders.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
It is in our nature to see to our own concerns firstly. Plus no one really knows about the atrocities going on there except for people like yourself that look past the media outlets.
You're actually dead on here. There are warlords who pay using opium and the like, but one of the sources they're generating cash for guns is through an ore called Columbite-tantalite - coltan for short - one of the world's most sought-after materials.
Refine coltan and you get a highly heat-resistant metal powder called tantalum. It sells for $100 a pound, and it's becoming increasingly vital to modern life. For the high-tech industry, tantalum is magic dust, a key component in everything from mobile phones made by Nokia (NOK) and Ericsson and computer chips from Intel (INTC) to Sony (SNE) stereos and VCRs.
Currently, outside Congo, there are few other places in the world that mine it....
In this case, the country has descended into full-blown civil war. There are outside factors also, like the Rwandan Genocides of the 90's, but wars of this nature don't usually start because of govt. interests, more a case of a govt trying to stop the violence... and things escalate.
Look at the Malaysian Civil War following WW2, also known as the "Malayan Emergency". It's an example of guerrilla-style militia's bringing a country violence whether it wants to go to war or not. I have uncles who fought during that war, and the stories they tell are chilling.
UBW Sharuum
BR Olivia Voldaren
UR Jhoira
URG Riku
U Vendilion Clique
Afghanistan doesn't have any significant oil reserves. Maybe that's the problem.
Then why does everyone keep telling me that's why the USA went in there? Is Bush just that incompetent?
Maybe the people telling you that are the ones who are incompetent.
Think of it as how Hollywood has the movie you have to make in order to make the movie you want to make. Afghanistan was the country he had to invade in order to invade the country he wanted to invade.
On phasing:
That seems reasonable to believe.