Posted on 01/20/2009 6:43:01 PM PST by nuconvert
KINSHASA, Congo – More than 1,500 Rwandan troops crossed the border into eastern Congo on Tuesday to join Congolese forces in an effort to oust Hutu rebels who participated in Rwanda's genocide and have long been at the heart of the region's conflict, officials said.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Get Some!
Obama will save them.
The Hutus have it coming bigtime.
If they will just unclench their fists. The One will reach out a hand of friendship.
crossed the border into eastern Congo on Tuesday to join Congolese forces in an effort to oust Hutu rebels who participated in Rwanda's genocide and have long been at the heart of the region's conflict, officials said.
yay.
Obama will save them.
___________________________
Related - interesting article. Feel free to post as its own if it’s not a dupe:
http://www.africa-agribiz-ppp.com/pf.asp?article_id=278&folder_id=243
A decade or two late...
“Obama will save them.”
That’s what should make us nervous. He’ll send an Army Division directly from Iraq to someplace in Africa.
Why am I afraid that American soldiers are soon going to be smack in the middle of Africa dealing with these stupid tribal wars??
Did you see my post # 9?
I agree. This guy is going to ruin our military.
Why am I afraid that American soldiers are soon going to be smack in the middle of Africa dealing with these stupid tribal wars??
_____________________
Biden has had a special interest in Africa for years and I’m sure it was a strong attraction for Obama. It wouldn’t surprise me if troops in Africa is one of the hardships or sacrifices we are hearing about right now, especially since Rangel said he would probably reintroduce the draft legislation following the stimulus package. I recently read an article which stated that Obama was focusing on Darfur, the Congo & Rwanda - and UN troops. How that all plays out remains to be seen.
Haven’t you been watching 24? Jack is back to save Africa.
Really, who cares if Africans kill each other? It’s been going on for decades. In fact, the fact is we haven’t intervened in an area that is richer than the Middle East—more than oil, the region is the world’s largest producer of cobalt ore; copper; industrial and gem diamonds; significant deposits of columbite-tantalite, (used in the fabrication of electronic components in computers and mobile phones); tin; Zinc; germanium; and gold.
This proves that we are in Iraq not for oil; if we wanted to secure the mineral resources of the future we would involve ourselves in Central Africa.
We should hope for a long and debilitating (but low intensity) war in Afghanistan, as it will tie down the military, demoralize the military leadership against interventions, and prevent them from being used in Africa.
We should hope for a long and debilitating (but low intensity) war in Afghanistan, as it will tie down the military, demoralize the military leadership against interventions, and prevent them from being used in Africa.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BULLSHIT!!!
IBTZ!!!TROLL!!!
Some Folks Here Have KIDS IN THE MILITARY!!!
I'm guessing that you have never fought in war.
My apologies. It was an unthinking comment based on a desire to see the US avoid a demoralizing intervention in a region where we have no business.
The point I was trying to make is that if we solely intervened in countries for economic reasons, intervening in Central Africa would make more sense than Iraq. But since we didn’t, the Iraq intervention had to be for other, non-economic reasons.
I don’t think we will intervene in Central Africa (as another commenter feared) for a number of reasons: lack of friendly countries from which to base operations; lack of internal infrastructure; jungle fighting; and inability to distinguish friend from foe.
One good thing Clinton did was NOT intervene in Rawanda during the Hutu/Tutsi conflict. I, for one, couldn’t figure out what side was good and who was evil. Even in Angola, no US troops were provided to either side (and that conflict was a proxy war during the Cold War).
As far as Zimbabwe goes, it was a democratically elected government by a minority of the population (the whites), and it was inevitable that it was going to change. Whites never comprised more than 5% of the country’s total population, but up to 1979 they never had less than 95% of the total vote in national elections. As it has been said on FR, elections don’t automatically make a democracy. It is tragic as to what has happened to Zimbabwe, given how rich the country is with minerals, but like most of Africa, that is why it is the way it is: greed over common sense.
Either Iraq or Central Africa would be fine IF we were intervening for economic reasons. BTW, my idea of economic intervention is going in to TAKE something we want that they have. Haven't done that for a while.
” . . . lack of friendly countries from which to base operations; lack of internal infrastructure; jungle fighting; and inability to distinguish friend from foe.”
Never stopped us before :)
The Hutu / Tutsi genocide is one of the few times Clinton SHOULD have intervened. Instead, his reluctance (cowardice?) after Mogadishu stopped the UN from reinforcing, rendering them impotent.
In April of 1979, the first fully democratic election in Zimbabwe history's occurred. Of the eligible black voters, 64% participated, braving the threat of terrorist attacks by Mr. Mugabe's Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front party. Bishop Abel Muzorewa of the United Methodist Church emerged victorious and became prime minister of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, as the new country was called. The Carter administration, led by the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Andrew Young, would have none of it. Mr. Young referred to Mr. Muzorewa, one of the very few democratically elected leaders on the African continent, as the head of a “neo-fascist” government. Mr. Carter refused to meet Mr. Muzorewa when the newly elected leader visited Washington to seek support from our country, nor did he lift sanctions that America had placed on Rhodesia as punishment for the colony's unilateral declaration of independence from the British Empire in 1965. Carter and Young would only countenance a settlement in which Mr. Mugabe, a Marxist who had repeatedly made clear his intention to turn Zimbabwe into a one-party state, played a leading role. The rest, as they say, is history.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.