How to ignore war

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | Wednesday, May 28, 2003

[vpintheak]

If the UN is relied upon, this conflict will never end.

[amused]

Another UN sucess story!

[RightWhale]

Between 3 million and 4 million Congolese, nearly all civilians, have died since the fighting began in 1998

Okay, this is horrendous. But is it accurate?

[BeAllYouCanBe]

OK, armed with our money and good intentions the UN moves in and does what?

Close the UN so liberals will stop believing in the "Global Santa Claus" all good and all knowing. Has there ever been a successful UN intervention?

[presidio9]

The CIA World Factbook lists the current (2002) population of Congo to be 2,958,448. So I tend to think that this number is high. Whatever it is, it is appalling.

[theFIRMbss]

>Tribal hatreds explain some but not all of the fighting. Once the outside armies roll back home, the locals remain, now armed with AK-47s, grenades and small rockets. The dangled riches connected with Congo's luxuriant mineral wealth inflame long-running tribal rivalries into unspeakable violence.

Why don't we give them
NFL expansion teams --
then they can take out

their old rivalries
through sport (and "unspeakable
violence" would still work...)

[TaxMe]

The "San Francisco Chronicle?" Excuse me, but what does this liberal rag suggest we do? If they want to be consistent, we should send in Hans Blix to try and negotiate a settlement. After all, force never solves anything.

[presidio9]

Poor Cogolese diet would produce too many cornerbacks, not enough guards & tackles.

[Drango]

going on five years

Chron should check it's fact before posting this nonsense. It can't be 5 years, Bush has only been in office 3 years and clearly he's to blame...!

[Billthedrill]

I love it when the "war is not the answer" guys end up tying themselves in rhetorical knots recommending - gasp! - troops. And making the appropriate noises in the direction of the thoroughly ineffectual UN while approving of non-UN-sanctioned interventions in the two neighboring countries. I guess as long as it isn't the U.S. doing it, it's OK.

[MisterMetternich]

The US ought to send Peacekeepers into the Congo, along with France, in order to prevent accusations of hypocrisy. If, after all, intervention was required in Iraq on humanitarian grounds, then the case for intervention in Congo is even stronger.

[netmilsmom]

President Bush is fighting a war on terror. Terror on our country. We didn't go to Afganistan or Iraq because they were fighting themselves.

We did squat to save the Rwandans, we will do squat here. The UN can handle it (about as well as they handled the Rwandans).

This is a horrible situation. We are a little busy, call the French, Germans or Russians. They can help. We'll just start a war for diamonds.

[Reeses]

The US ought to send Peacekeepers into the Congo, along with France, in order to prevent accusations of hypocrisy.

The US has significant national interests in Iraq, but nothing significant in the Congo, which is a French socialist mess. France not only didn't help us with Iraq, they actively hurt us. They should handle this one with their few friends.

[proxy_user]

You're mixing up two countries. This is the former Zaire, now the Democratic Republic of Congo, population 37.8 million. There is another country, called simply Congo, whose population is 2.2 million.

[Catalonia]

Chron should check it's fact before posting this nonsense. It can't be 5 years, Bush has only been in office 3 years and clearly he's to blame...!

Yes, the UN Security Council will do nothing constructive, and thus the U.S. (Bush) will be to blame for not dealing with the issue unilaterally (and by necessity ignoring France, Russia, and China, which will do nothing much, as usual). The blame hasn't happened yet, but it will. In fact, if I remember correctly, I saw Louis Farrakhan on C-SPAN at a reparations rally last year already blame the U.S. for not dealing with this civil war.

And yet when the UN Security Council was doing nothing constructive in Iraq, the U.S. (Bush) was being imperialistic for not dealing with the issue multilaterally (meaning that France, Russia, and China had to agree, which were doing nothing, as usual). And something tells me Louis Farrakhan was against the war, as well.

[presidio9]

My bad. The article WAS unclear on that though.

[MisterMetternich]

National Interests should be secondary considerations when dealing with situations that are as bad as this.

It isn't a "French Socialist mess" but an unfortunate product of Cold War proxy-fighting, if anything. It would simply be better to describe it as a "just-plain mess."

There is a moral imperative to do something.

Plus, it rather makes us look like cowards, when compared to the French. The problems all over Africa are massive in comparison to little dictators in the Middle East, and require both more bravery and subtlety. The US will look weak if it does not intervene.

[Catalonia]

The problems all over Africa are massive in comparison to little dictators in the Middle East ...

Sometimes the problems seem more 'terminal' than 'massive.' Sometimes I believe Africa truly is the 'hopeless continent.'

[toddst]

If, after all, intervention was required in Iraq on humanitarian grounds, then the case for intervention in Congo is even stronger.

We did not intervene for humanitarian reasons. Iraq was a terrorist threat to us and was preventing any chance for stability in the middle east.

We have no reason to intervene in the Congo. If France wants to send forces there, it's fine with me.You are the only one who seems to be concerned about hypocrisy. I doubt that's high on the priority list at the White House.

Oh, and welcome to FR - today - BTW.