Over 3 million dead

its a case of protecting their interests first

Are you telling me that all matters in the world need the UN's approval? What if the UN decided that it didn't need to intervene? Would you then hate on the UN the way you have the US. What if the US decided it would go in to stop the war in the Congo unilaterally, would you say the US is just going in to colonialize the region? I'm just wondering because I have read many of your posts in other threads and want your input.

Another case of the UN sitting on their a** and debating resolution after resolution and not doing anything. The same thing happened in Rwanda. That's why the US and others sometimes have to take the initiative rather than wait in an impotent UN. The humanitarian catastrophe would have been that same in the Balkins if the US hadn't stepped in. Note that these catastrophes are occuring in former French and Belgium colonies. Where are they?

have to do what we are now, go without their backing

Many people believed that Iraqis should handle this themselves. If they did, they would have the same civil war conditions that the Congo does. How would the UN decide that it was time to aid in a civil war? How is the distinction made?

I would hope it would be when enough countries (and I mean 2 at least) raise it up at the UN. As much as I love the US and all the good it's trying to do, I would rather have the UN which is comprised of many nations actually work together rather then against one another or when it's most beneficial for each of them.

It's funny how so many Iraqi's are packing up and heading back to Iraq now that it's being liberated. Families will be reunited, lost ties will be found. So much good can come out of this but people still want to blame the US for greed, money, OIL. Really bugs me.

The problem is that the UN cannot agree on anything quickly enough to prevent these humanitarian catastrophes. I see the UN going the same way as the League of Nations.

Same issue with the persecution of white farmers in Zimbabwe. Dictator, abusing his own people, creaming cash into slush funds.

The only difference - perceived justification and reward.

I dunno. Look at what it took to have something done in Yugoslavia. The UN is still in charge in Kosovo, if i am not mistaken.

In cases like the democratic republic of Congo, UN intervention would simply unite both warring factions against the incoming peacekeepers. It should be done, of course, and as soon as possible, but I don't think the world could stomach the bloodbath. If I am wrong, and they accepted the peacekeepers, how long would we stay? What would we use as proof of an end to hostilities?

In ex-soviet states, people were killing their neighbors; not neighboring communities, their 'next-door' neighbors. They committed war crimes on people they had lived beside peacefully for generations. Once soviet control was removed, they had nothing to hold them back. How do you combat rage and hate that simmers that long?

The UN and the world as a whole seems to have a Star Trek style 'prime directive' that states you can protect people, and you can render physical aid, but trying to change them culturally is anathema. This kind of genocidal aggression *IS* a cultural phenomenon. We are either gonna have to stomach a bit of political and cultural programming or face the eventual extinction of many ethnic groups around the world.

Usama bin Laden has been trying to install Taliban-style governments in several African states. Who in the fickle UN is gonna agree on which kind of 'culture' to program in? What kind of politics? Call it imperialism, or colonialism, but it is the only thing that will work. Look a what happened in Rwanda. That is what an adamant belief in 'cultural sovereignty' gets ya.

the UN, as it stands, was set up to deal with things in a different age. it's biggest achilles heel has always been anything that demanded immediate humanitarian intervention. i don't want to do away with the UN, but i think it's time that we got together and gave it a much needed overhaul .

bakerstreet: what African states are you talking about? Sudan? it´s the other way round: the spiritual leader of Sudan (Hassan Al-Turrabi) was the mentor of Bin Laden during his stay there. Sudan has been a dictatorship under Sharia law, before Bin Laden became the worlds most dangerous man.

Congo: the UN has failed there in the past. the whole intervention then was probably only about the territorial integrity of Congo as the more prosperous souther province of Katanga (copper and diamond mines) has seccessionist tendencies. as an end results they had a cruel pro-western dictator (Mobutu Sese Seko) and Congo (called Zaire then) had the highest per-capita champaign import of the whole world (no joke). the leaders of the world just hope nobody will care about Congo, there is nothing to gain anyways.

during the five years after the US stopped aiding Cambodia, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge reformed their society by murdering 2.4 million Cambodians. i don't even remember any world voices crying foul, and there wasn't a member nation in the UN that would have touched that one with a ten foot pole. the pendulum swung back toward center after many years, the KR are gone, and Cambodia is attemting to effect normalcy. the loss of those millions of Cambodians is a horrific loss, but for the life of me i can't think of a single thing that anyone could have done to successfully stop it.

moshi: it is pretty much common knowledge that we were fighting Al Queda in Somalia. Kenya, Tanzania, and Ethiopia have active terrorist populations connected with the government opposition. Unrest breeds chaos, chaos begs order, radical Islam provides order. It worked in Afghanistan. You mention the Sudan yourself, though like you say it is more a question of 'chicken or the egg'...

I have no doubt that you can fan out from there and find numerous states with active rebel populations that have sought assistance with either finance or training. The original hatred isn't the result of outside terrorist influence, but i have no doubt that it is at least partially fomented and materially supported by such.

Bangkokboy: unfortunately the Khmer Rouge are far from gone, they practically have their own state in Cambodia. They were bribed to sleep.

didn´t the Vietnamese (evil communists) did stop it in 1978?

strange constellations during the Cold War.

Vietnam: enemy of Khmer Rouge
China: enemy of Vietnam (since centuries)
USA: enemy of Vietnam

so the USSR supported Vietnam.
i´m sure it was a topic in the security council then, would be interesting to dig out who supported the Khmer Rouge back in those days.

"trying to install Taliban-style governments" is a little much though. there are rebel groups in each of these states (rather few in numbers), but i don´t see Taliban-style governments there soon. Somalia might be an exception, but then i don´t see any type of government in Somalia. the northern region (former Somaliland) looks a little better and those aren´t extremists.

moshi: /nod I think the goal is a weak or virtually non-existent secular government that can be substituted by Taliban style rule given years or decades as the population is converted or beaten into submission. Heck, the better part of Afghanistan hated the rules they lived under, but they tolerated it because the Taliban had enough muscle to enforce rule. I wonder how quickly places like Congo would fall into line if they considered it the only alternative to these roving militias.

I dunno how feasible it is in Africa proper, but bin Laden's view of 'how the world oughtta be' has never been a secret. No doubt there are many people that share his goals.

would look like your allies in Saudi-Arabia, but with less corruption

They aren't *my* allies. Remember, I am in the "Iraq first, next... THE WORLD!!" crowd

no, your in the "i believe my government tells the truth and the covenants are evil long-haired communists" crowd. so they are your allies. next target is Syria (or why else every government on this planet feels the need to let the world know that they won´t support this).

haven't seen an evil long-haired communist in years! they're still around?

Paxx, you want the UN to send troops to the Congo? To do what? To interfere using force? The mere threat of force alone usually doesn't work very well in such situations, generally it winds up needing to be used to some extent, even if only on a limited basis in the best case.

I'm a bit confused why you as a pacifist, given your other comments elsewhere, would advocate sending a military force into another country. Perhaps the UN is still waiting to see if given enough time diplomacy will work.

sig, UN have done peace keeping missions before.
I don't know what the answer would be. A few warning from the UN first, then maybe send some troops, not to invade or drop bombs. But to stop the war there. Not even sure any fighting would actually be necessary. It wouldn't be like another coutry invaded Congo, I'm sure the UN troops would be totally welcomed by most people. It's been done before. I remember Chipra. And yes, most of the time, peace keeping troops need to stay there for a while. 10, 15 years maybe.

In the other thread, when I was talking about World peace, and suggesting a Wold Peacekeeping force, this is specifically the kind of situation I see that International Peacekeepers being there for. Not to bring war, but to stop war and suffering.

Listen, I'm just totally agast by the number of victims. That's almost half the umber of jews who died in WW2! This is totally outrageous. I don't understand why it's not all over the news, or why it hasn't been before.
I must admit, suddenly, the war in Iraq seems so trivial anymore. I think the people of Congo deserves a least half the attention we seem to be giving to Saddam.

sig101: a thousand people died there last week, if not more. It is force or nothing. My bet is it will be nothing.

paxx: the situation wasn't much different in Somalia when we went there. We were not 'welcomed'. Black Hawk Down doesn't need a sequel. If anyone goes to help they should go fully prepared to cause a great deal of damage before they can help anyone.

P.S. the estimated number of people 'purged' by Stalin is around 40 million. Some say a lot more were killed in China. 'Millions' isn't all that odd, anymore. Try and tell that to people blocking traffic to protest what amounts to a police action in Iraq.