[fluff]

Now this is a place where humanitarian intervention really could be justified:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4586832.stm

The scale of the suffering in this part of Africa is probably worse than anywhere else in the world but goes basically unreported for much of the time.

 

[stinkyboy]

[Insert Kanye West quote here]

 

[Reactor]

It will never happen. There is no strategic interest, and every troop we can mobilize is in Iraq. If the POTUS really cared about people dying, we'd be there.

 

[Andyman_1970]

How come the Christian right / republicans (with their Christian morals and values) aren't stepping up to the plate???

Read me quote on the "movie" thread on here, but Jesus was pretty serious in His teachings about taking care of those who are in need, and what happens to those who ignore it.

Oh but I forgot, this is a "Christian" nation..........

 

[N8 v2.0]

It will never happen. There is no strategic interest, and every troop we can mobilize is in Iraq. If the POTUS really cared about people dying, we'd be there.

Rwanda..

 

[Tenchiro]

I am sure that much like Rwanda, we as a nation will only be outraged after the fact. And even then only after Oprah does a special on it.

It is sad, but nobody gives a damn about Africa.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Still waiting for the republican (the guardians of all things moral, just and right) to do something about this...............









I'm sure I'll be waiting for a long time....................

 

[stinkyboy]

Still waiting for the republican (the guardians of all things moral, just and right) to do something about this...............









I'm sure I'll be waiting for a long time....................

"It's hard work"...

 

[DRB]

It will never happen. There is no strategic interest, and every troop we can mobilize is in Iraq. If the POTUS really cared about people dying, we'd be there.

How come the Christian right / republicans (with their Christian morals and values) aren't stepping up to the plate???

Read me quote on the "movie" thread on here, but Jesus was pretty serious in His teachings about taking care of those who are in need, and what happens to those who ignore it.

Oh but I forgot, this is a "Christian" nation..........

Why the US? Why not France or Russia or China? Or Iran or North Korea?

Or maybe, and I know this is a stretch, the UN.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Because we shoot our mouth off as being some kind of becon of light and freedom in the world, not to mention all the conservative Christian repub types who decry we were a nation founded on Christian values and how they long for the return to said values.

So if Jesus places and emphasis on helping the poor and hungry, and we claim (or large vocal portions of our nations claim), and our president (who claims to be a Christian himself) claims that the US is a Christian nation then why the heck aren't we doing anything about this tragedy??

Or are the conservatives just using the conservative Christians even though they really don't share Christian values other than they oppose abortion???

 

[Damn True]

Why the US? Why not France or Russia or China? Or Iran or North Korea?

Or maybe, and I know this is a stretch, the UN.

Yes, yes. The UN should pass a resolution. That will surely settle the whole thing.

No other country has the stomach for it, and we don't have the interest.

Remember Somalia? We pulled out of there because "hard work and sacrifice" became a political liability. Nobody cared then that people were dying left and right when after we left. And nobody cares now.

Should we go?
Damn right we should. But so should any number of other countries that don't have their hands full right now. France, Germany...you listening?

Will we?
Nope.

Will anyone else?
Nope.

 

[Tenchiro]

Because we shoot our mouth off as being some kind of becon of light and freedom in the world, not to mention all the conservative Christian repub types who decry we were a nation founded on Christian values and how they long for the return to said values.

I think they mean the witch burning, culture obliterating Christianity of long ago.

Nobody expects the Spanish inqusition!

 

[ohio]

Why the US? Why not France or Russia or China? Or Iran or North Korea?

Or maybe, and I know this is a stretch, the UN.

Because we care. I don't care if they do or don't. How about just being a good person and doing the right thing regardless of what others are doing?

Not directly related, I know, but if we are going to claim all sorts of noble justifications (bringing freedom, saving lives, ending oppressive and murderous regimes) to expend billions on our efforts overseas we should at least align those efforts and expenditures with the claims.

 

[Andyman_1970]

I think they mean the witch burning, culture obliterating Christianity of long ago.

Not a real accurate image of what being a follower of Jesus is all about..............

Nobody expects the Spanish inqusition!

Nice.............

 

[Ciaran]

Because we care. I don't care if they do or don't. How about just being a good person and doing the right thing regardless of what others are doing?

That is a VERY unpopular opinion. One that I wholeheartedly agree with.

Why should you share and help others? Because you can. Because you would want someone to help you if you were in that situation!

Annoy a Republican: Get a job, succeed, be happy. Help others to do the same.

 

[Damn True]

Because we care. I don't care if they do or don't. How about just being a good person and doing the right thing regardless of what others are doing?

Not directly related, I know, but if we are going to claim all sorts of noble justifications (bringing freedom, saving lives, ending oppressive and murderous regimes) to expend billions on our efforts overseas we should at least align those efforts and expenditures with the claims.

We tried that in Somalia. When it stopped being politically expidient we got soft.

By "we" I mean the administration at the time.

 

[Reactor]

Why the US? Why not France or Russia or China? Or Iran or North Korea?

Or maybe, and I know this is a stretch, the UN.

Agreed. But we are one of the few countries left with an offensive military capable of large scale deployments. And We go around presenting ourselves as the cop of the planet, and of course we did just invade two other countries......

 

[Damn True]

Annoy a Republican: Get a job, succeed, be happy. Help others to do the same.

That sort of thing annoys liberals. Republicans are rather in favor of it.

 

[Ciaran]

That sort of thing annoys liberals. Republicans are rather in favor of it.

Republicans don't help anyone but themselves and their rich friends.

It was a response to N8's sig.

 

[DRB]

Because we care. I don't care if they do or don't. How about just being a good person and doing the right thing regardless of what others are doing?

Not directly related, I know, but if we are going to claim all sorts of noble justifications (bringing freedom, saving lives, ending oppressive and murderous regimes) to expend billions on our efforts overseas we should at least align those efforts and expenditures with the claims.

Nice dodge.

All the others claim they care to.

 

[ohio]

Nice dodge.

All the others claim they care to.

No it wasn't a dodge. The point is EVERYONE claims to care, and no one backs up those claims with properly aligned actions.

If we actually care, we will take actions regardless of other nations actions. Their words being empty doesn't give us an excuse for ours to be just as empty.

That would at least put us on the moral high-ground to start pressuring others with spare resources to put their money where there mouth is. Right now, we're just in a cycle of finger pointing... "well he doesn't have to do it, so why should I?" Doesn't this strike you as childish?

 

[ohio]

We tried that in Somalia. When it stopped being politically expidient we got soft.

By "we" I mean the administration at the time.

Again, does that make it any better that we're doing the same now? Does your hatred of Clinton run so deep that you would let it blind you to the present situation 10 years later?

We can argue until we're blue in the face about historical precedent or which president was worse, or which countries are more hypocritical... none of it will make a ****ing lick of difference about what is the right thing to do right now.

 

[Changleen]

Actually I think if you take a closer look at what China is doing, you might be suprised...

Anyway...

DT, what you tried to do in Somalia has little or no resembalence to what needs to be done in the Congo. The fighting is largely over and there are 17,000 UN troops in there right now, keeping and extending that peace. UN resolutions have already been passed, which is why they are there. See the UN does get things done if idiots don't veto every little thing.

 

[LordOpie]

what's china doing?

 

[Damn True]

Again, does that make it any better that we're doing the same now? Does your hatred of Clinton run so deep that you would let it blind you to the present situation 10 years later?

We can argue until we're blue in the face about historical precedent or which president was worse, or which countries are more hypocritical... none of it will make a ****ing lick of difference about what is the right thing to do right now.

You misunderstand. I fully supported Clinton going into Somalia and I would fully support going into the Congo.

I just don't think we'll do it, and I know nobody else will. Sad.

 

[Damn True]

Actually I think if you take a closer look at what China is doing, you might be suprised...

Anyway...

DT, what you tried to do in Somalia has little or no resembalence to what needs to be done in the Congo. The fighting is largely over and there are 17,000 UN troops in there right now, keeping and extending that peace. UN resolutions have already been passed, which is why they are there. See the UN does get things done if idiots don't veto every little thing.

Really?

DR Congo has the world's largest peacekeeping mission

Since the war began in 1998, some 4m people have died, making it the world's most deadly war since 1945, it said.

Conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo is killing 38,000 people each month, says the Lancet medical journal.

It appears they are just doing a bang-up job.

Been going on since 1998 and they "might" have an election by the end of 2006?

Zoiks.

 

[Changleen]

...and most are dying due to malnutrition and disease NOT FIGHTING...

Wasn't it you who was going on about the importance of reading things properly?

 

[Changleen]

what's china doing?

Investing heavily. In South America too. It's not inconceivable that in 10 years Africa and South America will both be 'owned' by the Chinese.

 

[Damn True]

...and most are dying due to malnutrition and disease NOT FIGHTING...

Wasn't it you who was going on about the importance of reading things properly?

So the UN is "keeping the peace" and yet people are still passing on at a rate of over $30k per year. That sounds peacefull.

Well I'll bet it is quieter between bouts of wailing and funeral dirges.

 

[Changleen]

Yes, DUE TO DISEASE AND MALNUTRITION HENCE THE NEED FOR HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION AS WELL AS SOLDIERS!

Get it?

I mean, it's peacefull enough for a bunch of med students to wander the countryside and conduct the survey in the first place.

 

[Damn True]

It aint all that peacefull:

An IRC report issued in December said that more than 31,000 people were dying each month in the vast Central African nation due to conflict.

The former Belgian colony is attempting to emerge from successive conflicts which drew in a dozen countries at their height, with a still-fragile peace process leading to presidential and parliamentary elections later this year.

However, violence continues in Ituri, Katanga and other parts of eastern DRC bordering Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda, despite the presence of the world's largest United Nations peacekeeping force.

I don't disagree that we should be doing something. The utterly inept UN has been at it since 1998 and the death tolls are still abysmal. Fact is, we probably wont.

 

[Changleen]

...The utterly inept UN...

:mumble:

Jeeze DT, What is your problem with the freakin UN? They do loads of great work all the time, despite being hampered at every turn by isolationist idiots (and you know who I'm talking about).

 

[Damn True]

:mumble:

Jeeze DT, What is your problem with the freakin UN? They do loads of great work all the time, despite being hampered at every turn by isolationist idiots (and you know who I'm talking about).

Wait, I thought the rest of the world didn't need or want our help, input or influence?

So when we stay out of something and it dosen't work its our fault too? Nifty.

As for you know who hampering things:

The United States continues to lead other donor countries in providing development assistance, giving more than $19 billion in 2004, says State Department spokesman Richard Boucher.

The 2004 aid amount was double the amount the United States committed in 2000, Boucher said in an April 11 statement.

Official development assistance (ODA) from the United States is 24 percent of world official aid contributions, he said.

Boucher spoke following the release of a report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development on world levels of ODA. (See related article Official Aid to Developing Countries Rose 4.6 Percent in 2004)

The amount of U.S. aid is projected to rise further in 2005, due to contributions to countries affected by the December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami disaster and because the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) will begin to expend its funds.

The MCC administers the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA), which targets aid to countries that have demonstrated a commitment to making economic and social reforms.

Statistics from the report are available at: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/59/51/34700392.pdf

The U.S. pays 22% of the UN’s regular budget and about 27% of the peacekeeping budgets. It also pays about 25% of the costs of the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and former Yugoslavia.

As for the Congo specificly:

March 30, 2005: The United Nations Security Council adopted resolution UNSCR 1592 (2005), extending the present mandate of the UN Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) for another six months, until October 1, 2005, "with the intention to renew it for further periods."
August 6, 1999, Resolution 1258 established UN liaison mission to the Congo.
February 24, 2000, Resolution 1291 established MONUC cease-fire observer mission; UNSCR 1493 extended mandate of MONUC to July 31, 2004, expanded troop ceiling of MONUC by 2,100 troops to allow deployment of additional battalions in the Ituri region, expanded the use of Chapter VII force, and set up an arms embargo in the eastern DRC.

Staffing
Type of Personnel Authorized
Actual Total
(as of 10/30/03)
Actual U.S.
(as of 10/30/03)

Troops
10,800
9,868
0

Observers
550
547
0

Police
0
76
0



Financing (Regular peacekeeping assessments)FY 2003
Fiscal Year Total UN Cost
$608.23 million

U.S. Assessment
$152 million

Mandate

To work in cooperation with the Joint Military Commission (JMC) established by the Agreement to monitor the implementation of the Lusaka Cease-fire Agreement of July/August 1999 and investigate violations; to maintain liaison with the parties to the Agreement, and with their field headquarters; to develop an action plan for the overall implementation of the Agreement. In addition, MONUC will supervise and verify the disengagement of the parties and will provide support and technical assistance to the Facilitator of the Congolese National Dialogue.

U.S. Interests

The Congo conflict involves troops from a half dozen countries, and has become intertwined with internal conflicts in Rwanda, Uganda, Angola and Burundi. Elements of the former Rwandan army and militias implicated in the 1994 Rwandan genocide have formed an alliance of convenience with the Congolese Government, complicating our efforts to address war crimes and impunity. The Congo conflict has the potential to destabilize much of the African continent, with enormous costs to U.S. political and economic interests.


We are footing 25% of the bill for what's going on over there.

 

[Changleen]

Wait, I thought the rest of the world didn't need or want our help, input or influence?

So when we stay out of something and it dosen't work its our fault too? Nifty.

The trouble is you DON'T stay out of it, do you? You're a major member, you're even on the security council, where you veto more things than anyone else, including numerous peace-keeping efforts.

And the world is probably quite happy to accept your help, but not your self-serving interventions. The two are different things, but you tend to call them both 'help'.

We are footing 25% of the bill for what's going on over there.

Good, as the world's richest country and it's supposed upholder of good and morality you should be. Well done.

So again, why do you hate the UN? I suppose you think it'd be better if every country wasted money co-ordinating and providing their own aid programmes rather than paying into a far more effecient central pot?

 

[DRB]

No it wasn't a dodge. The point is EVERYONE claims to care, and no one backs up those claims with properly aligned actions.

If we actually care, we will take actions regardless of other nations actions. Their words being empty doesn't give us an excuse for ours to be just as empty.

That would at least put us on the moral high-ground to start pressuring others with spare resources to put their money where there mouth is. Right now, we're just in a cycle of finger pointing... "well he doesn't have to do it, so why should I?" Doesn't this strike you as childish?

But no one listens to us. And even when we decide to try and lead the way we screw it up so badly that it ends up making it worse. With China and Russia right now, its do almost exactly the opposite thing the US suggests. Look how long its taken for any sort of action in regards to Iran.

I do think the finger pointing is childish but why would you expect any better from the US government? The French, Chinese and Russians have all claimed the higher moral ground because of their stance on Iraq, so why aren't they taking advantage of that?

As for offensive military capability to accomplish the sort of mission required is certainly held by each of the countries I mentioned plus more.

 

[DRB]

Yes, DUE TO DISEASE AND MALNUTRITION HENCE THE NEED FOR HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION AS WELL AS SOLDIERS!

Get it?

I mean, it's peacefull enough for a bunch of med students to wander the countryside and conduct the survey in the first place.

So apparently this is all blown out of proportion. Cool no need to do anything.

 

[DRB]

We tried that in Somalia. When it stopped being politically expidient we got soft.

By "we" I mean the administration at the time.

Talk about revisionist history.

The Republicans tripped all over themselves to CRUCIFY Clinton for sending US troops to Somalia even before the first US soldier hit the ground in 1993. The GOP used if for a huge talking point in the 1994 election. Not just the failure but the fact that we were ever there in the first place.

So at least Clinton had the sense to know it was the right thing to do and the guts to attempt to do something about it. The GOP figured they were "dark" folks so why bother.

 

[Damn True]

Talk about revisionist history.

The Republicans tripped all over themselves to CRUCIFY Clinton for sending US troops to Somalia even before the first US soldier hit the ground in 1993. The GOP used if for a huge talking point in the 1994 election. Not just the failure but the fact that we were ever there in the first place.

So at least Clinton had the sense to know it was the right thing to do and the guts to attempt to do something about it. The GOP figured they were "dark" folks so why bother.

Yes and at the time I agreed with Clinton on the issue of going in and strongly disagreed with those in the GOP and DNC who opposed it.

When Clintion got soft and booked I threw both groups in the same hat. The a$$hat.