PDA

View Full Version : UN to go to war for the first time in history



DVYDRNS
06-16-2013, 11:12 AM
I'm sure it has nothing to do with the abundance of natural resources there.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2341554/The-UN-prepares-to-war-time-3-000-strong-task-force-sent-fight-rebels-Congo.html

Elke
06-17-2013, 07:55 AM
If it did, they'd made this move when the conflict started, which is 2004, one year after the end of one of the most horrible episode of 20th century African history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War).

This is one intervention that is long overdue, and the death toll is staggering. There's a genocide going on for over five years now, and nobody seems to give a shit.

So park you cynicism with your ignorance, and read up on this conflict.

DVYDRNS
06-17-2013, 05:35 PM
I know plenty about the conflict. I have family from there. I am quite familiar with it. So why dont you park your asshole remarks away with my "cynicism" so we can have an intelligent discussion about this.

botley
06-17-2013, 06:15 PM
Russia's & China's representatives would never vote for UN "stabilization" (on largely Western terms) unless it meant their supply chains were in danger otherwise.

Sutekh
06-18-2013, 07:37 AM
I'm sure it has nothing to do with the abundance of natural resources there.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2341554/The-UN-prepares-to-war-time-3-000-strong-task-force-sent-fight-rebels-Congo.html


On the one hand I want to see this conflict resolved, or at the very least brought down a notch - but I just can't put my faith in the peacekeepers to behave or the UN's higher authorities to actually do anything constructive :( (remember those bosniaks that french commander promised to protect?)

it is possible the UN has waited so long because it wants the conflict to exhaust its intensity before they set foot there

Elke
06-18-2013, 01:34 PM
I know plenty about the conflict. I have family from there. I am quite familiar with it. So why dont you park your asshole remarks away with my "cynicism" so we can have an intelligent discussion about this.

So, how was your first remark showing how well-informed and intelligent your opinion is?

One of the major reasons why there was no significant intervention the last decade, is because China is draining the region of resources and using excellently cheap labour to do it. It's why our self phones are so cheap. So the natural resources of the region are not the reason the UN finally step in. It's probably more to do with the fact that the conflict is spilling out again - it was fine while it was contained to one region, but it is re-infecting other countries, and I'm sure the U.N. doesn't want a repetition of the 90s.

Cat Mom
06-18-2013, 06:06 PM
Hasn't this Congo shit been going on for a REALLY long time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Congo)? Yeah, I read The Poisonwood Bible (http://www.kingsolver.com/books/the-poisonwood-bible.html). Seems like people have been screwing that area over for its resources since forever.

Sutekh
06-18-2013, 08:06 PM
Yeah I think it was the only part of africa the belgians got during the scramble for africa... apparently it had rubber?

Cat Mom
06-18-2013, 08:30 PM
Yes, rubber, but they hadn't discovered the even better stuff, like diamonds and cobalt.

But, I still can't get what happened to Lumumba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrice_Lumumba) all those years ago out of my head.

Elke
06-19-2013, 07:00 AM
Congo has been fucked sideways by almost every country it ever came into contact with, and then a whole bunch it doesn't even know exist.

snaapz
06-19-2013, 10:27 PM
Long over due... a lot of smart people have been pushing for action for a long time... awareness and aid is not enough.