EPTIt's more than likely Rwanda trying to steal from Congo again.
Congo descending into civil war, again - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Technique
Netherlands1542 Posts
It's more than likely Rwanda trying to steal from Congo again. | ||
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
On November 22 2012 17:26 Danglars wrote: I guess the question would be infinitely better for whom? Public Relations? Let them fight their bloody civil wars every 1-5 years. The average citizen? Colonialism, period, end of story. Your friends and family don't die in the wars, and you pay the cost in natural resources, not blood. That is not even getting to what local sovereignty means with the foreign invaders a couple countries over than the ones an ocean away. Infinitely better? Only for PR. Not necessarily. Whenever you go and occupy or colonize another country, you run the risk of blowback and terrorism, and that's on top of the quite bloody nature of anti-partisan duty. Chechnya/Dagestan; Northern Ireland; Iraq; Afghanistan; French Algeria; the British Mandate for Palestine, to name a few, and in many of those instances the "occupiers" in question even had good claims to the land there. The thing is, people will always hate each other, and in our globalized age, sophisticated weapons are finding their way into ever more un-sophisticated actors AND these unsophisticated folks have ever more ways to strike at the heart of civilized societies. Put simply, wouldn't you rather have a bunch of angry young men with the ability to buy high-tech weapons holding grudges against each other than holding grudges against you? | ||
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
On November 22 2012 17:31 Technique wrote: I don't think it's a civil war tbh. It's more than likely Rwanda trying to steal from Congo again. Who's backing Rwanda though? | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
On November 22 2012 17:17 Shai wrote: Don't worry, you can get involved in your own civil war some time this century; the world is fine with Americans fighting Americans. Civil war in north america? That's not going to happen in our lifetime. | ||
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
On November 22 2012 17:10 RenSC2 wrote: Dear America (my country), We already have Afghanistan and Iraq. We have a potential major threat in Iran which can't be ignored completely. We have conflict in Israel/Palestine. We have some involvement in Libya. We're waiting on Syria, but will likely be involved in some way soon. There's always a threat from N. Korea looming and even China seems to be pushing it's borders. We are stretched thin. We don't need the Congo. We'd spend more money stabilizing that region than we could ever hope to gain from it in mineral wealth. They aren't attacking us. They aren't threatening us. They have nothing to do with us. Let's keep it that way. Let the world see what happens when the United States doesn't get involved (5 million deaths and counting!). Maybe then the world will see that we aren't the big baddies that go around sowing conflict like they blame us for in the middle east. Maybe then the world will see that our military activities actually prevent more deaths than they cause. Maybe then the world will get back to wanting us involved. Not now. Fuck man, do you not realize the US is giving Rwanda 200mil a year to buy high-tech weapons for its private little fun and games in the Eastern Congo? | ||
|
RenSC2
United States1094 Posts
On November 22 2012 17:17 Shai wrote: Don't worry, you can get involved in your own civil war some time this century; the world is fine with Americans fighting Americans. We're about 150 years since our last civil war. I think we can make it through this century without another one. If you're talking about those succession petitions, don't worry about em. It's mostly the same damn people waving American flags and talking about how much they love America. They're just angry that their guy lost. The majority of them will forget about it within a year. Another large group of them will be fine as soon as another white man is elected to be president. And the rest will just be some fringe group of crazies... can never get rid of em completely. But honestly, if America has another civil war, stay out. If we're fighting against each other, neither side would want outside influence (at least until it's obvious that one side is the losing side ::waves to the Libyan rebels:: ). I think it'd be very rare for any country's citizens to actually want outside influence in their own civil wars. In the Congo, the whole region is a mess and neither side seems too sympathetic or appealing. Whichever side we support, the innocent civilians are still going to suffer. I'd rather not be the country taking the blame for the citizens' suffering. That has a nasty tendency of creating hatred towards the US which creates terrorism against us. | ||
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
On November 22 2012 17:29 farvacola wrote: Taiwan had a major Dutch East India trading fort for a few decades in the early 1600's along with some Spanish settlements, though these were quite short lived if I remember correctly. In any case, Thailand is the better example  I was referring to mainland China from 1911 to 1949. | ||
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
On November 22 2012 17:36 RenSC2 wrote: We're about 150 years since our last civil war. I think we can make it through this century without another one. If you're talking about those succession petitions, don't worry about em. It's mostly the same damn people waving American flags and talking about how much they love America. They're just angry that their guy lost. The majority of them will forget about it within a year. Another large group of them will be fine as soon as another white man is elected to be president. And the rest will just be some fringe group of crazies... can never get rid of em completely. But honestly, if America has another civil war, stay out. If we're fighting against each other, neither side would want outside influence (at least until it's obvious that one side is the losing side ::waves to the Libyan rebels:: ). I think it'd be very rare for any country's citizens to actually want outside influence in their own civil wars. In the Congo, the whole region is a mess and neither side seems too sympathetic or appealing. Whichever side we support, the innocent civilians are still going to suffer. I'd rather not be the country taking the blame for the citizens' suffering. That has a nasty tendency of creating hatred towards the US which creates terrorism against us. An American Civil War is the last thing this world needs. We're in the middle of a gigantic recession, everyone. If Greece and Spain backing out of the EU is enough to push up global bond yields, an armed Texian secession would likely lead to a new Great Depression | ||
|
Smokincoyote
Australia57 Posts
On November 22 2012 17:03 KwarK wrote: Things were better when we owned the damn place. If it weren't for all the anti-imperialist protests we could invade, steal 90% of the natural wealth of the country and still be doing everyone a favour. These countries ought to be among the richest in the world, even in the grips of civil war and anarchy there is still enough wealth to fund constant warfare. Unfortunately nobody wants the bad PR involved with imperialism these days, far better to indirectly sponsor it with demand for the riches of the country while ensuring that a black guy pulls the trigger. There is merit to what your saying, and in a lot of cases countries under Imperial rule were better off then when they gained their independence. However in the case of the Congo while it was under Belgian colonialism was considered the worst man-made humanitarian disasters of the turn of the 20th century. As there was no census at the time its hard to know how high the loss of human life in the Congo was at the time, but it was estimated ~10 mill. So no, life probably not better in the Congo during imperialism. It was probably just as shitty as it is now. | ||
|
RenSC2
United States1094 Posts
On November 22 2012 17:29 Tobberoth wrote: You could just go the middle path like most European countries and only intervene (and only in a limited fashion) when civilians are put on the line, instead of a fullblown invasion which no one wants. Has there ever been a conflict where civilians weren't instantly "put on the line"? Conflict in the era of explosives = civilians die. If you "waited" until civilians were put on the line, then you'd get involved instantly in every conflict around the entire globe. And what exactly does a "limited fashion" do? Did getting involved in Libya "in a limited fashion" actually make things better? No, we picked a winner and that side killed most of the other side. The surviving parts of the losing side took it out on the US during the embassy attack and if you think they're done with that, think again. On November 22 2012 17:35 Shady Sands wrote: Fuck man, do you not realize the US is giving Rwanda 200mil a year to buy high-tech weapons for its private little fun and games in the Eastern Congo? Well, that's not the reason why we give them money, but I do agree that we should not be doing so. | ||
|
Nightfall.589
Canada766 Posts
On November 22 2012 17:10 RenSC2 wrote: Let the world see what happens when the United States doesn't get involved (5 million deaths and counting!). Maybe then the world will see that we aren't the big baddies that go around sowing conflict like they blame us for in the middle east. Maybe then the world will see that our military activities actually prevent more deaths than they cause. Maybe then the world will get back to wanting us involved. Not now. Just because you don't get involved in a strategically unimportant conflict doesn't mean that America's primary motivation for throwing its weight around (And damn the collateral damage) is advancing it's geopolitical agenda. | ||
KwarK
United States44203 Posts
On November 22 2012 17:10 RenSC2 wrote: Dear America (my country), We already have Afghanistan and Iraq. We have a potential major threat in Iran which can't be ignored completely. We have conflict in Israel/Palestine. We have some involvement in Libya. We're waiting on Syria, but will likely be involved in some way soon. There's always a threat from N. Korea looming and even China seems to be pushing it's borders. We are stretched thin. We don't need the Congo. We'd spend more money stabilizing that region than we could ever hope to gain from it in mineral wealth. They aren't attacking us. They aren't threatening us. They have nothing to do with us. Let's keep it that way. Let the world see what happens when the United States doesn't get involved (5 million deaths and counting!). Maybe then the world will see that we aren't the big baddies that go around sowing conflict like they blame us for in the middle east. Maybe then the world will see that our military activities actually prevent more deaths than they cause. Maybe then the world will get back to wanting us involved. Not now. Nobody in the US wants to stabilise the Congo. The nightmare situation for Western interests is that a single warlord gains control over the area and is no longer dependent upon outside support to maintain his slave labour empire. Then he can work children to death in mines and sell his produce to the highest bidder becoming colossally rich until a viral propaganda video sweeps the internet telling everyone how awful it is and we sponsor a proxy to destabilise the region again. The ideal situation is one where you can buy from a number of warlords, all operating their own forced labour camps, and pay them in black market guns at a massive markup on their real value. And if they don't like the price then you sell the guns to some other warlord and see how the first warlord likes fighting against that shiny new hardware. The wealth still leaves the nation, the people are still worked to death but white hands stay very clean. Of course back in the day what would happen is Mr Rothschild and a few other gentlemen in London would invest in some infrastructure and some mines in a highly unstable region and predict making unimaginable wealth from them. They would arm and pay off the local elites to oppress the people and keep the area stable while the money went back to England and the local elites sent their children to Oxford. You'd keep enough people paid off and keep them well enough armed that the region remained stable and you'd make the key people complicit in the arrangement while at the same time making sure they knew that if they did get any independent ideas they could always be replaced. Unfortunately in the 1940s we sold most of it to you (which is why the US ended up tied up in South America) and in the 50s Marxism hit the third world which made it all less profitable for everyone. If you're in London and your investment is looking less stable because the people living there want a cut of the wealth then obviously you go to Parliament and explain how actually this is the politician's problem, even though the bankers privately invested and knew the risks, and then you just invade (see the Suez crisis). However if you're getting off on anti-imperialist rhetoric (see the US) then you can't just invade places whenever the locals cry about nationalising foreign owned industries in their countries and then you have to sponsor local factions to fight civil wars against other local factions (see CIA history in South America). Basically the US isn't going to invade because it's not their style but this whole mess would have been prevented if you'd either left running the world to the people who were good at it or not intervened the last time we attempted shameless imperialism in Africa. Imperialism may have been an abhorrent system but at least the British were good at it, the American version is just inefficient. | ||
|
Maenander
Germany4926 Posts
On November 22 2012 17:03 KwarK wrote: Things were better when we owned the damn place. If it weren't for all the anti-imperialist protests we could invade, steal 90% of the natural wealth of the country and still be doing everyone a favour. These countries ought to be among the richest in the world, even in the grips of civil war and anarchy there is still enough wealth to fund constant warfare. Unfortunately nobody wants the bad PR involved with imperialism these days, far better to indirectly sponsor it with demand for the riches of the country while ensuring that a black guy pulls the trigger. The Belgian rule of Congo is an example for the worst kind of colonialism, we have our very own tl.net thread on the subject: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=196370 Even the current sad state of the country is probably a vast improvement. | ||
|
RenSC2
United States1094 Posts
On November 22 2012 17:54 KwarK wrote:+ Show Spoiler + On November 22 2012 17:10 RenSC2 wrote: Dear America (my country), We already have Afghanistan and Iraq. We have a potential major threat in Iran which can't be ignored completely. We have conflict in Israel/Palestine. We have some involvement in Libya. We're waiting on Syria, but will likely be involved in some way soon. There's always a threat from N. Korea looming and even China seems to be pushing it's borders. We are stretched thin. We don't need the Congo. We'd spend more money stabilizing that region than we could ever hope to gain from it in mineral wealth. They aren't attacking us. They aren't threatening us. They have nothing to do with us. Let's keep it that way. Let the world see what happens when the United States doesn't get involved (5 million deaths and counting!). Maybe then the world will see that we aren't the big baddies that go around sowing conflict like they blame us for in the middle east. Maybe then the world will see that our military activities actually prevent more deaths than they cause. Maybe then the world will get back to wanting us involved. Not now. Nobody in the US wants to stabilise the Congo. The nightmare situation for Western interests is that a single warlord gains control over the area and is no longer dependent upon outside support to maintain his slave labour empire. Then he can work children to death in mines and sell his produce to the highest bidder becoming colossally rich until a viral propaganda video sweeps the internet telling everyone how awful it is and we sponsor a proxy to destabilise the region again. The ideal situation is one where you can buy from a number of warlords, all operating their own forced labour camps, and pay them in black market guns at a massive markup on their real value. And if they don't like the price then you sell the guns to some other warlord and see how the first warlord likes fighting against that shiny new hardware. The wealth still leaves the nation, the people are still worked to death but white hands stay very clean. Of course back in the day what would happen is Mr Rothschild and a few other gentlemen in London would invest in some infrastructure and some mines in a highly unstable region and predict making unimaginable wealth from them. They would arm and pay off the local elites to oppress the people and keep the area stable while the money went back to England and the local elites sent their children to Oxford. You'd keep enough people paid off and keep them well enough armed that the region remained stable and you'd make the key people complicit in the arrangement while at the same time making sure they knew that if they did get any independent ideas they could always be replaced. Unfortunately in the 1940s we sold most of it to you (which is why the US ended up tied up in South America) and in the 50s Marxism hit the third world which made it all less profitable for everyone. If you're in London and your investment is looking less stable because the people living there want a cut of the wealth then obviously you go to Parliament and explain how actually this is the politician's problem, even though the bankers privately invested and knew the risks, and then you just invade (see the Suez crisis). However if you're getting off on anti-imperialist rhetoric (see the US) then you can't just invade places whenever the locals cry about nationalising foreign owned industries in their countries and then you have to sponsor local factions to fight civil wars against other local factions (see CIA history in South America). Basically the US isn't going to invade because it's not their style but this whole mess would have been prevented if you'd either left running the world to the people who were good at it or not intervened the last time we attempted shameless imperialism in Africa. Imperialism may have been an abhorrent system but at least the British were good at it, the American version is just inefficient. So we're bad at imperialism? I agree 100%. Just one more reason why we should stay out. And it's wrong to say that nobody in the US wants to stabilize the Congo. The vast majority of Americans would like a stable world. The interests of a few powerful individuals (American or otherwise) rarely line up with the interests of the American people, in or out of our country. I'm simply adding my name to the list of American's who want us to stay out of this business, while at the same time pointing out to the rest of the world that our military is not involved (sadly, I can't say we are completely uninvolved) and the conflict is resulting in many more deaths than the conflicts we actually fight in. | ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On November 22 2012 17:54 KwarK wrote: Nobody in the US wants to stabilise the Congo. The nightmare situation for Western interests is that a single warlord gains control over the area and is no longer dependent upon outside support to maintain his slave labour empire. Then he can work children to death in mines and sell his produce to the highest bidder becoming colossally rich until a viral propaganda video sweeps the internet telling everyone how awful it is and we sponsor a proxy to destabilise the region again. The ideal situation is one where you can buy from a number of warlords, all operating their own forced labour camps, and pay them in black market guns at a massive markup on their real value. And if they don't like the price then you sell the guns to some other warlord and see how the first warlord likes fighting against that shiny new hardware. The wealth still leaves the nation, the people are still worked to death but white hands stay very clean. Of course back in the day what would happen is Mr Rothschild and a few other gentlemen in London would invest in some infrastructure and some mines in a highly unstable region and predict making unimaginable wealth from them. They would arm and pay off the local elites to oppress the people and keep the area stable while the money went back to England and the local elites sent their children to Oxford. You'd keep enough people paid off and keep them well enough armed that the region remained stable and you'd make the key people complicit in the arrangement while at the same time making sure they knew that if they did get any independent ideas they could always be replaced. Unfortunately in the 1940s we sold most of it to you (which is why the US ended up tied up in South America) and in the 50s Marxism hit the third world which made it all less profitable for everyone. If you're in London and your investment is looking less stable because the people living there want a cut of the wealth then obviously you go to Parliament and explain how actually this is the politician's problem, even though the bankers privately invested and knew the risks, and then you just invade (see the Suez crisis). However if you're getting off on anti-imperialist rhetoric (see the US) then you can't just invade places whenever the locals cry about nationalising foreign owned industries in their countries and then you have to sponsor local factions to fight civil wars against other local factions (see CIA history in South America). Basically the US isn't going to invade because it's not their style but this whole mess would have been prevented if you'd either left running the world to the people who were good at it or not intervened the last time we attempted shameless imperialism in Africa. Imperialism may have been an abhorrent system but at least the British were good at it, the American version is just inefficient. I'm not really sure going back to a a system that did things like using the severed hands of black people as currency would really be a step up, though I suppose if we cut all their hands off none of them could post to contradict you. | ||
|
Integra
Sweden5626 Posts
| ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On November 22 2012 17:03 KwarK wrote: Things were better when we owned the damn place. If it weren't for all the anti-imperialist protests we could invade, steal 90% of the natural wealth of the country and still be doing everyone a favour. These countries ought to be among the richest in the world, even in the grips of civil war and anarchy there is still enough wealth to fund constant warfare. Unfortunately nobody wants the bad PR involved with imperialism these days, far better to indirectly sponsor it with demand for the riches of the country while ensuring that a black guy pulls the trigger. Please educate yourself before you post. You managed to pick the worst case of colonial brutality to argue that it was better under colonial rule. You should seriously ask yourself what are your views on imperialism based on and if you should trust them or not. | ||
p4NDemik
United States13896 Posts
I haven't read up yet on the situation at this very moment, but throughout the 90's the RPF (which now holds power in Rwanda after the civil war) has very close ties with Uganda. Basically Uganda helped aid the RPF in a similar fashion as the Rwandan Government is now funding rebel factions in the east Congo regeions, as this group tries to carve out a greater sphere of political dominance. The majority Tutsi Rwandan government has come under harsh scrutiny from international agencies concerning the stranglehold they hold, and the disconcerting means of doing so. Aside from European and American powers having a less interest in general post-Somalia and post-Rwanda, etc in the 90's, politically the Rwandan government has been able to get away with more because of just how horrible the RGF and Interhamwe extermination of Tutsi and Hutu who were seen as Tutsi-friendly. There is a certain amount of political capital there. I really hope that the UN has learned something by now and there can be an actual de-escalation of the violence here. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44203 Posts
On November 22 2012 18:06 hypercube wrote: Please educate yourself before you post. You managed to pick the worst case of colonial brutality to argue that it was better under colonial rule. You should seriously ask yourself what are your views on imperialism based on and if you should trust them or not. I was referring to the region in general rather than just Congo. Obviously mad King Leopold got carried away, he really ought to have had locals cut off their hands rather than Belgians, but what's going on now isn't isolated to just the Congo, my comment stands. And to be honest, it still probably was. At least it was more honest, you knew who was chopping off your hand and why. I guess I'll clarify, obviously it would be ideal if the western world would stop sponsoring the ongoing catastrophe which is Africa but that's not realistic because there's far too much money to be made by continuing to do it. Bearing that in mind they should have the decency to just run the place rather than engage in this nonsense where you seed an ethnic/religious conflict and then arm both sides in exchange for them running the slave camps themselves. | ||
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
On November 22 2012 18:30 KwarK wrote: I was referring to the region in general rather than just Congo. Obviously mad King Leopold got carried away, he really ought to have had locals cut off their hands rather than Belgians, but what's going on now isn't isolated to just the Congo, my comment stands. And to be honest, it still probably was. At least it was more honest, you knew who was chopping off your hand and why. Kwark, the real issue here isn't an argument between violence by proxy and an abrogation of sovereignty. The real issue is how to get to a sustainable development model that plows the fruits of natural wealth back into infrastructure without needing the Rothschild/Rhodes-esque middleman. Look at Scandinavia--they did it quite successfully. It can be done. Why revert to a more messy model when a better one already exists? | ||
| ||
