Congo descending into civil war, again - Page 7

On November 23 2012 01:27 Too_MuchZerg wrote:
Quite frankly westerners/asians should cut ties to all African nations and let Africa deal its problems natural way. Of course theres going to be a lot casualties but at some point it would stabilize.

On November 23 2012 01:02 Xpace wrote:


I don't think that's what KwarK is suggesting as a solution to the current crisis, but he makes a valid point. This is real life :\

On November 23 2012 01:27 Too_MuchZerg wrote:
Quite frankly westerners/asians should cut ties to all African nations and let Africa deal its problems natural way. Of course theres going to be a lot casualties but at some point it would stabilize.

On November 23 2012 01:39 Nightfall.589 wrote:


Actually, if we didn't provide the financial incentive for warlords to squabble over minerals, and if we stopped selling them weapons, there would be a lot less casualties.

But way too many people are making too much money from the situation for that to happen.

On November 23 2012 01:59 jello_biafra wrote:

Unfortunately it would also destroy what economy they have and would mean all phones/computers etc. would be more expensive for us.

On November 23 2012 01:56 Cheerio wrote:

A solution is to send military peacekeeping forces, not to invade and recapture the whole region and strip them of the resources.

On November 23 2012 00:57 Cheerio wrote:
You'd better be kidding...

On November 23 2012 01:27 Too_MuchZerg wrote:
Quite frankly westerners/asians should cut ties to all African nations and let Africa deal its problems natural way. Of course theres going to be a lot casualties but at some point it would stabilize.

UN and other countries helping "losing" side creates more problems in long run as winners want to get justice eventually. Even gives more hatred as they didn't get help from outside rich countries and killing continues.

On November 23 2012 01:56 Cheerio wrote:
A solution is to send military peacekeeping forces, not to invade and recapture the whole region and strip them of the resources.

On November 23 2012 03:24 KwarK wrote:

The same people are suffering for the same reasons while the same interests profit as before. The only thing that has changed is now we can wring our hands and tell ourselves how terrible it is while sleeping very well at night.

On November 22 2012 15:52 Shady Sands wrote:
The UN is going into full obs mode, and analysts speculate that M23 is likely supplied by Rwanda, Uganda, or another 3rd party, since the rebel group has equipment like night vision goggles and 120mm Israeli-made mortars, and better small arms than the Congolese army.

On November 23 2012 02:56 Catch]22 wrote:


I dont think he realizes just how much these countires depend on food import...

Anyway, anyone know why they are fighting?

Edit: Nvm, read up, to bring glorious socialism on for benefit of great africa.

On November 22 2012 19:45 KwarK wrote:

By no means do I think the colonial rule in the past was a good thing, I just think it was simpler and more honest than the current system. Had it continued the locals would at least hate Europeans rather than each other.

On November 23 2012 04:01 Skilledblob wrote:


dont bullshit yourself dude. In the end they fight because they want to control the mines which would make them filthy rich because our modern world depends on those mines.

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.

On November 23 2012 03:58 docvoc wrote:
I don't think there are really any fingers to point to at this point. There are a lot of things that could have been done differently there, but the main thing that one must understand is that nothing can be done at this point. People screwed up the entire world, but unlike most areas where people rose up and grabbed power, modernized, and sucked the dick of other big countries to become stabilized, the congo never did that. In fact, most modern African nations have done that to the Nth degree, but a lot of subsaharan ones just can't get on their feet to do so. After Europe split up africa into it's own vassal areas, they destroyed the tribal grounds, along with the make up of pre-european imperialist africa. So basically, Kwark's opinion, though valid, is historically incorrect. What should be done now is imperialism. At this point, some country needs to go into the Congo, unify it under 1 dictator that is bent on westernizing the country, and then pretty much let it play out from there. If there is a revolution from that point, so be it. As much as I hate nation-building, at this point that really seems like the only thing left to do there.

On November 23 2012 05:32 Shady Sands wrote:

Doc, why not just trade peacefully with them, and do some quiet nudging to get them in the right direction? Instead of selling them weapons, sell them infrastructure and education?