Congo descending into civil war, again - Page 9

On November 23 2012 09:53 TheRealArtemis wrote:



I have always felt that people with a lot money have more responsibility to help others in need because they have more means/resources to do so. Like the High power nations with a lot of money and military need to provide help where its needed. But Its like it never ends in that place. Its like as soon as one conflict stops, another one comes thats worse then the previous one.

Maybe im a bit too pessimestic about it all. But to me it seems like the UN/west once again, can send endless amount of money and military aid and it will either not help at all, or simply wont be enough.

On November 22 2012 15:52 Shady Sands wrote:
For reference, the last Congolese Civil War, lasted five years, involved eight African nations, and killed over five million people.

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 23 2012 10:00 Dekoth wrote:
Count me in to the US staying out of it group. However that is mostly due to me seeing Africa as a giant abyss in respect to throwing money and resources at it. America and the rest of the world needs to get their fingers out of Africa's pot and let that country learn to walk for themselves. Besides, the rest of the world has plenty enough on their plate right now stopping the world economy from collapsing. As to some earlier comments about America devolving into civil war, I wouldn't eliminate that from possibility. While the current monkeys rattling their cages because their idiot of a candidate lost are to be ignored, there are deeper issues that could trigger it in the next 50 years. Well, perhaps civil war is the wrong thing, more of a government coup de etat. Hopefully not, but we shall see.

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.

On November 23 2012 11:10 sevencck wrote:
Lol, Kwark. But I can understand the way you feel.

For me the solution isn't recolonization or anything like that, it's a broader understanding of human consciousness and regulating global weapons trade. As human consciousness unfolds and develops we gain "access" to deeper and broader levels of understanding, for example the development of rational consciousness gives rise to science, industrialism, and all the production that goes along with it (including weapons production), but rational thought also concurrently gives rise to greater empathy and cultural awareness and understanding. So even as we are able to expand our capacity to destroy, we are able to expand our capacity to understand and empathize.

For me, many of the people we're talking about (and alot of the conflicts that have occurred in certain regions of Africa) are not particularly developed. Left to themselves, they aren't likely to develop the means to mine metals and forge and machine steel, and manufacture high tech weaponry, vehicles, and manage all the infrastructure that goes along with it. I don't think they're developed enough. What this means is that, left to their own devices, there really is an upper limit to their destructive capacity.

For me the trouble is the global weapons trade. When you give a culture that really hasn't developed to a stable level of rational or postmodern consciousness the fruits of that consciousness (including the weaponry of advanced industrial societies), you're giving them the capacity to destroy well beyond their capacity for understanding or restraint.

On November 23 2012 11:14 DeepElemBlues wrote:


You don't need modern weaponry to kill huge amounts of people or terrorize a region. Most of the 800,000 genocide victims in Rwanda were slaughtered by machetes.

Also what fruits of postmodern consciousness, postmodernism has proved itself the death of rational thought.

On November 23 2012 10:09 Johnny Business wrote:
The situation would sadly have been better under the firm guiding hand of the white man.

On November 23 2012 11:17 sevencck wrote:


You're right about Rwanda, they killed a huge number of people. But I stand by my analysis. However many people you can kill with machetes and shovels, the damage you can wreak (both to people, animal life to feed armies, and the environment at large) is orders of magnitude greater with advanced weapons. How many people in Rwanda do you think cared about the environmental implications of what they were doing? That's something that comes along with rational consciousness.

And I disagree strongly with the notion that rationalism and postmodernism need be even remotely at odds.

And I disagree strongly with the notion that rationalism and postmodernism need be even remotely at odds.

You're right about Rwanda, they killed a huge number of people. But I stand by my analysis. However many people you can kill with machetes and shovels, the damage you can wreak (both to people, animal life to feed armies, and the environment at large) is orders of magnitude greater with advanced weapons.

How many people in Rwanda do you think cared about the environmental implications of what they were doing? That's something that comes along with rational consciousness.

One of the fruits of postmodern consciousness is greater cultural awareness and understanding. It's obvious this isn't a major part of daily life in these areas of Africa.

On November 23 2012 11:21 AngryMag wrote:


I agree with your point of advanced weaponry. I see that as an important reason for nowaday's peace in Europe.

Disagree strongly with the other point you made. In mankind's history in 99% of the cases, it were always the technologically more advanced/educated countries that imposed their will on others via the means of violence. This did not really change. Today's powers tend to use proxies though.

On November 23 2012 11:23 DeepElemBlues wrote:


Almost everyone who does not self-identify as a postmodernist would strongly disagree.



Again, the historical record does not bear this out.

I'm sorry but cultural awareness and understanding existed long, long, long before postmodernism. Cultural acceptance as well. Postmodern theorists are not exactly the most culturally accepting group of people around either.

On November 23 2012 11:33 sevencck wrote:


I kind of disagree with this assessment to be honest. As bloody as the late 19th (American civil war) and 20th centuries were, they really showed a great deal of development of restraint. I think one of the historically valuable lessons of the last 100 years was exactly that our capacity for understanding and restraint must evolve along with our capacity to destroy otherwise we're really in trouble. This really is an expression of rational consciousness, and isn't a lesson that is even remotely understood in some of these areas in Africa.

That a society can be at a rational level of development sufficient for industry doesn't preclude the possibility of pockets of stupidity. I'd argue World War 2 showed an increased level of understanding and restraint compared to World War 1. Chamberlain's reputation really demonstrates this fact. Most of Europe really wished to avoid war at all costs, so did the U.S.A., it's not like these were industrial societies beating the drums of war.

World War 2 just proves my point. When prerational consciousness (Hitler and his Nazis, sorry don't mean to put the blame squarely on Germany, I understand the implications of the treaty of Versailles etc. just making a simple point here) gain access to the weapons that are developed by rational consciousness look at the problems it causes. People like that who lack the empathy of higher levels of consciousness generally lack of weapons developed by higher levels of consciousness by virtue of their lack of higher levels of consciousness. When they obtain them, it's really a disaster.

On November 22 2012 23:08 zalz wrote:
Lot of white man's burden and white guilt going around.

I'll admit though, I have to laugh when someone suggests that the impact of colonialism is underrated.

Literally every single problem in Africa is attributed to colonialism. Everything from the economy down to diseases are blamed on colonialism.

Sounds harsh, but we can't keep being responsible for these people. At some point they have to admit that they are in control of their destinies, and century old actions do not in fact resonate so strongly as to rob them of their agency.

Colonialism was horrible, but it's als a cheap excuse to blame everything on the white man.

On November 23 2012 11:43 AngryMag wrote:


Well, I still disagree Regarding the 20th century:
First big conflict was WWI. No restraint, weapons of mass destruction were used. WWII weapons of mass destruction were used by the party who was on the way of winning either way. They were used in order to save own ressources. Wars between China and Japan were ridiculously brutal,too. In the 50's France fought colonial wars in Africa. Mass executions and all the nasty stuff included.

Since then the US alone was involved in many armed conflicts, don't want to count them through, but many. Additionally we have the most advanced nations propping up dictators here and there, depending on national interest (that's why I mentioned proxies in the former post). Current example. The west and turkey backing Syrian rebels and Iran and Russia supporting Assad in a civil war fought without gloves. Lybia was the same situation. I don't think that moral is of any importance in politics and power. Everyone of the national leaders of the most advanced nations went through Macchiavelli (or some aquivalent based on cultural context).

On November 23 2012 11:08 DeepElemBlues wrote:


Attitudes like yours make it more likely.

If the best people can expect from peaceful political competition is the people on the other side saying 'oh you're just a monkey rattling your cage because your idiot lost and you're best ignored,' violence begins to look more and more attractive. Just remember that no one will want to talk to you when you talk to them like that. They'll want to smack you in the mouth. Keep that up for a few decades and you'll be repeating what happened from 1820-1860.



Yeah... I doubt you or "the world" would be very happy with the result, that being the conservative/libertarian side (we have all the guns + the military is dominated by conservatives + so are most police forces) curbstomping the liberal/progressive side. Think before you snide please.