2006-10-08 13:56:27 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
The problem with trying to fix anything in Africa is that France and Belgium have vested interest in keeping the status quo. France and Belgium (and to a lesser extent Russia and Germany) are helping to rape Africa of its natural resources and supporting the civils wars which allow them to get those resources at bargain basement prices so the junta in charge can buy arms to keep their power.
The juntas save money by not feeding the tribal elements they are fighting with, causing atttrition by starvation. There are currently 15 African nations with civil unrest, the French Foreign legion supporting about 10 of the juntas, raping and killing whoever they come across. Belgium does its part by selling Russian arms to both sides of the civil wars.
Despite these civil wars and acts of genocide nothing is being done by anyone.
The Congo in particular is a perfect example of the French and Belgians raping the natural resources of the country by obtaining them at below market costs. Every tribe and junta attempts to get the col-tan to sell to the french. Col-tan is a unique mineral which is used to make the chips in cell phones. Col-tan is abundant in the Congo River and has been the cause of tribal genocide and killing of Mountain Gorillas as people kill whole clans and gorillas to get access to the col-tan. Almost evey cell phone chip is provided by several French companies. The people of the DRC don't know what the French want with this "worthless" sand, but are happy to provide it for a few dollars a kilo. Another natural resource of the DRC is cocoa, and I'm sure everyone understands the relevance of Belgium in keeping the country unstable... world famous Belgium chocolate made from underpriced cocoa.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/congo/2001/0319colt.htm
2006-10-08 14:17:31 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I hate questions like this.
Has France done enough? Has Italy? Has Spain? Has Denmark? NO. But why is the job of the US and not those countries? Because we have a the means (a military). Well, those countries could have the means to do it, too. They just choose not to. Instead, they pay for national health care and and crap like that. Then they free ride off the system of international peace that is provided by the United States. We should get rid of the military, issue every US tax payer a big refund check, and then tell the EU that it's their turn.
Why should we do it? We'll just be criticized. Just like we were criticized in Kosovo. Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. I think we deserve a "thank you" for taking care of that. Let the UN take care of something. And by that, and don't mean "the US through the UN."
2006-10-08 14:41:30 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Democratic Republic of the Congo is the responsiblity of
the UN peace keeping forces, not the US.
2006-10-08 14:09:25 · answer #3 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You question should be rephased like this
"Has the Christians around the world done enough to help stop the genocide against Christians in the Democratic Republic of the Congo?"
No!
2006-10-08 14:01:22 · answer #4 · answered by T K 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Yes, it has been brought up to the U.N., and we're still waiting for some action. All of Africa is a mess, not just the Congo.
2006-10-08 14:22:23 · answer #5 · answered by Mr.Wise 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Have you read the book "The Poisonwood Bible"? It's an excellent book and reveals the complicity of the US government in creating the problems in that country and supporting the bloodthirsty tyrant, Mobutu, who ruled there for so many years. This set the groundwork for what is happening now.
I would recommend that the US stay out of it, but then, no one listens to me, not even my own kids.
This problem is far too complex for simplistic answers and should be left up to the international community.
Peace to all.
2006-10-08 14:25:27 · answer #6 · answered by The Gadfly 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Is the genocide still going on? If so, then we have not 'done enough'.
Perhaps the real question is whether we have done as much as is 'acceptable', since 'doing enough' to stop such brutality generally means engaging in warfare, fighting, killing, body bags coming home, Leftist rallies on the streets, 'creating' more terrorists...
In reality, what would it take to halt such a genocide if the goal of the brutes really is to exterminate their victims?
This question applies to Darfur too!
2006-10-08 13:57:49 · answer #7 · answered by speakeasy 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
What has the REST of the world done? America gets busted on for attempting to do good in Iraq. And we hear why don't we mind our Own business. Now we hear the World telling us we should save Dufar. WHY? It's about time the rest of the world or maybe the Mighty UN do something about it.
2006-10-08 14:21:38 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Hard to say... can't both stay out of other people's of the world business *AND* correct all the ills too. So World that hates our guts... Which do you losers want?
2006-10-08 14:48:35 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why should we? America has no national security interest whatsoever in the Congo. All I've heard lately is "Darfur this" and "Darfur that".
Nobody cares and I hope it stays that way!
2006-10-08 14:00:35 · answer #10 · answered by Wayne H 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋