Why does the world not stop the war in the Congo?

Question

In the last 6 years, 4 million people have been killed in a war in the Congo. Few people in the West know about it. Why did we not stop it? Why are we not stopping it now?

These are mostly child soldiers, aren't they? Wouldn't a couple of battalions of the Foreign Legion or a some Gurkhas make them drop their weapons and run away?

Answer 1

"The world" doesn't do anything. "The world" waits until something is so terrible that the US can no longer tolerate it and does something about it unilaterally. Then "the world" screams at the US because it's (1) wrong, (2) too much too soon, or (3) too little too late. Yet, if any natural disaster occurs in "the world," "the world" comes crying to the US for aid... and the US gives it. Does "the world" ever say "thanks"? Nope the aid was (1) wrong, (2) too little to late... on (3) and the natural disaster was the fault of the US.

Look at the last 25 years in the Middle East.

The problem is that the Congo is probably on the list, but we're stretch pretty thin. Too many so-called "Americans" are part of "the world' and are doing nothing but complaining. So, sadly, unless you can get some 20 million of those so-called "Americans" off their complacent, self-centered, irresponsible back-sides, the Congo will have to wait.

Answer 2

To start with there is huge natural resources in the Congo region so the reason is not because therre s none. The reason is very simle-that has not been going on fr years it has been going on for decades. In the 1960's the UN tried to put troops in there and after years of till bloody fighting basically gave up. The only way to stop is to wipe out both sides or split the country up on tribal bordrs and neither side will do that for fear the other tribe gets too much of the resources. It is a tribal war that is the result of forming countries along European colonial borders which mixes various tribes many with long standing disagreement into a single country. This is actually the root cause of many of the African civil war problems and also in the Middle east including Iraq. I know people will discuss American responsibility in this and it is an American caused problem but this is primarity the French, British, Belguim (the Congo was a Belguim colony) and SSpanish other European caused problems and they have no way to correct it outside of a massive continent wide redrawng of the borders. It is not being stopped because there is no military way to do it-huge area, various factions everywhere, and politically it would cause a world wide scream of the colonial powers returning and American imperialism. The U.S. does nothing and we don't care-we do something and we are killers ad imperialist; what would you want to do about it?

Answer 3

The problems surrounding Africa are horrendous. Mainly what the fallout is lack of constructed goverment. Africa was always the place everyone feared to go, more so than Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't see self-defense as a major point to this. From what experiences I had it was done by militia's who've have more training than any woman is capable of doing. My best advice is strength in numbers. Self-supporting groups that can be movable at the same time have enough kick to fight back when need be. The red cross does good work with these types of situation's as well.

Answer 4

Great question! It's not just the West that should be doing something. It's the whole world. And that is the purpose of the UN. But consider this. What has the UN really done to promote peace in the world. One of the first actions was to give two groups of people who had not had their own country in a LOOOONG time their own country. Sounds like a good idea doesn't it?

The UN said let's take the Trans Jordan region that no one wants and make Palestine and Israel. Look how that turned out? And what has the UN done since.

Answer 5

First of all, the African countries have a peacekeeping force which they could employ for once. It's their territory, not ours.

Now since they refuse to help themselves, the West is blamed and I think we should act out of love for fellow man but not because the whining 3rd world demands it. We should go in and kick @$$ in Zimbabwe and Congo and Sudan and end the absolute evil there.

We don't do this because not all countries are a force for good. These countries include Russia and China and the countries we would invade, naturally. We would have to go in alone, for the most part, as usuall and that's unrealistic now due to our forces spread out so much. We have two "wars" going on and we are in-effect occupying several other countries like South Korea and Kosavo.

Answer 6

Like the Sudan and Darfur, the "war" in the Congo is primarily a tribal affair with the majority tribe trying to use their numbers to seize the natural resources of the whole country for their benefit.

At a lower level, the same thing has been going on in Nigeria for over 40 years.

The "problem" isn't the war -- it is tribalism. And you're not going to root that out anytime within your lifetime.

Answer 7

The USA won't get involved because then people will complain they are involved. The UN sucks at stopping anything like this. I have an idea, why doesn't China or Russia stop it? France? Britain? Saudi Arabia? Iran? India?

Answer 8

The US has no interest in involving itself in an African war. The last time we tried we got spanked by world opinion, despite concrete progress.

Answer 9

We have no interests there
We would end up fighting everyone in the area
It would cost Billions of $ and many soldiers lives
The second we left the fighting would resume

Why don't the people involved stop fighting on their own?
Why does someone else have to solve theor problems?

Answer 10

What are we, the world police? The purpose of the S military is to protect America, not run around the world settling disputes. Africa is a quagmire.