The French-led peacekeeping force, which received United Nations Security Council approval last Friday, will comprise about 1,400 personnel and is due to start deploying at the end of this week.
It is estimated that 50,000 people have died in tribals wars in Congo since 1998.
Here's hoping they can get something done.
About time....I've been saying that the UN should have been there for over a month...
I think a small and even lightly armed force could do some good if utilized properly.
Wrong. Please buy a ticket back to the real world.
The cease-fire is disolving and child-soldiers are running around with their victim's entrailes around their necks. The ugandan president called the peacekeepers "dangerous tourists" and the UN commander was slashed with a machete.
France is the only major country to commit troops, and the US is nowhere to be seen. It is already the largest humanitarian crises in the world right now, yet the US is doing nothing. In fact, Bush praised Clinton for not putting troops in Rwanda.
The UN peacekeepers are asking for more troops and no one is willing to commit. It's not in the US's or Israel's political interests, so we won't be going in.
So much for all that BS about the US military being used for humanitarian purposes.
You cry for the US to be the world's military nanny and then cry that the US is the world's military nanny.
Can Europe do nothing without the US? We didn't need France to annihilate Hussein, can't they commit a few troops to Congo? What's Belgium doing with her forces? What abou Luxemborg and Germany?
Our guys are busy cleaning up in Iraq. It's a world community, supposedly, not a US-cleans-up-after-everyone-else community. Right?
Aren't these people getting their guns through the EU?
I think UN forces should be sent it en masse, but why is every situation incumbent upon the US?
The UN doesn't do a damned thing about anything, member states whine that the US & Coalition go and act on an SC matter and then whine for the US to act somewhere else.
Christ, the political aspect of this is rich.
And all the while no one cares what happens in Africa; the US pre-occupied and everyone else screaming for the US to do something.
Sorry, your political arguments don't work here. You have useless deaths of hundreds of thousands. You claim that humanitarian reasons are reason enough for the US to act, yet when a real humanitarian crises arises you just make excuses.
Sorry, but you are the one with a double standard.
Quote:
Aren't these people getting their guns through the EU?
Uganda
Quote:
Christ, the political aspect of this is rich.
Yes it is. Spoiled americans like you shamelessly putting your politics before helping humanity for the sake of humanity.
And you know what, until you can demonstrate that the UN Security Council supported the Iraq war, don't say we acted according to the UN security council. And until military action is taken against Israel for violation of resolutions, don't say it was to enforce UN resolutions. If you do, you are flat out lying.
You claim that humanitarian reasons are reason enough for the US to act, yet when a real humanitarian crises arises you just make excuses.
Make excuses for what?
I think Bush is ignoring a real problem here and I think we should try to do everything we can. When have I said differently?
Quote:
Yes it is. Spoiled americans like you shamelessly putting your politics before helping humanity for the sake of humanity.
Oh wait, it's my decision!
Let me make a few calls, we'll have 45,000 Marines there before nightfall!
Quote:
And you know what, until you can demonstrate that the UN Security Council supported the Iraq war, don't say we acted according to the UN security council.
Can you respond to any post of mine without making shit up? When did I say "we acted according to the UN security council"? Learn to read. The goddam sentence mentions UN-SC member states unhappy with us acting. Did we not act? Was Iraq's disarmament not an SC matter?
Learn to read. I'm sure a top-shelf university like Northwestern offers remedial reading courses.
Quote:
And until military action is taken against Israel for violation of resolutions, don't say it was to enforce UN resolutions. If you do, you are flat out lying.
If you would waste less time reading things into posts you might have more time to read and comprehend what is actually written.
Although I guess fabricating new arguments out of someone's words is easier than refuting that which you have no argument against. Try silence when you can't argue, to make things up is just insulting.
Uganda does not make guns or amunition. Nor does it produce the fuel and vehicles. All of these things come from some other country, such as France, England, China and the US. Saying Uganda provides weapons to those so called "freedom fighters" in the DRC is like saying a door provides the things that pass through it.
Uganda does not make guns or amunition. Nor does it produce the fuel and vehicles. All of these things come from some other country, such as France, England, China and the US. Saying Uganda provides weapons to those so called "freedom fighters" in the DRC is like saying a door provides the things that pass through it.
You forgot the biggest one, Russia. And most of those arms trades are illegal. Saying that the EU armed militias in congo is not accurate.
Can you respond to any post of mine without making shit up? When did I say "we acted according to the UN security council"? Learn to read. The goddam sentence mentions UN-SC member states unhappy with us acting. Did we not act? Was Iraq's disarmament not an SC matter?
We did not act on a security council matter, we acted on Bush admin, neo-con and Israeli politics. Iraq disarmament was a Security council matter, but it was not why the US acted.
Bush: America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq.
Apparently America's not a frend of Congo. Either that or having your entrails worn on the neck of a 15 year old soldier as a trophy is considered dignified.
We did not act on a security council matter, we acted on Bush admin, neo-con and Israeli politics. Iraq disarmament was a Security council matter, but it was not why the US acted.
Iraq disarmament wasn't a part of the Bush administration's push to war?
Interesting revisionist history.
Quote:
Apparently America's not a frend of Congo. Either that or having your entrails worn on the neck of a 15 year old soldier as a trophy is considered dignified.
The only way to support something is to send troops
No, but in this case the situation desperately needs it. The peacekeepers are dramatically outnumbered and have been confined to their overcrowded compound.
Comments
Originally posted by Scott
Wait wait I'm congfused! Where's the thoughtless knee jerk anti-Americanism?
In your head
Originally posted by groverat
EU approves Congo peacekeeping force. - BBC click
The French-led peacekeeping force, which received United Nations Security Council approval last Friday, will comprise about 1,400 personnel and is due to start deploying at the end of this week.
It is estimated that 50,000 people have died in tribals wars in Congo since 1998.
Here's hoping they can get something done.
About time....I've been saying that the UN should have been there for over a month...
Is the UN always this slow?
Or is it my dillusion?
Originally posted by groverat
I think a small and even lightly armed force could do some good if utilized properly.
Wrong. Please buy a ticket back to the real world.
The cease-fire is disolving and child-soldiers are running around with their victim's entrailes around their necks. The ugandan president called the peacekeepers "dangerous tourists" and the UN commander was slashed with a machete.
France is the only major country to commit troops, and the US is nowhere to be seen. It is already the largest humanitarian crises in the world right now, yet the US is doing nothing. In fact, Bush praised Clinton for not putting troops in Rwanda.
The UN peacekeepers are asking for more troops and no one is willing to commit. It's not in the US's or Israel's political interests, so we won't be going in.
So much for all that BS about the US military being used for humanitarian purposes.
So much for all that BS about the US military being used for humanitarian purposes.
hmm, maybe they're a bit busy at the moment.......
Can Europe do nothing without the US? We didn't need France to annihilate Hussein, can't they commit a few troops to Congo? What's Belgium doing with her forces? What abou Luxemborg and Germany?
Our guys are busy cleaning up in Iraq. It's a world community, supposedly, not a US-cleans-up-after-everyone-else community. Right?
Aren't these people getting their guns through the EU?
I think UN forces should be sent it en masse, but why is every situation incumbent upon the US?
The UN doesn't do a damned thing about anything, member states whine that the US & Coalition go and act on an SC matter and then whine for the US to act somewhere else.
Christ, the political aspect of this is rich.
And all the while no one cares what happens in Africa; the US pre-occupied and everyone else screaming for the US to do something.
Sorry, but you are the one with a double standard.
Aren't these people getting their guns through the EU?
Uganda
Christ, the political aspect of this is rich.
Yes it is. Spoiled americans like you shamelessly putting your politics before helping humanity for the sake of humanity.
And you know what, until you can demonstrate that the UN Security Council supported the Iraq war, don't say we acted according to the UN security council. And until military action is taken against Israel for violation of resolutions, don't say it was to enforce UN resolutions. If you do, you are flat out lying.
You claim that humanitarian reasons are reason enough for the US to act, yet when a real humanitarian crises arises you just make excuses.
Make excuses for what?
I think Bush is ignoring a real problem here and I think we should try to do everything we can. When have I said differently?
Yes it is. Spoiled americans like you shamelessly putting your politics before helping humanity for the sake of humanity.
Oh wait, it's my decision!
Let me make a few calls, we'll have 45,000 Marines there before nightfall!
And you know what, until you can demonstrate that the UN Security Council supported the Iraq war, don't say we acted according to the UN security council.
Can you respond to any post of mine without making shit up? When did I say "we acted according to the UN security council"? Learn to read. The goddam sentence mentions UN-SC member states unhappy with us acting. Did we not act? Was Iraq's disarmament not an SC matter?
Learn to read. I'm sure a top-shelf university like Northwestern offers remedial reading courses.
And until military action is taken against Israel for violation of resolutions, don't say it was to enforce UN resolutions. If you do, you are flat out lying.
If you would waste less time reading things into posts you might have more time to read and comprehend what is actually written.
Although I guess fabricating new arguments out of someone's words is easier than refuting that which you have no argument against. Try silence when you can't argue, to make things up is just insulting.
Originally posted by Sondjata
Uganda does not make guns or amunition. Nor does it produce the fuel and vehicles. All of these things come from some other country, such as France, England, China and the US. Saying Uganda provides weapons to those so called "freedom fighters" in the DRC is like saying a door provides the things that pass through it.
You forgot the biggest one, Russia. And most of those arms trades are illegal. Saying that the EU armed militias in congo is not accurate.
Originally posted by groverat
Can you respond to any post of mine without making shit up? When did I say "we acted according to the UN security council"? Learn to read. The goddam sentence mentions UN-SC member states unhappy with us acting. Did we not act? Was Iraq's disarmament not an SC matter?
We did not act on a security council matter, we acted on Bush admin, neo-con and Israeli politics. Iraq disarmament was a Security council matter, but it was not why the US acted.
Yes, I can read. Can you think?
Originally posted by The General
I just hope they dont run into those nasty apes while searching for Diamonds.
The Lost City of Zinj was destroyed by Mt. Mukenko, remember?
Originally posted by giant
Can you think?
Yes he can, but not well enough to disguise the truth. That's no to say he's a bad thinker, but the truth is just too strongly stacked up against him.
Bush: America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq.
http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle3711.htm
Apparently America's not a frend of Congo. Either that or having your entrails worn on the neck of a 15 year old soldier as a trophy is considered dignified.
We did not act on a security council matter, we acted on Bush admin, neo-con and Israeli politics. Iraq disarmament was a Security council matter, but it was not why the US acted.
Iraq disarmament wasn't a part of the Bush administration's push to war?
Interesting revisionist history.
Apparently America's not a frend of Congo. Either that or having your entrails worn on the neck of a 15 year old soldier as a trophy is considered dignified.
Does the US not support the UN in Congo?
Originally posted by groverat
Iraq disarmament wasn't a part of the Bush administration's push to war?
this war was not necessary to 'disarm' iraq, the adminstration knew this, and the UN Security Council did agree that war was necessary.
So it was part of the puch, if by push you mean propaganda.
Does the US not support the UN in Congo?
Are there US troops there?
If we went into Iraq to stop 'terror and torture,' then we better hurry up and get some troops in congo.
Not that this hadn't already started BEFORE that Iraq war.
Originally posted by Scott
The only way to support something is to send troops
No, but in this case the situation desperately needs it. The peacekeepers are dramatically outnumbered and have been confined to their overcrowded compound.