UN Needs Troops to Prevent Disaster in Congo

[a_unique_person]

UN urges more DR Congo troops


Tens of thousands have fled the fighting
The United Nations is to ask other countries to follow France's example in offering to send peacekeepers to the north-eastern Ituri region of the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Heavy fighting is under way there between rival ethnic militias seeking control of the town of Bunia, the regional capital, where the UN fears a bloodbath.

The UN has about 700 troops, mainly Uruguayans, based in the town where some 10,000 residents are seeking shelter at the UN compound as street battles rage.




Who will provide them? Urugauy would not be the sort of place that could provide much more than it's current committment.

[aerocontrols]

I support sending US troops, if we're going to overthrow the current dictatorship.

[corplinx]

shouldnt it be:

to prevent _yet another_ disaster

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Who will provide them?

I think that, in an attempt to reconcile with those UN member-nation's that ousted Saddam, France, Germany and Russia should provide the funds, troops, and material for this operation.

[Genghis Pwn]

Does France have UN Security Council approval for this military adventure into a sovereign country?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
Does France have UN Security Council approval for this military adventure into a sovereign country?

Unnecessary...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Kodiak


I think that, in an attempt to reconcile with those UN member-nation's that ousted Saddam, France, Germany and Russia should provide the funds, troops, and material for this operation.

Germany, due to relatively recent war, has not been to keen to be too militarily active. France and Russia, I believe, have been making troops available for UN use.

However, I do agree, they should be putting in a bit more.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/peacekpg/ appears to be an excellent site.

The US, however, as the most powerful military country in the world, should be putting in a proportional amount. The US, however, except for when it runs the show, such as in Korea, does not appear to be prepared to take a partnership role in such operations.



US Policy on UN Peacekeeping
This page deals with US policies that affect UN peacekeeping. The UN's difficulties in funding its operations and compensating troop-contributing countries arise in large part from the US refusal to pay its share of the peacekeeping budget. Since the US is responsible for the largest portion of the budget and has extensive military resources, its policies towards the UN are crucial to the organization's success.





Strengthening the Peacekeepers
Washington Post
September 6, 2000

At the end of their extravagant millennium summit on Friday, the United Nations and its member states will issue dreamy calls to defeat poverty, illiteracy and AIDS. But a more practical statement may emerge today from the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council.

The P5 are due to consider ways of strengthening the United Nations' peacekeeping efforts, which have expanded rapidly since the end of the Cold War, not always successfully. In Bosnia, Rwanda and, most recently, Sierra Leone, the United Nations has sent too few people too late with too weak a mandate. As a result, many thousands of civilians who might have been saved were instead slaughtered.

Last month an expert commission appointed by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan listed the causes of these setbacks. It proposed that the United Nations' tiny peacekeeping staff in New York be strengthened: At present there are only 32 military officers at U.N. headquarters to oversee 27,000 troops deployed in 14 operations around the world, and only nine police specialists to supervise 9,000 police officers. An expanded staff might make it possible to get troops into trouble spots faster and to anticipate necessary deployments earlier.



So, there are 27,000 troops deployed around the world in current UN peacekeeping operations.



When confronted with a humanitarian crisis, the world's leading nations often can't bring themselves to say that they don't care but can't bring themselves to commit sufficient resources to make muscular U.N. action possible either. So they pretend that the thugs really want peace and that a small, lightly armed force can preserve that peace. Then, when facing the inevitable result of this hypocrisy--failed peacekeeping missions--they can blame the United Nations and call for U.N. reform. The reforms may indeed be positive. But all the improvements in U.N. structure can't help if the United Nations' strongest members are using the organization more to cover their fecklessness than to help solve real problems.

[Buzzsaw]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


The US, however, as the most powerful military country in the world, should be putting in a proportional amount. The US, however, except for when it runs the show, such as in Korea, does not appear to be prepared to take a partnership role in such operations.


1. US soldiers should never be put under command of any non-US officers.

2. We don't owe the UN anything:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-304.html

3. I support US troops going in and establishing a democratic government, as we are in the process of doing in Iraq. Maybe if we had a little help from the UN in Iraq, we would have some resources to spare now that they need us....

[Skeptic]

Well, on the news today, the UN DID take action in the Ivory Coast: after eight months of civil war leaving thousands of dead, the UN okayed a peace keeping force--made up of about seventy unarmed, civilian observers. That'll show 'em!

The UN "peace keeping forces" are, and always have been, a pathetic joke and a total failure--EXCEPT when the US agrees to join the mission (usually with significant support from the UK, the only real friend--except israel--the US has even in foul weather.)

Then, these two nations take over 98% of the operation and 99% of the fighting, while graciously allowing the beurocrats in the UN to retain nominal "command" for prestige reasons, in an attempt to make it seem like it's truly an "international" effort.

To put it bluntly, all that matters is whether the US will go on the peacekeeping mission in Congo or not. If not, any peacekeeping mission would be a tragic farce, as most UN operations are. If it would, there is a chance to save many lives.

Of course, if the US DOES intervene, the usual crowd of Anti-American idiots like AUP will start ranting about "American imperialism" and how George Bush is a "racist" for attacking black people.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Well, on the news today, the UN DID take action in the Ivory Coast: after eight months of civil war leaving thousands of dead, the UN okayed a peace keeping force--made up of about seventy unarmed, civilian observers. That'll show 'em!



The UN appears to have had the policy that armed 'observers' will be able to monitor and shame wrongdoers into behaving better. It has always had a problem with just sending in the troops, in the US style, to solve problems.

The problem is that due to the fact that the UN is not one unified body, but an aggregation of countries, that rapid changes in policy is not possible.

However, the number of troops, under UN control, around the world monitoring civil unrest is quite sizeable and expensive.



The UN "peace keeping forces" are, and always have been, a pathetic joke and a total failure--EXCEPT when the US agrees to join the mission (usually with significant support from the UK, the only real friend--except israel--the US has even in foul weather.)



And how is Israel going to handle the 'roadmap', one of Tony Blairs conditions for joining in Iraq.



Then, these two nations take over 98% of the operation and 99% of the fighting, while graciously allowing the beurocrats in the UN to retain nominal "command" for prestige reasons, in an attempt to make it seem like it's truly an "international" effort.



Unless someone gets hurt, like in Somalia. Then it becomes a political issue. In this case, used to attack Clinton, who pulled them out.



To put it bluntly, all that matters is whether the US will go on the peacekeeping mission in Congo or not. If not, any peacekeeping mission would be a tragic farce, as most UN operations are. If it would, there is a chance to save many lives.

Of course, if the US DOES intervene, the usual crowd of Anti-American idiots like AUP will start ranting about "American imperialism" and how George Bush is a "racist" for attacking black people.

Did you know the US is still the Military Commander of the South Korean Army? Amazingly, they still hold this position, humiliating the South Koreans as being second rate people who are not good enough to command their own armed forces in partnership with the US.

[a_unique_person]

Apart from all that, they are asking for help.

[renata]

Originally posted by a_unique_person




Did you know the US is still the Military Commander of the South Korean Army? Amazingly, they still hold this position, humiliating the South Koreans as being second rate people who are not good enough to command their own armed forces in partnership with the US.

Funny you should mention South Korea in this context. This very morning I heard a story on NPR on the impending visit of South Korean leader Roh Moo-hyun to the White House. Apparently, he campaigned on a platform of removing US troops. Interestingly, the story mentioned, that since the recent North Korea fun, not only did he drop his opposition to the US forces there, but he was going to thank Bush for them being them.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by renata


Funny you should mention South Korea in this context. This very morning I heard a story on NPR on the impending visit of South Korean leader Roh Moo-hyun to the White House. Apparently, he campaigned on a platform of removing US troops. Interestingly, the story mentioned, that since the recent North Korea fun, not only did he drop his opposition to the US forces there, but he was going to thank Bush for them being them.

Yes, he has to humiliate himself and have his own army under the command of the US. Don't expect much gratitude in the long run.

[renata]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Yes, he has to humiliate himself and have his own army under the command of the US. Don't expect much gratitude in the long run.

Well, he does not have to humiliate himself. I am sure if he requested US troops to leave, they would, and then he could have his army.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by renata


Well, he does not have to humiliate himself. I am sure if he requested US troops to leave, they would, and then he could have his army.

False dichotomy. The US could offer aid on a co-operative basis, rather than insisting that they run the whole show, treating the South Koreans as quaint little Asians, who aren't mature enough to look after themselves, whom they are kind enough to help out.

It is a patronising attitude, that is not as bad as the attitude of the North towards the South, but nevertheless one that will not be forgotten.

If the US had kept it's deal about building reactors for the North that could not be used to build nukes, the whole situation may be different now. The North is desperately short of everything, including power, and is stirring the pot at present just to blackmail it's neighbours for aid.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The US, however, as the most powerful military country in the world, should be putting in a proportional amount. The US, however, except for when it runs the show, such as in Korea, does not appear to be prepared to take a partnership role in such operations.

Screw a "partnership role"!

Who better to lead than "the most powerful military country in the world"?

Wise military commanders lead from a position of overwhelming strength, not "Which country's turn is it to lead this time?"...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Screw a "partnership role"!

Who better to lead than "the most powerful military country in the world"?

Wise military commanders lead from a position of overwhelming strength, not "Which country's turn is it to lead this time?"...

Yes, that attitude will get you a long way. Maybe you should try reading 'How to win friends and influence people'.

[LW]

Originally posted by Skeptic

The UN "peace keeping forces" are, and always have been, a pathetic joke and a total failure--EXCEPT when the US agrees to join the mission

Cyprus. Maybe it was not a brilliant succes story, but it wasn't a pathetic failure, either.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by LW


Cyprus. Maybe it was not a brilliant succes story, but it wasn't a pathetic failure, either.

I don't think that any peac keeping mission the US has ever been involved in has been pathetic. Avoidable tragedies, yes, political footballs, yes, under resourced, yes, pathetic, too many people have been dying and suffering in the causes they have been called to, to reduce the judgements to a mere evaluation of the UN actions.

Eg, Korea, what was that?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Yes, that attitude will get you a long way.

Militarily, you couldn't be more correct...


Originally posted by a_unique_person
Maybe you should try reading 'How to win friends and influence people'.

Diplomacy and Statecraft operate at their worst when they rely upon public opinion and popularity...

[Genghis Pwn]

Originally posted by Kodiak

Diplomacy and Statecraft operate at their worst when they rely upon public opinion and popularity...

Diplomacy and Statecraft operate at their best when the person negotiating has a bunch of these on call...





http://www2001141.thinkquest.dk/images/b2bomb.jpg

[synaesthesia]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
Does France have UN Security Council approval for this military adventure into a sovereign country?

France has never sought such approval. The only country that has ever done that is (wait for it) the united states.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
Diplomacy and Statecraft operate at their best when the person negotiating has a bunch of these on call...

History has shown that both power and fear can be excellent negotiating factors in Diplomacy if used carefully and responsibly.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Militarily, you couldn't be more correct...



And if you become totally dependent on the military, you wind up being run by the military.





Diplomacy and Statecraft operate at their worst when they rely upon public opinion and popularity...

I thought that the US was a democratic country, silly me.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Kodiak


History has shown that both power and fear can be excellent negotiating factors in Diplomacy if used carefully and responsibly.

Also known as bullying.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
And if you become totally dependent on the military, you wind up being run by the military.

Stop fear mongering, a_u_p. I never said or implied that the military was the only facet of US diplomacy. The U.S. has a widely varied multitude of diplomatic options at it's disposal.



Originally posted by a_unique_person
I thought that the US was a democratic country, silly me.

Silly you. The US government is a complex or hybrid democracy, best described as a constitutionally limited Republic.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Also known as bullying.

"Bully" is a matter of opinion.

Predominancy would be a better term, as it doesn't betray a bias.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Kodiak


"Bully" is a matter of opinion.

Predominancy would be a better term, as it doesn't betray a bias.

Sophistry.

[JAR]

Yes, there are wars going on that the U.S. should get involved in once it is able to. Of course, the U.S. will take the side of those who are not the aggressors.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn


Diplomacy and Statecraft operate at their best when the person negotiating has a bunch of these on call...





http://www2001141.thinkquest.dk/images/b2bomb.jpg
But those things work better in darkness w/o an F-16 giving away it's position! :D

On a serious note, there was a pic in the Chicago Tribune today of a 10 year old militia soldier w/ an AK-47 kicking a woman out of a house in the Congo. No doubt AUP would claim US forces were slaughtering helpless children if they're put in a position to have to kill these child soldiers.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by WildCat

But those things work better in darkness w/o an F-16 giving away it's position! :D

On a serious note, there was a pic in the Chicago Tribune today of a 10 year old militia soldier w/ an AK-47 kicking a woman out of a house in the Congo. No doubt AUP would claim US forces were slaughtering helpless children if they're put in a position to have to kill these child soldiers.

Strawman.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Strawman.
Quite the compliment coming from the King of all Scarecrows.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by WildCat

Quite the compliment coming from the King of all Scarecrows.
Well, now I regret that remark, I admit it was uncalled for. The post you referred to as a strawman arguement was intentionally so. It was meant light-heartedly, however. Guess I should have used a smiley.

[Nately]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Did you know the US is still the Military Commander of the South Korean Army? Amazingly, they still hold this position, humiliating the South Koreans as being second rate people who are not good enough to command their own armed forces in partnership with the US.

I don't think you have a completely clear picture of the command structure in South Korea. I doubt it will modify your opinion any, but the first few paragraphs at this link sum it up well.

Combined Forces Command (http://www.csun.edu/~btk29323/cfc.htm)

"Despite the impression of total American control of Republic of Korea armed forces via CFC, the Korean units are independent forces. Only during time of war, does the Korean units subject itself to the CFC. Otherwise, Korean military operate independent of CFC in peacetime."

I also doubt your qualified to speak on the nature of the working relationship between ROK and US forces, but don't let me stop you.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Nately


I don't think you have a completely clear picture of the command structure in South Korea. I doubt it will modify your opinion any, but the first few paragraphs at this link sum it up well.

Combined Forces Command (http://www.csun.edu/~btk29323/cfc.htm)

"Despite the impression of total American control of Republic of Korea armed forces via CFC, the Korean units are independent forces. Only during time of war, does the Korean units subject itself to the CFC. Otherwise, Korean military operate independent of CFC in peacetime."

I also doubt your qualified to speak on the nature of the working relationship between ROK and US forces, but don't let me stop you.

That's a pretty good catch 22, though, isn't it. If we aren't at war, we aren't under your command, but if we are at war, we are under your command.

[Skeptic]

Cyprus. Maybe it was not a brilliant succes story, but it wasn't a pathetic failure, either.

Okay, so ONCE the UN managed not to COMPLETELY screw things up. Quite the organization for solving the problems in Congo...

[Skeptic]

I don't ("A Unique Person") ha(s) a completely clear picture of the command structure in South Korea.

I also doubt (he's) qualified to speak on the nature of the working relationship between ROK and US forces,

but don't let me stop you.

Did not knowing what the hell he's talking about EVER stopped AUP before?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Sophistry.

Where is the deception in what I've presented?

You're the one with a known bias, grinding your axe from one forum thread to the other...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Cyprus. Maybe it was not a brilliant succes story, but it wasn't a pathetic failure, either.

Okay, so ONCE the UN managed not to COMPLETELY screw things up. Quite the organization for solving the problems in Congo...

They have asked for help. Britain, for example, is considering sending some.

It really is the sum of it's parts.

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by Kodiak


I think that, in an attempt to reconcile with those UN member-nation's that ousted Saddam, France, Germany and Russia should provide the funds, troops, and material for this operation.

The French will fight with the Belgans about who has the greater... Aw - forget about it. When the French learn to wipe their own ass...Aw...forget about it.
OK...The Congo is doomed. :(

[aerocontrols]

An interesting take (http://www.snappingturtle.net/jmc/flit/2003_05_01_archive.html#95006710) on joining a UN peacekeeping force in the Congo.

Still, there are the innocents to worry about. The west wants aid to start flowing again, and for that someone has to step in now that the Rwandans have gone. The trouble is that a peacekeeping force in the Congo now isn't a normal UN peacekeeping force, in the sense that it's stepping in with the consent of all parties to sort out a civil war, or interpose itself between two warring countries... it's stepping in to replace Mugabe's and the others' troops propping up the decadent Kabila Inc. dictatorship. It's certainly not like any traditional peacekeeping situation... it's not like Somalia, where the UN stepped in in the absence of any government... Kabila is the universally recognized ruler. It's not like Rwanda, where they were trying to interpose on the agreement of both sides in a civil war, either. No, if the UN goes, it's going to keep the Hutus down, and Kabila in power. How is that consistent, in any way, with the founding principles of this organization? If providing mercenaries to a third-world dictator is all the non-U.S. western militaries are good for, then they're worse than useless.

Never mind that you'll never get the 20,000 troops needed, leaving any force that goes there undermanned in extreme danger. (Two UN observers were hacked to death last week.) Never mind that this was tried once before and failed, in 1960, with the UN leaving in embarassment three years later, and scaling back its interventionist ambitions for the next 30 years. But the whole thing is JUST WRONG. It's the antithesis of everything the UN once claimed to stand for.

I stand by my original response. No troops for peacekeeping, since it means supporting the current dictatorship.

I support sending troops if they will be used to oust the current regime and build a stable country.

aerocontrols

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
An interesting take (http://www.snappingturtle.net/jmc/flit/2003_05_01_archive.html#95006710) on joining a UN peacekeeping force in the Congo.



I stand by my original response. No troops for peacekeeping, since it means supporting the current dictatorship.

I support sending troops if they will be used to oust the current regime and build a stable country.

aerocontrols

I don't know that the intent is to prop up a dictator, although that would be one of the unfortunate side effects. The main reason is to just stop the slaughter of people. And in this case, the is legal backing for the action, in the form of the UN.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I don't know that the intent is to prop up a dictator, although that would be one of the unfortunate side effects. The main reason is to just stop the slaughter of people. And in this case, the is legal backing for the action, in the form of the UN.

Does this mean you're going to stop preaching about the lessons of the past re: supporting a dictator in pursuit of greater good? Aren't you worried about blowback?

I don't give a fig about UN backing. The UN will never give backing to do anything that will solve the problem.

MattJ

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Does this mean you're going to stop preaching about the lessons of the past re: supporting a dictator in pursuit of greater good? Aren't you worried about blowback?

I don't give a fig about UN backing. The UN will never give backing to do anything that will solve the problem.

MattJ

Who is supporting him, I think the UN is just there to divide the lines and encourage disarmament, which is the next step up from just being there to observe how bad it is all getting.

The dictator is not being supported for some ulterior motive, such as backing him because he is engaged in a war with someone else the UN doesn't like.

And UN is at least some start to a legal basis for action.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The dictator is not being supported for some ulterior motive, such as backing him because he is engaged in a war with someone else the UN doesn't like.

Oh, then, I'm sure those he oppresses won't mind.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Oh, then, I'm sure those he oppresses won't mind.

You are mixing the logic around here.

I that the people would prefer to be oppressed than shot or hacked to deat.

As to a process of freeing people around the world from oppressors, that is something that may be a good idea. Can we formulate some sort of legal structure to ensure there won't just be a bunch of vigilantes going around acting as they want.

[LW]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Cyprus. Maybe it was not a brilliant succes story, but it wasn't a pathetic failure, either.

Okay, so ONCE the UN managed not to COMPLETELY screw things up. Quite the organization for solving the problems in Congo...

Sorry for my delayed reply, I didn't notice your post until yesterday evening.

Cyprus was the first example of successful peacekeeping where US troops were not involved. Mozambique is probably another (at least I haven't been able to find mentions of US participation there). I'd guess that there are also other examples, but I'm not interested enough to dig data about them. (Most links that came up with google omit the details of the peacekeeping force compositions.)

But anyway, I have a trouble taking you any more seriously than AUP. Both of you usually write reasonable arguments but then suddenly there comes an unsupported assertion that makes me wonder on what planet you live.

In my opinion, you use the words "all" and "every" a little too much for your username.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Ah so France and the rest of the UN posse finally want our help....I smell payback coming. :)

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by aerocontrols

I stand by my original response. No troops for peacekeeping, since it means supporting the current dictatorship.


You are assuming that Kabila is a dictator. His father (the old pres.) was assasinated and then Kabila jnr took over a country that was and is at war. Of course he hasnt held elections. Do you realistically expect a country in the state that DRC is in to be able to hold free and fair elections? Thought not. Then why are you bitching about supporting a dictator who isnt?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
You are mixing the logic around here.

I that the people would prefer to be oppressed than shot or hacked to deat.

I think I know what you mean here... :confused:

Different people want different things, AUP. If everyone in the region preferred that the violence just stop, then it would. The fact that peacekeepers are needed implies that someone doesn't want peace. Whole tribes of people.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
As to a process of freeing people around the world from oppressors, that is something that may be a good idea. Can we formulate some sort of legal structure to ensure there won't just be a bunch of vigilantes going around acting as they want.

No, probably not.

MattJ

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


You are assuming that Kabila is a dictator. His father (the old pres.) was assasinated and then Kabila jnr took over a country that was and is at war. Of course he hasnt held elections. Do you realistically expect a country in the state that DRC is in to be able to hold free and fair elections? Thought not. Then why are you bitching about supporting a dictator who isnt?

By any reasonable definition of 'dicatator' - he is. Your complaint here seems to be that he's been forced into being a dictator, because it's not reasonable to expect him to hold elections. (An excuse of dictators since forever) Even if true, (which I don't believe) he still is a dictator.

Claiming that he's not is rather odd, don't you think?

MattJ

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


By any reasonable definition of 'dicatator' - he is. Your complaint here seems to be that he's been forced into being a dictator, because it's not reasonable to expect him to hold elections. (An excuse of dictators since forever) Even if true, (which I don't believe) he still is a dictator.

Claiming that he's not is rather odd, don't you think?

MattJ

Claiming he is a dictator seems rather odd to me. Why do you think its reasonable for him to have elections? Is it your opinion that he should just hold an election any old way even though there isnt even a farts chance in a hurricane that they will be free and fair (through no fault of his own)?

[Jon_in_london]

Just to clarify your position here-

You say he is a dictator because he has not held elections.
He has not held elections because is country is torn by war/civil war and there isnt even the remotest possibility of them being free or fair.
But by default he is a dictator.
So, instead of sending in a peacekeeping mission to restore order and allow elections to be held, you refuse 'to prop up a dictator'
thereby basically guarenteeing that the state of war/civil war will carry on in perpetuity.

Wunderbar!

I wonder if your position is representative of the US in general?

[rikzilla]

Well...if it walks like a duck...etc...etc... Yeah,...he is a dictator. Ok, so maybe since he seems not to be able to control his country enough to ensure safe (if not fair) elections, then he's just a crappy and incompetant dictator. :rolleyes:

AC is right...if we go in, we go in to make a fresh start of things. The lives of our soldiers are not to be spent propping up dictatorial governments, or sacrificed on the altar of UN intransigence.

I remember reading about the uprising against Belgian colonialism in 1963. Seems the Congolese not only killed the Belgians they captured...but ate some of them as well. The image of missionaries tied up in a cauldron comes to mind.

The real problem may just be that these people are not civilized enough to properly govern themselves? Ah, but then I'll be accused of cultural elitism, won't I?? :) Maybe that's why AUP wants to prop up the current dictator? He's afraid that the dictator is just what those uncivilized heathens need! :D Yet is afraid to say it out loud.

My, my....what a perfect example of liberal indecision and self doubt.

-z

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by rikzilla
The real problem may just be that these people are not civilized enough to properly govern themselves? Ah, but then I'll be accused of cultural elitism, won't I?? :) Maybe that's why AUP wants to prop up the current dictator? He's afraid that the dictator is just what those uncivilized heathens need! :D Yet is afraid to say it out loud.

My, my....what a perfect example of liberal indecision and self doubt.

-z

I think admitting that a problem is complex and that one doesn't have a definite solution is a good sign.

I work with computers, and a lot of my work involves problem solving. It pays to always keep an open mind about things as much as possible. Saying something like 'If we do x we will solve the problem' is a guarenteed way of ending up with egg on your face.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Well...if it walks like a duck...etc...etc... Yeah,...he is a dictator. Ok, so maybe since he seems not to be able to control his country enough to ensure safe (if not fair) elections, then he's just a crappy and incompetant dictator. :rolleyes:



Perhaps its because his country has/had armies from half a dozen other nations all fighting it out. Christ! you guys are just so totally f*cking ignorant! Why dont you go read up on the recent history of the country?

Originally posted by rikzilla
AC is right...if we go in, we go in to make a fresh start of things. The lives of our soldiers are not to be spent propping up dictatorial governments, or sacrificed on the altar of UN intransigence.


No, they will be sacrificed for Halliburton instead.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Just to clarify your position here-

You say he is a dictator because he has not held elections.

No, I said he was a dictator. You brought up elections.

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
He has not held elections because is country is torn by war/civil war and there isnt even the remotest possibility of them being free or fair.

That's your claim. What makes you think Kabila is interested in having elections of any type, much less free and fair ones that may push him out of power?

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
But by default he is a dictator.

No, not by default. By the fact that he is the unelected (although that's not required for dictatorship) autocratic ruler.

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
So, instead of sending in a peacekeeping mission to restore order and allow elections to be held, you refuse 'to prop up a dictator' thereby basically guarenteeing that the state of war/civil war will carry on in perpetuity.

No, if you look at my original post, I suggested that if we are going to get involved, we take over, oust the current regime, and build a stable country. I also suggest that for a lot of other African states. Kabila can return to power after he's won an election and is subject to democratic checks and balances.

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
I wonder if your position is representative of the US in general?

Hard to say. Why do you ask?

MattJ

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


No, I said he was a dictator. You brought up elections.
...................
That's your claim. What makes you think Kabila is interested in having elections of any type, much less free and fair ones that may push him out of power?
...................
No, not by default. By the fact that he is the unelected (although that's not required for dictatorship) autocratic ruler.



What makes me think he is interested in elections? well he has expressed his desire to do so. I think its pretty fair to give hime the benfit of the doubt in the meantime....



No, if you look at my original post, I suggested that if we are going to get involved, we take over, oust the current regime, and build a stable country. I also suggest that for a lot of other African states. Kabila can return to power after he's won an election and is subject to democratic checks and balances.



Build a stable country, like you did in Afghanistan and are doing now in Iraq? Look! heres one you invaded earlier... doesnt look very good does it?

And speaking of Afghanistan! was your puppet ruler elected? has he ever held elections? No? Then I find it stange that you moralise about the UN 'propping up a dictator' whereas the US is not only 'propping up a dictator' it was the US that installed him in power in the first place.

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


No, if you look at my original post, I suggested that if we are going to get involved, we take over, oust the current regime, and build a stable country.

Do you have any idea how big DRC is? Someone here suggested sending "20,000" troops, I'm afraid they would be as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike. DRC is f*cking huge. It has no usable highways, and few airstrips. The baddies would just have to take their kit off and loaf about in the forest until the US buggered off, and it would all start again, and whoever is in charge of the US military knows it.

The DRC cannot be made into a stable country without..... I don't know, rewriting the history books I suppose.

A prediction. If the US/ UN/ EU/ IRA/ Disneyworld decide to send in troops, the maximum extent of their mission in DRC will be to protect western interests/ embassies (do-able), and that is it. Any other stated intent will be for the cameras only, and will not be followed through. Nothing else is possible.

I also suggest that for a lot of other African states. Kabila can return to power after he's won an election and is subject to democratic checks and balances.

Amen brother, but how will you go about enforcing this little slice of nirvana? Who is going to give their assent for a government to take power? What sanction does any country have if they don't like the internal workings of another country? Will the US invade Zambia because Levy Mwanawasa is a bit dodgy?

Don't think so.