![](”http://static.flickr.com/44/116364022_14e11279b9_o.jpg")
Tuesday, 30 May 2006
It is dubbed the deadliest war in the world , killed 4 million people over the past 8 years, and yet none of us really cares about it or sees it anywhere on the news. I guess if the US is not involved somehow, no one cares about the atrocities of war or the amount of people dying! When was the last ANSWER demo against this war? When was the last event of the Stop the War coalition? Where is the outrage?
Hmmm…
May 30th, 2006 at 1:38 pm
Hmmm…..one has to wonder what motivated Bush and his team of idiots to believe that Saddam and Iraq should have been our first priority in humanitarian missions ? You want Bush to give a flying shit about the Congo, find vast oil deposits that the US can pillage
May 30th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
the reason its forgotten is that the us doesn’t have interests in congo
May 30th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
The rest of the world has given up on Africa.
May 30th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
No one cares about Congo. It’s not *trendy* to care about Congo.
May 30th, 2006 at 2:11 pm
“Hmmm…..one has to wonder what motivated Bush and his team of idiots to believe that Saddam and Iraq should have been our first priority in humanitarian missions?”
I believe it was the WMDs that Iraq officially hadn’t destroyed and that could possibly have existed at the time. I am not aware of Congo being an official danger in that regard, not to its neighbours anyway.
“You want Bush to give a flying shit about the Congo, find vast oil deposits that the US can pillage”
I don’t understand. What does oil have to do with it? Are you saying that the US spend 300 billions on a war just to gain some worthless oil? Can’t you do maths or do you think that George Bush can’t?
May 30th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
“the reason its forgotten is that the us doesn’t have interests in congo”
It’s forgotten by the MEDIA, not the US.
Do you think the media focus on Iraq because the US wants them not to point out that every single other conflict is worse than the “quagmire” in Mesopotamia?
May 30th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
It’s true that the world doesn’t care about Africa very much. They are not a reasonable market, their internal unrest doesn’t impact their exports (diamonds and such, they’re mined out by slaves anyway), and they’re a danger only to themselves. Why should anyone care? Humanitarian reasons? They don’t exist for the majority of hunams, except as a lovely pretext to do whatever damage you want and then actually feel that you’ve done something GOOD.
On the other hand, there are people and countries investing selflessly in assorted disaster areas… it’s just that nobody cares about them very much. Rwanda, anyone?
Now here come the flames (cm’on, eee and Twosret
)
May 30th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
The congo is not a threat to America and Europe - it has nothing to do with oil.
May 30th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
Becuase a superpower didnt invade a third world country fuckwit, however horrible in congo, there is no base for comparision
May 30th, 2006 at 2:44 pm
Because didn’t invade fuckwit, however horrible in congo, there is no base for .
May 30th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
The tags do not work. Retyped:
Because [which superpower] didn’t invade [which third world country] fuckwit, however horrible [the war in] congo [is]. There is no base for comparison.
May 30th, 2006 at 3:05 pm
Sandmonkey, I am GLAD you posted this here, that’s all I have to say. Please, plase do keep putting stuff like this up, open people’s eyes, because apparantly the media isn’t doing a good job and no George Clooney came up to protest against this!
May 30th, 2006 at 4:06 pm
Raccoony,
I would like to see the following given to Congo and Rawanda sure I’m with you all the way man.
U.S. Financial Aid To Israel: Figures, Facts, and Impact
Summary
Benefits to Israel of U.S. Aid
Since 1949 (As of November 1, 1997)
Foreign Aid Grants and Loans
$74,157,600,000
Other U.S. Aid (12.2% of Foreign Aid)
$9,047,227,200
Interest to Israel from Advanced Payments
$1,650,000,000
Grand Total
$84,854,827,200
Total Benefits per Israeli
$14,630
Cost to U.S. Taxpayers of U.S.
Aid to Israel
Grand Total
$84,854,827,200
Interest Costs Borne by U.S.
$49,936,680,000
Total Cost to U.S. Taxpayers
$134,791,507,200
Total Taxpayer Cost per Israeli
$23,240
May 30th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
Twosret - LOL. I was waiting for the flame, and lo and behold! Reliable like a Swiss clock
Not very relevant, though. USA has a vested interest in Israel, so it is reasonable for them to support us. Same-same Egypt. I would also like to see more interest in the actually problematic hotspots on the globe - but what’s that got to do with Israel?
The State of Israel, BTW, invested tremendous amounts of manpower and money in developing agriculture in Africa’s poorest regions. But hey, it was only done so that they would be fatter when we, the Evil Zionist Nazi Cthulhu-worshippers, come to devour them.
May 30th, 2006 at 4:54 pm
I agree with raccoon, unfortunately, we people, are not aware of secret politic manipulations, and fortunately we can dicover the intentions through internet, for Rwanda it was under Mitterand and Clinton
May 30th, 2006 at 5:15 pm
I have actually read quite a bit about this war. I think there are several reasons why it has not gotten the media attention it deserves:
1) It is in Africa. Sadly, the media still underreports African issues of any sort.
2) It is in Africa, again. People tend to think of violence as an all too common characteristic of sub-Saharan Africa. As a result, these sort of stories don’t rise to the level of media attention easily.
3) It is complicated. The media wants a story that it can easily and quickly explain to viewers. The Congo is difficult territory in this respect.
4) It doesn’t attract the outrage of the Left in America, because it doesn’t directly involve Bush or left-wing/communist leaders like Chavez or Morales.
5) This isn’t a situation where a clear long-term solution presents itself. Therefore, there is no one to argue such a solution.
6) Did I mention it was in Africa?
As for the Frenchman,
Well, since the French military has a free hand why don’t they do something? Of course, the French don’t give a shit, either, now do they? The reason the French didn’t go into Iraq with the Americans was precisely because they wanted to lift sanctions against Saddam and resume importing oil freely and exporting weapons to Iraq freely. You’ve got it backwards: it was the French, Germans, and the Russians who made their decisions based on their economic interests, not the U.S.
Twosret,
A better idea would be to cut funding to Egypt and send it to the Congo. Egypt, unlike Israel, is doing a pitiful job upholding the human rights of its citizens. Actually, in truth, given the corruption that is prevelant in sub-Saharan Africa, I would be leery of sending any direct financial aid to countries like this. That is where the French and German militaries come in…..or maybe not.
May 30th, 2006 at 5:15 pm
Frenchman and AK-47… are you saying it’s the job of the US to be the world policeman, now?
Hmmm…. somehow, I don’t think that was the point. The point was taking an opportunistic cheap shot, right?
Frenchman, what’s your opinion about what France is doing in the Ivory Coast? What’s this trying to keep a colony that was supposed to have been freed from French rule decades ago? How do you feel about that?
Also, how do you feel about French profiteering (aka “pillaging Iraq’s oil”) during the oil-for-food program?
May 30th, 2006 at 5:27 pm
Roman,
No one cares about Congo. It’s not *trendy* to care about Congo.
It wasn’t “trendy” to care about Somalia either. The US *did* intervene in Somalia (and in case nobody knows this!?) there’s no oil in Somalia, nor any other reason that the US would have WANTED to intervene. That was the most purely humanitarian mission that I know of.
And look how it ended. And look what it “accomplished.”
There are a finite number of peacekeppers, and there is a finite amount of aid available. It needs to be directed to places where it is most likely to do some good. If other countries besides the US are in favor of massive international intervention, I suggest they get together with Koffee Annan and come up with some plans.
May 30th, 2006 at 5:31 pm
Frenchman,
I just wanted to add to my previous comments that the French cannot even clean up the problems in their own backyard. Bosnia and Kosovo, for example. Of course, did the French get involved in the civil war in Algeria a few years back? Nope. What has the French military done that was selfless and of any importance in the last several decades that involved a substantial number of its force being deployed.
May 30th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
i am shocked that some people still belive that this war wasnt about oil,money and a hidden agenda….with all these reasons ending up just stupid lies….
May 30th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Nomad - the machinations are not that secret… it’s all a question of “where is the money”? Lenin said that whenever there is a conflict, one only has to answer this question to find the culprit.
Throw into this equasion the considerations of realpolitik, and most conundrums of international relations become clear. And consider the actual humanitarian interests, which ARE at work at some level or another, even if they are motivated by the desire to attract voters with same interests.
Same as with hunams… they are motivated by three things, once you have deconstructed their demeanor - sex, survival and the ever-elusive humanitarian deisire. At some level or another
And some claim that even the humanitarian desires are either about sex or survival.
And just for eee and Twosret - all of the above is true for everyone but Jews and Zionists. We are motivated only by pure, unadulterated, ineffable and unfathomable EEEEEEEEVIIIIIIIL! [insert sinister laughter here]
And sub-Saharan Africa is really buggered. I used to work with lots of African ‘fugees in Japan… these guys are just plain bloody miserable. But then again, it’s only a matter of time before Africa is either decimated into nothingness by draught, war and HIV or rises far above its current status of misery. Primitive agrarian communities have no chance of survival with the climat changing the way it does. And Africa has a huge potential in terms of man- and brain-power, natural resources and arable land.
Peace out.
The Discordian Raccoon.
May 30th, 2006 at 5:53 pm
I’m glad America is not involved in this. It’s refreshing to see America getting worldwide condemnation for NOT getting involved in a war.
Let the UN, EU, or African League step up.
May 30th, 2006 at 6:04 pm
It didn’t take long for me to read the first “BLAME THE JEWS” comment. Unbelievable.
What is going on in the Congo is a disgrace and truly meets the definition of the term “Crime against Humanity”. Future generations will rightfully condemn us for what has happened. However, I doubt that there will be boycotts, sanctions, or anything along those lines. Why? Because, to be perfectly blunt, no one in the West gives a damn about the Congo or anything else in Afica, for that matter. It’s not right, but it is true……………
May 30th, 2006 at 6:18 pm
Twosret–a drop in the bucket.
The US is the largest provider of world aid…to Africa, to Islamic Countries, to anyone. Period.
For more about US aid to Africa: http://usinfo.state.gov/af/africa/aid_to_africa.html
Here are just a few recent examples:
The U.S. provided over $3.2 billion in Official Development Assistance (ODA) to sub-Saharan Africa in 2004, more than triple the amount provided in 2000.
The U.S. has also provided almost $1.4 billion (Footnote 1) in humanitarian assistance to 32 African emergencies during fiscal year 2005. This includes assistance provided through the United Nations and non-governmental organizations. In 2003 the U.S. provided over $1.6 billion in humanitarian assistance to Africa, in 2002, over $725 million.
President Bush announced today an additional estimated $674.4 million in supplemental and other immediate emergency funding for Africa this year.
U.S. Has Spent More than $1 Billion Dollars on Land Mine Removal
President Announces $400 Million for Africa Education Initiative
Bush Announces $55 Million for Women’s Empowerment in Africa
May 30th, 2006 at 6:19 pm
raccoon, so you mean that africa could become a “far south” for poeple getting away from climates disasters , i suppose ice times, that could be a reason why we let african die , of intestines wars, HIV, etc… because of their primitive agrarian comunities , in a way , you may be right !
May 30th, 2006 at 6:30 pm
I keep waiting for the UN to do something in the Dufar region, but nope.
It’s long past time for the US and allies to step in and stop the genocide, but we’d be made out to be invading oppressors, as per usual.
May 30th, 2006 at 6:48 pm
The reason the French didn’t go into Iraq with the Americans was precisely because they wanted to lift sanctions against Saddam and resume importing oil freely and exporting weapons to Iraq freely. You’ve got it backwards: it was the French, Germans, and the Russians who made their decisions based on their economic interests, not the U.S.
so us is for nothing, just for goods !
don’t kid !
you were involved as much for illegal trafics, and far much with chemicals weapons !
french din’t go into war, because, for once, the elite heard the people !
we din’t not want to get involve in a fool war ! you know we are in use to live with arabs, we know how they react ! obviously, we knew, you could not get rid of that war ! real, na ?
May 30th, 2006 at 7:10 pm
what’s your opinion about what France is doing in the Ivory Coast? What’s this trying to keep a colony that was supposed to have been freed from French rule decades ago? How do you feel about that?
France is under un mandat in ivory coast, that ’s the official status, now a big french community used to live in Abidjan, those people make the richness of the state : enterprises, education , and money got in state cashes ! what happened 2 years ago , the frenchs were sent away after the riots… no money any more for the poor president who cried and asked the french to return ! and those frenchs are not colonials , they are not rich owners :
a working class, little business !
do you know, cacao in ivory cost belongs to americans ?
it represents very larges countries !
May 30th, 2006 at 7:46 pm
I return to this comment section a few hours later and it is pretty obvious why nothing has been done about Congo.
Everyone is too busy picking bones on what other goverments have done in other places.
What can I say. Thank you for putting the issue into context. Whatever happens in Congo, at least the poor souls there would have the pleasure of knowing that the whole US/France/Canada/UN/Israel/Egypt/a partridge in a pear tree (pick what you like) being today’s only hope for democracy/ultimate evil/blantant hypocrites/tender-hearted humanitarians/Santa Claus (pick what you like) issue has nothing to do with them.
May 30th, 2006 at 8:13 pm
haiderdroubi,
I’m shocked that anybody could believe the slight profit to be had from oil revenue would be worth the costs (hundreds of billions of dollars) of a war. It would have been much cheaper (and far less bloody) to simply subsidize oil with tax revenue than to fight a war for it. Besides, if it were about oil, Saudi Arabia would have been a better target. No, it wasn’t about oil, but if it was about oil, we could have simply went the French and Russian approach and pushed for the removal UN sanctions.
Then again, I’m not shocked: Arabs will believe in practically anything, so long as it is anti-American. Common sense isn’t a virtue held highly by most Arabs.
May 30th, 2006 at 8:21 pm
Oliver Picker,
Please, if you have something to contribute to this discussion then please chime in. That is exactly how to get things back on track: contributing something.
I suspect you don’t have any solutions or anything of value to say yourself which is why you are whining about the usual conflicts that take place anytime war-related subjects are broached on this blog. Perhaps such comments assuage your overinflated ego, but your whining is even less constructive and less relevant than the ongoing discussion of who , if anyone, should step into this conflict.
May 30th, 2006 at 8:23 pm
I second infidelirious’ comments,
Send the EU in.
May 30th, 2006 at 8:28 pm
I think the US hasn’t stepped in (militarily) to stop the civil war in Africa because there would be no benefit and foreseeable end to the conflict.
Where as the benefit of going to war with Iraq was to eliminate a potential nuclear threat to the US (which we now know didn’t materialize).
That’s not to say that the US doesn’t care about Africa, because that is simply not true. The amount of aid that’s been provided illustrates this.
I do agree that the media is very selective in their coverage of events domestic and global.
May 30th, 2006 at 8:38 pm
I think the US hasn’t stepped in (militarily) to stop the civil war in Africa because there would be no benefit and foreseeable end to the conflict.
Yes, all the more reason to send the EU in. They could use a “quagmire” themselves, for a change.
May 30th, 2006 at 8:44 pm
The good news is that the Congoleese are working it out on their own. Thats right, tthe war was ended two years ago, after the warring parties signed a truce, and they are now preparing for their first elections, warming up with local elections first and then going for the big one, national elections. It’s still fragile, as you would expect after decades of conflict, but they seem to be moving in the right direction. And how did I find out about this? Through the media. See, they do report from this, but you actually have to pay attention.
May 30th, 2006 at 8:49 pm
@ tommy:
I can’t but-unfortunately- agree with your opinion on the general trend in french foreign policy (not made by the people though , but rather by the republican monarch and his court).
However, if it is very true that ‘the French… and the Russians …made their decisions based on their economic interests’, they didn’t make the VERY REGRETTABLE mistake of considering that military power alone can achieve any sort of political objective, because they learned the lessons from the past and know that not only it doesn’t work but in general results in the precise opposite political consequences than those initially aimed (and please dear Andrew say that the US achieved a single one of their -claimed or unclaimed- political objectives in Iraq)
Concerning French capabilities, France is ,as a hard power, out of the game, and knows it , knows it too well, but you’d be greatly mistaken by thinking that it prevents (or at least prevented, till very recently) the French from achieving their (real) objectives or ‘clean[ing] up the problems in their own backyard’. Because as far as I know , since the end of WWII (Collapse of French Military Power) France had the Israeli and British do their dirty job in Suez (No serious historian would question it was planned and orchestrated by France, and costed Britain dearly, the real end of The Empire actually) it was France that send Americans fight their war in Lebanon, again and again , and if the American public opinion didn’t make that fuss about 2000 dead in Iraq soldiers and the Us didn’t plan so poorly for the aftermath the US would be fighting, right now, France’s war against Syria. As for war in Bosnia, it was the first Franco-German victory in recent history, our allies (the Croats) are the only ones who benefited from the war in the end, the Russians understood that they cannot mess in the European playground (I guess you know who really controls Ex-Yougouslavia today) anymore and the US -not Europe- paid the price for it. The list goes on, but I think you’ve got it, France achieved in the last decades its strategical objectives, thanks greatly to the US, and with minimal cost.
Examples? Iran converted its petro-dollars to petro-euros and is begging for European ‘partnership’, Saddam did the same before the US taught him a lesson but his successors will force their wey through the same path. Russia is on the verge of doing the same, and I recently read that Saudi Arabia is studying such possibility. So I guess not too bad for a country that has much less than 10% of the US economic and military power. But I am sure the US are learning -the hard way- some basic political principles, aren’t they?
As for Algeria , it’s undoubtedly a US victory against France , but I don’t think the French will abandon the game, not now.
May 30th, 2006 at 9:00 pm
but if it was about oil, we could have simply went the French and Russian approach and pushed for the removal UN sanctions.
God sakes, Bush administration supposed way of democraty , like the spanish did in latin america !
May 30th, 2006 at 9:03 pm
As for Africa, since it’s the main topic, France will preserve it’s interest keep its troops there, and keep supporting ‘politicians and revolutionaries’ that ‘converge’ towards our views, but that’s something we don’t hide from, and don’t need to. So the situation won’t change a lot I am afraid, unless the US or more likely the Chinese (Yes the Chinese, who supported the [successfull] rebellion against the french backed governement ) step in, but that’s not near.
Europe has nothing to do there and leaves it to France, and I don’t think anybody in Brussels challenges that.
May 30th, 2006 at 9:11 pm
K,
That is great to hear. Unfortunately, the situation in African countries is often very fluid and hard to follow. It is hard to say how “real” a peace actually is in many cases.
Frankly, just like Iraq, at least a few of the problems (certainly not all) in Africa would be solved if African countries were more ethnically/culturally homogeneous. Most African countries have boundaries that were drawn capriciously and arbitrarily by European powers during the colonial era. The only way I would support further US involvement in Africa at some point in the future in most cases would be if the US were to redraw national boundaries in a sensible way. Democracy-building and the like is great, but there always needs to be a minimum set of more concrete goals that can be realistically achieved.
May 30th, 2006 at 9:14 pm
all that, by our own ! ça m’en bouche un coin !
May 30th, 2006 at 9:19 pm
Jeez Louise! you guys are fun. Unfortunately, I have other things (life u know) to do than reply to each post but will be back later with more
May 30th, 2006 at 9:37 pm
Oh sorry Tommy,
I didn’t read: ‘did the French get involved in the civil war in Algeria a few years back? Nope’. If you’re serious about that, you must be close ideologically to a reserve US Lieutenant that reads the NY Times to get an ‘insightful’ view of the world (no offense meant). So if it was the case please just allow me to withdraw my comments and apologize for any challenge I might have made to your legitimate beliefs (and hope you have, if applicable, a nice BBQ and beer with your buddies!)
May 30th, 2006 at 10:13 pm
Tamerlane
Algeria: I was referring to large scale deployments of troops with the intention of preventing violence. I’m sure the French are engaged in all sorts of shadowy artifices in places like Algeria.
May 30th, 2006 at 10:13 pm
Tamburlaine,
because they learned the lessons from the past and know that not only it doesn’t work but in general results in the precise opposite political consequences than those initially aimed (and please dear Andrew say that the US achieved a single one of their -claimed or unclaimed- political objectives in Iraq)
They learned that lesson improperly, then. France itself is an example of what military intervention can accomplish. As is South Korea. As is ALL of Latin America, with the exception of Cuba. South and Central America used to be 100% dictatorships. Now they are all democracies. Though Bolivia and Venezuala are tettering on the brink of slipping back into dictatorship.
I could list a hundred examples of interventions that yielded good results, in the 20th century alone.
I’m an isolationist. I don’t like military interventions, except in self defense. But what you’re saying is so obviously at odds with observable fact, I had to point it out.
May 30th, 2006 at 10:26 pm
Tamburlaine, wow! France sound slike a major world power, the way you tell it! And here I thought the US had been babysitting France the last 60 years!
Tell us about the Maginot Line again. I love that story!
May 30th, 2006 at 10:30 pm
Oh superb, a Frog complaining about the U.S. and Bush’s motivation re: the Middle East. Hey Froggie, why don’t you and the friggin’ Euros get involved in humanitarian military action without the U.S., for a change? Maybe all Europeans are good at doing is staking empires, losing them, and starting world wars.
May 30th, 2006 at 11:01 pm
Wow. Too much venom, ladies and gents. And eee didn’t even chime in yet - perish the thought.
About isolationism - it didn’t work very well for the US before WW2, Craig. Pearl Harbour changed all that; and would it not have happened, and would US have kept its isolationism… Well, most of us would probably never have been born, and those that WOULD have born would have lived lives full of terror and pain. Sounds fun, doesn’t it? Especially since Nazi Germany would have developed its nukes sooner than later and done away with USSR and USA.
No, isolationism doesn’t work very well. Especially not in modern times, with global economies and all the global forces pulling and pushing everyone and everything. I am not saying to send in the marines (so to speak
) at the drop of a hat - but apathy simply doesn’t work.
Peace out.
The Discordian Raccoon.
May 30th, 2006 at 11:03 pm
> because they learned the lessons from the past and know that not
> only it doesn’t work but in general results in the precise opposite
> political consequences than those initially aimed
If it’s right or wrong for France - well - but - amnesians don’t care.
Amnesians prefer to live in their fantasyland in full amnesia. What
means “learning from the past”? Learning?
And - if things don’t work as they want, they will use carpet bombing
or nukes - or threaten to do so - to “fix” the problems.
That’s because violence fixes ALL problems in Amnesia - always.
May 30th, 2006 at 11:04 pm
There we go. LOL
May 30th, 2006 at 11:12 pm
Sandmonkey, This was the most important post I read today on dozens of blogs. You merit a place in my humble links, and I will return!
May 30th, 2006 at 11:13 pm
who is complaining ?
you are the beneficiaire of that
May 30th, 2006 at 11:16 pm
@ Tommy: Ah ok, I see. Sorry, I misunderstood what you meant. Large scale operation was not easy from a tactical (political) point of view and not suitable from a strategical (political) one, it would have accelerated the exit of Algeria from the French Sphere of Influence. If It’s now known that the French played some dirty games with few effects, so did the US by the way, it was somehow inevitable because no intervention at all would have dramatically weakened the French position.
@Craig: Well we could discuss your statements as the ’successes’ of the US interventionism endlessly,
to remain on a productive mode let’s just say that beyond controversial reasons and results, my point was that sole military action never brought any political result and military actions should be the continuation of politics not its starting point. A few examples from yours:
Korea: Great, but in this case the US did politics first, supported a popular government (the south, that was already competing for power) listened to what their ally thought suitable and tried to SUPPORT a political government by force if necessary, and used military force AFTER communist forces decided to continue the debate on the battlefields. That’s politics THEN warfare.
Vietnam: The US conceived the whole thing as a total war, done by proxies if possible, directly if necessary, never did really care about the south vietnamense government and it’s political survival, and decided to think politics AFTER the smoke cleared up from battlefields. The somke cleared up only after they left.
It’s the same for pretty much of South America the successes you cite began with political action and the failures (Nicaragua/Honduras….) were military tour de force.
The point is, military action cannot succeed as a political move (which was the official ’strategy’ beyond the idea of invading Iraq to “reshape the middleast” and “create a democratic tsunami” ). Military action accomplishes it’s objective only when it’s the instrument of a political move on the chessboard, not the opposite, and if it fails to appear so, it’s not liberation, it’s invasion. People never accept invasion and fight it by all means (especially when the military action removes all political power apart from the street).
PS: “France itself is an example of what military intervention can accomplish” , what do you exactly mean by that? I am not sure to understand…
May 30th, 2006 at 11:22 pm
Damn you, Raccoon! LoL.
Raccoon: And eee hasn’t even chimed in.
eee: Did somebody call my name? . . . Let me tell you all about the Amnesians and the Zionazis.
Everybodye else:
May 30th, 2006 at 11:23 pm
Ooops! Part of my last post got deleted.
Everybody else: [Collective groan.]
May 30th, 2006 at 11:25 pm
Speaking of Vietnam:
http://freedomspeace.blogspot.com/2006/05/vietnam-war-myths.html
May 30th, 2006 at 11:41 pm
@Craig, again:
As I already told you from 1940, France realized it could not and should not rely on the concept of Force it had so far held. It opted for a more soft approach of force and I think it achieved a lot if you consider the state in which France was left in 1945, when many thought it would become a very minor player. You might not agree to the extent to which this suceeded but you cannot question that; In Lebanon, for example, today France has a much bigger influence than the US and a much better reputation though both were involved in the Civil War with the difference that the US paid a much greater price than France for no gain at all, simply because the US played force alone and not a mix of politics and force (sometimes dirty) as France did.
So , yes France learned lessons from history and I really whish the US don’t need to get their own 1945 before doing the same. But if you insist you need one…
(and btw about the history of the Maginot line you love so much, that’s History for the masses Sir, France did not want the war with Germany, because they knew they’d loose it no matter what they did, that’s why France stood still - rather cowardly- while Germany kept not respecting its engagements one after the other in a very apparent build-up for war)
May 30th, 2006 at 11:59 pm
Actually, if France had adopted the mantra that the “best defense is a good offense” it would have been easily able to vanquish a post-WWI Germany. One of the little noted facts about Germany was that even Czechoslovakia possessed a stronger military than Germany did up to the time of the Sudentenland crisis. The Great Powers’ decision to essentially side with Germany over the issue, for the sake of peace, left Czechoslovakia militarily weakened and hastened its downfall.
The British had only a small army at the time Germany was rearming itself. They were a naval, rather than a land, power. Stalin had no incentive to deal with Germany. Stalin, rather craftily realized that the western nations could slug it out with each other and send the Red Army in to pick up the pieces in the aftermath of any war that might occur. Stalin didn’t count on Hitler being as duplicitous or as dangerous as he actually was. The French could have dealt with Germany - and had every reason to do so - but instead they chose to cling to the Maginot Line.
Tamerlane: Your assertion that France could not defeat Germany no matter what it did, is absurd.
It opted for a more soft approach of force and I think it achieved a lot if you consider the state in which France was left in 1945
I cannot believe you still do not see what a mistake France made or the fact that the only reason France is still around today is because of the US, Britain, and the Soviets. Its achievements were all a result of its salvation by nations it has long held in contempt, both before and after WWII.
May 31st, 2006 at 12:01 am
So , yes France learned lessons from history and I really whish the US don’t need to get their own 1945 before doing the same. But if you insist you need one…
The lesson it learned was that the Americans will save them, no matter how foolish they are and no matter how anti-American they are. We saved them in the First World War and the Second World War and we defended them in the Cold War.
The French really have learned their lesson well.
May 31st, 2006 at 12:02 am
@Tommy , concerning your link, well no new fact there, as for interpretation , hummm hummm, I think Kissinger made a better on the facts and stakes in Vietnam, but of course he was party, and
May 31st, 2006 at 12:18 am
Tommy, yes and every Frenchman and Frenchwoman was then and is now thankful, (and btw thankul also for the bombing along with the brits of French and German cities and villages AFTER the germans capitulated, that also taught France a lesson).
As for ‘The lesson it learned was that the Americans will save them, no matter how foolish they are and no matter how anti-American they are. We saved them in the First World War and the Second World War and we defended them in the Cold War.’; that’s exactly it!!!!!! and France will use that - as cynically as possible- as long as it lasts, and it is likely to last for long , because the US make every necessary effort to maintain themselves in a position where they have no alternative.
More seriously, that’s not my point, you let your feelings blind you, I am discussing the politics/military action and what comes first, and the fact that France achieved objectives by playing political games (with an unavoidable flavour of force and dirty tricks) and that’s what the US should start doing before they have no other choice.
May 31st, 2006 at 12:42 am
That’s because violence fixes ALL problems in Amnesia - always.
Wow. A communist lecturing democracies about non-violent methodologies
You seem to have forgotten about the entire 100 year history of communism, there, eee. It’s pretty bad when an Amnesian has to remind you of your own heroes.
What would Yosef Stalin have done in Iraq, eee? Tell us, where Bush has gobe wrong, and what a good communist would have done instead. I really want to know.
Speaking of communists, what do you think about the the last 15 years in Chechnya? How come we don’t get some input from you about that, eee? That should be right down your alley. I bet your boy Stalin wouldn’t have had the least bit of trouble with Chechnya… not like that bleeding heart democrat, Putin, eh?
May 31st, 2006 at 12:53 am
Tamburlaine,
I think it achieved a lot if you consider the state in which France was left in 1945, when many thought it would become a very minor player.
France was GIVEN a lot, not “left” with a lot. Including the seat one of the 5 permanent seats on the UN security council.
You’re welcome.
France did not want the war with Germany, because they knew they’d loose it no matter what they did, that’s why France stood still
France had the largest standing Army in the world when germany invaded. Yes, it was an Army that SUCKED, but whose fault is that? France was still congratulating itself for trickeing everyone else into winning WW I for it, and didn’t even see what was coming. Hitler spent 10 years building up his military, right under your noses, in direct violation of the treaty of Versaillez. Why did france stand by and do nothing? The French *had* to have known how much Hitler despised them.
You keep talking about how the French learn from the past. How do you explain away an apparrent repeat of past French mistakes, in regards to the emerging threat of Iran?
Oh, wait. You expect to trick the US into doing all the dirty work.
Well, I’ll say this for you at least. You’re honest. An unusal trait in a French person.
As far as “history for the masses” or whatever term you used… you might wanna look into that! Seems to be more realitic than that effete crap you’re shoveling.
May 31st, 2006 at 12:56 am
Reading some of the comments (tworset, eee, The Frenchman, haiderdroubi) is like watching someone hit themselves in the head with a hammer.
May 31st, 2006 at 1:26 am
Testing
Sorry I broke it. Trying to turn off the italics.
May 31st, 2006 at 1:28 am
(and btw thankul also for the bombing along with the brits of French and German cities and villages AFTER the germans capitulated, that also taught France a lesson).
No. Not enough of a lesson. I think we need a repeat performance. LoL.
May 31st, 2006 at 1:42 am
Iran is a much more complex situation, first of all because a REVOLUTION occured in Iran only some 25 years ago. The problem with revolutions, as you may know is that they wipe out every single established order, so no one has ways to know how to deal properly with it for a while. Of course you can always try to shake a bit the bag, to check whether it contains a bomb or not, but personally I wouldn’t.
As for the Iranian threat and who will deal with it , well… Iran is less a threat for Europe than it is for our Israeli friends, and this is a rather interesting reality. Also because of their blind anti-americanism and defiance to their neighbours, Iranians will always favour Europe as a partner, so in Iran strategically speaking, we have nothing to loose and a lot to gain.
If they get mass destruction weapons? Pakistan has, and allow me to remind you that Pakistan is a country where extremists of the worse kind , far worse than that Iranian TowelHead, get democratically elected (in the north provinces only , for the moment) and from where Dr Khan is offered to tour the arab world offering the bomb. So for France, objectively Iran is less a threat than Pakistan.
If security problem there’s others will deal with it and frankly , I think the US WILL do the dirty job, if dirty job is needed, and that Ahmadinijad is doing great job making sure it is Israel not France that pushes for it.
May 31st, 2006 at 2:01 am
The reason why Stop the War isn’t protesting is because their voice will have no effect. It’s not like any Western governments care enough about Africa to even attempt to broker some sort of peace agreement or facilitate development.
May 31st, 2006 at 3:06 am
Jeeze. We can’t win. When we do get involved in another problematic nation, we are accused of being imperialist and beaten up over it. When we don’t, we get beaten up for not solving all the world’s problems.
A lot of people feel that US is hypocritical in how and when it does intervene. That is a mistake because these people make the assumption that decisions are made purely for humanitarian reasons. It is a factor, but it low on the list.
A previous comment said it right. There are limited resources. The US, like any other nation, has to pick and choose. Doing a half-ass job everywhere is worse than doing nothing at all. So how does the US decide when to commit resources and lives? It is not that difficult to understand. Here is a quick rough ride to how these decisions are made.
(1) Obviously first and foremost when US security is at stake, such as direct attacks on the US. Examples:
- Japan attacking Pearl Harbor.
- War of 1812 against England.
- Al Quaidi attacks US on Sept 11.
Congo fails this test.
(2) Close US allies are at risk. Examples:
- Nazi Germany attacks UK in WWII.
- 3X when Israel was attacked by neighbouring nations.
- The Korean war
Congo fails this test
(3) US strategic interests are directly at risk, such as oil. Note the word STRATEGIC. Examples of this triggering intervention are
- When Iraq invaded Kuwait.
- Vietnam war.
- Panama to kick out Pineapple face.
- If someone should invade the eastern part of Saudi Arabia
- US attacks on Libya in the 1980’s.
Congo fails this test.
(4) When the conflict or nation poses a serious threat to neighbours, AND when the US feels that other nations are incapable of containing the problem. Examples:
- Iraq under Saddam in the 1990’s with his threat of WMD and use against his neighbours.
- Cuba embargo
- US attacks on Serbia in the 1990’s.
- US supported overthrows of communist in South America in the 1960’s and 1970’s.
- Central American communist in the 1980’s, Nicaragua in particular.
Congo fails this test.
North Korea fails this test because of the AND condition. China is what is keeping NK in check. If China fails in this regard, then the US will have to reassess the situation.
(5) Humanitarian reasons. This is law-and-order and a purely police role. Like your local cops being called out to deal with a domestic disturbance, it is not something that they like to do. There are never any winners. Both sides are usually antagonistic and have a history of violence against the other. However, this has to be weighed against the chance of success. Short of locking up everyone in a cell so they can’t hurt each other, there must be a clear and achievable plan to follow. Examples:
- Somalia, which turned out to be a total failure.
Unlike the cops dealing with a drunken husband beating his wife, these internal national conflicts are far more complicated. They are often being fuelled by other nations or interests who benefit from the conflict. They are often the latest incident in a long-term conflict that has been going on since before the US was even born.
Yet, somehow we are suppose to be superman, sort out the bad from the good, and make everyone live in peace. Yeh, right. Do you really think the US wants to put their men and women in harms way to stop a bunch of ungrateful retards from killing each other? I don’t.
When these retards start threatening things that are important to me, then I will look at it again. In the meantime, sort out your own god-damn problems. I didn’t start them, and if you make me come in there, then trust me, no one is gonna like the result.
May 31st, 2006 at 3:24 am
Tambourine, historically, more problems have been solved with violence than any other combination of methods. Maybe not well, but somebody got what they wanted. The other fellow got forgotten. That is why ALL PEOPLE try viiolence some where toward the start of conflict resolution. Personally I try to work things out so that there is a ‘win/ win’ situation. Doesn’t always work, but I try. If that does not work, violence is still an option. And it still works. Every time.
As to why Americans don’t get involved emotionally in the war in the congo is that most Americans either 1) don’t know where it is, 2) don’t care, 3) are sure that Tarzan and Simba will handle it, or 4) have been burned too damn many times trying to help ungrateful unwilling money grubbing self serving locals. ( and I really diid hold back on the harsh language there).
May 31st, 2006 at 6:23 am
far worse than that Iranian TowelHead
TowelHead? You don’t even know Iranians where Turbans?
Or is this more French subtefuge? You’re machiavellian maneuverings have left me behind.
Also because of their blind anti-americanism and defiance to their neighbours, Iranians will always favour Europe as a partner
There is nothing France can offer Iran that it cannot get from Russia, China or India, The only appeal the French have in Iran right now (strategically) is the abilty to *attempt* to thwart the US. If you think it’s in France’s strategic interests to side with Iran against the US, you’re nuts.
so in Iran strategically speaking, we have nothing to loose and a lot to gain.
You’d be changing the relationship between France and the US from the current one of “distant hostilty” to open enmity. That’s the downside. WHat is te upside? I don’t see one. Cash bribes, maybe? Those seem to work pretty well when dealing with France. So, Jaques gets rich. And what do you get? Dead?
I’d think you were trying to be funny with all these comments, but after watching France’s antics the last 10 years or so, I think you’re completely serious.
May 31st, 2006 at 6:54 am
the real reason why us came finish firing hitler out of france, they were afraid that we became a communist satellit of stalin, soviet would have come on the other side soon or later and stay for goods, imagine the big puissance with scientifics of nazy germany ! anyways that was the lenin plan, and later the stalin one !
for Craig, you didn’t babying us so long, de gaulle fired out the babysitter in the sixties !
anyway americains still remain my favorite cow-boys and I do like very much clint eastwood !
and I don’t partly recognize myself in tamburlaine talks,
that may-be cause of my brittaniy origins
May 31st, 2006 at 7:28 am
brittany, ouest of france !
May 31st, 2006 at 9:44 am
Mr. Bush has promised the world the following:
“we will not rest until the promise of liberty reaches every people in every nation” and that “by standing with democratic reforms across a troubled region, we will extend freedom to millions who have not known it and lay the foundation for peace for generations to come”
I do appreciate Americans’ efforts in aiding many countries including many countries in the Islamic world. However I would appreciate it more if your president stopped sugar coating his speeches. The main important countries that are given focus in such situations are those that pose a threat to the US. I’m not naive it’s only natural a superpower would want to elminate the threats. People can’t expect the Americans to do everything and help them out. In reality it’s not America’s duty to “save” the world. The president should stop sugar coating his speeches.
May 31st, 2006 at 12:25 pm
“I do appreciate Americans’ efforts in aiding many countries including many countries in the Islamic world. However I would appreciate it more if your president stopped sugar coating his speeches”
So if he stop all aid, but rewrote the speech you would be more appreciative?
People take for granted what they have until its gone. Where would these countries be if they did not have the aid of the US?
May 31st, 2006 at 7:42 pm
# tommy Says:
May 30th, 2006 at 8:21 pm
Oliver Picker,
Please, if you have something to contribute to this discussion then please chime in. That is exactly how to get things back on track: contributing something.
I suspect you don’t have any solutions or anything of value to say yourself which is why you are whining about the usual conflicts that take place anytime war-related subjects are broached on this blog. Perhaps such comments assuage your overinflated ego, but your whining is even less constructive and less relevant than the ongoing discussion of who , if anyone, should step into this conflict.
Thank you so much for pointing out the error of my ways. Now, would you be so kind as to point out as well where, among the 74 comments preceding this one, is a single mention on who the coflicting parties are in Congo and the reasons of the civil war?
May 31st, 2006 at 11:46 pm
Olive Picker,
Jesus H. Christ! Do you want to make your point already and contribute something or do you just want people on this board to recap what the linked article says? What more do you want people here to add? If you have a point to make beyond what the article states, then great, stop whining and make it already. People have been discussing whether anybody should bother going in at all and which parties ought to go in if somebody does (France, the EU, The U.S., etc.). If that doesn’t interest you, you are free to introduce a new angle to the topic by intervening and making your point. This isn’t rocket science. Once again, apparently, you have nothing to add otherwise you would have made your point by now.
I don’t know what the fuck you want people to say OP. Do you want a brief history of the Congo? Do you want a recap of Belgian colonial history and its impact on the modern state of the Congo? Look it up on Wikipedia or the CIA Almanac or at your local library for fuck’s sake! Do you want an analysis of the article in terms of postmodern deconstructionist semiotics? Well, this isn’t the place. No, I’m sorry if most people aren’t experts on the fucking Congo, and don’t have a huge amount to add to what they would read from commonly available sources, at hand. If you do, then speak up. Otherwise, shut up.
June 1st, 2006 at 2:29 am
Mike,
you don’t have to hear us you can play dumb and deaf until terror hit your backyard then you will realize Oh Shit! what is going on in the world what have we done wrong in our policies around the world.
Stay arrogant and don’t listen.
June 1st, 2006 at 6:19 am
where is the un? OH yeah the countries of the UN are currently stealing the natural resources of africa as usual…
why is it that america is the only one called upon to do something-then condemned when they do…and say not a word about china and india as they take advantage of the oil resources investment opps, which will be much easier under instability…
seems like europe forgets what a giant vampire they really are……
June 1st, 2006 at 6:24 am
oh yeah one more thing- america is a judeo christian nation- weather you want to admit/like it or not…. america will continue to support israel- 4% of the middle east- allong with the 94% muslim land/population- the other 2 percent are supported mostly by israel…we give more money to the arab nations so if that doesnt make you angry as well then you just mad about jews getting money- period…
June 1st, 2006 at 3:26 pm
I can’t stand all the italics!
June 1st, 2006 at 3:27 pm
I don’t seem to be able to fix it, either.
June 1st, 2006 at 3:27 pm
I give up.
June 1st, 2006 at 6:03 pm
@Tommy
My apologies. I was under the misapprehension that a post regarding the Congo civil war ought to attract more Congo-oriented responses, rather than disagreements on what USA/UK/France/UN/Belgium ought to do, or ought to have done in the past or the present in similar situations.
I stand by my previous post in believing the Congo residents to be lucky for not having other countries’ attention. A bitter civil war is still being waged in Sierra Leone over the illegal trafficking of diamonds and if it wasn’t for the cocaine then Columbia would be a much more peaceful place. It has already been commented that the fighting parties have agreed to some sort of truce. I doubt this would have been the case if the goverment or the rebels were getting outside funding.
I am afraid that the solution I offer is generic as well. The support of the International Penal Court by everyone, so that no country is above the law. If what was Yugoslavia has any chance of a semblance of peace, it is because along with Milocevic, Croatians and Muslims accused of war crimes are also being indicted. If Carla Del Ponte said “I don’t care how